Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, it simply means that if one is a billionaire, why would they care if some random person wanted to debate them?
You keep Saying he's just some random person like he just blew in off the street or something, which is not true. He may not be a household name, but his group is the one backing the competing initiative, I-591, on the November ballot. It's his group that went out and got the signatures to get the competing initiative on the ballot.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 26 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,568 posts, read 16,556,695 times
Reputation: 6044
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
What's your point? For something to PASS the Senate, it takes more than a simple majority, the gun control measure proposed last year didn't get the required amount of votes, and so therefore, it didn't pass the Democrat controlled Senate..... THAT is what I was saying, and it's 100% accurate, the Senate couldn't manage to pass a gun bill, so you can't put the blame on the Republican controlled House, as you were trying to do.
That is not what you meant in your previous comment. You clearly meant Dems didnt have 51 votes and you were wrong, but for the sake of moving this debate forward, lets say that it was. It doesnt matter if Democrats control the senate if the thresh hold to pass a vote is 60 instead of 51, which negates the very point you were arguing.
As for that second bold, LOL, Your first argument( as flawed as it is), even if right, would not have negated the fact that House republicans did not pass gun legislation themselves.
Gun legislation does not have to originate in the senate.
Quote:
No, actually I didn't name any Supreme Court cases, they were lower court cases. If those weren't good enough for your standards, then how about 2/3rds of the 200+ gun laws passed in the states in 2013 actually loosened restrictions, not tightened them. It's a relatively simple concept, people don't want their Constitutional Rights infringed upon, and people want to be able to defend themselves. We had the Bills proposed, we had the up-or-down vote that Obama said the Bills deserved, we had the conversation, we continue to have it, and your side continues to lose, get over it already.
Just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean it wasn't a "national conversation"
Oh im terribly sorry "lower court cases, that no one has ever heard of, better ?
2nd bold, is a fallacy. If one state passes 666 restriction loosening laws, and the other 49 pass 334 stricter laws then 2/3rds of all laws would be stricter.
3rd bold, my side isnt losing. I have no problem with conceal carry, and many of the looser gun restricts that have been mentioned on this forum overall.
My problem is the initial sale and person to person transfers and how lax it is.
I grew up in the South, guns being everywhere isnt a big deal to me, but it shouldnt be so easy for a criminal to get one.
further more, this shouldnt be characterized as winning or losing, it should be about finding the right solution to the problems our nation faces, but you seem to care more about the perception of " winning" than if you are actually right.
That is not what you meant in your previous comment.
That is exactly what I meant. The Democrats control the Seante, do they not? The Senate could not manage to pass a gun bill, therefore, the Democrat controlled Senate couldn't push a gun bill through. Simple stuff.
Quote:
You clearly meant Dems didnt have 51 votes and you were wrong,
Well, that is not what I meant, because it takes more than 51 votes to get something out of the Senate, it takes sixty, and the Senate couldn't get 60 yea votes.
Quote:
As for that second bold, LOL, Your first argument( as flawed as it is), even if right, would not have negated the fact that House republicans did not pass gun legislation themselves.
Why should the House waste their time on a bill if they know it's just going to die in the Senate?
( that said I won't pretend that a bill had so much as a snowballs chance is the House, but that's beside the fact )
Quote:
My problem is the initial sale and person to person transfers and how lax it is.
Well I'm sorry, but there is just no way to make thug A run a background check on thug B before selling him an already illegal gun. It's just not workable. If it were, I'd be for it, I have no problem with background checks, but the only people who will do them will be the ones who abide by the law. Mandatory BGC's on all sales at gun shows or internet arranged sales? No problem, that's workable.
Quote:
further more, this shouldnt be characterized as winning or losing, it should be about finding the right solution to the problems our nation faces, but you seem to care more about the perception of " winning" than if you are actually right.
I agree there. My concern is respecting freedom and rights, and as long as laws that would infringe on those rights and freedoms are struck down, or voted down, I consider that a WIN! Oh well if you don't like it.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 26 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,568 posts, read 16,556,695 times
Reputation: 6044
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
That is exactly what I meant. The Democrats control the Seante, do they not? The Senate could not manage to pass a gun bill, therefore, the Democrat controlled Senate couldn't push a gun bill through. Simple stuff.
Well, that is not what I meant, because it takes more than 51 votes to get something out of the Senate, it takes sixty, and the Senate couldn't get 60 yea votes.
We are adults not children, regardless of if you meant 60 or not, legally you only need 51 one. 60 is only required when the minority party threatens a filibuster.
Further more, your very argument is put into a context of Democratic control, but if you were arguing 60, rather than 51, then you negate your own argument by establishing that Democrats dont have contextual control of the senate by your own standard.
Quote:
Why should the House waste their time on a bill if they know it's just going to die in the Senate?
We dont know If a house bill would have passed the senate, they never tried. They never came up with an idea that could be debated amoungst the masses.
They didnt have to pass the senate's bill, they could have come up with their own.
Quote:
Well I'm sorry, but there is just no way to make thug A run a background check on thug B before selling him an already illegal gun. It's just not workable. If it were, I'd be for it, I have no problem with background checks, but the only people who will do them will be the ones who abide by the law. Mandatory BGC's on all sales at gun shows or internet arranged sales? No problem, that's workable.
My argument is for Thug A to never get the gun in the first place. Which would in turn curve down the transfer from A to B.
Quote:
I agree there. My concern is respecting freedom and rights, and as long as laws that would infringe on those rights and freedoms are struck down, or voted down, I consider that a WIN! Oh well if you don't like it.
Im not talking about disrespecting anyone freedoms or rights though. You arleady said above that you would be ok with closing gun show and internet loopholes, and yet that couldnt even pass a polarized congress.
Do you not see that as a problem ????? Something you see as a sensable solution cant even happen because people on "your side"( to use your phrase), just want to win, rather than do the right thing.
You keep Saying he's just some random person like he just blew in off the street or something, which is not true. He may not be a household name, but his group is the one backing the competing initiative, I-591, on the November ballot. It's his group that went out and got the signatures to get the competing initiative on the ballot.
Who cares? You act like it is some all powerful group that should be obeyed. Lots of groups donate to different initiatives, that doesn't mean they can go around challenging others to debates and expect those people to care.
Why so obsessed about a billionaire having no interest in having a debate?
Declined a debate. Why would you decline a debate if the facts and logic were on your side, on an issue about which you were passionate?
It appears that Gottlieb is eager to grapple, while Gates is afraid.
Bill Gates is at a much higher status than Alan Gottlieb. I mean, are people expected to agree to televised debates with every yahoo that challenges them?
If I challenged the CEO of Apple to debate me on whether or not iTunes blows, would you be shocked if he declined?
My argument is for Thug A to never get the gun in the first place. Which would in turn curve down the transfer from A to B.
Well, again, I'm sorry but that's almost impossible. Thugs don't acquire their guns legally in the first place. Look at the UK. They have an extremely low gun crime rate, but since they've banned handguns, their gun crime rates have nearly doubled in gang controlled areas. In otherwords, those laws they brought in didn't impede the import of illegal guns to criminals. Secondly, isn't it important to know what the problem is before we prescribe a remedy? How many criminals actually obtain their guns at gunshows, or through internet arranged sales, or through an unsuspecting, private, law-abiding seller? I've seen no studies proving that these "loopholes" are the means by which criminals get their guns, except for one flawed study, conducted 20 years ago, with a survey sampling of not much more than 200 people, whose own author came out and said it was a flawed study. That study determined that 40% of gun sales occur without a background check, and even the liberal Washington Post outed it as flawed data. Before we go and "fix" something, I think it's important to know if it's a problem first, I don't think that's too much to ask.
Quote:
Im not talking about disrespecting anyone freedoms or rights though. You arleady said above that you would be ok with closing gun show and internet loopholes, and yet that couldnt even pass a polarized congress.
My theory on why that Bill didn't pass is because the debate became more of a referendum on gun control in general, rather than the specific legislation at hand. The Democrats proposed a plethora of bills and measures that they knew never had a chance of passing, such as an assault weapons ban and a ban on magazines over ten rounds. They went for broke and lost. Had they only proposed the background check bill from the get-go, there just might have been a different outcome, maybe.
Quote:
Do you not see that as a problem ????? Something you see as a sensable solution cant even happen because people on "your side"( to use your phrase), just want to win, rather than do the right thing.
Again, it became more about gun control in general, and less about background checks specifically. Democrats got greedy, and potential progress suffered because of it. Do you agree?
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 26 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,568 posts, read 16,556,695 times
Reputation: 6044
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
Well, again, I'm sorry but that's almost impossible. Thugs don't acquire their guns legally in the first place. Look at the UK. They have an extremely low gun crime rate, but since they've banned handguns, their gun crime rates have nearly doubled in gang controlled areas. In otherwords, those laws they brought in didn't impede the import of illegal guns to criminals. Secondly, isn't it important to know what the problem is before we prescribe a remedy? How many criminals actually obtain their guns at gunshows, or through internet arranged sales, or through an unsuspecting, private, law-abiding seller? I've seen no studies proving that these "loopholes" are the means by which criminals get their guns, except for one flawed study, conducted 20 years ago, with a survey sampling of not much more than 200 people, whose own author came out and said it was a flawed study. That study determined that 40% of gun sales occur without a background check, and even the liberal Washington Post outed it as flawed data. Before we go and "fix" something, I think it's important to know if it's a problem first, I don't think that's too much to ask.
First, let me start off by saying there is no such thing as a 100% solution, so lets kill that aspect of a deflection now. Saying that the a solution has to either be 100% or its not worth doing, is a cop out.
second, It is indeed important to know what the problem is before we prescribe a remedy, but we seem to disagree on what the problem is.
third, Telling me that " a study" said this and even the " Liberal Wash Post" disagreed with it isnt making your point for many reasons, the most obvious being that you didnt even name the study. Im sorry, but i have been here for about 3 years and have seen people lie through their teeth about "what they read"
You cant be as vague as you were and then expect people to believe you.
4th, there have been plenty of surveys done on where criminals got their guns and how.
There was a study from Johns Hopkins and another from UChicago that are far more up to date, but both links now only take me to the home pages of the universities.
Quote:
My theory on why that Bill didn't pass is because the debate became more of a referendum on gun control in general, rather than the specific legislation at hand. The Democrats proposed a plethora of bills and measures that they knew never had a chance of passing, such as an assault weapons ban and a ban on magazines over ten rounds.They went for broke and lost. Had they only proposed the background check bill from the get-go, there just might have been a different outcome, maybe.
No they didnt " go for broke". Neither of the bills you speak of were taken seriously, I dont even think they made it out of committee( and Feinstien is in the Senate so that tells you how serious Dems took it ).
Quote:
Again, it became more about gun control in general, and less about background checks specifically. Democrats got greedy, and potential progress suffered because of it. Do you agree?
No, i dont agree. What you are doing is a cop out, trying to blame Democrats because Republicans started spreading their own propaganda.
The majority of my friends are conservative, follow conservative politicians and movements. I sat back and watched the lies flow.
You are trying to blame Democrats for Conservatives lying, and that just inst going to fly.
First, let me start off by saying there is no such
thing as a 100% solution, so lets kill that aspect of a deflection now. Saying
that the a solution has to either be 100% or its not worth doing, is a cop out.
second, It is indeed important to know what the problem is before we
prescribe a remedy, but we seem to disagree on what the problem is.
I don't think we disagree on what the problem is. The problem is the sale that allows criminals to obtain guns without a background check. What we do disagree on, is what can be done about it. Not much can. Let's start out with the premise that every gun is purchased legally at some point, it has to be right? You want to implement universal background checks because for some reason you think that will force a background check on every sale, when in reality, it won't for people who don't care that they are breaking the law. There are always going to be people willing to buy a gun legally and sell it to someone who isn't allowed to own it, for the right price. After all, we've already established that every gun starts out legal, and there are already laws against selling a gun to disqualified persons, so how did these criminals get guns? Because someone broke the law and sold them a gun. Why would another law make a difference? It'd just be one more law they break. It's illegal to sell weed, but I could have a joint in 30 minutes if I wanted.
One thing that I think can be done, is to streamline the background check system in some way, to allow private sellers access to it on a voluntary basis. I know as a legal, responsible gun owner, I don't want to unknowingly sell a gun to someone who isn't legal to have it. As for people who don't care? One more law won't stop them.
Quote:
third, Telling me that " a study" said this and even the " Liberal Wash Post"
disagreed with it isnt making your point for many reasons, the most obvious
being that you didnt even name the study. Im sorry, but i have been here for
about 3 years and have seen people lie through their teeth about "what they
read"
You cant be as vague as you were and then expect people to believe you.
The gun-show loophole? Less than 1 percent of criminal guns came from gun
shows. Nothing there, either.
What’s more, it is already a
crime to knowingly transfer a gun to someone who is not authorized to possess
one. Neither safeguard has stopped criminals from doing what they do—break the
law. How so-called “universal” background checks will stem the tide of guns in
Chicago—or anywhere else—is lost on me.
Also from that link:
Quote:
• 0.7% of criminals purchased a gun at a gun show
• 1% of criminals
purchased a gun at a flea market
yet these are the type of sales that "universal background checks" are intended to target, which brings us back to my original question, how big of a problem are these sales at places like gun shows or flea markets? According to those numbers, not much of an issue at all.
Quote:
No they didnt " go for broke". Neither of the bills you speak of were taken
seriously, I dont even think they made it out of committee( and Feinstien is in
the Senate so that tells you how serious Dems took it ).
Of course they weren't taken seriously, but they did muddy the waters and no doubt caused many who would have supported just the BGC bill to turn their support away from any new law.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 09-02-2014 at 04:00 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
