I'd love to have a substantive conversation. But if people are going to talk shit what am I to do? Take them seriously?

Your threads are not adult conversations. Anyone that disagrees with you gets called a name.

Since in 1787 there were no universal background checks on internet musket sales, why change now, right?

It's the NRA and the GOP that are obstructing even marginal progress TODAY.

But you don't have intelligent conversations. You started this whole thread with this post:

If I walked up to a person in real life and said that to their face to START a "conversation", I'd get my ass kicked.

You did the same thing all through 2012 during the election. Calling people names, thinking that your point of view is the only one that is right... you act a lot like our current president does on some issues: arrogant.

You either don't have any idea how to have an intelligent conversation and possibly sway people's opinions...or, more likely...you are just trolling.

The fact that you have never ONCE started a business thread leads most of us to think you are just trolling. Another surfer playing games on a adult webmaster board.

If that's not true, then start acting like you are a member of this community and toss a biz thread in here and there.

All change is not neccessarily "progress"

Not necessarily true. Disagreements don't bother me - in fact sometimes I appreciate it.

For example, Minte reminded me of how culpable the Dems were in this mess. (But he's still a jerk for thinking it's all funny).

That fucking Harry Reid. :mad:

NOT ONE of these laws would of stopped ANY of these killings...

The Boston bombings should teach you something.
It's completely illegal to own any form of a bomb right now and has been for a long time.

Yet some lunatic still got their hands on them and caused massive injuries and death.

It doesn't matter what laws they pass.
Lunatics will still find guns of all forms and kill people.
It's what lunatics do...

90% of Americans do want universal background checks. That's true. The GOP doesn't care. That's also true. The first sentence is somewhat hyperbolic, I'll admit. I should have said the NRA, rather than "gun nuts".

Exactly. If GrantMercury's precious federal govt. was REALLY concerned or gave a shit at all...they would simply repeal the 2nd amendment.

That's what Congress has the power to do. CHANGE the constitution. They've done it before when it suited them (Presidential term limits, prohibition, the repeal of prohibition, etc.).

Then the govt. would be free to make gun control laws and even ban them. But Obama is just another con man, shyster, politician. He could care less about GrantMercury or anybody. Just like ALL the politicians in Washington D.C.

That's what GrantMercury doesn't care to debate is that the Federal govt. are the biggest crooks and power hungry group of people in the world.
Every new law = less freedom for people.

Yes, laws are neccessary for a civilized society...but we have too MANY laws against EVERYTHING we do everyday! And everyday Congress tries to make NEW ones!

GrantMercury, some of us don't feel that we should give up our rights because of a few crazy people. BUT...having said that...IF Congress had the balls to actually do something that would work (repeal the 2nd Amendment) then the right to bear arms would no longer exist and they wouldn't be infringing on my rights anymore.

See the difference? You don't give a bunch of shady con men in Washington D.C. the power to infringe on your rights. You FORCE them to do the right thing (repeal the 2nd amendment) and take the political consequences.

THAT is how our republic is supposed to work.

So why have any laws at all?

that's a false equivalency.

A bomb is built, not bought...and if you did want to build a gun, it would be a hell of a lot more difficult than building a bomb.

I could care less what you think of me. I said earlier that the bill should've been passed.
The humor was in Obama and Bidens big pouty scenes on the news.


Due to procedural steps agreed to by both sides, all the amendments considered Wednesday required 60 votes to pass in the 100-member chamber, meaning Democrats and their independent allies who hold 55 seats needed support from some GOP senators to push through the Manchin-Toomey proposal.

The final vote was 54 in favor to 46 opposed with four Republicans joining most Democrats in supporting the compromise. With the outcome obvious, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, cast a "no" vote to secure the ability to bring the measure up again

Tell me a LAW that would of stopped these killings???

You know this how?

So they should just change the 2nd Amendment? That's all? We can't get something as simple as universal background checks through...but we're going to alter the Constitution? WTF?

LOL,

You just proved you are a TROLL.

Welcome to my Short Ignore List!

A common sense law that required background checks on all firearm transfers may have stopped some of them. What if it only stopped one? Would it be worth it?

Speed limits don't stop all car crashes. Should we get rid of them?

Oh no! Don't ignore me!!!!

Like I give a fuck.

But you didn't answer the question. It's very easy for you to say none of the bloodshed could have possibly been averted, but you don't know that.

AKA filibuster by the GOP.

If you believe in real gun control, then how come the government can have all the guns in the world?

We already have background checks

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

GrantMercury, if you will, let me throw out a hypothetical for you.

As you know, many people are against porn. They claim it ruins people's lives, etc.

We, in the industry, put a lot of weight on the first amendment giving us the right to produce and distribute porn.

If the powers that be pushed for a law that said every producer/distributor in the industry had to have a background check before they could participate and if the background check found various issues that they could not participate, how would you feel about that?

Just wondering.

.

Because most Americans don't give a shit. The military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about is rocking and rolling. The government is We The People, and as an involved citizen, I constantly push for a cut in the pentagon budget. That said, I don't have an answer for how to disarm the whole world.

But we're talking about background checks to try to limit access to firearms by people who are demonstrably dangerous. That's a lot more attainable than world disarmament.

You'd rather let politicians make the Constitution a joke.

YES, GrantMercury...IF we as a society decide to be disarmed, then we should change the Constitution.

That's actually one of the things that Congress is supposed to be doing. You know...instead of holding hearings on steroids in baseball...or throwing Martha Stewart in jail and shit like that.

If YOU really believed your own bullshit, you would be calling for your beloved almighty Federal Govt. to repeal the 2nd amendment.

But you're just a troll.

I would be against it. Why would a background check on a porn producer be a good idea? How could that be justified? What would be the purpose?

if obama would have come forward and said he'd like to simply make guns harder to get for criminals then i think people would have backed him.

but that isn't exactly what he did. the way they go about gun control is ridiculous. they weren't focused on making it harder for criminals to possess firearms. they were focused on banning certain types of firearms & magazines and making it harder for everyone including law abiding citizens to own firearms.

then rumors start swirling around about them trying to limit the amount of ammunition you can buy, background checks for ammo, etc... it just get's to a point where everyone is against them.

i think any logical person wants to make it harder for criminals to get their hands on firearms. unfortunately obama wanted to turn the rest of the country into Chicago, IL and that isn't going to happen.

How do you know I haven't?

"beloved almight federal Govt." :1orglaugh Grow up already.

Why do you want people like the suspects in Boston to be able to freely buy firearms?

Well, you know someone could be a pedophile, or could have numerous felonies for being abusive to women or could have mental issues that would cause them to be a danger to their actors/actresses, or...

All the same kind of reasons that some people want to do background checks on weapons purchasers.

There are people in this country who believe that porn is way worse than guns and would jump at a chance to put more regulation on the industry.

The porn industry rests it's legitimacy on the first amendment. Gun owners rest their legitimacy on the second amendment. Why is one of those two more important to you than the other?

.

I don't understand. What do you mean? Turn the rest of the country into Chicago? What about Chicago?

We were talking about a simple background check. The rumors were started by the gun lobby because all they care about is maximizing sales, so they lied about the bill. And that's Obama's fault? Help me here. :helpme

No. Sorry, but that's not anywhere near a reasonable comparison. People want to do background checks on weapons purchasers because once the gun is in their hands, they can end the lives of others in the blink of an eye.

Nobody watching porn is harmed by the producer of it.

I'm against background checks on porn producers.

Yes, but there are enormous loopholes. It applies only to licensed gun dealers. Lots of gun purchases happen without them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/us...pagewanted=all

It is actually a very suitable comparison. Background checks on porn producers would violate their first amendment rights. Background checks on private weapons sales violates the second amendment rights.

There are many people who would definitely argue that porn harms everyone who comes in contact with it. That would make the producer completely culpable in that harm.

Again, why is one part of the bill of rights more important to you than another? You ducked that question just like you accuse others of doing.

There is absolutely no ambiguity in the phrase "shall not be infringed".

.

help you where? yeah i understand the bill was about background checks. i was simply saying if his initial intentions were about a simple background check then maybe it would have passed.

instead when he began his gun control campaign he was all about an assault rifle ban, magazine capacity limit's, and various other ridiculous gun control ideas. it left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths and the result turned out unfavorably for everyone.

i'm sorry that all you got out of my last post was about chicago. that isn't my fault.

Oh for fuck sake. It is NOT a reasonable comparison at all, and you know it. If only that kook had a copy of Wasteland in his hands instead of a Bushmaster, those 20 kids in Newtown would be alive today.

Producing porn never killed anyone.

And you're leaving out a big chunk of the 2nd Amendment there...

http://www.angrywhiteboy.org/wp-cont...01/militia.jpg

I still don't know what you meant about Chicago.

But I now see what you were getting at about the bill in general.

You are still evading my question as you tend to do. Why is one part of the bill of rights more important to you then another? Why is it ok for the government to violate my second amendment rights but it is NOT ok for them to violate your first amendment rights?

.

Who's violating your rights? WTF are you talking about? :helpme

How is asking for a background check for every gun buyer a violation of your rights? You can still have a gun.

So you think the present administration, the guys that gave us 20,000 pages of regulations for Obamacare are going to not have loop holes in something they write?

Even if you closed the loop holes, illegal guns will always exist, Just the way of things, any politician that tells you otherwise is lying to you

It violates my rights the same way that requiring a background check before you were allowed to speak would.

It is requiring me to prove that I have a right before I can exercise it. That is an infringement on the right.

.