Naaaaw, they're the most important people in the universe ... as long as they can vote.

I know you're not joining the NRA, you don't need a card to stir shit. :haha:

Q: Why do people stir shit?

A: Because it's there.

HM

You're just being trolled. You probably already know this. sexobon is just trying to wind you up, heedless of the illogic of his "argument". Saying you're too dumb to understand is a weak defense.

sexobon, you have no proof, are unable to prove your "justification" that the elimination of all guns at some indefinite point in the future is a good reason to do nothing now.

"Henry has expressed in the past he doesn't like to part with money which will not return an immediate personal desire"

No. I don't like parting with my money when my money is spent poorly by others. I worked for it...the least the parasites can do when 'they' spend 'my' money is do so wisely...which they don't...ever.

So, as I can, I deprive 'them' of what's 'mine'.

#

"the smothering by trees of all stripes regardless of their differences."

Buried under a ton of oak, buried under a ton of pine: what's the difference?

'profane word of the day'
 

Cunt phlegm (flem)

"I don't have the free time you seem to have, Henry."
 

Time to insult, but no time (or guts) for the follow-through.

Pussy.

Yes, I deduced that was your position. Not criticizing, everyone is entitled to their own position, just trying to help the masses understand your vehemence. :cool:

Happy,

'Liberals' offer bad compromises always as a prelude to larger, equally bad, compromises.

It's a sneaky, gutless, way of eatin' away at things one has no courage to confront honestly.

Just admit you want all guns gone...this is honest, straightforward...all involved know where they stand...the war that follows is open (instead of ths 'civil' subtle exercise in misdirection and lies).

The person whose post I linked up-thread I think is awful...but at least they aren't pretending.

I only respond when someone I'm responding to actually makes relevant claims. I usually delete the personal attacks or taunting when I quote someone. If there's nothing left, there's nothing to reply to.

"sexobon, you have no proof"
 

V,

When you agree with someone, you never ask for proof, evidence, citations.

When you disagree with someone, you always demand proof, evidence, citations.

And when proof, evidence, citations are offered you neatly side-step, moving on, always moving on.

Sexobon might be trollin', but he's also right...even a casual review of what's goin' on illustrates this...so: the evidence, the proof, is on the table...all Sexobon has to do, if he likes, is comment on it...not his job to shove your face down into it (which wouldn't work anyway, cuz, as I say, you'll just side-step and move on).

Bruce,

I'm plain-spoken, simple (minded) even.

If the masses don't get me it's cuz they don't wanna...which is fine by me...I certainly get them, don't like them, will oppose them at every turn.

Could never get on Nixon's enemies list. Even Trump's is a challenge. But anyone can so easily get on henry quirk's enemies list.

Just don't use profanity. He lives for profanity. And hate. Just another reason why some need big guns - to defend from everyone.

It's fine to worry about the next compromise when considering a current one. It's dishonest to claim that the current one doesn't exist because you're worried about the next one.


And it's disingenuous to use the dishonest claim that liberals don't compromise to justify the fact that the NRA doesn't.

Hate: yep, a gut full, for the deserving.

Profanity: fuck yeah...it's language, a tool...it has its place no matter what domesticated types like you have to say on the matter.

Big gun: just one...only need one...you ever get a hankerin' to see it up close, let me know...I'll e you my address...you can swing by...we'll see what's what.

"It's dishonest to claim that the current one doesn't exist because you're worried about the next one."

When the current offered compromise is just a step in a series of compromises designed to disarm folks (and so isn't a compromise at all), then -- no -- it's not dishonest.

#

"And it's disingenuous to use the dishonest claim that liberals don't compromise to justify the fact that the NRA doesn't."

Fuck the NRA. You think the NRA is the problem. It ain't nuthin'. Me, I'm the problem...I have a gun and won't give it up, or be hobbled in my ownership of it. End the NRA and you still have (folks like) me to deal with.

No compromises...no deals...no 'feel good' solutions.

I will not accept restrictions cuz of the bad acts of others.

Wow. He was able to post without profanity.

Damn. I was hoping he could.

And now I'll say again for the hard of comprehending, giving an inch opens the door for leftist extremists to try to take a mile and liberals aren't even going to try to do anything about it. It's not a compromise unless both sides are doing what it takes to enforce the agreement. I've seen liberals dropping the ball on this for forty years. It's not just what they do, it's who they are: the same people who would subvert the Constitution rather than do what it takes to change it ... the low-lives.

Neither the NRA nor any other organization (e.g. political party) needs any more justification than that to put them on ignore. They got what they bargained for, their children are paying the price, and all they want to do is argue that their children's safety is someone else's responsibility. Their bellyaching is not favorably considered. Give them more Trump and NRA. If it doesn't kill them, it'll make them stronger.

We comprehend you, it's easy to comprehend--all you're saying is that "Liberals want to take your guns away." Easy. But it's not true. The "inch" consists of common sense measures that a majority of Americans want. Let's discuss these proposals in good faith.

An extremist even posted that moderates define the NRA. Anyone who makes a conclusion by first learning history knows an extremist is reciting what the Central Committee of the Communist Party has ordered him to think. (Or is it the Nazi party? They also demonstrate against moderates by carrying big guns.)

NRA had a long history of promoting responsible gun ownership. "NRA support gun control for much of the 20th century, its leadership in fact lobbied for and co-authored gun control legislation." NRA was a leading advocate of gun regulations due to a massive 1930 murder rate directly traceable to more and more powerful guns. NRA was even a leading advocate for limiting gun ownership when Kennedy was shot in 1963.

That changed in 1971 when the ATF, during a house raid, shot and paralyzed Kenyon Ballew; suspected of stockpiling illegal weapons. In 1975, the NRA changed from responsible gun ownership to giving more and bigger guns to everyone. Only extremists believe a lie that more guns make a safety society. This was discuss here years ago with facts and numbers. Increase in number of guns throughout history has always been followed by a massive increase in gun deaths.

A major change occurred even over a trivial issue. Issue was lead contamination on firing ranges. Lead danger was just too much for wackos who denied lead was dangerous, must be in all paints, and must never be removed from gasoline. For the same reasons those extremists today also know global warming does not exist. They were told what to believe rather than first learn facts.

Another factor was the famous "The Cincinnati Revolution". Extremists took over; NRA promoted more and bigger guns. We see today the results of that extremism even in 'the murdered students of the week'. We need a weekly lottery for the number of students killed every week. But the NRA will complain. It does not promote bigger guns with larger clips.

NRA was once a major proponent of responsible gun ownership NRA now advocates more and bigger guns in every house - even if he is a felon. Does not matter what they say; what matters is what they promote to even make guns available to felons.

NRA has successfully protected a felon's access to assault weapons. He just cannot buy them in a gun store. But can purchase on the street or in gun shows. What moderate would promote that? What Sexobon calles a moderate is a wacko extremist. But to him, that is a moderate. And everyone else must be a liberal. It clearly defines him as an extremist so right wing as to be wacko.

Facts make it clear. NRA since the late 1970s was dominated by extremists who promote soundbytes to increase the power, munitions, and numbers of guns. They have not said it yet. But their propaganda even justifies 155 mm howitzers and grenade launchers. Their rhetoric: that will somehow increase human safety and reduce crime.

A moderate can see through those lies. An extremist does not.

Been there, done that, the other side dropped the ball repeatedly when it came to reigning in their extreme factions while those who leaned conservative rode shotgun to keep their extreme factions in check. That can happen only so many times before it becomes self evident that liberals are interested in what the other side can do for them; but, when it comes to what they can do for the other side, not so much. Your good faith line has been used ad museum with the aforementioned results. If you want to show good faith, change the Constitution. I've been watching this dog and pony show since before you were born and that's where it's at now.

tw, calling everyone who doesn't agree with you an extremist, or a child, blows your credibility from the git go.

"Let's discuss these proposals in good faith."
 

Then lay them out, one by one, Flint.

You do it, not tw (cuz he's a needledick and I'm done [for the moment] with his horseshit).

You, Flint, list each of these common sense proposals.

I'm pretty damn sure I know them all already, and I'm equally sure I can illustrate how each won't work and acts as a mere gateway to wider, deeper, restrictions.

Surprise me, Flint...show me I'm wrong, or stymie me (first time for everything, I suppose, and I'm way past due for a good stymie).

Tw, I bought you a gift membership in the NRA in your username. In around 10 - 11 months you may get a renewal notice at the Cellar email address in your profile contact info. Let me know when you get it and I'll pick up the tab. Don't say I never gave you anything.

Not to mention he said a .22 cal. six shooter is enough for anybody.

:lol2:

You can't read his writings and keep a straight face anymore.

"he said a .22 cal. six shooter is enough for anybody."

Till, as I say, he and his declare pop guns, slingshots, and hard stares to be 'assault weapons'.

#

"You can't read his writings and keep a straight face anymore."

I ain't laughin'...motherfucker gets up my nose like nuthin' else (him and all those crapsacks who wanna save folks from themselves...sanctimonious shits...righteous sparrowfarts).

Hey hey now, sparrowfarts is a pretty serious accusation. :eyebrow:

There is a whole other thread here if anybody is interested. Maybe sexobon would like to expand his theory of why we're on the cusp of wrecking the American Experiment. There is some truth in it.

When did I call you an extremist? Cite the example.


And yes, many adults do think like children. It was necessary to bring Hitler to power. It explains so many addicted cigarette smoker. It even explains so many who just knew Saddam had WMDs - using emotion and no facts.

They did not do that for logical (adult) reasons. They did that because the brain of a child (emotions) made that decision.

Sorry. But facts does not go away just because you do not like it. Many do not like it. And do not / cannot challenge it in an adult manner - logically. Many do not like it emotionally.

The adult who is still a child was even defined here by citing research into adolescence. It would only make angry an adult thinks like a child. Who is insulted rather than learns.

Credibility comes from honesty - and not by petting the emotions of a wild dog. There is no way around many adults who still think like children - and then voted for a man only because he attacks and insults others. He even inspires race hatred. To adults who are still children, that is leader. To an adult who is thinking logically like an adult, that is a threat. Especially if permitted access to big guns or nuclear missiles.

Ok henry. I've got a few free minutes so let's see what you're willing to do.

I'm willing to have an open and honest discussion with you IF you are willing to abide by some rules.

Honest answers to questions, no bullshit.
No personal attacks.
Keep to the point.
This will be no internet troll fest. Just a real discussion between two people.
Willing to live with some potentially long delays - I still don't have a lot of free time.

Willing to give it a go?

"I'm willing to have an open and honest discussion with you IF you are willing to abide by some rules."

Sure, but I've got a few of my own which I'll list in a bit.

#

"Honest answers to questions, no bullshit."

I don't bullshit, I'm always honest, I say fuck a lot.

#

"No personal attacks."

Act like a human being and you got no worries; ignore what I write and act like tw, then you get what you get.

#

"Keep to the point."

I always keep to the point (as I'm cussnin').

#

"This will be no internet troll fest. Just a real discussion between two people."

Works for me.

#

"Willing to live with some potentially long delays - I still don't have a lot of free time."

Yeah, well I'm only 'here' when I have the time...I've gone weeks and months without doin' the cellar...I'm only here now cuz I got time to kill...if that changes, I'll be gone again...so: we'll just have to play this by ear and hope for the best.

#

"Willing to give it a go?"

Yep.

#

My rules...

1-When it cones to guns, my essential argument/question is: as I've committed no crimes with my shotgun, why should I (or any law abider) accept restrictions or hobbling in ownership or use of my gun because of the bad acts of others?

Throwin' stats at me will get you a 'that's all well and fine but 'I' didn't do anything wrong so why must 'I' get hobbled?' Not sayin' you can't use stats; am sayin' those stats aren't gonna address my concern/question and I'm probably not gonna spend a whole lotta time on those stats.

2-Being plain-spoken (though mebbe a tiny bit idiosyncratic) in presentation, nuthin' annoys me more than to have what I post ignored, miscatagorized, or misused...this is why tw gets up my nose...he's a fuckin' liar and fuckin' distorter and fuckin' ignorant. You, Pete, don't strike me as those things. So, don't misuse me and we should get along splendidly, even if we disagree.

Summing up...

I have my own particular, peculiar, interest in the issue(s) and I always operate out of that particular, peculiar position. For example: I won't defend or condemn the NRA cuz I don't give a fuck about the NRA, so I won't be prodded or cajoled into doin' either.

Don't pretend I say one thing when you damn well know I've said another. Don't ascribe motivations to me beyond what I ascribe to myself, beyond what's apparent in my posts. In short: don't be tw.

You undestand what I'm sayin' here, or am I just repeatedly muddyin' the waters?

and: I'm still willin' to tackle and dismantle the proposals mentioned by Flint...
 

...just sayin'

Sounds good. Moving this to another thread.

okeedoke, will check back later
 

:thumb up:

Background Checks.

Are they good? Are they bad? Could they be improved?

If there are issues with the current state of Background Checks, how could those concerns be addressed? If there are issues with any proposed improvements to the current state of Background Checks, how could those concerns be addressed?

"Background Checks"

This may be one I can't dismantle cuz I've had my gun for a long time...got it well before mandated fed checks and here, in Louisiana, there is no mandated state check.

In short: I've got mine, didn't have to jump through hoops to get mine, so fuck it.

Not a answer, I know, so let me try...

On the face of it, I got no problem with background checks. A good chunk of what I do for a living involves background checks. I suppose the nature of the check is what concerns me.

I guess the over-riding thing for me, with background checks is: is there the presuming of innocence or guilt at the start? Checking with the intent to prove the gun buyer is guilty of sumthin' is different than checking with the assumption of innocence.

In one, you'll hunt till you find sumthin' to deny the purchase; in the other you'll simply check the facts as they exist, as they're recorded.

So, background checks are fine if done narrowly (no, you don't get to root through the gun buyer's undie drawer) and with the right ethic (the presuming of innocence).

Now, the effectiveness of checks is another thing entirely.

Obviously, the wider, deeper, more draconian, the check, the more effective. If you can go through the undies drawer you just might find sumthin' awful, sumthin' that justifies denying that gun purchase. Unfortunately you also piss liberally on the gun buyer's self-ownership and privacy.

Old notion: more safety, less liberty; more liberty, less safety.

I, of course, skew toward the more liberty the better (and I'll take care of my own safety, thank you very much). So, of course, I skew toward the narrow, minimal background check, knowing full well such checks will be less effective.

Does this answer satisfy?

If background checks are use to deny people a gun just because they are stone crazy, how long before people are denied because they don't eat kosher, or wear white after Labor Day? :lol:

Pretty stupid statement, right? But it's the same reasoning I hear time and time again.

If the purpose of a check is to deny X cuz of Y then, from the start, the check is a wrong-headed exercise.

The legit (reason to) check is simply a reconcilling of what is recorded and what the check target has volunteered. Where recorded fact coincides with the target's rendition, the rest of us need to butt the fuck out of the gun purchase. Where there is discrepancy, the target of the check shouldn't have to jump through hoops and spend thousands to correct inaccuracies (if inaccuracies there are).

Always, at any point in the process, there should be an unqualified presuming of innocence about the check target, on the part of public servants overseeing that process.

In other words: I shouidn't have to 'prove' that I'm good to gun own; gov has to 'prove' in an obvious, demonstrable way why I'm not (and it has to do so without diggin' around in my drawers [take that as you will], or by laying claim to shifty, shifting cultural notions).

So you're saying yes to background checks unless they are effective.

Sounded to me like he's saying pursuing an end result of maximum effectiveness doesn't necessarily justify using any and all means that might get one there.

How you took that to mean he doesn't want any background checks to be effective is something for psychoanalysts to figure out.

"So you're saying yes to background checks unless they are effective."

Nope.

##

"Sounded to me like he's saying pursuing an end result of maximum effectiveness doesn't necessarily justify using any and all means that might get one there."

Yep.

#

"How you took that to mean he doesn't want any background checks to be effective is something for psychoanalysts to figure out."

You know what Griff's doin' as well as I do. Like tw, Griff knows what I'm sayin', doesn't like what I'm sayin', can't refute what I'm sayin' philosophically, so he willfully misinterprets what I'm sayin'.

Standard horseshit.

That's the way rights work. If it doesn't work that way, it's not a right, it's a privilege. If people want this right to be downgraded to a privilege, they can change the Constitution.

Griff,

You highlighted sumthin' of mine...

'I shouidn't have to 'prove' that I'm good to gun own; gov has to 'prove' in an obvious, demonstrable way why I'm not (and it has to do so without diggin' around in my drawers)'

...presumably as an evidence of this...

"So you're saying yes to background checks unless they are effective."

You just make my point for me.

I am presumed innocent till proven otherwise.

Proving me otherwise takes place within the confines of 'due process', meaning I can't be violated in person, in privacy, in property while being investigated for crime. And I can't be violated in person, in privacy, in property because one or more think me 'odd'. This includes a background check. My skivvies drawer may contain all manner of nastiness, some perhaps sufficient to disallow my purchasing a gun, BUT you can't look there without damned good reason (which has got to be more than 'he's odd'). The bar is set HIGH and the legit background check should, can, only dig through what's a matter of public record (which itself should be largely shallow).

So: it's not that I want ineffective background checks; it's that I accept, in a free nation peopled by free men and women, our employees (should) have extraordinarly limited power over us (far less than we [should] have over them).

Now, if you support relieving folks of privacy, support violating personhood, support removing or denying property based on what someone might do, well, then you march, lockstep with idiots like tw, along that road leading to 'politburo'.

Me, I'll be walkin', in a loose, relaxed way, in the opposite direction.

As I say up-thread: more safety, less liberty; more liberty, less safety.

It would be nice if a balance could be had, but I don't think that's possible.

"change the Constitution"

Plenty who want to, on both sides of the aisle.

Dumb motherfuckers ought to leave well enough alone.

I'm actually sympathetic to the idea that amending the Constitution is the "Constitutional" way to go, however, that could be a more ham handed outcome where we lose a right than incremental changes with a dance between Congress and the Judiciary. We already have precedent for limitations.

Henry, what do you consider private? Is a conviction for a violent crime private? Is a history of severe mental illness private? Where do you draw the "drawers" line?

Mexico already does that dance via its Constitution and the right wasn't lost.

"Henry, what do you consider private?"

Anything and everything that isn't takin' money out of another's pocket, food off their table, or the shingles from the roof over their heads. In other words: If I'm not tangibly mucking around in their business, then 'my' business is none of 'their' business.

And: no, the possibility I 'might' muck around in their business tomorrow is not sufficient to justify them muckin' around in mine today.

#

"Is a conviction for a violent crime private?"

No, that is and should be a function of the public record (the trial is paid for with taxes and therefore is not strictly a private matter).

#

"Is a history of severe mental illness private?"

Yep, it's private till the afflicted stop mindin' their own business and keepin' their hands to themselves. And even then, that history should remain a private matter if the actions that got the afflicted in hot water are of the sort not demonstrably linked to their illness. Example: a glove box full of unpaid traffic tickets is not sufficient to violate patient/doctor privilege.

#

"Where do you draw the "drawers" line?"

Along the edges of my life (which, when not tangibly infringing on yours, is none of your business).

FBI Study
 

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/...-2013.pdf/view

key findings page 7

While the FBI remains reactive, Florida school districts are going proactive:

PA just passed a bipartisan bill.

The laxatives must've worked.

I think they must have a bipartisan budget also flowed out.

No real surprises there.

I was going cut and paste details of the Pittsburgh shooting but reading about it is too damn depressing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...=.75df400414ed

Try not to think of it as a mass shooting, think of it as a services shooting, Jews don't go to mass.

That's not funny.

Maybe we can use these tragedies to come together rather than fall apart.

Not likely, too many people lose their sense of humor over them.

Steelers too...