How do you feel about the 2nd?????

[LOki]

There is a differance between registration of ownership....and a background check.

Not if that "background check" involves submitting your identity.

 

[necritan]

Not if that "background check" involves submitting your identity.

I agree.

Cant they run the check.....the new owner is good to go....and then the Information is deleted???

FWIW.....I loathe the idea that the government knows what I have.

 

[LOki]

I agree.

Thus, no tangible difference between "background checks" and gun owner registration.

Cant they run the check.....the new owner is good to go....and then the Information is deleted???

They could, but why would they? Criminals do not submit themselves to background checks or registration; so it's patently clear that the government asking for background information, is not really looking for information regarding illegally bought/sold/aquired/possessed weapons.

What then, would be the point of them collecting information regarding legally obtained weapons (knowing that the law-abiding are the ones submitting their information) if they're just going to delete it? The answer is, they are NOT going to delete that information; they have no intention of deleting it; they NEVER had any intention of deleting it--no matter what they promise.

"Background checks" ARE owner registration.

 

[editec]

Maybe you should think about that before you form opinions and call names.....

On my last birthday.....I walked outside to find a man stabbed on the street...multiple times.....a few months ago....a 16 yr old was killed at the park where my kids play at.....a year ago....my friends were at a party and some uninvited guests showed up...fight insued...my buddie watched a young man bleed dark blood quickly as he died. Not long ago in SF close to where I live .....a man hosed a car with an AK killing a father and his two sons. And two days ago.....a few gangbangers decided to have a fued in my front yard involving a machette with my kids right there. These are a few....just a few.

So maybe you can curb your "Opinion Queer" comments.....

If you live someplace where you need a gun for home secutity, fine.
If you obsess about guns, as we so often see people doing here?

You're gun queer.

the difference is how obsessed you are by guns, not the mere ownership of one.

Queer means ODD, you know.

I REFUSE to give up the word's meaning just becuase it is now also used to mean homosexuals.

I've owned guns in the past, that didn't make me a gun queer.

But others I have know owned collections of guns, guns that they loved more than their wifes.

they're gun queers.

Do you understand the differnce in terminology, now?

 

[LOki]

If you obsess about guns, as we so often see people doing here?

You're gun queer.

Does "gun queer" also equally apply to those obviously obsessed by guns, but wishing them to be strictly controlled through force of legislation, by "butch" authoritarians?

the difference is how obsessed you are by guns, not the mere ownership of one.

If the "obsession" of guns is the measure of being "gun queer", then is seems patently clear that those who obsessively advocate for banning guns from the posession of normal folks, are also "gun queers."

Queer means ODD, you know.

Seriously.

I REFUSE to give up the word's meaning just becuase it is now also used to mean homosexuals.

Let me suggest that you INSIST on using the word because it is now also used to mean homosexuals, and you REFUSE to apply it to "gun queers" that oppose the rights of gun owners because you're queer for their position.

I've owned guns in the past, that didn't make me a gun queer.

But others I have know owned collections of guns, guns that they loved more than their wifes.

they're gun queers.

I've known people who have never owned a gun, never shot a gun, never held a gun, have no idea how a gun operates, or what a gun's purpose is, yet they insist that all guns are inherently evil under all circumstances where regular folks possess them, and that all guns should be banned from private possession--even if that ban has to be enforced at gunpoint; in fact they INSIST it be enforced at gunpoint.

It seems they're just as (if not more so) "gun queer." Yes?

Do you understand the differnce in terminology, now?

I think I do, but I'm not about to be so disingenuous in it's use as you.

 

[editec]

Does "gun queer" also equally apply to those obviously obsessed by guns, but wishing them to be strictly controlled through force of legislation, by "butch" authoritarians?

ANTI-gun queer would be more accurate, of course, But yes, there are probably as many of those nitwits as there are gun obsessed notwits, too.

Good point!

If the "obsession" of guns is the measure of being "gun queer", then is seems patently clear that those who obsessively advocate for banning guns from the posession of normal folks, are also "gun queers."

Works for me

Seriously.

Yup!

Let me suggest that you INSIST on using the word because it is now also used to mean homosexuals, and you REFUSE to apply it to "gun queers" that oppose the rights of gun owners because you're queer for their position.

It is the word which inflames the basic fears of many gun obsessed men, to be sure.

I've known people who have never owned a gun, never shot a gun, never held a gun, have no idea how a gun operates, or what a gun's purpose is, yet they insist that all guns are inherently evil under all circumstances where regular folks possess them, and that all guns should be banned from private possession--even if that ban has to be enforced at gunpoint; in fact they INSIST it be enforced at gunpoint.

Yes, I know many of those assholes, too.

It seems they're just as (if not more so) "gun queer." Yes?

Yes.

I think I do, but I'm not about to be so disingenuous in it's use as you.

Well, given that I don't give a rat's ass about people owning guns, that's not only not being disengenuous, it also makes you spot on accurate.

You see what's going on here, don't you?

The game is to assume that anyone who is not a gun queer must therefore be entirely oppossed to the second amendment.

And more, to try to pin that label on anyone who in other areas some of these very stupid people assume must be a kneejerking caracature of what a liberal is, too.

Hey, I don't blame them, too much.

After all they don't have the intellectual horsepower to have a real debate with a real person about what that person actually writes on most subjects.

So they attempt to put words into other people's mouths so they can take the time out of the busy days to insult their intellectual superiors.

You have a gun for some legal purpose? No problem at my end.

You use that gun for a crime? I'd have you fucking shot after a fair trail.

You lose that gun, and it gets used in crime? I'd make you an accessaory to the crime, too.

You want personal responsibility, fans?

I'll give it back to you in spades.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

ANTI-gun queer would be more accurate, of course, But yes, there are probably as many of those nitwits as there are gun obsessed notwits, too.

Good point!



Works for me



Yup!



It is the word which inflames the basic fears of many gun obsessed men, to be sure.



Yes, I know many of those assholes, too.



Yes.



Well, given that I don't give a rat's ass about people owning guns, that's not only not being disengenuous, it also makes you spot on accurate.

You see what's going on here, don't you?

The game is to assume that anyone who is not a gun queer must therefore be entirely oppossed to the second amendment.

And more, to try to pin that label on anyone who in other areas some of these very stupid people assume must be a kneejerking caracature of what a liberal is, too.

Hey, I don't blame them, too much.

After all they don't have the intellectual horsepower to have a real debate with a real person about what that person actually writes on most subjects.

So they attempt to put words into other people's mouths so they can take the time out of the busy days to insult their intellectual superiors.

You have a gun for some legal purpose? No problem at my end.

You use that gun for a crime? I'd have you fucking shot after a fair trail.

You lose that gun, and it gets used in crime? I'd make you an accessaory to the crime, too.

You want personal responsibility, fans?

I'll give it back to you in spades.

So using your logic if someone steals my car and uses it in a crime or kills people with it I should be held accountable? How about knives? Screwdrivers? Hack saws? Axes? Etc Etc.

You are a fucking joke.

 

[editec]

So using your logic if someone steals my car and uses it in a crime or kills people with it I should be held accountable? How about knives? Screwdrivers? Hack saws? Axes? Etc Etc.

You are a fucking joke.

You are wholly unqualified to adress any issue involving logic, Champ.

In this particular case your objection is based on the FALSE ANALOGY method of debating an issue.

If I'd been talking about cars, I would have mentioned it.

The topic at hand is gun owership responsibility.

I expressed an opinion about how much responsibility I think we ought to hold gun owners to.

In my opinion, we ought to hold them to a LOT of responsibility for what happens to their weapons.

Tell me, what would the outcome for a troop have been if he'd lost his piece in the service?

Would YOU have said: "Oh, that's okay, mistakes happen"?

I kinda seriously doubt it.

 

[LOki]

You are wholly unqualified to adress any issue involving logic, Champ.

In this particular case your objection is based on the FALSE ANALOGY method of debating an issue.

If I'd been talking about cars, I would have mentioned it.

The topic at hand is gun owership responsibility.

I expressed an opinion about how much responsibility I think we ought to hold gun owners to.

In my opinion, we ought to hold them to a LOT of responsibility for what happens to their weapons.

Tell me, what would the outcome for a troop have been if he'd lost his piece in the service?

Would YOU have said: "Oh, that's okay, mistakes happen"?

I kinda seriously doubt it.

Since the foundational issue you're discussing is responsibility, unless you can demonstrate that the responsibilty appurtentant to gun ownership is substantially different than the responsibility appurtentant to the ownership of other items used to inflict harm on others, RGS did not use faulty analogy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are wholly unqualified to adress any issue involving logic, Champ.

In this particular case your objection is based on the FALSE ANALOGY method of debating an issue.

If I'd been talking about cars, I would have mentioned it.

The topic at hand is gun owership responsibility.

I expressed an opinion about how much responsibility I think we ought to hold gun owners to.

In my opinion, we ought to hold them to a LOT of responsibility for what happens to their weapons.

Tell me, what would the outcome for a troop have been if he'd lost his piece in the service?

Would YOU have said: "Oh, that's okay, mistakes happen"?

I kinda seriously doubt it.

If he were ROBBED of his gun, NOTHING would happen to him. And my analogy fits just fine, you want to hold people robbed responsible for being robbed. How American of you. Why just guns though? You can kill just fine with LOTS of objects and items. If we are going to blame the victim of a crime for something we should blame all victims.

Now for the next question, since you want to claim a person that owns a gun should be charged with a crime if they are robbed of their gun, does that mean they can KILL anyone that tries to rob them? Anywhere, anytime, no matter what?

Can they place traps in their home to safe guard their guns when not there so as to prevent robbery of those weapons? Do they have permission to carry those weapons EVERYWHERE they go? To ensure no one steals them while they are not home?

If someone robs my home of a thousand dollars and buys a gun, should I be held accountable for that too? If a cop gets hurt in the line of duty and has his gun stolen should he be charged for a crime? If someone mugs you and steals your gun should you be held accountable for the theft and charged if it is used illegally?

Should gun store owners be charged if their store is robbed and those weapons are used in a crime? How about manufacturers of weapons, can we charge them for illegal use of their weapons?

Should the US Government or State Government be charged with a crime if someone breaks into a National Guard Armory and steals those weapons?

Your claim of responsibility is ignorant as hell. We do not blame VICTIMS of crime for being Victims.

Ohh and just to cover bases, people don't just LOSE guns. But if it were REALLY a case of someone being so irresponsible as to out right lose a weapon with no theft or other extra circumstances then they should be denied the right to own weapons as they are to irresponsible to own them. But it would have to be a clear case of neglect on their part. I still wouldn't charge them with a crime no matter how the gun were used.

 

[necritan]

If you live someplace where you need a gun for home secutity, fine.
If you obsess about guns, as we so often see people doing here?

You're gun queer.

the difference is how obsessed you are by guns, not the mere ownership of one.

Queer means ODD, you know.

I REFUSE to give up the word's meaning just becuase it is now also used to mean homosexuals.

I've owned guns in the past, that didn't make me a gun queer.

But others I have know owned collections of guns, guns that they loved more than their wifes.

they're gun queers.

Do you understand the differnce in terminology, now?

I love my wife very much......and her guns.

If I were to be labeled by my obsession's......then I'd cleary be a "Vagina Queer"......

Next Monday I plan to watch the Raiders vs. Broncos with some fellow "Football Queers".......thats of course after I get all "Queer" with my wife and fondle my guns for a bit.