A conversation with an anti gunner......

[2aguy]

I saw this.....it is a dialogue with another anti-gunner by a pro 2nd Amendment blogger.....I am going to quote the relevant points..

Specifically.....the anti-gun, bait and switch on Universal Background checks....

uninformed people think it just means to run a background check on private sales...and they are wrong......that is what the anti-gunners say to get it passed...then they change the language....to target normal gun owners for punishment.........

A Civilized (If Fruitless) Dialogue with a Gun Control Advocate - The Truth About Guns

Yes. First, historically background checks have proven ineffective. Felons and mental defectives have been prohibited by Federal law from so much as touching a firearm or a bullet since 1968. Yet felons who violate the 1968 law by attempting to purchase through a dealer are seldom prosecuted.

In 2014, your organizations backed I-594 in Washington State, which requires background checks on almost all transfers of firearms: ((25) “Transfer” means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.).

What that means that if my friend Alan who lives in Washington State wants to let my other friend Dave shoot his new gun at the range, they must first go to a dealer and have a background check done on Dave; then before Dave can give the gun back to Alan, they must go back to a dealer, and have a background check done on Alan.

Dave can’t load it for Alan. He can’t even hold it until they do the second background check. Is that what your really want? That was Mayor Bloomberg’s legislation.

Universal background checks mean universal registration, which too often has resulted in confiscation. This confiscation has already happened in California and New York).There is no upside to these checks and plenty of demonstrated downside.

 

[JoeB131]

2AGuy has to make up conversations with anti-gunners because he does so poorly in conversations with real gun control advocates...

Universal background checks mean universal registration, which too often has resulted in confiscation. This confiscation has already happened in California and New York).There is no upside to these checks and plenty of demonstrated downside.

Please point out a case where g uns were confiscated in those two states without cause.

 

[OldLady]

This has nothing to do with registration.

California gun confiscation law takes effect Jan. 1
REDDING, Calif. -
A new California law takes effect January 1 that allows legally-owned guns to be confiscated if family or friends believe the owner is a threat to themselves or others.
* * * * * * * * * *
This is an example of what you keep saying you want: Enforcing the laws already on the books!
- Gun Confiscation Underway in New York
Nearly a year ago, the New York legislature passed the toughest gun control law in the country known as the S.A.F.E. Act. It was rushed through in the middle of the night and as soon as it landed on Governor Cuomo's desk, he signed it without asking questions. Now, local and state government are taking the opportunity to crack downon regulations already on the books which means for many, turn in your guns or leave.

You might have more luck influencing people if you would tell the unvarnished truth once in awhile.

 

[percysunshine]

2AGuy has to make up conversations with anti-gunners because he does so poorly in conversations with real gun control advocates...

Universal background checks mean universal registration, which too often has resulted in confiscation. This confiscation has already happened in California and New York).There is no upside to these checks and plenty of demonstrated downside.

Please point out a case where g uns were confiscated in those two states without cause.

There is always a cause when guns are confiscated. The cause might be as mundane as a person has guns, and is therefor a danger. Hence...confiscation. They also might be drinking 24 oz. sugar and caffene laced soft drinks while eating french fries cooked with trans-fat peanut oil. There is cause right there. Causes are where you find them.

 

[JoeB131]

There is always a cause when guns are confiscated. The cause might be as mundane as a person has guns, and is therefor a danger. Hence...confiscation. They also might be drinking 24 oz. sugar and caffene laced soft drinks while eating french fries cooked with trans-fat peanut oil. There is cause right there. Causes are where you find them.

can you cite a case where this was done?

You see, the real problem is we don't take guns from people we should take them from, like domestic abusers who shoot their partners after they leave them.

 

[The Irish Ram]

This has nothing to do with registration.

California gun confiscation law takes effect Jan. 1
REDDING, Calif. -
A new California law takes effect January 1 that allows legally-owned guns to be confiscated if family or friends believe the owner is a threat to themselves or others.
* * * * * * * * * *
This is an example of what you keep saying you want: Enforcing the laws already on the books!
- Gun Confiscation Underway in New York
Nearly a year ago, the New York legislature passed the toughest gun control law in the country known as the S.A.F.E. Act. It was rushed through in the middle of the night and as soon as it landed on Governor Cuomo's desk, he signed it without asking questions. Now, local and state government are taking the opportunity to crack downon regulations already on the books which means for many, turn in your guns or leave.

You might have more luck influencing people if you would tell the unvarnished truth once in awhile.

^
Which is the definition of infringement.
This right was so important that the authors added to it, the understanding that this right is not to be infringed upon.

Infringed ~ act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

Regulations on the books are illegal. They limit, undermine and encroach upon...

 

[percysunshine]

There is always a cause when guns are confiscated. The cause might be as mundane as a person has guns, and is therefor a danger. Hence...confiscation. They also might be drinking 24 oz. sugar and caffene laced soft drinks while eating french fries cooked with trans-fat peanut oil. There is cause right there. Causes are where you find them.

can you cite a case where this was done?

You see, the real problem is we don't take guns from people we should take them from, like domestic abusers who shoot their partners after they leave them.

In the progressive precog universe, we take guns from people who might do bad things.

 

[OldLady]

This has nothing to do with registration.

California gun confiscation law takes effect Jan. 1
REDDING, Calif. -
A new California law takes effect January 1 that allows legally-owned guns to be confiscated if family or friends believe the owner is a threat to themselves or others.
* * * * * * * * * *
This is an example of what you keep saying you want: Enforcing the laws already on the books!
- Gun Confiscation Underway in New York
Nearly a year ago, the New York legislature passed the toughest gun control law in the country known as the S.A.F.E. Act. It was rushed through in the middle of the night and as soon as it landed on Governor Cuomo's desk, he signed it without asking questions. Now, local and state government are taking the opportunity to crack downon regulations already on the books which means for many, turn in your guns or leave.

You might have more luck influencing people if you would tell the unvarnished truth once in awhile.

^
Which is the definition of infringement.
This right was so important that the authors added to it, the understanding that this right is not to be infringed upon.

Infringed ~ act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

Regulations on the books are illegal. They limit, undermine and encroach upon...

We were discussing Guy's statement that confiscation had already begun in California and New York due to registration. The California law has nothing to do with registration and the New York CITY law is notifying citizens of their options to remove now illegal firearms from the City. Guy has pushed over and over for enforcing the gun laws already on the books.
He is twisting the truth, again, to further his paranoid agenda.

 

[Fenton Lum]

This has nothing to do with registration.

California gun confiscation law takes effect Jan. 1
REDDING, Calif. -
A new California law takes effect January 1 that allows legally-owned guns to be confiscated if family or friends believe the owner is a threat to themselves or others.
* * * * * * * * * *
This is an example of what you keep saying you want: Enforcing the laws already on the books!
- Gun Confiscation Underway in New York
Nearly a year ago, the New York legislature passed the toughest gun control law in the country known as the S.A.F.E. Act. It was rushed through in the middle of the night and as soon as it landed on Governor Cuomo's desk, he signed it without asking questions. Now, local and state government are taking the opportunity to crack downon regulations already on the books which means for many, turn in your guns or leave.

You might have more luck influencing people if you would tell the unvarnished truth once in awhile.

^
Which is the definition of infringement.
This right was so important that the authors added to it, the understanding that this right is not to be infringed upon.

Infringed ~ act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

Regulations on the books are illegal. They limit, undermine and encroach upon...

Given the founder's blind spots on things like slavery, genocide, the rights of women and poor/middle class non-affluent non-landholders, I've never viewed them as all that when it comes to liberty, equality, or freedom for all. At all.

 

[OldLady]

There is always a cause when guns are confiscated. The cause might be as mundane as a person has guns, and is therefor a danger. Hence...confiscation. They also might be drinking 24 oz. sugar and caffene laced soft drinks while eating french fries cooked with trans-fat peanut oil. There is cause right there. Causes are where you find them.

can you cite a case where this was done?

You see, the real problem is we don't take guns from people we should take them from, like domestic abusers who shoot their partners after they leave them.

In the progressive precog universe, we take guns from people who might do bad things.

It makes sense to you to let violent or mentally unhinged individuals have them?

 

[Divine Wind]

2AGuy has to make up conversations with anti-gunners because he does so poorly in conversations with real gun control advocates.......

Another fucking lie since he linked the article. Why do you lie when it's so easy to prove you are a fucking liar? Are you brain damaged?

 

[The Irish Ram]

There is always a cause when guns are confiscated. The cause might be as mundane as a person has guns, and is therefor a danger. Hence...confiscation. They also might be drinking 24 oz. sugar and caffene laced soft drinks while eating french fries cooked with trans-fat peanut oil. There is cause right there. Causes are where you find them.

can you cite a case where this was done?

You see, the real problem is we don't take guns from people we should take them from, like domestic abusers who shoot their partners after they leave them.

In the progressive precog universe, we take guns from people who might do bad things.

It makes sense to you to let violent or mentally unhinged individuals have them?

As determined by whom?

 

[percysunshine]

There is always a cause when guns are confiscated. The cause might be as mundane as a person has guns, and is therefor a danger. Hence...confiscation. They also might be drinking 24 oz. sugar and caffene laced soft drinks while eating french fries cooked with trans-fat peanut oil. There is cause right there. Causes are where you find them.

can you cite a case where this was done?

You see, the real problem is we don't take guns from people we should take them from, like domestic abusers who shoot their partners after they leave them.

In the progressive precog universe, we take guns from people who might do bad things.

It makes sense to you to let violent or mentally unhinged individuals have them?

Who gets to define the word 'unhinged'?

By some standards, everyone who posts on USMB is a bit unhinged, yet we would all be likely responsible gun owners. The relationship between cause and effect has always been a blind spot for progressives.

 

[The Irish Ram]

This has nothing to do with registration.

California gun confiscation law takes effect Jan. 1
REDDING, Calif. -
A new California law takes effect January 1 that allows legally-owned guns to be confiscated if family or friends believe the owner is a threat to themselves or others.
* * * * * * * * * *
This is an example of what you keep saying you want: Enforcing the laws already on the books!
- Gun Confiscation Underway in New York
Nearly a year ago, the New York legislature passed the toughest gun control law in the country known as the S.A.F.E. Act. It was rushed through in the middle of the night and as soon as it landed on Governor Cuomo's desk, he signed it without asking questions. Now, local and state government are taking the opportunity to crack downon regulations already on the books which means for many, turn in your guns or leave.

You might have more luck influencing people if you would tell the unvarnished truth once in awhile.

^
Which is the definition of infringement.
This right was so important that the authors added to it, the understanding that this right is not to be infringed upon.

Infringed ~ act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

Regulations on the books are illegal. They limit, undermine and encroach upon...

Given the founder's blind spots on things like slavery, genocide, the rights of women and poor/middle class non-affluent non-landholders, I've never viewed them as all that when it comes to liberty, equality, or freedom for all. At all.

You are a shepherd's dream.

 

[OldLady]

There is always a cause when guns are confiscated. The cause might be as mundane as a person has guns, and is therefor a danger. Hence...confiscation. They also might be drinking 24 oz. sugar and caffene laced soft drinks while eating french fries cooked with trans-fat peanut oil. There is cause right there. Causes are where you find them.

can you cite a case where this was done?

You see, the real problem is we don't take guns from people we should take them from, like domestic abusers who shoot their partners after they leave them.

In the progressive precog universe, we take guns from people who might do bad things.

It makes sense to you to let violent or mentally unhinged individuals have them?

Who gets to define the word 'unhinged'?

By some standards, everyone who posts on USMB is a bit unhinged, yet we would all likely responsible gun owners. The relationship between cause and effect has always been a blind spot for progressives.

Your question is definitely the most difficult question regarding legislation involving mental illness/gun control. An absolute can of worms involving all kinds of violation of privacy, quibbles over what diagnoses are dangerous, whether it should be a life-time ban, etc. etc.
I like the California solution as a help, anyway--a citizen concerned that someone is flipping out and owns weapons can get an immediate intervention by the police. Then the cops have to immediately prove the person is dangerous or the person gets their gun back. It could have saved a lot of Americans.

 

[2aguy]

This has nothing to do with registration.

California gun confiscation law takes effect Jan. 1
REDDING, Calif. -
A new California law takes effect January 1 that allows legally-owned guns to be confiscated if family or friends believe the owner is a threat to themselves or others.
* * * * * * * * * *
This is an example of what you keep saying you want: Enforcing the laws already on the books!
- Gun Confiscation Underway in New York
Nearly a year ago, the New York legislature passed the toughest gun control law in the country known as the S.A.F.E. Act. It was rushed through in the middle of the night and as soon as it landed on Governor Cuomo's desk, he signed it without asking questions. Now, local and state government are taking the opportunity to crack downon regulations already on the books which means for many, turn in your guns or leave.

You might have more luck influencing people if you would tell the unvarnished truth once in awhile.

^
Which is the definition of infringement.
This right was so important that the authors added to it, the understanding that this right is not to be infringed upon.

Infringed ~ act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

Regulations on the books are illegal. They limit, undermine and encroach upon...

We were discussing Guy's statement that confiscation had already begun in California and New York due to registration. The California law has nothing to do with registration and the New York CITY law is notifying citizens of their options to remove now illegal firearms from the City. Guy has pushed over and over for enforcing the gun laws already on the books.
He is twisting the truth, again, to further his paranoid agenda.

Forcing people to get rid of a Constitutionally protected item is confiscation by other means........

the New York Safe Act is a new law, not one already on the books........and again, it targets people who do not use their guns to commit crimes.....

 

[JoeB131]

In the progressive precog universe, we take guns from people who might do bad things.

why not? Frankly, after they've done bad things it's usually too late.

 

[JoeB131]

Forcing people to get rid of a Constitutionally protected item is confiscation by other means........

the New York Safe Act is a new law, not one already on the books........and again, it targets people who do not use their guns to commit crimes.....

so this is bad, why?

 

[JoeB131]

Another fucking lie since he linked the article. Why do you lie when it's so easy to prove you are a fucking liar? Are you brain damaged?

Oh, wait, you actually bother to read the spam he posts on these threads. He's been actually pretty panicky since Scalia took that dirt nap.