And you still can't even say if a person who commits more violent crime is more dangerous than person who doesn't commit violent crime nor can you answer the question about if there are more poor whites than poor blacks.
You're just stating your feelings.
We already agreed there are more poor whites.
Are you even reading this thread?
Great, then if there are more poor whites why aren't more whites than blacks arrested for murder?
Because black people are more dangerous and there is no other explanation.
But you feel that poor whites are more dangerous. I could be a Kunt and claim that you feel this way on account of their white skin but I'm not a Kunt.
I am racist against white people.
After all these years, I've finally been found out.
Feels good to actually be able to say it, quite honestly.
So other than your feelings do you have any data in support of your opinion that whites are more dangerous?
Blacks are usually targeting rival gangs. It's fucked up but what's disturbing is the mass shooters who target innocents.
ding ding ding
Targeting other gangs and targeting any of the friends or relatives of other gangs and targeting anyone who talks to the police or testifies against them in court or pretty much anyone who gives them problems. But that's not terrorism.
So how hard is it, and how hard should it be, for an individual to get an AR-15? Obviously, I'm not troubled that you have one or even that probably the vast majority of those who have them do. Sled doesn't want crazies to have them either, but has also stated his opposition to "red flag" laws.
I am not opposed to more stringent background checks and limited laws to remove guns from people who have demonstrated mental health issues for short durations until accurate mental state assessments can be made. So I will give you two answers here, since we are discussing two different issues.
The issue all gun advocates have is, in the case of background check strengthening, that we really do not believe that is the end game. I think until politicians, whom I loathe, on both sides can have honest debates about their respective end games on gun control, there can be no quarter given. It's the opposite spectrum of the abortion debate - I don't think most reasonable liberals actually believe that aborting babies at birth is a good thing, but they also believe, and perhaps rightly so, that if they give in on ANYTHING, it's starts the slippery slope and the next thing you know abortion is mostly illegal because the pro life contingent has chipped away so long and hard that it is now basically not a right. That is precisely how gun advocates feel - most even ardent gun supporters I know believe in strong and effective background checks, and in some cases even gun safety classes. But if we give in there, next year it will be licensing, then the next year registration, then the next year banning type mentality. And I can't say I disagree with that position. In my perfect world we would have strong background checks and requirements for gun safety training, but never licensing or registration. I don't believe it infringes on your rights to take a class to learn to properly use a firearm. That said, I have zero faith if we gave in on on this point that Nancy Pelosi would say "welp, ok, we did it and got ironclad background checks and safety training, we're done here..." I can say this, I do not want felons or people who beat their wives routinely owning guns. Period. Full stop.
The red flag laws are super tricky. Here's why. I do not want any imbalanced person to have access to firepower. That said, I see so many ways this could be taken advantage of. Some wife gets dumped. Nothing abusive is happening but she's pissed. Call the cops and say "he threatened to hurt me and himself." Bam, dudes guns are gone for 90 days and he is in court petitioning for his right to get them back, after paying huge fees to do so. Liberal counties would make the list of requirements for resolution almost impossible to abide by. At the same time, some mechanism must exist whereby some assclown who is writing death threats to people, and it is proven, has their guns taken away by force if necessary. So this one is tricky and I don't have the answer. Whatever system is devised MUST be impartial, and expeditious, and not create undue burden on the gun owner - because we all know there will be abuse in any system like this. It must also be effective at keeping guns out of the hand of legit crazy fucks who want to go harm people. Tough nut.
If I could double chin this post I would. You absolutely nailed it. Not sure how we proceed from here though even if we can all agree on above. Just keeping the status quo ain't working for anybody....
And you still can't even say if a person who commits more violent crime is more dangerous than person who doesn't commit violent crime nor can you answer the question about if there are more poor whites than poor blacks.
You're just stating your feelings.
We already agreed there are more poor whites.
Are you even reading this thread?
Great, then if there are more poor whites why aren't more whites than blacks arrested for murder?
Because black people are more dangerous and there is no other explanation.
But you feel that poor white are more dangerous.
Christ man, this is part of why no one takes you seriously. You rival StrongArm in inability to take an L or give a charitable interpretation of someone's argument.
You'd do yourself a favor if you spent just a bit more time picking your battles than picking fucking nits.
What the fuck are you talking about? That was you're fucking argument. You had no facts you had no data, by your own admission you were just stating your feelings. Go ahead Kunt, the W is all yours. You win who can emote the best.
And you still can't even say if a person who commits more violent crime is more dangerous than person who doesn't commit violent crime nor can you answer the question about if there are more poor whites than poor blacks.
You're just stating your feelings.
We already agreed there are more poor whites.
Are you even reading this thread?
Great, then if there are more poor whites why aren't more whites than blacks arrested for murder?
Because black people are more dangerous and there is no other explanation.
But you feel that poor white are more dangerous.
Christ man, this is part of why no one takes you seriously. You rival StrongArm in inability to take an L or give a charitable interpretation of someone's argument.
You'd do yourself a favor if you spent just a bit more time picking your battles than picking fucking nits.
What the fuck are you talking about? That was you're fucking argument. You had no facts you had no data, by your own admission you were just stating your feelings. Go ahead Kunt, the W is all yours. You win who can emote the best.
Lol wrong poaster dude. Makes my point that more relevant.
Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
And you still can't even say if a person who commits more violent crime is more dangerous than person who doesn't commit violent crime nor can you answer the question about if there are more poor whites than poor blacks.
You're just stating your feelings.
We already agreed there are more poor whites.
Are you even reading this thread?
Great, then if there are more poor whites why aren't more whites than blacks arrested for murder?
Because black people are more dangerous and there is no other explanation.
But you feel that poor white are more dangerous.
Christ man, this is part of why no one takes you seriously. You rival StrongArm in inability to take an L or give a charitable interpretation of someone's argument.
You'd do yourself a favor if you spent just a bit more time picking your battles than picking fucking nits.
What the fuck are you talking about? That was you're fucking argument. You had no facts you had no data, by your own admission you were just stating your feelings. Go ahead Kunt, the W is all yours. You win who can emote the best.
So how hard is it, and how hard should it be, for an individual to get an AR-15? Obviously, I'm not troubled that you have one or even that probably the vast majority of those who have them do. Sled doesn't want crazies to have them either, but has also stated his opposition to "red flag" laws.
I am not opposed to more stringent background checks and limited laws to remove guns from people who have demonstrated mental health issues for short durations until accurate mental state assessments can be made. So I will give you two answers here, since we are discussing two different issues.
The issue all gun advocates have is, in the case of background check strengthening, that we really do not believe that is the end game. I think until politicians, whom I loathe, on both sides can have honest debates about their respective end games on gun control, there can be no quarter given. It's the opposite spectrum of the abortion debate - I don't think most reasonable liberals actually believe that aborting babies at birth is a good thing, but they also believe, and perhaps rightly so, that if they give in on ANYTHING, it's starts the slippery slope and the next thing you know abortion is mostly illegal because the pro life contingent has chipped away so long and hard that it is now basically not a right. That is precisely how gun advocates feel - most even ardent gun supporters I know believe in strong and effective background checks, and in some cases even gun safety classes. But if we give in there, next year it will be licensing, then the next year registration, then the next year banning type mentality. And I can't say I disagree with that position. In my perfect world we would have strong background checks and requirements for gun safety training, but never licensing or registration. I don't believe it infringes on your rights to take a class to learn to properly use a firearm. That said, I have zero faith if we gave in on on this point that Nancy Pelosi would say "welp, ok, we did it and got ironclad background checks and safety training, we're done here..." I can say this, I do not want felons or people who beat their wives routinely owning guns. Period. Full stop.
The red flag laws are super tricky. Here's why. I do not want any imbalanced person to have access to firepower. That said, I see so many ways this could be taken advantage of. Some wife gets dumped. Nothing abusive is happening but she's pissed. Call the cops and say "he threatened to hurt me and himself." Bam, dudes guns are gone for 90 days and he is in court petitioning for his right to get them back, after paying huge fees to do so. Liberal counties would make the list of requirements for resolution almost impossible to abide by. At the same time, some mechanism must exist whereby some assclown who is writing death threats to people, and it is proven, has their guns taken away by force if necessary. So this one is tricky and I don't have the answer. Whatever system is devised MUST be impartial, and expeditious, and not create undue burden on the gun owner - because we all know there will be abuse in any system like this. It must also be effective at keeping guns out of the hand of legit crazy fucks who want to go harm people. Tough nut.
Ladies and gentlemen, you're Circle Jerk champion.
Kudo'd, 5 starred and nominated.
Although I would add most Pro Lifers are absolutely honest about their end game. That's where the comparison to gun control advocates STOps.
And you still can't even say if a person who commits more violent crime is more dangerous than person who doesn't commit violent crime nor can you answer the question about if there are more poor whites than poor blacks.
You're just stating your feelings.
We already agreed there are more poor whites.
Are you even reading this thread?
Great, then if there are more poor whites why aren't more whites than blacks arrested for murder?
Because black people are more dangerous and there is no other explanation.
But you feel that poor white are more dangerous.
Christ man, this is part of why no one takes you seriously. You rival StrongArm in inability to take an L or give a charitable interpretation of someone's argument.
You'd do yourself a favor if you spent just a bit more time picking your battles than picking fucking nits.
What the fuck are you talking about? That was you're fucking argument. You had no facts you had no data, by your own admission you were just stating your feelings. Go ahead Kunt, the W is all yours. You win who can emote the best.
Lol wrong poaster dude. Makes my point that more relevant.
My mistake, but the point still stands. His "argument" was that he felt whites are more dangerous. He had no data in support of those feelings. If you think that's a winning argument have at it.
And you still can't even say if a person who commits more violent crime is more dangerous than person who doesn't commit violent crime nor can you answer the question about if there are more poor whites than poor blacks.
You're just stating your feelings.
We already agreed there are more poor whites.
Are you even reading this thread?
Great, then if there are more poor whites why aren't more whites than blacks arrested for murder?
Because black people are more dangerous and there is no other explanation.
But you feel that poor white are more dangerous.
Christ man, this is part of why no one takes you seriously. You rival StrongArm in inability to take an L or give a charitable interpretation of someone's argument.
You'd do yourself a favor if you spent just a bit more time picking your battles than picking fucking nits.
What the fuck are you talking about? That was you're fucking argument. You had no facts you had no data, by your own admission you were just stating your feelings. Go ahead Kunt, the W is all yours. You win who can emote the best.
Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
Bc the government can be trusted to do that? It's not like they would ever mass incarcerate a minority population, or allow a group to amass weapons to intimidate another group who they denied weapons to.
Hold on, there's someone from the black panthers here telling me otherwise...
And you still can't even say if a person who commits more violent crime is more dangerous than person who doesn't commit violent crime nor can you answer the question about if there are more poor whites than poor blacks.
You're just stating your feelings.
We already agreed there are more poor whites.
Are you even reading this thread?
Great, then if there are more poor whites why aren't more whites than blacks arrested for murder?
Because black people are more dangerous and there is no other explanation.
But you feel that poor whites are more dangerous. I could be a Kunt and claim that you feel this way on account of their white skin but I'm not a Kunt.
I am racist against white people.
After all these years, I've finally been found out.
Feels good to actually be able to say it, quite honestly.
This really is why I have loved you all these years.
Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
I do agree that we can be cautious, but still expeditious. What I mean is, no typical government bullshit whereby guns are removed for legitimate threat made or whatever on June 7th, first hearing on August 11th, mental health exam on October 1st, second hearing on October 30th, and return of guns after final decisions rendered on December 12th. These cases need to be streamlined and get by all the bullshit red tape - you are depriving someone of their civil liberties every day this drags on. So yes, you can be cautious but still operate in such a way as to say the entire process must conclude in 90 days, or whatever. I just do not want to see this used as a tool by the state to effectively disarm people for years while the system works it out. Figure it out - they are batshit or dangerous or they aren't. If no, return guns immediately, if yes, insane asylum or counseling.
edit: As I said originally this one is super tricky because of all the possible ways this can be used as a tool of the state, a weapon against the populace, or just misused by angry employees, scorned lovers, etc. Tight controls, on the government, are warranted here.
Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
I do agree that we can be cautious, but still expeditious. What I mean is, no typical government bullshit whereby guns are removed for legitimate threat made or whatever on June 7th, first hearing on August 11th, mental health exam on October 1st, second hearing on October 30th, and return of guns after final decisions rendered on December 12th. These cases need to be streamlined and get by all the bullshit red tape - you are depriving someone of their civil liberties every day this drags on. So yes, you can be cautious but still operate in such a way as to say the entire process must conclude in 90 days, or whatever. I just do not want to see this used as a tool by the state to effectively disarm people for years while the system works it out. Figure it out - they are batshit or dangerous or they aren't. If no, return guns immediately, if yes, insane asylum or counseling.
Assumption of innocence, no self crimination, due process, and equal protection can be a real bitch.
Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
Bc the government can be trusted to do that? It's not like they would ever mass incarcerate a minority population, or allow a group to amass weapons to intimidate another group who they denied weapons to.
Hold on, there's someone from the black panthers here telling me otherwise...
Well at some point you have to decide whether your distrust of government is so profound that you don't want background checks at all then. "Governments are instituted among men" to secure our rights, I'm told. Governments sometimes fail to do this. We have free press though.
Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
Bc the government can be trusted to do that? It's not like they would ever mass incarcerate a minority population, or allow a group to amass weapons to intimidate another group who they denied weapons to.
Hold on, there's someone from the black panthers here telling me otherwise...
Well at some point you have to decide whether your distrust of government is so profound that you don't want background checks at all then. "Governments are instituted among men" to secure our rights, I'm told. Governments sometimes fail to do this. We have free press though.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I wouldn't presently trust the Fifth Estate to be of any help in defense of violation of gun-related civil liberties.
And regarding background checks, my experience as a buyer has been fine. It's been far too long since I've bought a long gun but it was easy. I bought a pistol for my wife a while back, and it was simple with my CPL.
And regarding background checks, my experience as a buyer has been fine. It's been far too long since I've bought a long gun but it was easy. I bought a pistol for my wife a while back, and it was simple with my CPL.
In Virginia you get a double check. NICS and the Virginia State Police run a database. If you are a CCW holder though the Virginia database thing is pretty much instant.
I've always wondered why more liberals don't support CCW. I got a background check, fingerprints, and was required to take a gun safety course (waived for military service) to get it. CCW is the BEST tool currently to make sure people using guns are not fuckheads.
Comments
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
Kudo'd, 5 starred and nominated.
Although I would add most Pro Lifers are absolutely honest about their end game. That's where the comparison to gun control advocates STOps.
Hold on, there's someone from the black panthers here telling me otherwise...
edit: As I said originally this one is super tricky because of all the possible ways this can be used as a tool of the state, a weapon against the populace, or just misused by angry employees, scorned lovers, etc. Tight controls, on the government, are warranted here.
Oh, and privacy.
I've always wondered why more liberals don't support CCW. I got a background check, fingerprints, and was required to take a gun safety course (waived for military service) to get it. CCW is the BEST tool currently to make sure people using guns are not fuckheads.