1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mass shooting on campus in Oregon

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Gator, Oct 1, 2015.

  1. BDC99

    BDC99 Well-Known Member

    You think you got me, but you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. I have never heard that term in relation to anything other than gum shows in relation to this issue. I explained twice why I used it, probably erroneously, but it still fits. I don't fucking parrot talking points. I state what I believe. Go troll someone else with your bullshit.
     
  2. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Yeah. That was my point.

    You don't like Stop, Question, and Frisk, and think it violates the 4th Amendment? Fine.

    But, don't tell me in your next breath that we should do everything possible to curb gun violence. Don't tell me that various measures are worth taking if they will SAVE ONE LIFE!

    Don't tell me that your proposals to violate the 2nd Amendment are reasonable, and worth it, even though they will have little impact, but refuse to consider something that we know has saved thousands of lives.
     
    old_tony likes this.
  3. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    Ah. OK. No problem.
     
  4. BDC99

    BDC99 Well-Known Member

    How the fuck do you know this? And little impact would be better than the current scenario. And how is regulating guns violating the Second Amendment? Can someone explain why "well-regulated" has no meaning? Anyways, it's more important to me that everyone have freedom to walk down the street without having to be accosted by the police than everyone owning an arsenal.
     
  5. Smallpotatoes

    Smallpotatoes Well-Known Member

    Just a throwaway line I like to use when people talk about smoker's rights.
     
  6. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    You specifically referred to the Roof case, and said that he got his gun because of a "loophole":

    But none of the reports at the time that we learned of the mistakes that allowed him to purchase a gun called it a loophole. The FBI didn't. The Times didn't. CNN didn't.

    You called it a loophole because gun control advocates decided sometime between Charleston and four days ago that calling it a loophole would be advantageous.

    Now, you can tell me all you want that that you don't parrot talking points. That you don't think you do is irrelevant. You do. You did. You didn't spontaneously decide on your own that this was a loophole at the exact same time that gun control advocates decided to term it a loophole.

    You were sold.

    You're the guy who doesn't think advertising works on him, and then you purchase a product while unwittingly humming that product's jingle to yourself.
     
  7. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    And, btw, before responding, take a breath and try to not use "fucking" or "bullshit" in your reply, and try to type "gun" and not "gum".
     
  8. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    To me, it's not a smoker's rights issue, it's a property-owner's rights issue.
     
  9. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    We weren't talking about the "guns how loophole". We were talking about the newly coined "background check loophole" that allows a gun sale to proceed without a background check being fully completed.

    You're also wrong about gun shows.

    Most gun show purchases do require a background check. That's because if your a federal firearms licensee, "who sells guns at a gun show, you are required by law to either process a background check prior to the sale of a gun, or you must confirm, usually by examining a concealed carry permit or a purchase permit (both of which require background checks), that a buyer is not legally prohibited from purchasing or possessing a gun."

    Hillary's 'Gun Show Loophole' Proposal Is A Joke
     
  10. Smallpotatoes

    Smallpotatoes Well-Known Member

    OK, it was a feeble attempt at humor on my part. I'll admit.
     
  11. BDC99

    BDC99 Well-Known Member

    I fucking knew you would seize on that typo. I absolutely fucking knew it. That's why I didn't edit. Go play your gotcha bullshit on someone else. You got jack shit on me.
     
  12. JayFarrar

    JayFarrar Well-Known Member

    Umm, yeah, you don't need a federal firearms license to sell guns at a gun show. They are covered under private purchase that depending on the locale, doesn't require background checks of any sort.

    But that also assumes the ATF has the resources and manpower to actually police the shows and private sales. And since they don't, the guy selling guns just takes a chance that he won't get busted for not being an FFL.

    Also private sales account for 40 percent of gun transactions annually.

    So what people really mean by closing the gun show loophole is not allowing private sales and enforcing the existing laws at the shows.

    Personally, I wish gun shows would go away. But that's for another day.
     
    BDC99 likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page