Project Gunrunner

Yes, correct. Your hypocrisy on this HAS disappointed me. I had much higher hopes for you.

OK, good. Now we're getting somewhere. Unfortunately, it's taken you some ten posts or so to finally admit to this noble goal; to try to constitutionally address the illegal gun market. While you ARE correct in that there are some laws on the books currently that do address this, it IS disappointing that it has taken you so long since I first asked you; "Given the link that the legal and illegal gun markets share as to the criminal access to guns (as was already patiently explained to you), any attempt to constitutionally address the crossover from legal to illegal markets should be encouraged, no?", to honestly address this question forthrightly.
http://www.politicalforum.com/gun-control/179244-project-gunrunner-11.html#post3748225

In other words, if there were something else that hadn't been previously thought of to legally address this problem, I'm sure that you would have an open mind. Correct?

I see. Of course this is a far cry from your original accusations that Obama was "biased against the Second Amendment", or that Obama believed that our Constitution was "fundamentally flawed". I'm glad that you have fallen back from your hyperbole, but it is important to clarify that the President has NOT shown himself to be against the 2nd Amendment and has actually stated the reverse; that he supports it.

One has NOTHING to do with the other, friend.

His disagreement with the Warren Court or any other Court, for that matter is just that:...............a disagreement on constitutional grounds. This is precisely what our country is all about; an open and honest exchange of ideas and philosophies. Nothing more. You're looking for a conspiracy where one does NOT exist.

Unfortunately, you have chosen to go outside of these parameters and use dishonest avenues of discussion by using smears, distortions and outright untruths. I showed you above that you falsely accused him of saying that our Constitution was "fundamentally flawed" when he did NOT.You also took comments he made out of context concerning "charter of negative liberties". You CAN aim a little higher, I'm sure of it.

 

What's God got to do with it? Ha, is he a Republican?

Calling his nominees "activist" does not make them so, friend. On the other hand we have a record to look at in regards to our conservative Court as to "activism". I guess FOX news doesn't talk much about that? You might want to expand your horizons then.

Ha!. That's rich. I just showed you how their very first "FACT" was a contortion and suppositions as to Obama's motivations. You could find a much more reputable organization to hanging your hat on, I'm afraid. If you're honestly concerned about "FACTS", then you wouldn't be advertising FOX news and singing the praises of the NRA while dismissing relevant science. No, I think "FACTS" are truly not your overriding concern.

 

That makes me sad because your opinion means so much to me.

Now you are disappointing me, my friend. You continue to avoid giving examples of how you wish to address the illegal gun market in a Constitutional way.

I may have taken his words out of context, but I still believe that Obama is anti-Second Amendment.

His Senatorial voting record is not very pro-Second Amendment. His Administration has a history of being anti-Second Amendment.

Obama is going to re-visit gun control in the near future. His actions will determine his true stance on the Second Amendment.

Remember, as I have told you before, he cannot come out against the Second Amendment because he swore to protect and defend it. We'll see if he can walk the walk. Talk is cheap. Obama has proven that.

 

I never said that they weren't. I just know that the two recent appointees are anti-Second Amendment.

You proved nothing. They are all facts backed-up with sources.

Did you like the John Stossel video, or is that a lie too?

 

That's old news. I've given some 4 or 5 examples in another post recently. When you cannot answer a simple question as to having an open mind, then I can see no benefit to hearing your knee-jerk and baseless dismissals, as you have already firmly demonstrated here. The important thing is that you have finally admitted that the legal and illegal gun markets are inextricably linked and can now see that Reiver's idea about shared costs has some validity.

Ah yeah,........ you sure DID, and you also falsely attributed a quote to him that he did NOT say. Hardly an honorable endeavor, no?

Perhaps you could be helpful in telling us your definition of "anti-Second Amendment". You give me the impression that anyone who espouses a belief in stricter gun laws (the plurality of Americans) is somehow "ant-Second Amendment". Given that our rights are not without limitations, you might be using a unique yardstick to falsely paint those with whom you disagree.

 

Again with the; "anti-Second Amendment". Quite a broad brush you're using there friend.

On the contrary, I showed how they (the NRA) used innuendo to imply something that cannot be ascertained from the "facts". Did the president oppose those nominations based on their positions on guns, or did he oppose their nominations based on their right wing activism? Only the president can honestly answer that question, but history points to the later as a much more probable assumption.

They also used fear-based innuendo in their third "Fact". Here they once again use assumptions as to motivations that they cannot know. In this particular "fact" they claim that "Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry", which is misleading on many levels. First, they mislead by implying that he voted to allow something which he did NOT do. He voted AGAINST allowing a unique and special exemption to the gun industry that does not exist anywhere else in our country. Secondly, they assigned a motivation saying that his vote was "designed to bankrupt the firearms industry", which borders on the absurd. Really.

If you really intend to call this NRA tripe "factual", then don't take my word for it. Check 'Factcheck' on this. They highlight some other problems with this so-called "fact" list.

Allow me to answer that with a question to you: Do you honestly feel that piece was balanced, objective and fair?

Don't waste my time.

 

Ayuh,... It's Truthful...

How is it Not balanced, objective and fair,..??

 

Dodging my question I see.

I never said that the legal and illegal gun markets are linked or that Reiver made a ny sense at all with his shared costs crap.

I just said that the illegal market needs to be addressed, but it already is.

Making it harder for law-abiding citizens to get guns.

Making it harder for law-abiding citizens to get ammo.

Making it harder for law-abiding citizens to carry for protection.

None of which address the illegal gun market.

 

So be it. Certainly not pro-Second Amendment.

You opinions do not change the facts.

Factcheck.org...really?

Yes.

 

In other words, then the plurality of Americans are "anti-Second Amendment" by your definition.

Interesting.
Since I'm sure that Americans have a different view on this than you, I'll take your "anti-Second Amendment" accusations with the knowledge of their source.

 

You're not paying attention. I outlined for you a logical argument showing the flaws in two of the NRA's "facts", AND a link showing the flaws in other so-called NRA "facts". Your 'argument from ignorance' will not change this reality.

In the meantime, we all can see that I wasn't offering "opinion", but a logical argument, and patiently awaiting the same from yourself. The rest of us know the difference.

'nuff said.

 

I would bet most Americans, myself included of course, would like to see the Second Amendment protected, whether or not they engage it it. Politicians do not like to get involved with legislation that may seem anti-Second Amendment. Gun control will be visited again by this Administration in the near future. We'll see how it plays out.

 

First off, I don't buy your argument, and second, factcheck.org is not exactly a reliable, unbiased source.

 

Yes, of course. This is my point exactly! There is a whole chasm between your definition of "anti-Second Amendment" and where most Americans positions are concerning the right. Most believe in the right, yet also believe in stricter regulations. A reality that you have been oblivious to thus far.

 

My, what a strong comeback! You don't "buy" my argument, but you can't actually offer a cogent argument why. You must have worked a long time on that one.


As to 'factcheck', I find your 'argument by dismissal' response fairly predictable. You once again fail to address the specifics in favor of blanket denials and 'poisoning the well' fallacies.

Weak, really. But then again, you already knew that.

 

If they believe in the Second Amendment, then most would also realize that more gun control may just infringe upon that right, while doing nothing to curtail illegal gun activity.

 

You don't buy my arguments.

I don't buy your arguments.

We can at least agree to disagree, as they say.

Factcheck.org does not have the best associations. That is why I do not trust that site.

 

Then your conclusion would be wrong. You could refer here where they found that even though "Gun owners and gun carriers are much less supportive of measures to regulate guns and bar criminals from buying guns than non-gun owners/carriers are, but majorities of both owners and carriers still back most of the proposals to regulate firearms."

It's a free country, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but when you claim that anyone who is for stricter gun laws is "anti-Second Amendment", then your position in any gun debate is positioned from a far right and radical realm. Any gun discussion with you should take this information into account.

 

No, once again, I have laid out a logical argument that shows your unquestioning belief in the NRA's so-called "facts" are grossly misplaced. On the other hand YOU have only offered a weak; "nu uh".

You really must try getting your nose out of FOX news and the right wing web sites. Factcheck has a good track record, as do other fact checking sites. Keep an open mind, friend.

 

Ayuh,.... Ya couldn't find a more progressive source, could ya,..??

That study is bias, as of page 3, the Introduction...

 

Sure, most support common-sense regulations that do not actually infringe on the second-amendment for law-abiding citizens.

From your study: "First, in all but two of the 27 comparisons there are statistically significant differences. In this sense there is little consensus between gun owners and non-gun owners on firearms and how they should be regulated."

 

It goes both ways, buddy.

 

Ayuh,....Ayuh,...Ayuh,....Ayuh,...Ayuh,........I'm still hoping you'll actually contribute something relevant here.

Ayuh.**

 

That's right, but their definition as to what constitutes "anti-Second Amendment" is obviously not the same as YOURS. I'm sure that you refered to the specifics of the regulations they asked the respondents about? "Infringement" tends to have a different meaning to zealots like yourself than the rest of us Americans (including gun owners).

Really? And how does that trump this?;

"Gun owners and gun carriers are much less supportive of measures to regulate guns and bar criminals from buying guns than non-gun owners/carriers are, but majorities of both owners and carriers still back most of the proposals to regulate firearms."
​

Are you REALLY trying to take their survey out of context? Really?

 

I see,.....more with the 'nu uh'.


Strong argument, that.