• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing gun violence/injury thread

RJKarl said:
It's not that simple and you know it. My bad, you don't know it because you were told it wasn't so.

The steady decline in violent crime has been a trend for longer than the recent spike in gun sales. To even put them into the same paragraph is an intentional effort to make it causal.

It's like saying, "Joe many not be a pedophile, but he sure likes kids." What do you think people will think about Joe?

Your simplistic methodology may work on gun extremists like you, but won't work here.
Click to expand...


Actually, I used your typical "if you believe/do not believe in X, then you are/are not Y" just to see if you would respond. Well done...
 
I feel like I have read 10 pages of RJ vs. elkman and I have absolutely no idea what point either of them is trying to make or what exactly they are arguing about.
 
Deacon923 said:
I feel like I have read 10 pages of RJ vs. elkman and I have absolutely no idea what point either of them is trying to make or what exactly they are arguing about.
Click to expand...

He's arguing for the status quo.

He's saying if you can't stop all crime there's no reason to create legitimate laws that will stop some.

He's saying the the gun industry doesn't have special status regarding liability. Of course everyone but the gun industry says he's wrong.

He's saying a gun registry will lead to confiscation.

He's saying that in spite the indisputable evidence from the sites that stopping to reload saved lives in Tuscon, Newtown and in other mass shootings that we shouldn't limit magazines and that magazines are covered by the 2nd Amendment (that's really bizarre).

My guess is most of the board is on my side.
 
I've skimmed. I agree with RJ. Elkman is just talking in circles. I don't know why a registry would be illegal (other than NRA and gun lobby), I have no idea why background checks wouldn't be a normal idea (other than NRA post 1999 and gun lobby), and I have no idea why a group of people within the country have taken up a literal call to arms to defend their right to own a deadly weapon which killed over 31,000 people in 2011.
 
"Five people have been killed in shootings at an apartment complex south of the US city of Seattle, police say."
 
He also believes banning expanded magazines is unconstitutional. That's just nuts.

#s as I said earlier a registry (which Manchin-Toomey would ban) is a perfectly logical reading of the 2nd Amendment.
"A well regulated militia being necessary" -for that militia to be effective it would be logical to know what weapons militia members had.

I'd like to thank 923 and barca for proving a theory I've put forth dozens of times. If I say it people just say "RJ said it" even when they agree with what I said.
 
I do sometimes agree with you. The problem is a lot of the time you're incoherent, so i don't know whether to agree or not. Sorry.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
There is nothing on this thread I've said that is "incoherent". I bet I've used over a dozen sources on this thread. What I've said is clear and direct.

Your laziness is the problem. Like you often do, you start out with the premise "I'm better than RJ and can take cheap shots."
 
no I agree with him, and I agree with you on your positions, but the latest series of posts between you and elkman are incoherent.
 
Of my last ten posts to him five are sources like The Atlantic and Esquire.

Here are some others:

Re; Strawman purchases after posting articles proving this
"There is no federal law. Why does the NRA oppose such laws?"
____________________________________________________

"The National Review is far right."
_____________________________________

"Because the NRA says no and the Congress doesn't have the balls to do what's right. Every sale or transfer should have a background check and there should be a record of it.

anyone who thinks a sales registry will lead to "confiscation" is a crazy person."

The post about AQ could be seen as instigating, but that's the one one that doesn't make sense.

The proof is the posts. They show your position is the lazy one of "I can say whatever I want about RJ and people will support it regardless of whether it's true."
 
On the subject of "moral authority...."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guns-west-20130422,0,1352210.story

HELENA, Mont. — Stephen Watt is no stranger to gun violence. In 1982, as a 26-year-old Wyoming state trooper, he stopped a fleeing bank robber who pumped five bullets into Watt before leaving him for dead on an empty stretch of highway.

Watt lost his left eye and a good chunk of his liver. He has a bullet lodged in his spine, which still causes pain, and uses crutches and a wheelchair to get around.

Despite all that, Watt is a fierce opponent of gun control, convinced it doesn't work. "Never has," he said. "Never will."

Watt, a Republican state representative in Wyoming, is one of a number of legislators across the country who've countered the push for tougher federal gun laws by advocating more lenient state standards and, in some cases, open defiance of Washington.
 
A buddy of mine has a NIB Delton AR-15 for sale. Asking 825.00 for it. PM if interested.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I've skimmed. I agree with RJ. Elkman is just talking in circles. I don't know why a registry would be illegal (other than NRA and gun lobby), I have no idea why background checks wouldn't be a normal idea (other than NRA post 1999 and gun lobby), and I have no idea why a group of people within the country have taken up a literal call to arms to defend their right to own a deadly weapon which killed over 31,000 people in 2011.
Click to expand...

A national registry is against the law due to the Brady Law, which was a compromise which led to instant background checks.

I have stated that if a ban on private sales is the goal, background checks should be easy. Is there a problem with what Coburn suggested?

Where do you get 31000 if you do not include suicides?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top