Never let a good crisis go to waste!

[koalabear]

Reid Introduces Ammunition Background Check Bill

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ground-checks-for-ammunition/?fb_source=pubv1

 

[Sean Renaud]

Good job Harry. Can't believe that shit isn't regulated already.

 

[koalabear]

Good job Harry. Can't believe that shit isn't regulated already.

"It defies common sense that anyone, even a terrorist, can walk into a store in America and buy explosive powders without a background check or any questions asked," Lautenberg said Tuesday. "Requiring a background check for an explosives permit is a small price to pay to ensure the safety of our communities.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...heck-requirement-for-explosives#ixzz2RPiMUdkH
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook


Same lame line different subject, same chance of passing.

 

[Phelia]

Why on earth are some people so opposed to background checks? If it's true that "guns don't kill people; people kill people," then it strikes me as a pretty good justification for checking the people before we give them guns, non?

 

[koalabear]

Why on earth are some people so opposed to background checks? If it's true that "guns don't kill people; people kill people," then it strikes me as a pretty good justification for checking the people before we give them guns, non?

Did you get a background check before posting?

 

[Phelia]

Did you get a background check before posting?

False equivalency is false. C'mon now. That's a content-free non-response, and I'd appreciate a real one.

 

[koalabear]

False equivalency is false. C'mon now. That's a content-free non-response, and I'd appreciate a real one.

"It would also require a permit to make homemade explosives, and direct the government to study how to better trace the use of explosive powders."

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...w-background-check-requirement-for-explosives

it's just about the money, go get a permit.

 

[Sean]

False equivalency is false. C'mon now. That's a content-free non-response, and I'd appreciate a real one.

Good luck with that.

 

[remy_lebeau8]

Well...I'm fucked. Shit like that is gonna kill my hobby

 

[koalabear]

Good luck with that.

Hi MORON.

 

[Sean Renaud]

"It defies common sense that anyone, even a terrorist, can walk into a store in America and buy explosive powders without a background check or any questions asked," Lautenberg said Tuesday. "Requiring a background check for an explosives permit is a small price to pay to ensure the safety of our communities.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...heck-requirement-for-explosives#ixzz2RPiMUdkH
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook


Same lame line different subject, same chance of passing.

Oh it's not going to pass. Americans don't actually care about the casualties of terrorism, certainly not enough to start disarming to be safer. It's a wasted crisis because there is no crisis.

"It would also require a permit to make homemade explosives, and direct the government to study how to better trace the use of explosive powders."

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...w-background-check-requirement-for-explosives

Sounds good to me, but it's not happening.

it's just about the money, go get a permit.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Phelia]

"It would also require a permit to make homemade explosives, and direct the government to study how to better trace the use of explosive powders."

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...w-background-check-requirement-for-explosives

it's just about the money, go get a permit.

Despite the fact that I still don't really see how that's objectionable, I was asking about background checks specifically. Do you think the senate was right to vote down the background check legislation last week?

 

[koalabear]

Oh it's not going to pass. Americans don't actually care about the casualties of terrorism, certainly not enough to start disarming to be safer. It's a wasted crisis because there is no crisis.

What! We must ban everything that can be harmful!

 

[koalabear]

Despite the fact that I still don't really see how that's objectionable, I was asking about background checks specifically. Do you think the senate was right to vote down the background check legislation last week?

They voted as their constituents wanted, not as the anti-gunners wanted. Yes they were right to vote it down.

 

[HankSlocum]

What! We must ban everything that can be harmful!

 

[Phelia]

Because we like our freedom.

Again, this is totally content free. You know as well as I do that there's no such thing as absolute freedom. Of course there are restrictions on how you can live your life. No, you can't build a nuclear reactor in your garage. No, you can't casually expose your genitals while you shop for groceries. Does that impinge on your freedom to do whatever the fuck you want? Sure. Those are the kinds of freedoms that are exchanged for living in a civilized society where freedom is relative and needs to be fairly and thoughtfully prioritized.

To me, the freedom to live in a society where violent, unstable criminals don't have legal access to firearms is pretty important, and no argument against it has been compelling enough to warrant the senate vote. Especially not trite, reductive slogans.

 

[Sean]

They voted as their constituents wanted, not as the anti-gunners wanted. Yes they were right to vote it down.

No, they voted how their paymasters wanted. 85% of their constituents approved of the legislation.

 

[koalabear]

Again, this is totally content free. You know as well as I do that there's no such thing as absolute freedom. Of course there are restrictions on how you can live your life. No, you can't build a nuclear reactor in your garage. No, you can't casually expose your genitals while you shop for groceries. Does that impinge on your freedom to do whatever the fuck you want? Sure. Those are the kinds of freedoms that are exchanged for living in a civilized society where freedom is relative and needs to be fairly and thoughtfully prioritized.

To me, the freedom to live in a society where violent, unstable criminals don't have legal access to firearms than the freedom is pretty important, and no argument against it has been compelling enough to warrant the senate vote. Especially not trite, reductive slogans.

You are pretty stupid or just do not no the gun laws.

 

[koalabear]

No, they voted how their paymasters wanted. 85% of their constituents approved of the legislation.

Fuck off tea bag loser.

 

[Sean]

You are pretty stupid or just do not no the gun laws.

Quoted for irony.

 

[koalabear]

Quoted for irony.

See what you are good for.

 

[Phelia]

They voted as their constituents wanted, not as the anti-gunners wanted. Yes they were right to vote it down.

Totally untrue. Like Sean said, the public was overwhelmingly supportive of background checks. I've heard it put as high as 91%.

 

[koalabear]

Totally untrue. Like Sean said, the public was overwhelmingly supportive of background checks. I've heard it put as high as 91%.

Bloomberg said, sean read it and apparently you believe it.

 

[Phelia]

You are pretty stupid or just do not no the gun laws.

Oops! You did catch a typo! I've edited my original post, but I don't think it had too much bearing on the general message I was trying convey, so please do enlighten those of us who aren't yet in the no: which element of gun control legislation am I meant to have wildly misunderstood?