Wayne LaPierre: Background checks won't catch bad guys because they'll simply not buy a gun to avoid being caught. Sen. Durbin: That's the farking point, idiot.

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    This is just soooo dang emblamatic of the ideological ignorance from the compensating-for-a-small-penis crowd it doesn't really need a comment.

     

     

    After National Rifle Association exectuive vice president Wayne LaPierre insisted during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence Wednesday that universal background checks on firearms purchases would be ineffective in stopping criminals, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) sharply admonished the pro-gun lobby chief. 

    "My problem with background checks is you are never going to get criminals to go through universal background checks. And all the law-abiding people, you'll create an enormous federal bureaucracy, unfunded, hitting all the little people in the country, will have to go through it, pay the fees, pay the taxes," LaPierre said. "We don't even prosecute anybody right now that goes through the system we have. So, we're going to make all those law-abiding people go through the system and then we aren't going to prosecute any of the bad guys if they do catch one. None of it makes any sense in the real world. We have 80,000 police families in the NRA. We care about safety. We support what works."

    After a brief interlude by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the committee chairman, Durbin went after LaPierre.

    "Mr. LaPierre, that's the point," Durbin fired back. "The criminals won't go to purchase the guns because there'll be a background check. We'll stop them from original purchase. You missed that point completely. It's basic."

    Durbin's remarks drew applause from some in the audience, prompting Leahy to call for order.



    Background checks won't catch bad guys because they'll simply not buy a gun to avoid being caught

     

    Um.....no shite! Criminals don't buy guns legally to begin with. They steal them or buy them illegally. A criminal isn't dumb enough to buy a gun legally and risk having said gun traced back to them when they commit a crime. So he's right...background checks won't catch bad guys. Background checks aren't going to stop criminals from getting guns anymore than making drugs illegal has stopped people from getting drugs. 

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to Newtster's comment:

    Yeah, the criminals do not buy a gun through the legal process. No shiite Sherlock! They get them on the black market so to speak. Stolen guns. Guns bought legally and then sold outside the system person to person.



    Which is precisely why people suggest not only background checks, but serial numbers on all guns and ammo, all sales registered - whether from a vendor, private, or gun show, and make it a serious criminal offense to sell a gun or ammo without meeting all the requirements.

     

    That would make it way harder for criminals to get guns.

    As is, it's ridiculously easy to send someone to a gun show to get a gun for you, etc.



    The ability for people to buy and sell guns individually is something worth re-examining.  I'm not completely sold, but we do need to take a closer look.

    However, thinking that background checks impede criminals is like saying throwing a pebble in front of a tank will impede it.

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    thinking that background checks impede criminals is like saying throwing a pebble in front of a tank will impede it.



    Which, as I told Newtster, is why we would also need all the other things I mentioned for it to work.

     

     



    I think you underestimate criminals is you think criminals will gladly go through background checks that will limit their ability to buy a gun.  Regardless of what other steps are involved.

     

    Look, i think everyone would like a safer world.  Less guns does not leade to a safer world.  It just shifts the weaponry for the bad guys.  i spent a lot of time in England over the years, and it is correct to say that guns are not a big part of the crime scene.  knives and swords are.

    The problen is not the gun.  It is the criminal, it is the crazy person.  

    But, looking at things like gun show sales makes sense to me.  That is a potential open door for criminals and crazy people.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    thinking that background checks impede criminals is like saying throwing a pebble in front of a tank will impede it.



    Which, as I told Newtster, is why we would also need all the other things I mentioned for it to work.

     

     



    I think you underestimate criminals is you think criminals will gladly go through background checks that will limit their ability to buy a gun.  Regardless of what other steps are involved.

     

    Look, i think everyone would like a safer world.  Less guns does not leade to a safer world.  It just shifts the weaponry for the bad guys.  i spent a lot of time in England over the years, and it is correct to say that guns are not a big part of the crime scene.  knives and swords are.

    The problen is not the gun.  It is the criminal, it is the crazy person.  

    But, looking at things like gun show sales makes sense to me.  That is a potential open door for criminals and crazy people.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    The 2nd Amendment talks about the right to own guns.

     

    It doesn't say anything about how they are accessed, bought and sold.  That is the penultimate question.

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    The 2nd Amendment talks about the right to own guns.

     

    It doesn't say anything about how they are accessed, bought and sold.  That is the penultimate question.

     




    infringed.  That's the key.

    in·fringe Pronunciation (n-frnj)

    v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es

     

    v. tr. 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. 2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

     

    Somewhere there is a line government crosses that equals infringement.  Restricting sales, forcing registration, other gun-control ideas need to be viewed through this lens.

     
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    The 2nd Amendment talks about the right to own guns.

     

    It doesn't say anything about how they are accessed, bought and sold.  That is the penultimate question.

     




    infringed.  That's the key.

    in·fringe Pronunciation (n-frnj)

    v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es

     

    v. tr. 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. 2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

     

    Somewhere there is a line government crosses that equals infringement.  Restricting sales, forcing registration, other gun-control ideas need to be viewed through this lens.

     
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    The 2nd Amendment talks about the right to own guns.

     

    It doesn't say anything about how they are accessed, bought and sold.  That is the penultimate question.

     

     




     

    infringed.  That's the key.

    in·fringe Pronunciation (n-frnj)

    v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es

     

    v. tr. 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. 2. ObsoleteTo defeat; invalidate.

     

    Somewhere there is a line government crosses that equals infringement.  Restricting sales, forcing registration, other gun-control ideas need to be viewed through this lens.

     



    It is admittedly broad language.  Not too different from language pertaining to other rights too.  And yet all rights have their limitations.  Congress is prohibitting the free exercise of religion yet laws that govern harmful religious practices have been upheld.  It cannt abridge the freedom of speech or press and yet you cannot engage in certain harmful practices there either.  Thus regulation of harmful aspects of the right to bear arms are fair game.  But where the legal line is is anybody's guess... 

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    The 2nd Amendment talks about the right to own guns.

     

    It doesn't say anything about how they are accessed, bought and sold.  That is the penultimate question.

     

     




     

    infringed.  That's the key.

    in·fringe Pronunciation (n-frnj)

    v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es

     

    v. tr. 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. 2. ObsoleteTo defeat; invalidate.

     

    Somewhere there is a line government crosses that equals infringement.  Restricting sales, forcing registration, other gun-control ideas need to be viewed through this lens.

     



    It is admittedly broad language.  Not too different from language pertaining to other rights too.  And yet all rights have their limitations.  Congress is prohibitting the free exercise of religion yet laws that govern harmful religious practices have been upheld.  It cannt abridge the freedom of speech or press and yet you cannot engage in certain harmful practices there either.  Thus regulation of harmful aspects of the right to bear arms are fair game.  But where the legal line is is anybody's guess... 

     




    Absolutely.  That's the point.  When someone says "x,y, and z" shouldn't bother anyone as an infringement, it is generally not well thought through. 

    Same with solutions.  As I listen to the solutions tossed around, there is little attention paid to properly defining the problem.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from jedwardnicky. Show jedwardnicky's posts

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    The 2nd Amendment talks about the right to own guns.

     

    It doesn't say anything about how they are accessed, bought and sold.  That is the penultimate question.

     

     




     

    infringed.  That's the key.

    in·fringe Pronunciation (n-frnj)

    v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es

     

    v. tr. 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. 2. ObsoleteTo defeat; invalidate.

     

    Somewhere there is a line government crosses that equals infringement.  Restricting sales, forcing registration, other gun-control ideas need to be viewed through this lens.

     



    It is admittedly broad language.  Not too different from language pertaining to other rights too.  And yet all rights have their limitations.  Congress is prohibitting the free exercise of religion yet laws that govern harmful religious practices have been upheld.  It cannt abridge the freedom of speech or press and yet you cannot engage in certain harmful practices there either.  Thus regulation of harmful aspects of the right to bear arms are fair game.  But where the legal line is is anybody's guess... 

     

     




    Absolutely.  That's the point.  When someone says "x,y, and z" shouldn't bother anyone as an infringement, it is generally not well thought through. 

     

    Same with solutions.  As I listen to the solutions tossed around, there is little attention paid to properly defining the problem.



    So how does "a well REGULATED MILITIA" factor into your equation? Just curious.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from jedwardnicky. Show jedwardnicky's posts

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    The 2nd Amendment talks about the right to own guns.

     

    It doesn't say anything about how they are accessed, bought and sold.  That is the penultimate question.

     

     




     

    infringed.  That's the key.

    in·fringe Pronunciation (n-frnj)

    v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es

     

    v. tr. 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. 2. ObsoleteTo defeat; invalidate.

     

    Somewhere there is a line government crosses that equals infringement.  Restricting sales, forcing registration, other gun-control ideas need to be viewed through this lens.

     



    It is admittedly broad language.  Not too different from language pertaining to other rights too.  And yet all rights have their limitations.  Congress is prohibitting the free exercise of religion yet laws that govern harmful religious practices have been upheld.  It cannt abridge the freedom of speech or press and yet you cannot engage in certain harmful practices there either.  Thus regulation of harmful aspects of the right to bear arms are fair game.  But where the legal line is is anybody's guess... 

     

     




    Absolutely.  That's the point.  When someone says "x,y, and z" shouldn't bother anyone as an infringement, it is generally not well thought through. 

     

    Same with solutions.  As I listen to the solutions tossed around, there is little attention paid to properly defining the problem.



    So how does "a well REGULATED MILITIA" factor into your equation? Just curious.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    The 2nd Amendment talks about the right to own guns.

     

    It doesn't say anything about how they are accessed, bought and sold.  That is the penultimate question.

     

     




     

    infringed.  That's the key.

    in·fringe Pronunciation (n-frnj)

    v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es

     

    v. tr. 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. 2. ObsoleteTo defeat; invalidate.

     

    Somewhere there is a line government crosses that equals infringement.  Restricting sales, forcing registration, other gun-control ideas need to be viewed through this lens.

     



    It is admittedly broad language.  Not too different from language pertaining to other rights too.  And yet all rights have their limitations.  Congress is prohibitting the free exercise of religion yet laws that govern harmful religious practices have been upheld.  It cannt abridge the freedom of speech or press and yet you cannot engage in certain harmful practices there either.  Thus regulation of harmful aspects of the right to bear arms are fair game.  But where the legal line is is anybody's guess... 

     

     




    Absolutely.  That's the point.  When someone says "x,y, and z" shouldn't bother anyone as an infringement, it is generally not well thought through. 

     

    Same with solutions.  As I listen to the solutions tossed around, there is little attention paid to properly defining the problem.

     



    So how does "a well REGULATED MILITIA" factor into your equation? Just curious.

     



    It means "the people".  At least that is what the founding fathers, the one's who penned those words meant.  If you are truly curious, look up George Mason.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    The 2nd Amendment talks about the right to own guns.

     

    It doesn't say anything about how they are accessed, bought and sold.  That is the penultimate question.

     

     




     

    infringed.  That's the key.

    in·fringe Pronunciation (n-frnj)

    v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es

     

    v. tr. 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. 2. ObsoleteTo defeat; invalidate.

     

    Somewhere there is a line government crosses that equals infringement.  Restricting sales, forcing registration, other gun-control ideas need to be viewed through this lens.

     



    It is admittedly broad language.  Not too different from language pertaining to other rights too.  And yet all rights have their limitations.  Congress is prohibitting the free exercise of religion yet laws that govern harmful religious practices have been upheld.  It cannt abridge the freedom of speech or press and yet you cannot engage in certain harmful practices there either.  Thus regulation of harmful aspects of the right to bear arms are fair game.  But where the legal line is is anybody's guess... 

     

     




    Absolutely.  That's the point.  When someone says "x,y, and z" shouldn't bother anyone as an infringement, it is generally not well thought through. 

     

    Same with solutions.  As I listen to the solutions tossed around, there is little attention paid to properly defining the problem.

     



    So how does "a well REGULATED MILITIA" factor into your equation? Just curious.

     



    It means "the people".  At least that is what the founding fathers, the one's who penned those words meant.  If you are truly curious, look up George Mason.

     
Sections
Shortcuts