• 5 dead in shooting spree in Yuma County Arizona
    65 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Bigby Wolf;30211559]Not being allowed to dance at the Jefferson Memorial is a blatant violation of constitutional rights, but that happened. Why not this? You seem to forget that if the government really wants it to happen, it's going to happen. *cough*WMDinIraq*cough*[/QUOTE] I don't think the government has any reason to remove the right to bear arms you're starting to sound paranoid now
[QUOTE=JDK721;30211664]I don't think the government has any reason to remove the right to bear arms you're starting to sound paranoid now[/QUOTE] Paranoia can be justified when there's a reasonable amount of evidence to support what you're paranoid about.
[QUOTE=Canesfan;30211661]When you're trying to sell something like that and make money, you're not going to go hunting and pecking LOOKING for reasons why you shouldn't be able to sell it. Especially with a tone like that, there's no way anyone would have reason to believe they were being serious. You're watching this KNOWING that it's an undercover sting, looking for reasons they're guilty of something. At the time no one would have thought anything of it, and if you were in his place at the time you'd have done the same thing.[/QUOTE] why the fuck do you keep mentioning the tone of their voice? they clearly said they couldn't pass a background check, and they were being dead serious. many of the sellers acknowledged what they said, so you know they heard them. [QUOTE=Canesfan;30211661]if you were in his place at the time you'd have done the same thing.[/QUOTE] bullshit if someone told me they couldn't pass a background check then I'd refuse to sell to them. I obey the law, and I'm not risking going to prison over a few hundred dollars. [editline]2nd June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Bigby Wolf;30211692]Paranoia can be justified when there's a reasonable amount of evidence to support what you're paranoid about.[/QUOTE] there's absolutely no evidence that the government has any intention of voiding the right to bear arms
[QUOTE=JDK721;30210877]uhh, these are undercover officers who are specifically seeing whether people will sell to them after telling them they're not legally eligible to own firearms here are the two videos: [url]http://youtu.be/_jZupCp0q1M[/url] [url]http://youtu.be/SkBKRxSrCzU[/url][/QUOTE] are you joking? anyone who said "ha yeah i probably wouldnt pass one, you know what i mean" would be taken as joking. i know youve probably never been to a gunshow because guns are scary and only stupid rednecks own guns, but the people there are friendly and joke about things like this all the time. the only people who would be convinced by these videos are people who are completely oblivious to the fact that people joke. if the cop said he was charged with a violent crime or he had just murdered his wife, yeah, hes probably not a suitable buyer, joking about not passing a background check is hardly evidence. by the way: i was AT that show. the cops were acting like complete idiots and most people were staring at them because they purposefully acted like outlandish fools to try and make the video seem shocking.
[QUOTE=JDK721;30211711]why the fuck do you keep mentioning the tone of their voice? they clearly said they couldn't pass a background check, and they were being dead serious. many of the sellers acknowledged what they said, so you know they heard them. bullshit if someone told me they couldn't pass a background check then I'd refuse to sell to them. I obey the law, and I'm not risking going to prison over a few hundred dollars. [editline]2nd June 2011[/editline] there's absolutely no evidence that the government has any intention of voiding the right to bear arms[/QUOTE] "Sir, do you have any weapons on you?" "Only a few rocket launchers, and the nuke in the trunk." Clearly grounds for arrest on suspicion of being a terrorist.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;30211729]are you joking? anyone who said "ha yeah i probably wouldnt pass one, you know what i mean" would be taken as joking. i know youve probably never been to a gunshow because guns are scary and only stupid rednecks own guns, but the people there are friendly and joke about things like this all the time. the only people who would be convinced by these videos are people who are completely oblivious to the fact that people joke. if the cop said he was charged with a violent crime or he had just murdered his wife, yeah, hes probably not a suitable buyer, joking about not passing a background check is hardly evidence. by the way: i was AT that show. the cops were acting like complete idiots and most people were staring at them because they purposefully acted like outlandish fools to try and make the video seem shocking.[/QUOTE] federal law states that if a private gun seller has any reason to believe the buyer is prohibited from owning guns then they must cease the transaction these sellers had reason to believe the buyers were prohibited and yet still sold them the gun one person even replied with "I don't care." that indicates that he didn't see it as a joke.
[QUOTE=JDK721;30211884]federal law states that if a private gun seller has any reason to believe the buyer is prohibited from owning guns then they must cease the transaction these sellers had reason to believe the buyers were prohibited and yet still sold them the gun one person even replied with "I don't care." that indicates that he didn't see it as a joke.[/QUOTE] no, it indicates that hes playing along with the joke clearly i cant win this argument because youre so firmly rooted in your belief that jokes dont exist, so chalk this one up as a win. meanwhile ill enjoy the benefits of being a rational human being.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;30211939]no, it indicates that hes playing along with the joke clearly i cant win this argument because youre so firmly rooted in your belief that jokes dont exist, so chalk this one up as a win. meanwhile ill enjoy the benefits of being a rational human being.[/QUOTE] responding with "I don't care" to a "joke" is playing along with it? what the transactions should've been voided once he said something like that. if anything, they should've at least asked him if he was joking. these people clearly don't give a shit whether the buyers are allowed to legally own firearms or not; they're in it to make as much money as possible. they're also committing another felony because they're private sellers who are engaged in the business of firearms.
[QUOTE=JDK721;30212017]responding with "I don't care" to a "joke" is playing along with it? what the transactions should've been voided once he said something like that. if anything, they should've at least asked him if he was joking. these people clearly don't give a shit whether the buyers are allowed to legally own firearms or not; they're in it to make as much money as possible. they're also committing another felony because they're private sellers who are engaged in the business of firearms.[/QUOTE] Why not try reading up on the whole law instead of one snipped out section that a biased source put in a video. You're just as bad as a Christian who lives by a few sentences out of the bible that they like.
[QUOTE=Bigby Wolf;30212142]Why not try reading up on the whole law instead of one snipped out section that a biased source put in a video. You're just as bad as a Christian who lives by a few sentences out of the bible that they like.[/QUOTE] here's what the video referenced: [quote]It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person - (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien - (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who (!2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that - (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.[/quote] [url]http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922[/url]
[QUOTE=JDK721;30212333]here's what the video referenced: [url]http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922[/url][/QUOTE] "No background check right, I probably couldn't pass one myself!" doesn't imply that the person is or may have: [quote](2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien - (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who (!2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that - (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.[/quote] They were being intentionally overdramatic, which implies sarcasm, as I said before.
[QUOTE=Bigby Wolf;30212403]"No background check right, I probably couldn't pass one myself!" doesn't imply that the person is or may have:[/QUOTE] yes it does, because those are the things that would be checked when a licensed dealer requested a background check on a potential gun buyer what do you think the guy is referring to when he says he probably can't pass a background check? he's saying in other terms that he cannot legally own a firearm.
[QUOTE=JDK721;30212484]yes it does, because those are the things that would be checked when a licensed dealer requested a background check on a potential gun buyer what do you think the guy is referring to when he says he probably can't pass a background check? he's saying in other terms that he cannot legally own a firearm.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Bigby Wolf;30211748]"Sir, do you have any weapons on you?" "Only a few rocket launchers, and the nuke in the trunk." Clearly grounds for arrest on suspicion of being a terrorist.[/QUOTE]
completely different scenario that has no relevance to this discussion
No, not really, both situations have the person who would be at fault using a sarcastic remark to imply that they're breaking the law while they really aren't. If anything the people that bought the guns are at fault for something unless they really were arizona residents.
[QUOTE=Bigby Wolf;30212529]No, not really[/QUOTE] are you going to refute my points or just keep posting an irrelevant comparison
[QUOTE=JDK721;30212548]are you going to refute my points or just keep posting an irrelevant comparison[/QUOTE] The comparison is using a real world example to disprove your point, you're the one that keeps regressing back to the same argument
[QUOTE=Bigby Wolf;30212529]If anything the people that bought the guns are at fault for something unless they really were arizona residents.[/QUOTE] if these weren't police officers undercover then yes they'd be at fault, but the sellers are at fault as well for selling a firearm to a person they have reason to believe is prohibited from owning one
[QUOTE=JDK721;30212548]are you going to refute my points or just keep posting an irrelevant comparison[/QUOTE] his comparison DID refute your points. just because you ignored it doesn't mean they don't exist or are any less valid
[QUOTE=Bigby Wolf;30212564]The comparison is using a real world example to disprove your point, you're the one that keeps regressing back to the same argument[/QUOTE] your comparison didn't refute anything and is a completely different situation than this. it's obvious that the person is joking around because the chances of a person having rocket launchers and a nuke in their car are slim to none. [editline]2nd June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Kopimi;30212615]his comparison DID refute your points. just because you ignored it doesn't mean they don't exist or are any less valid[/QUOTE] nope
[QUOTE=JDK721;30212665]your comparison didn't refute anything and is a completely different situation than this. it's obvious that the person is joking around because the chances of a person having rocket launchers and a nuke in their car are slim to none. [editline]2nd June 2011[/editline] nope[/QUOTE] so because IN YOUR OPINION one situation is OBVIOUSLY a joke but the other is not, you're right? for a while i figured you were just wrong, but now i see that you're just stupid.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;30212694]so because IN YOUR OPINION one situation is OBVIOUSLY a joke but the other is not, you're right? for a while i figured you were just wrong, but now i see that you're just stupid.[/QUOTE] I already explained why it was a terrible comparison and obviously a situation where the person would be joking are you gonna refute what I said or just call me stupid
[QUOTE=JDK721;30212737]I already explained why it was a terrible comparison and obviously a situation where the person would be joking are you gonna refute what I said or just call me stupid[/QUOTE] No, you said that in your opinion I'm wrong even though I've made a valid comparison, and continue to blindly say "LALALALA I'M RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG!"
[QUOTE=Bigby Wolf;30212759]No, you said that in your opinion I'm wrong even though I've made a valid comparison, and continue to blindly say "LALALALA I'M RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG!"[/QUOTE] it's not a valid comparison because it has absolutely no relevancy to this saying "I have a few rocket launchers and nukes in my trunk" is not even close to being the same as telling a gun seller you're prohibited from owning firearms
[QUOTE=JDK721;30212877]it's not a valid comparison because it has absolutely no relevancy to this saying "I have a few rocket launchers and nukes in my trunk" is not even close to being the same as telling a gun seller you're prohibited from owning firearms[/QUOTE] if we're working on the assumption that everything the buyer says is truth, then it is just as valid as joking about not passing a background check [QUOTE=JDK721;30212934]I'm not working on that assumption[/QUOTE] i disagree
[QUOTE=Kopimi;30212901]if we're working on the assumption that everything the buyer says is truth, then it is just as valid as joking about not passing a background check[/QUOTE] I'm not working on that assumption [editline]2nd June 2011[/editline] like I said before, they should've inquired further once he said he couldn't pass a background check
[QUOTE=Bigby Wolf;30212564]The comparison is using a real world example[/QUOTE] not being able to pass a background check is a real world example having a nuclear bomb in your trunk is not a real world example
[QUOTE=thisispain;30213060]not being able to pass a background check is a real world example having a nuclear bomb in your trunk is not a real world example[/QUOTE] thank you I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that was a shitty comparison
YOU GUISE AND YOUR STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS. Never cease to astound me.
[QUOTE=thisispain;30213060]not being able to pass a background check is a real world example having a nuclear bomb in your trunk is not a real world example[/QUOTE] The real world example isn't that I have a nuke in my trunk, the real world example is that you're saying you are, but there's a 0% chance that anybody would care.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.