|
Author
|
Topic: Gun Control Again
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 822 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
Re: Background checks work
I'm not sure where your question is stemming from. It's coming from you continuing to mention the NSA wiretapping. I want to know what parallels you are drawing.
Are you talking about giving up liberty for security? You're talking, I'm asking.
Or are you talking about providing the Feds with personal information for background checking and bullet tracking? You're talking, I'm asking.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: Background checks work
The Feds are untrustworthy and I'm not going to give them any more information. And its not worth giving up liberty for a sense of security.
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 822 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
Re: Background checks work
You realize the NSA is not the federal government, right? And you realize there are no citizens that are wishing for the NSA to do anything under the name of liberty, right? It is the NSA that is claiming to do what they do in the name of liberty. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 2389 of 5179 (719913)
02-19-2014 10:39 AM
|
Reply to: Message 2385 by RAZD
02-19-2014 10:12 AM
|
|
Re: Background checks work
Whoa, wait. If people are obtaining guns illegally, like they borrow it from their cousin, then how can background checks affect that?
If you give a cousin a gun because they cannot pass a background check then you are at fault, you are aiding and abetting. And that would be an illegitimate use, so how do you square that with this:
quote:
background checks cannot affect legitimate use, but it can affect illegitimate use.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 2385 by RAZD, posted 02-19-2014 10:12 AM | | RAZD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 2405 by RAZD, posted 02-19-2014 12:21 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Some more data
Catholic Scientist writes: ringo writes: The difference being that bicycles serve a useful purpose.
Is that you admitting that their ultimate goal is not saving kids lives in schools?
No, that's me saying that bicycles are useful and guns are not - like cars are useful and crack cocaine is not. We make allowances for the dangers of things that serve a useful purpose. For things that have no useful purpose, we don't have to.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: Background checks work
The NSA is a Federal agency, and the fact that no citizens are wishing for the heinous things they're doing makes them even more untrustworthy.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 2392 of 5179 (719917)
02-19-2014 10:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 2390 by ringo
02-19-2014 10:42 AM
|
|
Re: Some more data
So you do think their ultimate goal is saving kids lives in schools?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 2390 by ringo, posted 02-19-2014 10:42 AM | | ringo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 2393 by ringo, posted 02-19-2014 10:50 AM | | New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 2394 by Straggler, posted 02-19-2014 10:51 AM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Some more data
Catholic Scientist writes: So you do think their ultimate goal is saving kids lives in schools?
I should think that having live children instead of dead children is a significant goal for anybody.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 2392 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-19-2014 10:45 AM | | New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied |
|
Straggler
Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Re: Some more data
CS writes: So you do think their ultimate goal is saving kids lives in schools? I'm not sure that the "in schools" part is that important per se. It's just where kids tend to be found in large numbers and thus where massacres tend to occur. Surely the "ultimate goal" is saving lives, especially those of innocent kids...?
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 822 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Background checks work
They are under the jurisdiction of the Feds, but are not a federal agency. Why don't you use your distrust of the department of agriculture to bolster your argument?
and the fact that no citizens are wishing for the heinous things they're doing makes them even more untrustworthy. While I don't disagree, I still fail to see how it relates to gun control. Is someone suggesting you hand over personal information to the NSA to obtain a gun? I assure you Facebook and Google have more dirt on you than the feds do. Are you even using a VPN right now? Or is using a VPN giving up your liberty? Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: Some more data
Surely the "ultimate goal" is saving lives, especially those of innocent kids...? What makes you so sure? Because that's what they're saying? If saving lives was really the ultimate goal, then wouldn't they focus on the things that would save the most lives? I think their ultimate goal is gun control, and they're just using the "save the innocent children" mantra as a guise. Propping up kids to hide an ulterior motive is despicable.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: Background checks work
They are listed on that page as a federal agency under the Department of Defense.
Why don't you use your distrust of the department of agriculture to bolster your argument? I don't know anything about the Department of Agriculture.
While I don't disagree, I still fail to see how it relates to gun control. People were talking about boosting a Federal background check. Fuck that. We can't trust those guys.
Is someone suggesting you hand over personal information to the NSA to obtain a gun? It'd prolly be the FBI.
I assure you Facebook and Google have more dirt on you than the feds do. Are you even using a VPN right now? Or is using a VPN giving up your liberty? Heh, I'm at work. I'm not sure how secure our network is. I could ask the IT guy, but I don't think it really matters for this.
|
Straggler
Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Some more data
CS writes: I think their ultimate goal is gun control, and they're just using the "save the innocent children" mantra as a guise. A guise for what? Why would anyone's "ultimate goal" be gun control in and of itself.....? Does that even make any sense? If people wanted to control things simply for the sake of controlling things then why choose guns? Why not advocate slipper controls, or the banning of T-shirts or whatever? You honestly think those who advocate gun controls just randomly chose guns and that any reference to loss of life is some sort of disingenuous tactical ploy.......?
CS writes: I think their ultimate goal is gun control But why would anyone have that as an "ultimate goal"...?
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 822 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
Re: Background checks work
They are listed on that page as a federal agency under the Department of Defense. Good eye. I was wrong. I (wrongly) looked for NSA instead of National Security Agency.
I don't know anything about the Department of Agriculture. How much do you really know about the NSA? Do you think they just now started collecting your data since Edward Snowden?
People were talking about boosting a Federal background check. Fuck that. We can't trust those guys. You've probably already explained, but do you think every person in America under every circumstance should be able to buy a gun just like they would buy a pack of hot dogs?
Heh, I'm at work. I'm not sure how secure our network is. I could ask the IT guy, but I don't think it really matters for this. If you don't think it matters, why the hell do you care about the NSA (hint: you should if you actually know something about the NSA)? What information are you worried about the NSA obtaining from you? What information are you worried about the FBI getting from you? If you are legally entitled to a gun, then no information you provide should be a problem, right? Or is there something in your history that may show you to not be someone that should be owning a gun? (note: I am NOT using the argument "if you have nothing hide, why are you worried? That line of reasoning is pure shit) What I am actually getting at is: the information you would need to provide is already available and should not be incriminating, provided that it is not actually incriminating. If it is, then maybe you shouldn't have that gun anyways. I am not sure what sort of information you think is going to be required that is so terrible to give up. You file taxes, right? Would a background check be more or less intrusive than what is necessary for taxes? More or less intrusive than the info an emplyer gets on you for a potential job? Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 1.1
|
Re: Some more data
But why would anyone have that as an "ultimate goal"...? Disarming the citizens would make it easier for a coup to take place, right?
|
™ Version 4.2