Obama on Senate gun vote: 'A shameful day' - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

Vendzilla · 04-19-2013, 11:19 AM

We already have background checks

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

sarettah · 04-19-2013, 11:23 AM

GrantMercury, if you will, let me throw out a hypothetical for you.

As you know, many people are against porn. They claim it ruins people's lives, etc.

We, in the industry, put a lot of weight on the first amendment giving us the right to produce and distribute porn.

If the powers that be pushed for a law that said every producer/distributor in the industry had to have a background check before they could participate and if the background check found various issues that they could not participate, how would you feel about that?

Just wondering.

.

GrantMercury · 04-19-2013, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFootMan5

If you believe in real gun control, then how come the government can have all the guns in the world?

Because most Americans don't give a shit. The military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about is rocking and rolling. The government is We The People, and as an involved citizen, I constantly push for a cut in the pentagon budget. That said, I don't have an answer for how to disarm the whole world.

But we're talking about background checks to try to limit access to firearms by people who are demonstrably dangerous. That's a lot more attainable than world disarmament.

Robbie · 04-19-2013, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury

So they should just change the 2nd Amendment? That's all? We can't get something as simple as universal background checks through...but we're going to alter the Constitution? WTF?

You'd rather let politicians make the Constitution a joke.

YES, GrantMercury...IF we as a society decide to be disarmed, then we should change the Constitution.

That's actually one of the things that Congress is supposed to be doing. You know...instead of holding hearings on steroids in baseball...or throwing Martha Stewart in jail and shit like that.

If YOU really believed your own bullshit, you would be calling for your beloved almighty Federal Govt. to repeal the 2nd amendment.

But you're just a troll.

GrantMercury · 04-19-2013, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

GrantMercury, if you will, let me throw out a hypothetical for you.

As you know, many people are against porn. They claim it ruins people's lives, etc.

We, in the industry, put a lot of weight on the first amendment giving us the right to produce and distribute porn.

If the powers that be pushed for a law that said every producer/distributor in the industry had to have a background check before they could participate and if the background check found various issues that they could not participate, how would you feel about that?

Just wondering.

.

I would be against it. Why would a background check on a porn producer be a good idea? How could that be justified? What would be the purpose?

dynastoned · 04-19-2013, 11:33 AM

if obama would have come forward and said he'd like to simply make guns harder to get for criminals then i think people would have backed him.

but that isn't exactly what he did. the way they go about gun control is ridiculous. they weren't focused on making it harder for criminals to possess firearms. they were focused on banning certain types of firearms & magazines and making it harder for everyone including law abiding citizens to own firearms.

then rumors start swirling around about them trying to limit the amount of ammunition you can buy, background checks for ammo, etc... it just get's to a point where everyone is against them.

i think any logical person wants to make it harder for criminals to get their hands on firearms. unfortunately obama wanted to turn the rest of the country into Chicago, IL and that isn't going to happen.

GrantMercury · 04-19-2013, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

If YOU really believed your own bullshit, you would be calling for your beloved almighty Federal Govt. to repeal the 2nd amendment.

How do you know I haven't?

"beloved almight federal Govt."

Grow up already.

Why do you want people like the suspects in Boston to be able to freely buy firearms?

sarettah · 04-19-2013, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury

I would be against it. Why would a background check on a porn producer be a good idea? How could that be justified? What would be the purpose?

Well, you know someone could be a pedophile, or could have numerous felonies for being abusive to women or could have mental issues that would cause them to be a danger to their actors/actresses, or...

All the same kind of reasons that some people want to do background checks on weapons purchasers.

There are people in this country who believe that porn is way worse than guns and would jump at a chance to put more regulation on the industry.

The porn industry rests it's legitimacy on the first amendment. Gun owners rest their legitimacy on the second amendment. Why is one of those two more important to you than the other?

.

GrantMercury · 04-19-2013, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynastoned

...unfortunately obama wanted to turn the rest of the country into Chicago, IL and that isn't going to happen.

I don't understand. What do you mean? Turn the rest of the country into Chicago? What about Chicago?

We were talking about a simple background check. The rumors were started by the gun lobby because all they care about is maximizing sales, so they lied about the bill. And that's Obama's fault? Help me here.

GrantMercury · 04-19-2013, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

Well, you know someone could be a pedophile, or could have numerous felonies for being abusive to women or could have mental issues that would cause them to be a danger to their actors/actresses, or...

All the same kind of reasons that some people want to do background checks on weapons purchasers.
.

No. Sorry, but that's not anywhere near a reasonable comparison. People want to do background checks on weapons purchasers because once the gun is in their hands, they can end the lives of others in the blink of an eye.

Nobody watching porn is harmed by the producer of it.

I'm against background checks on porn producers.

GrantMercury · 04-19-2013, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

We already have background checks

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

Yes, but there are enormous loopholes. It applies only to licensed gun dealers. Lots of gun purchases happen without them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/us...pagewanted=all

sarettah · 04-19-2013, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury

No. Sorry, but that's not anywhere near a reasonable comparison. People want to do background checks on weapons purchasers because once the gun is in their hands, they can end the lives of others in the blink of an eye.

Nobody watching porn is harmed by the producer of it.

I'm against background checks on porn producers.

It is actually a very suitable comparison. Background checks on porn producers would violate their first amendment rights. Background checks on private weapons sales violates the second amendment rights.

There are many people who would definitely argue that porn harms everyone who comes in contact with it. That would make the producer completely culpable in that harm.

Again, why is one part of the bill of rights more important to you than another? You ducked that question just like you accuse others of doing.

There is absolutely no ambiguity in the phrase "shall not be infringed".

.

dynastoned · 04-19-2013, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury

I don't understand. What do you mean? Turn the rest of the country into Chicago? What about Chicago?

We were talking about a simple background check. The rumors were started by the gun lobby because all they care about is maximizing sales, so they lied about the bill. And that's Obama's fault? Help me here.

help you where? yeah i understand the bill was about background checks. i was simply saying if his initial intentions were about a simple background check then maybe it would have passed.

instead when he began his gun control campaign he was all about an assault rifle ban, magazine capacity limit's, and various other ridiculous gun control ideas. it left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths and the result turned out unfavorably for everyone.

i'm sorry that all you got out of my last post was about chicago. that isn't my fault.

GrantMercury · 04-19-2013, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

It is actually a very suitable comparison. Background checks on porn producers would violate their first amendment rights. Background checks on private weapons sales violates the second amendment rights.

There are many people who would definitely argue that porn harms everyone who comes in contact with it. That would make the producer completely culpable in that harm.

Again, why is one part of the bill of rights more important to you than another? You ducked that question just like you accuse others of doing.

There is absolutely no ambiguity in the phrase "shall not be infringed".

.

Oh for fuck sake. It is NOT a reasonable comparison at all, and you know it. If only that kook had a copy of Wasteland in his hands instead of a Bushmaster, those 20 kids in Newtown would be alive today.

Producing porn never killed anyone.

And you're leaving out a big chunk of the 2nd Amendment there...

GrantMercury · 04-19-2013, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynastoned

i'm sorry that all you got out of my last post was about chicago. that isn't my fault.

I still don't know what you meant about Chicago.

But I now see what you were getting at about the bill in general.

sarettah · 04-19-2013, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury

Oh for fuck sake. It is NOT a reasonable comparison at all, and you know it. If only that kook had a copy of Wasteland in his hands instead of a Bushmaster, those 20 kids in Newtown would be alive today.

Producing porn never killed anyone.

You are still evading my question as you tend to do. Why is one part of the bill of rights more important to you then another? Why is it ok for the government to violate my second amendment rights but it is NOT ok for them to violate your first amendment rights?

.

GrantMercury · 04-19-2013, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

You are still evading my question as you tend to do. Why is one part of the bill of rights more important to you then another? Why is it ok for the government to violate my second amendment rights but it is NOT ok for them to violate your first amendment rights?

.

Who's violating your rights? WTF are you talking about?

bronco67 · 04-19-2013, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

You are still evading my question as you tend to do. Why is one part of the bill of rights more important to you then another? Why is it ok for the government to violate my second amendment rights but it is NOT ok for them to violate your first amendment rights?

.

How is asking for a background check for every gun buyer a violation of your rights? You can still have a gun.

Vendzilla · 04-19-2013, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury

Yes, but there are enormous loopholes. It applies only to licensed gun dealers. Lots of gun purchases happen without them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/us...pagewanted=all

So you think the present administration, the guys that gave us 20,000 pages of regulations for Obamacare are going to not have loop holes in something they write?

Even if you closed the loop holes, illegal guns will always exist, Just the way of things, any politician that tells you otherwise is lying to you

sarettah · 04-19-2013, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury

Who's violating your rights? WTF are you talking about?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bronco67

How is asking for a background check for every gun buyer a violation of your rights? You can still have a gun.

It violates my rights the same way that requiring a background check before you were allowed to speak would.

It is requiring me to prove that I have a right before I can exercise it. That is an infringement on the right.

.

_Richard_ · 04-19-2013, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury

Who's violating your rights? WTF are you talking about?

dude

they have a small town on lockdown all day with 30k police doing house to house searches for one person

and you're arguing about constitutional gun rights?

04-19-2013, 11:19 AM	#101
Vendzilla Biker Gnome Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: cell#324 Posts: 23,202	We already have background checks Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act __________________ Webair died? Carbon is not the problem, it makes up 0.041% of our atmosphere , 95% of that is from Volcanos and decomposing plants and stuff. So people in the US are responsible for 13% of the carbon in the atmosphere which 95% is not from Humans, like cars and trucks and stuff and they want to spend trillions to fix it while Solar Panel plants are powered by coal plants think about that

04-19-2013, 11:23 AM	#102
sarettah I'll make you famous Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 13,937	GrantMercury, if you will, let me throw out a hypothetical for you. As you know, many people are against porn. They claim it ruins people's lives, etc. We, in the industry, put a lot of weight on the first amendment giving us the right to produce and distribute porn. If the powers that be pushed for a law that said every producer/distributor in the industry had to have a background check before they could participate and if the background check found various issues that they could not participate, how would you feel about that? Just wondering. .

04-19-2013, 11:33 AM	#106
dynastoned mmm yeah! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: roseville, ca Posts: 5,061	if obama would have come forward and said he'd like to simply make guns harder to get for criminals then i think people would have backed him. but that isn't exactly what he did. the way they go about gun control is ridiculous. they weren't focused on making it harder for criminals to possess firearms. they were focused on banning certain types of firearms & magazines and making it harder for everyone including law abiding citizens to own firearms. then rumors start swirling around about them trying to limit the amount of ammunition you can buy, background checks for ammo, etc... it just get's to a point where everyone is against them. i think any logical person wants to make it harder for criminals to get their hands on firearms. unfortunately obama wanted to turn the rest of the country into Chicago, IL and that isn't going to happen.