Gov McAauliffe is a moron

[actaeon277]

Of course he's okay with UBCs. Just continues with the theme of a lack of deductive ability.
Let's see, 20 years Indiana couldn't make it work, wasted a buttload of money for ZERO result.
Canada's UBC... an albatross.

I could continue, but we already have multiple threads on this.

 

[Dddrees]

Of course he's okay with UBCs. Just continues with the theme of a lack of deductive ability.
Let's see, 20 years Indiana couldn't make it work, wasted a buttload of money for ZERO result.
Canada's UBC... an albatross.

I could continue, but we already have multiple threads on this.

Yeah, I'm okay with it. Of course you would actually have to have the effort put into it to make it work. But if it's necessary to take a test to get a drivers license I fail to see why a UBC is such a bad thing.

 

[actaeon277]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo.../436801-i-am-universal-background-checks.html

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...estion-about-universal-background-checks.htmlhttps://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...estion-about-universal-background-checks.html

Efforts were made. Millions spent. Kirk Freeman is a lawyer, and he's still trying to find one case the UBCs helped.
20 years. NOT ONE SINGLE case helped.

 

[Dddrees]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo.../436801-i-am-universal-background-checks.html

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...estion-about-universal-background-checks.htmlhttps://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...estion-about-universal-background-checks.html

Efforts were made. Millions spent. Kirk Freeman is a lawyer, and he's still trying to find one case the UBCs helped.
20 years. NOT ONE SINGLE case helped.

Thanks for sharing and I'm looking at it now.


Ok, so the first link is a poll which basically is whether your for or against and it consist of mostly personal opinion. So nothing really here that would convince me to change my mind.


I still need to look at the second link. I may not get to that until tomorrow considering how late it is.

 

[Dddrees]

If true this is the most compelling arguement against that I've seen so far anyway. Doesn't mean I've changed my mind but it's a compelling arguement.

Gun Control FACTS


By Paul Harvey
Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don't matter?


CONSIDER; In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.


It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide; Homicides are up 3.2% Assaults are up 8 % Armed robberies are up 44% In that countries' state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%. Over the previous 25 years, figures show a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns."


It's time to state it plainly; Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens. Take action before it's too late, write or call your delegation.

 

[Dddrees]

Well then there was this so which is it really.

I think we tend to take this point much further than what reality allows. Registration has followed that path. It does not always follow that path. Canada, for example, has had some form of registration requirements for several decades. They can still own guns, even "prohibited" guns, as long as they have the proper licensing. And, although most long guns no longer need to be registered, all handguns do. The Canadian government doesn't appear to be hell bent on exterminating its citizens. And if they were, the technology exists to do it whether its citizens are armed or not.

So we make ourselves look like [STRIKE]cooks[/STRIKE] kooks when we say things like registration leads to extermination, as if it were a foregone conclusion. It's not. It has happened in certain instances the past. It could, under specific circumstances, happen in the future. I'm not saying we shouldn't use the argument at all. Just that when we do use that argument it would be a more accurate and even intellectually honest argument if we augmented the verb with 'could'. Registration could lead to confiscation. Confiscation could lead to extermination. Because it has.

But we shouldn't even need that argument. We have better arguments. Everyone has an innate right to protect oneself from violent people and abusive governments. Period. Canadians have that right too, but their government suppresses that right. On the pretense of "safety". Canada's lower violent crime rates have much less to do with the availability of guns and much more to do with the homogeneity of a non-violent culture. The idea that registration does anything to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is absurd. It is completely unnecessary and an undue burden on the people. Whatever "safety" might be gained by laws that make it more difficult to obtain firearms is more than offset by making it harder for people to acquire the tools they need to protect themselves.

And I think that's a more sensible argument than "registration leads to confiscation leads to extermination". Makes us sound like we're about to hole up in a bunker in Idaho with a million rounds of ammo.

 

[Dddrees]

The other reason that stuck out to me was the criminal reason. It really won't prevent criminals. Frankly for me that is true when it comes to anything. Criminals will be criminals will be criminals. So I don't find that arguement compelling.

Registration to me isn't an issue that concerns me.

I must have missed the Kirk Freeman post, but I'll try to go back and look for that again later.

Thanks again for sharing.

 

[Dddrees]

Duplicate

 

[rhino]

The quoting . . . the quoting!

 

[hoosierdoc]

The quoting . . . the quoting!

i know

 

[IndianaSoloMcfly]

Ran outta popcorn like an hour ago..

 

[rhino]

i know

We may need to implement a second tier to the IGNORE list: people who quote people on the IGNORE list.

 

[hoosierdoc]

We may need to implement a second tier to the IGNORE list: people who quote people on the IGNORE list.

That has some potential but I think my screen would be full of horizontal white crossbars

 

[Expat]

The quoting . . . the quoting!

That is why I have basically abandoned the political forum. The ignore list doesn't do much good when every one of their posts is quoted over and over as people think they are going carry on some sort of debate with a troll.

 

[jamil]

That is why I have basically abandoned the political forum. The ignore list doesn't do much good when every one of their posts is quoted over and over as people think they are going carry on some sort of debate with a troll.

Now c'mon. Some people do it for sport.

 

[rhino]

We may need to implement a second tier to the IGNORE list: people who quote people on the IGNORE list.

That has some potential but I think my screen would be full of horizontal white crossbars

Maybe it would work to improve the IGNORE feature so that it strips quotes of people on your IGNORE list, but leaves the words of the person who quoted them intact?

That is why I have basically abandoned the political forum. The ignore list doesn't do much good when every one of their posts is quoted over and over as people think they are going carry on some sort of debate with a troll.

I only wander into topics from there occasionally because the appear on the list of new responses (like this topic). I don't go there intentionally. Maybe I should be more careful about checking a topic's subforum before I read or contribute.

Now c'mon. Some people do it for sport.

Why, you!! I oughtta . . .

 

[jamil]

Maybe it would work to improve the IGNORE feature so that it strips quotes of people on your IGNORE list, but leaves the words of the person who quoted them intact?





I only wander into topics from there occasionally because the appear on the list of new responses (like this topic). I don't go there intentionally. Maybe I should be more careful about checking a topic's subforum before I read or contribute.





Why, you!! I oughtta . . .

Hey. I didn't say *I* do it for sport.

 

[rhino]

Hey. I didn't say *I* do it for sport.

 

[2A_Tom]

Now c'mon. Some people do it for sport.

Why, you!! I oughtta . . .

Hey. I didn't say *I* do it for sport.

I think you are too smart to believe you can get him to waiver. Indiucky even seems to have given up.

 

[Dddrees]

Is there something someone should be giving up on?

Question is, other than an opposing opinion is there any valid reason that someone should believe something differently?