Discussion:
Steven Crowder: Here's Everything Wrong With Jimmy Kimmel's Vegas Rant
(too old to reply)
Ubiquitous
2017-10-08 22:52:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control, in which he made a series of misleading and
at times outright false claims about guns and mass shootings. Playing
Kimmel's opening monologue line by line, Crowder responded to each of
Kimmel's assertions to highlight the false premises and lack of
factual legitimacy.

Crowder began with Kimmel's statement that "we'll never know why a
human being would do something like this to other human beings."

"It's a really simple answer why," says Crowder. "It's called evil.
It's something the Left refuses to acknowledge exists ... Listen, it's
horrible. It doesn't mean you have to comprehend evil, but it's not a
complex question. ... What led them to that evil ... and what allowed
them to commit that act of evil and what's the best way to curb it
moving forward? That's the discussion we should be having."

Crowder then addresses Kimmel's suggestion that the Founding Fathers
never intended for us to have AK-47s by noting his previous video,
"The 2nd Amendment: For Muskets Only?" which highlights the wide array
of firearms available at the period, including cannons, which were
specifically allowed.

Crowder also takes a moment to respond to Kimmel's comment about
Americans' reactions to "a guy with a beard" committing an act of
terror by arguing that focusing security measures on radical Islamists
is well-founded, citing a study that shows that Islamic attacks
globally "account for more than 74% of all deaths from terrorism."

As for Kimmel's dismissive reference to travel bans and building
walls, Crowder underscores that those types of security policies "work
everywhere they've been implemented, from Israel to Hungary. Israel
experienced a 90% drop in terror attacks after building a fence on the
West Bank. Hungary cut its influx of migrants from several thousand a
day to less than 40."

Crowder then takes down Kimmel's statement that "all" of the mass
shootings have been committed with "automatic or semi-automatic guns."
Crowder notes that handguns are by far the most commonly used weapons
for shootings, including those involving four or more people. He also
blasts Kimmel's attempt to conflate "automatic" and "semiautomatic."

"Most guns that are sold today [are] semi-automatic," he says.
"Fully-automatic is heavily regulated and basically is not available
to the average person."

In response to Kimmel's claim that these types of guns are not used
defensively, Crowder said he couldn't be more wrong, citing census
bureau information showing that the guns are used defensively more
often than offensively, including rifles.

Crowder goes on to take down Kimmel's other misleading or outright
false claims, including that the administration has made it easier for
people with mental health issues to have access to guns and the Left's
repeated talking point about the so-called "gun show loophole" (which
Crowder exposes in another video).

WATCH:

--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
FPP
2017-10-08 22:20:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
--
"Donald Trump accepted the Republican nomination Thursday July 22nd."
"ISIS claimed responsibility". - J. P. Shanley
Just Wondering
2017-10-09 01:29:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything. There's not a gun control law, or ANY OTHER
LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
FPP
2017-10-09 06:54:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or ANY OTHER
LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
That's just plain ignorant. I can think of about 20.
--
"Donald Trump accepted the Republican nomination Thursday July 22nd."
"ISIS claimed responsibility". - J. P. Shanley
Just Wondering
2017-10-09 09:09:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or ANY
OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing. In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting. But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
FPP
2017-10-09 09:46:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or ANY
OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
FBI background with polygraph.
Sorry, troll... I'm not spending another minute to amuse you.

Not biting.
--
"Donald Trump accepted the Republican nomination Thursday July 22nd."
"ISIS claimed responsibility". - J. P. Shanley
FPP
2017-10-09 09:55:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or ANY
OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
Presumably the 1994 assault weapons ban.
The google "Australia" and "gun control".

“While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time)
occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more
than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the
present), there were no gun massacres.”

And now I'm done answering your stupid questions.
They're not particularly challenging.
--
"Donald Trump accepted the Republican nomination Thursday July 22nd."
"ISIS claimed responsibility". - J. P. Shanley
BTR1701
2017-10-09 13:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or ANY
OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
Presumably the 1994 assault weapons ban.
The google "Australia" and "gun control".
“While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time)
occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more
than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the
present), there were no gun massacres.”
And now I'm done answering your stupid questions.
They're not particularly challenging.
It's hilarious how you make a big show of "not biting", then minutes later
respond *again* to the exact same post with several paragraphs of screed.

You can't even be honest with your evasion tactics.
Ubiquitous
2017-10-09 15:39:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or ANY
OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
Presumably the 1994 assault weapons ban.
The google "Australia" and "gun control".
“While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time)
occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more
than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the
present), there were no gun massacres.”
And now I'm done answering your stupid questions.
They're not particularly challenging.
It's hilarious how you make a big show of "not biting", then minutes later
respond *again* to the exact same post with several paragraphs of screed.
You can't even be honest with your evasion tactics.
You be nice to FPP; I imagine it's hard keeping track of what all of his
sockpuppets have posted.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
FPP
2017-10-09 21:01:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or ANY
OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
Presumably the 1994 assault weapons ban.
The google "Australia" and "gun control".
“While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time)
occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more
than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the
present), there were no gun massacres.”
And now I'm done answering your stupid questions.
They're not particularly challenging.
It's hilarious how you make a big show of "not biting", then minutes later
respond *again* to the exact same post with several paragraphs of screed.
You can't even be honest with your evasion tactics.
You be nice to FPP; I imagine it's hard keeping track of what all of his
sockpuppets have posted.
Oh, look... the man has come out from his curtain!
Somebody please tell me if he has his pants on, for once.
--
"It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care center.
Someone obviously missed their shift this morning." - Senator Bob
Corker,‏ TN.
Republican Chairman of Foreign Relations Committee 10-8-17
Ubiquitous
2017-10-10 08:41:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or ANY
OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
Presumably the 1994 assault weapons ban.
The google "Australia" and "gun control".
“While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time)
occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more
than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the
present), there were no gun massacres.”
And now I'm done answering your stupid questions.
They're not particularly challenging.
It's hilarious how you make a big show of "not biting", then minutes later
respond *again* to the exact same post with several paragraphs of screed.
You can't even be honest with your evasion tactics.
You be nice to FPP; I imagine it's hard keeping track of what all of his
sockpuppets have posted.
Oh, look... the man has come out from his curtain!
Somebody please tell me if he has his pants on, for once.
"A hit dog always hollers..."
#Triggered
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
FPP
2017-10-09 21:00:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or ANY
OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
Presumably the 1994 assault weapons ban.
The google "Australia" and "gun control".
“While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time)
occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more
than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the
present), there were no gun massacres.”
And now I'm done answering your stupid questions.
They're not particularly challenging.
It's hilarious how you make a big show of "not biting", then minutes later
respond *again* to the exact same post with several paragraphs of screed.
You can't even be honest with your evasion tactics.
Obviously you don't understand what "not biting" means.
That's OK... I'm used to you not understanding simple phrases written in
simple English.

There, there... I'm sure somebody can explain it to you, counselor.
--
"It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care center.
Someone obviously missed their shift this morning." - Senator Bob
Corker,‏ TN.
Republican Chairman of Foreign Relations Committee 10-8-17
Just Wondering
2017-10-09 18:28:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
There's not a gun control law, or ANY OTHER LAW, that
if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
Presumably the 1994 assault weapons ban.
Which DIDN'T ban the Ruger Mini-14, which is functionally
equivalent to the AR-15, so no, that wouldn't have worked.
Post by FPP
The google "Australia" and "gun control".
Australia gun control laws would be unconstitutional in the USA.
Wile E. Coyote
2017-10-11 11:48:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Presumably the 1994 assault weapons ban.
The google "Australia" and "gun control".
Man you're easy.

Australia’s 1996 Gun Confiscation Didn’t Work – And it Wouldn’t Work in
America


Within hours of the gunfire falling silent on the campus of Umpqua
Community College in Oregon Thursday, President Obama stepped up to a
podium and declared that America should follow the path of our Anglosphere
cousins to reduce gun violence. “We know that other countries, in response
to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate
mass shootings,” the president said. “Friends of ours, allies of ours —
Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to
prevent it.” “Australia” is Obama’s preferred euphemism for that most
cherished of gun-control ideals: mass confiscation of the citizenry’s
weapons.

You will notice that the president doesn’t exactly spell out what following
Australia’s model would entail. He speaks instead of “commonsense gun-
control legislation,” “closing the gun-show loophole,” and “universal
background checks.” (function($){ var swapArticleBodyPullAd = function() {
if ($('body').hasClass('node-type-articles')) { var $pullAd = $('.story-
container .pullad').addClass('mobile-position'); if (window.matchMedia
("(min-width: 640px)").matches) { if ($pullAd.hasClass('mobile-position'))
{ $pullAd .addClass('desktop-position') .insertBefore('.article-ad-desktop-
position'); } } else { if ($pullAd.hasClass('mobile-position')) { $pullAd
.addClass('mobile-position') .insertBefore('.article-ad-mobile-position');
} } } }; $(window).on('resize', function(){ swapArticleBodyPullAd();
}).resize(); })(jQuery); In the last 24 hours, New York magazine, CNN, and
NBC have also sung the virtues of the Australian model. But the Australian
1996 National Agreement on Firearms was not a benign set of commonsense
gun-control rules: It was a gun-confiscation program rushed through the
Australian parliament just twelve days after a 28-year-old man killed 35
people with a semi-automatic rifle in the Tasmanian city of Port Arthur.
The Council of Foreign relations summarizes the Aussie measure nicely: The
National Agreement on Firearms all but prohibited automatic and
semiautomatic assault rifles, stiffened licensing and ownership rules, and
instituted a temporary gun buyback program that took some 650,000 assault
weapons (about one-sixth of the national stock) out of public circulation.
Among other things, the law also required licensees to demonstrate a
“genuine need” for a particular type of gun and take a firearm safety
course. The council’s laudatory section on Australian gun-control policy
concludes that “many [read: gun-control activists] suggest the policy
response in the wake of Port Arthur could serve as a model for the United
States.” Two questions should be asked and answered: (1) Did the post–Port
Arthur laws lead to a clear reduction of gun violence, and (2) What would
an American version of the “Australian model” look like? Gun-control
activists claim that the Australian model directly resulted in a pronounced
fall in the gun-suicide rate and the gun-homicide rate. But these claims
are disputable. In August, Vox’s German Lopez wrote a piece that included a
chart attempting to show a causal relationship between the Australian gun-
confiscation regime and a reduction in the Australian suicide rate. “When
countries reduced access to guns, they saw a drop in the number of firearm
suicides,” Lopez wrote.

I noted at the time that: While the chart does show a steady decline in
gun-related suicides, the reduction occurred at the same time as an overall
reduction in the Australian suicide rate. What’s more, firearm-related
suicides had been declining in Australia for nearly ten years before the
1996 restrictions on gun ownership. Vox’s own chart does not appear to show
a causal link between gun control and a reduction in suicide rates in
Australia. Moreover, a look at other developed countries with very strict
gun-control laws (such as Japan and South Korea) shows that the lack of
guns does not lead to a reduced suicide rate. Unfortunately, people who
want to kill themselves often find a way to do so — guns or no guns. Did
the Australian model at least reduce gun-related homicides? That is hotly
disputed. University of Melbourne researchers Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy
Suardi concluded their 2008 report on the matter with the statement, “There
is little evidence to suggest that [the Australian mandatory gun-buyback
program] had any significant effects on firearm homicides.” “Although gun
buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate
the public’s fears,” the reported continued, “the evidence so far suggests
that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the
1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms
of firearm deaths.” A 2007 report, “Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the
Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?” by Jeanine
Baker and Samara McPhedran similarly concluded that the buyback program did
not have a significant long-term effect on the Australian homicide rate.

The Australian gun-homicide rate had already been quite low and had been
steadily falling in the 15 years prior to the Port Arthur massacre. And
while the mandatory buyback program did appear to reduce the rate of
accidental firearm deaths, Baker and McPhedran found that “the gun buy-back
and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in
Australia.” Would an American version of the “Australian model” perform any
better?

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425021/australia-gun-
control-obama-america
--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017
Wile E. Coyote
2017-10-11 11:50:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Presumably the 1994 assault weapons ban.
The google "Australia" and "gun control".
Man you're easy.


The Australia Gun Control Fallacy

When someone says the United States ought to adopt Australia’s gun laws, he
is really saying that gun control is worth risking violent insurrection.





Varad Mehta
By Varad Mehta
June 25, 2015



The massacre in Charleston, South Carolina of nine members of a Bible study
at a historic African-American church has horrified the entire country.
Dylann Roof, a 21-year-old avowed white supremacist, has confessed to the
shooting. As news of this cold-blooded murder spread, attention turned, as
it inevitably (and understandably) does after such incidents, to the
subject of the presence of guns in American society.

Yet it quickly became apparent that America’s moribund gun control debate
would remain moribund. President Obama’s declaration that the country
“needs a change in attitude” had a rote quality to it, as did Hillary
Clinton’s ringing endorsement of “common-sense gun reforms.” As for Rep.
Carolyn Maloney’s (D-New York) exhortation to pass legislation she recently
introduced to require gun owners to obtain liability insurance on the
grounds that “[i]f you want to buy that Uzi, the thinking goes, you should
also have to pay for the risk that gun poses to society as a result,” the
less said the better.



Calls for stronger background checks on gun purchases or a new ban on
“assault weapons” have become formulaic. They’re like winding a Victrola:
the record resumes spinning but it plays the same old song. Another tune in
the gun-control songbook, however, is worth listening to. Not as many sing
it, but nonetheless it is instructive as it shows the chorus of the media
and gun-control advocates at their laziest and most uncurious, and at their
most disingenuous if not dishonest. What song do I mean? I forget its name,
but it goes something like this.

What Australia Did After a 1996 Shooting

After any mass shooting someone will invoke the name “Australia” and raise
the question, “Can Australia’s gun-control laws be a model for the United
States?” This time the honor belonged to CNN’s Laura Smith-Spark, who
recounts the circumstances that led to Australia’s current gun-control laws
and outlines their provisions. The laws were passed after the Port Arthur
massacre, a 1996 mass shooting in which one man killed 35 people. Australia
outlawed semi-automatic rifles, certain categories of shotgun, and
implemented strict licensing and registration requirements. The cornerstone
of its new gun-control scheme, however, was a massive gun buyback program.
The Australian government purchased 650,000 to one million guns with funds
raised via a special tax.

The Australian paradigm became popular in the wake of the Newtown,
Connecticut, school shootings in 2012. USA Today, ABC News, Slate, the
Washington Post, and the Christian Science Monitor were among the outlets
that published articles urging Americans to look closely at the actions
their antipodean cousins took after a similar tragedy. Nor are Americans
the only ones who think we should heed the Australian example. Numerous
Australians have expressed pride in their country’s gun laws by penning
columns beseeching Americans to transport America’s gun laws from Down
Under.

These articles all point to the reduction in the rate of gun deaths in
Australia after the new system was established as its main achievement. But
it is the policy that allowed that system to be established which holds the
writers’ and consequently the reader’s attention. That policy is the gun
buyback program, which removed up to one million weapons from Australians’
hands and homes. This was, depending on the estimate, a fifth to a third of
Australia’s gun stock. The statistic does not seem remarkable as a raw
number, but it is quite so when expressed as a percentage. No wonder
commentators fixate on it. The problem is the way most of them tell that
tale: when they describe Australia’s gun buyback program, almost none of
them tell the truth about it.

The Australian Law Banned and Confiscated Guns



The crucial fact they omit is that the buyback program was mandatory.
Australia’s vaunted gun buyback program was in fact a sweeping program of
gun confiscation. Only the articles from USA Today and the Washington Post
cited above contain the crucial information that the buyback was
compulsory. The article by Smith-Spark, the latest entry in the genre,
assuredly does not. It’s the most important detail about the main provision
of Australia’s gun laws, and pundits ignore it. That’s like writing an
article about how Obamacare works without once mentioning the individual
mandate.

Yet when American gun control advocates and politicians praise Australia’s
gun laws, that’s just what they’re doing. Charles Cooke of the National
Review shredded the rhetorical conceit of bellowing “Australia!” last year
after President Obama expressed his admiration for gun control à la Oz:


You simply cannot praise Australia’s gun-laws without praising the
country’s mass confiscation program. That is Australia’s law. When the Left
says that we should respond to shootings as Australia did, they don’t mean
that we should institute background checks on private sales; they mean that
they we should ban and confiscate guns. No amount of wooly words can change
this. Again, one doesn’t bring up countries that have confiscated firearms
as a shining example unless one wishes to push the conversation toward
confiscation.

Cooke, of course, is right. When gun control advocates say they want
Australian gun control laws in the United States, what they are really
saying is that they want gun confiscation in the United States.

Democrat Leaders Support Gun Confiscation

Not all gun control proponents prevaricate. Some are forthright about their
intentions. After Sandy Hook, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) stated
she was considering legislation to institute a mandatory national buyback
program. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo also expressed an interest in
confiscation, at least for assault weapons. “Confiscation could be an
option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be
an option — keep your gun but permit it.” Ultimately, New York did not
institute confiscation, but did require registration of existing assault
weapons and banned all sales of new and existing ones within the state.

Gun buybacks remain a popular policy with the Left because it is the only
way of achieving what the Left regards as the only acceptable gun-control
solution: reducing the number of guns in America. Matt Miller of the Center
for American Progress proposed such a program after Sandy Hook. Conceding
that anything mandatory was unlikely to pass Congress, he pitched a gun
buyback program as a form of economic stimulus: give people cash for guns,
which they can then spend on other things. “Make gun owners an offer they
can’t refuse. Instead of a measly $200 a gun, Uncle Sam might offer $500.”
Why a gun owner would accept $500 for a gun that likely cost considerably
more is a question Miller unsurprisingly does not ask, let alone answer.
Posing it would puncture his balloon.

Voluntary buyback initiatives are a waste of time and money. So those
hostile to gun rights continue to demand mandatory confiscation. Earlier
this year, the advisory commission appointed by Connecticut Gov. Dannel
Malloy after Sandy Hook recommended banning the sale and possession of “any
rifle or handgun that accepts a detachable magazine.” Commission members
shrugged off suggestions that this would entail an unconstitutional
prohibition on most firearms Americans own, saying it was not their job to
take such niceties into account. The editorial board of the Newark Star-
Ledger displayed similar “magical thinking” last September when it called
for mandatory confiscation in New Jersey. Predictably, the board cited the
Australian example, pointing to the drop in gun violence there as all the
necessary justification for inaugurating such a program here. The editorial
board concluded by bemoaning America’s “hysteria over ‘gun confiscation,’”
which would keep their fantasy just that.

How Would Government Get the Guns?

On this point at least they are correct. Gun confiscation is not happening
in the United States any time soon. But let’s suppose it did. How would it
work? Australia’s program netted, at the low end, 650,000 guns, and at the
high end, a million. That was approximately a fifth to a third of
Australian firearms. There are about as many guns in America as there are
people: 310 million of both in 2009. A fifth to a third would be between 60
and 105 million guns. To achieve in America what was done in Australia, in
other words, the government would have to confiscate as many as 105 million
firearms.

To achieve in America what was done in Australia, the government would have
to confiscate as many as 105 million firearms.

The 310 million guns in America are not owned by 310 million Americans.
Just how many Americans own guns, though, is controversial. The General
Social Survey shows gun ownership on a four-decade downward trajectory, to
32 percent of households in 2015. A 2011 Gallup poll, on the other hand,
found gun ownership at a two-decade high, with 47 percent of Americans
stating they possessed a firearm. As Harry Enten of The Guardian observed,
the answer to the gun ownership question seems heavily dependent on wording
and methodology: phone surveys consistently find higher rates. Moreover,
and this is the key point, those rates, however the surveys are conducted,
have been static for at least 15 years, while background checks have
soared.



A third to a half of the U.S. population translates to 105 to 160 million
people. A fifth to a third of guns is 60 to 105 million. Now that we see
what is required for an American buyback scheme to work on an Australian
scale, we can at last we confront the question gun-control advocates never
ask, let alone answer: how do you take 60 to 105 million firearms from 105
to 160 million Americans? The answer to that question is the answer to the
question of whether the Australian example really is valid for America
after all. If the experience of “blue” states which introduced gun
regulations that have nearly universal approval on the Left is any
indication, liberals are likely to experience keen disappointment.

Americans Resist Gun Confiscation

Both New York and Connecticut imposed strict new rules on the possession
and sale of guns after Sandy Hook. Among these were requirements for the
registration of so-called assault rifles in both states and in New York a
ban on “high-capacity” magazines regardless of when they were manufactured
or purchased. Compliance with the registration requirement has been modest
at best, as hundreds of thousands of gun owners in both states refused to
register their weapons. So far, then, the laws have been most successful in
creating hundreds of thousands of lawbreakers who feel obligated to break
the law.

New York and Connecticut are two of the “bluest” states in the Union,
states with staunchly liberal Democratic governors and legislatures
dominated by Democrats and Northeastern Republicans who vote for gun
control. Yet the residents of these states have refused to go along with
the kinds of laws that gun-control advocates view as a minimum for what
they would like to see adopted at the federal level. If New York and
Connecticut won’t go along, what do they expect would happen in “red”
states?Progressives will not answer that question because they never ask
it, not even to themselves, lest somehow they say it out loud. On guns, the
Left is incoherent, even insincere. It won’t say what it wants because what
it wants is “a nonstarter politically, unfeasible in reality, and, by the
way, completely unconstitutional”—that is, confiscation on the Australian
model.Liberals refuse to confront the implications of their Australian
dream because doing so would force them to give that dream up. Those
implications are easy to spell out, though. A national gun buyback law
would turn a significant portion of the American people into criminals.
Residents of New York and Connecticut snubbed their new laws. The other 48
states are not New York and Connecticut. Civil disobedience on a national
scale would ensue.

The Australia Plan Would Require Coercion and Conflict

New York and Connecticut authorities so far have shown no inclination to
enforce their laws by going door to door to round up unregistered guns and
arrest their owners. But that’s what would be necessary to enforce the law.
A federal law, therefore, would require sweeping, national police action
involving thousands of lawmen and affecting tens of millions of people. If
proponents of gun control are serious about getting guns out of Americans’
hands, someone will have to take those guns out of Americans’ hands.

Australian-style gun control, in other words, would require government
force and coercion on a massive scale. Now, progressives don’t understand
the nature of coercion, so maybe they would not see police action to
enforce gun confiscation as coercion. Or, perhaps, they actually do
understand that their ideal form of gun control requires it, which is why
they keep speaking in code and talk about “Australia” and not “wholesale
confiscation.”

Let there be no doubt. Gun confiscation would have to be administered by
force of arms. I do not expect that those who dismissed their fellow
citizens for clinging bitterly to their guns are so naive that they imagine
these people will suddenly cease their bitter clinging when some nice young
man knocks on their door and says, “Hello, I’m from the government and I’m
here to take your guns.” As though somehow those who daily espouse their
belief that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow citizens to
resist government oppression and tyranny will not use the Second Amendment
to resist what they see as government oppression and tyranny. Or maybe they
are so naive.

Many on the Left—and for this they are to be commended—have voiced their
opposition to the increasing militarization of America’s police. Yet only a
militarized police could enforce an Australian gun-control scheme in the
United States. To take arms from men requires men with arms. There’s no
other way to do it.

Yet because of the numbers of guns and men with guns in this country, any
policy to remove those guns will inevitably depend on some measure of
coercion, quite possibly a heavy measure. Does anyone honestly believe this
country has the will or resources to seize 60 to 105 million firearms from
105 to 160 million Americans? “Progressives believe it,” I hear you answer.
Yes, but the ones who do, believe this dishonestly.

Modeling Australia Means Civil War

When someone says the United States ought to adopt Australia’s gun laws as
its own, he is really saying the cause of gun control is so important that
he is willing to impose these laws even at the cost of violent
insurrection. Make no mistake, armed rebellion would be the consequence.
Armed men would be dispatched to confiscate guns, they would be met by
armed men, and blood would be shed. Australia is a valid example for
America only if you are willing for that blood to be spilled in torrents
and rivers. To choose Australia is to choose civil war.

In an op-ed for the New York Times written after Sandy Hook, John Howard,
the prime minister who oversaw the passage of Australia’s current gun laws,
implored Americans to consider his nation’s example. Yet Howard fully
understood the fundamental irrelevance of his country’s laws to the United
States, and undermined his case by highlighting the differences between the
two countries.


Our challenges were different from America’s. Australia is an even more
intensely urban society, with close to 60 percent of our people living in
large cities. Our gun lobby isn’t as powerful or well-financed as the
National Rifle Association in the United States. Australia, correctly in my
view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say
than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have
less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms. (After
all, the British granted us nationhood peacefully; the United States had to
fight for it.)

Leave aside that Australia had—and has—far fewer guns and people than we
do. Forget the bits about the gun lobby or Australia’s greater
urbanization. The crucial point is the final one: Australia does not have a
bill of rights, and that, ultimately, is the reason it was able to
confiscate guns. Australians have no constitutional right to bear arms, so
seizing their weapons did not violate their constitutional rights. Gun
confiscation in the United States would require violating not only the
Second Amendment, but the fourth and fifth as well, and possibly even the
first. Progressives generally have no compunction about breaching the
Second Amendment, but one wonders how many others they would be eager to
violate in their quest to nullify the second. Civil war and a tattered
Constitution: such are the consequences of invoking “Australia.” It is not
a model; it is a mirage.

There is an essential mendacity, whether intentional or not, to all
suggestions that Australia’s system of gun control is suitable for the
United States. Conjuring Australia isn’t innocent. But this trick does
serve one valuable purpose: when gun controllers perform it they reveal
what they truly desire. An Australian-style gun-control regime, it must be
abundantly clear by now, would not only be impractical in the United
States, it would be immoral. We would all be better served if American gun-
control advocates acknowledged this reality and left their fantasy Down
Under where it belongs.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/the-australia-gun-control-fallacy/
--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017
BTR1701
2017-10-11 17:23:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
You simply cannot praise Australia's gun-laws without praising the
country's mass confiscation program. That is Australia's law. When the Left
says that we should respond to shootings as Australia did, they don't mean
that we should institute background checks on private sales; they mean that
we should ban and confiscate guns. No amount of wooly words can change
this. Again, one doesn't bring up countries that have confiscated firearms
as a shining example unless one wishes to push the conversation toward
confiscation.
Cooke, of course, is right. When gun control advocates say they want
Australian gun control laws in the United States, what they are really
saying is that they want gun confiscation in the United States.
Yep. "Australia!" has become a leftist dogwhistle to the faithful, where
they can push for confiscation without actually saying it right out.
Voluntary buyback initiatives are a waste of time and money.
Not to mention, they're a great way for criminals to get rid of the
murder weapon. L.A. has these "no questions asked" gun buybacks every
now and then and there's been at least one documented case of a murder
weapon being turned in for cash with no consequence.

How absolutely blinkered have we become where we let killers dispose of
the evidence by turning it in to the police?
So those hostile to gun rights continue to demand mandatory confiscation.
Earlier this year, the advisory commission appointed by Connecticut
Gov. Dannel Malloy after Sandy Hook recommended banning the sale and
possession of "any rifle or handgun that accepts a detachable magazine."
So only revolvers would be legal? Because that pretty much eliminates
literally every other kind of pistol.
Commission members shrugged off suggestions that this would entail
an unconstitutional prohibition on most firearms Americans own,
saying it was not their job to take such niceties into account.
It's not the job of government officials to take the guaranteed
constitutional rights of the people into account? That the Constitution
itself a mere 'nicety'?

That's a pretty rare moment of honesty that shows how progs really view
things.
A third to a half of the U.S. population translates to 105 to 160 million
people. A fifth to a third of guns is 60 to 105 million. Now that we see
what is required for an American buyback scheme to work on an Australian
scale, we can at last we confront the question gun-control advocates never
ask, let alone answer: how do you take 60 to 105 million firearms from 105
to 160 million Americans?
And the same people who think it's impossible to deport 10 million
illegals seem to think it'd be no problem to confiscate 100 million guns
from citizens.
Both New York and Connecticut imposed strict new rules on the possession
and sale of guns after Sandy Hook. Among these were requirements for the
registration of so-called assault rifles in both states and in New York a
ban on "high-capacity" magazines regardless of when they were manufactured
or purchased. Compliance with the registration requirement has been modest
at best, as hundreds of thousands of gun owners in both states refused to
register their weapons. So far, then, the laws have been most successful in
creating hundreds of thousands of lawbreakers who feel obligated to break
the law.
They're not illegal guns. They're merely undocumented guns.
New York and Connecticut are two of the "bluest" states in the Union,
states with staunchly liberal Democratic governors and legislatures
dominated by Democrats and Northeastern Republicans who vote for gun
control. Yet the residents of these states have refused to go along with
the kinds of laws that gun-control advocates view as a minimum for what
they would like to see adopted at the federal level. If New York and
Connecticut won't go along, what do they expect would happen in "red"
states? Progressives will not answer that question because they never ask
it, not even to themselves, lest somehow they say it out loud. On guns, the
Left is incoherent, even insincere. It won't say what it wants because what
it wants is "a nonstarter, politically unfeasible in reality, and, by the
way, completely unconstitutional"-- that is, confiscation on the Australian
model. Liberals refuse to confront the implications of their Australian
dream because doing so would force them to give that dream up. Those
implications are easy to spell out, though. A national gun buyback law
would turn a significant portion of the American people into criminals.
Residents of New York and Connecticut snubbed their new laws. The other 48
states are not New York and Connecticut. Civil disobedience on a national
scale would ensue.
Indeed. "Sanctuary cities" and "sanctuary states" for undocumented gun
owners might spring up, where state and local law enforcement refuses to
enforce federal gun laws, since it's okay for cities and states to
ignore federal law if they don't like or agree with it.

Our 'progressive' brethren have taught us that!
Many on the Left-- and for this they are to be commended-- have voiced
their opposition to the increasing militarization of America's police.
Yet only a militarized police could enforce an Australian gun-control
scheme in the United States. To take arms from men requires men with
arms. There's no other way to do it.
Another great point. "Why do the cops need all that military gear?" The
answer is apparently, "To enforce the 'progressive' agenda."
trotsky
2017-10-11 18:07:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
You simply cannot praise Australia's gun-laws without praising the
country's mass confiscation program. That is Australia's law. When the Left
says that we should respond to shootings as Australia did, they don't mean
that we should institute background checks on private sales; they mean that
we should ban and confiscate guns. No amount of wooly words can change
this. Again, one doesn't bring up countries that have confiscated firearms
as a shining example unless one wishes to push the conversation toward
confiscation.
Cooke, of course, is right. When gun control advocates say they want
Australian gun control laws in the United States, what they are really
saying is that they want gun confiscation in the United States.
Yep. "Australia!" has become a leftist dogwhistle to the faithful, where
they can push for confiscation without actually saying it right out.
Excellent point. It's not like we need to ever take anything away when
we're moving forward as a society. Coca Cola was originally made with
coca leaves, where's the outrage over that? How did that ever get taken
away? Wasn't that part of the pursuit of happiness, getting high on a
can of soda? Your argument, as usual, is ludicrous on the face of it,
and you don't have the balls to get into a point/counterpoint discussion
because you get the shit kicked out of you every time.
Exeter!
2017-10-11 18:26:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by trotsky
you don't have the balls to get into a point/counterpoint discussion
because you get the shit kicked out of you every time.
Have you _EVER_ won a debate here....EVER???


Fuck off, commie turd.
FPP
2017-10-11 22:50:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Exeter!
Post by trotsky
you don't have the balls to get into a point/counterpoint discussion
because you get the shit kicked out of you every time.
Have you _EVER_ won a debate here....EVER???
Fuck off, commie turd.
With a sockpuppet troll? Probably not.
--
"If you can't drink their whiskey, screw their women, take their money,
and vote against 'em anyway, you don't belong in office." -Molly Ivins
Exeter!
2017-10-11 22:55:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Exeter!
Post by trotsky
you don't have the balls to get into a point/counterpoint discussion
because you get the shit kicked out of you every time.
Have you _EVER_ won a debate here....EVER???
Fuck off, commie turd.
With a sockpuppet troll?  Probably not.
Are you asking to have your ass kicked in?
T***@agent.com
2017-10-11 20:14:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
You simply cannot praise Australia's gun-laws without praising the
country's mass confiscation program. That is Australia's law. When the Left
says that we should respond to shootings as Australia did, they don't mean
that we should institute background checks on private sales; they mean that
we should ban and confiscate guns. No amount of wooly words can change
this. Again, one doesn't bring up countries that have confiscated firearms
as a shining example unless one wishes to push the conversation toward
confiscation.
Cooke, of course, is right. When gun control advocates say they want
Australian gun control laws in the United States, what they are really
saying is that they want gun confiscation in the United States.
Yep. "Australia!" has become a leftist dogwhistle to the faithful, where
they can push for confiscation without actually saying it right out.
Excellent point. It's not like we need to ever take anything away when
we're moving forward as a society. Coca Cola was originally made with
coca leaves, where's the outrage over that? How did that ever get taken
away? Wasn't that part of the pursuit of happiness, getting high on a
can of soda? Your argument, as usual, is ludicrous on the face of it,
and you don't have the balls to get into a point/counterpoint discussion
because you get the shit kicked out of you every time.
I'm not sure I follow your argument, T. The only reference I know of
to the "pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence.
The right to bear arms is incorporated in the Constitution.
FPP
2017-10-11 22:52:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by T***@agent.com
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
You simply cannot praise Australia's gun-laws without praising the
country's mass confiscation program. That is Australia's law. When the Left
says that we should respond to shootings as Australia did, they don't mean
that we should institute background checks on private sales; they mean that
we should ban and confiscate guns. No amount of wooly words can change
this. Again, one doesn't bring up countries that have confiscated firearms
as a shining example unless one wishes to push the conversation toward
confiscation.
Cooke, of course, is right. When gun control advocates say they want
Australian gun control laws in the United States, what they are really
saying is that they want gun confiscation in the United States.
Yep. "Australia!" has become a leftist dogwhistle to the faithful, where
they can push for confiscation without actually saying it right out.
Excellent point. It's not like we need to ever take anything away when
we're moving forward as a society. Coca Cola was originally made with
coca leaves, where's the outrage over that? How did that ever get taken
away? Wasn't that part of the pursuit of happiness, getting high on a
can of soda? Your argument, as usual, is ludicrous on the face of it,
and you don't have the balls to get into a point/counterpoint discussion
because you get the shit kicked out of you every time.
I'm not sure I follow your argument, T. The only reference I know of
to the "pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence.
The right to bear arms is incorporated in the Constitution.
And is subject to regulation, just like many of our other rights.
--
"If you can't drink their whiskey, screw their women, take their money,
and vote against 'em anyway, you don't belong in office." -Molly Ivins
Wile E. Coyote
2017-10-11 20:43:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
You simply cannot praise Australia's gun-laws without praising the
country's mass confiscation program. That is Australia's law. When the
Left says that we should respond to shootings as Australia did, they
don't mean that we should institute background checks on private
sales; they mean that we should ban and confiscate guns. No amount of
wooly words can change this. Again, one doesn't bring up countries
that have confiscated firearms as a shining example unless one wishes
to push the conversation toward confiscation.
Cooke, of course, is right. When gun control advocates say they want
Australian gun control laws in the United States, what they are really
saying is that they want gun confiscation in the United States.
Yep. "Australia!" has become a leftist dogwhistle to the faithful,
where they can push for confiscation without actually saying it right
out.
Excellent point. It's not like we need to ever take anything away when
we're moving forward as a society. Coca Cola was originally made with
coca leaves, where's the outrage over that? How did that ever get taken
away? Wasn't that part of the pursuit of happiness, getting high on a
can of soda? Your argument, as usual, is ludicrous on the face of it,
and you don't have the balls to get into a point/counterpoint discussion
because you get the shit kicked out of you every time.
They get that axe outta your head yet. It is clearly interfereing with your
intellectual abilities?
--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017
FPP
2017-10-11 22:50:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Yep. "Australia!" has become a leftist dogwhistle to the faithful, where
they can push for confiscation without actually saying it right out.
Kinda like "Chicago!" has been the con dogwhistle for ages now... so
they can be racist without actually saying it right out.
--
"If you can't drink their whiskey, screw their women, take their money,
and vote against 'em anyway, you don't belong in office." -Molly Ivins
Just Wondering
2017-10-11 22:59:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Yep. "Australia!" has become a leftist dogwhistle to the faithful, where
they can push for confiscation without actually saying it right out.
Kinda like "Chicago!" has been the con dogwhistle for ages now...  so
they can be racist without actually saying it right out.
It's not racist to truthfully observe that the majority of
violence in Chicago is committed by blacks against blacks.

It's not even racist to truthfully observe that there is a positive
correlation between gun violence rates and the black percentage in an
area's population.
Wile E. Coyote
2017-10-12 11:22:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Yep. "Australia!" has become a leftist dogwhistle to the faithful, where
they can push for confiscation without actually saying it right out.
Kinda like "Chicago!" has been the con dogwhistle for ages now... so
they can be racist without actually saying it right out.
So the fact that nigger on nogger homicide and shootings are higher than any
other US city doesn't mean anything.
--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017
BTR1701
2017-10-12 17:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Yep. "Australia!" has become a leftist dogwhistle to the faithful, where
they can push for confiscation without actually saying it right out.
Kinda like "Chicago!" has been the con dogwhistle for ages now... so
they can be racist without actually saying it right out.
Once again, we note that FPP believes it's racist to talk about reality.
FPP
2017-10-12 22:21:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Yep. "Australia!" has become a leftist dogwhistle to the faithful, where
they can push for confiscation without actually saying it right out.
Kinda like "Chicago!" has been the con dogwhistle for ages now... so
they can be racist without actually saying it right out.
Once again, we note that FPP believes it's racist to talk about reality.
Nope... but "Chicago!" (tm) is the new "Benghazi!" (tm).
--
"If you can't drink their whiskey, screw their women, take their money,
and vote against 'em anyway, you don't belong in office." -Molly Ivins
Wile E. Coyote
2017-10-13 01:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Yep. "Australia!" has become a leftist dogwhistle to the faithful, where
they can push for confiscation without actually saying it right out.
Kinda like "Chicago!" has been the con dogwhistle for ages now... so
they can be racist without actually saying it right out.
Once again, we note that FPP believes it's racist to talk about reality.
Nope... but "Chicago!" (tm) is the new "Benghazi!" (tm).
So then blacks aren't killing each other at a breathtaking pace?
--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017
BTR1701
2017-10-13 15:22:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Yep. "Australia!" has become a leftist dogwhistle to the faithful,
where they can push for confiscation without actually saying
it right out.
Kinda like "Chicago!" has been the con dogwhistle for ages now... so
they can be racist without actually saying it right out.
Once again, we note that FPP believes it's racist to talk about reality.
Nope... but "Chicago!" (tm) is the new "Benghazi!" (tm).
So then blacks aren't killing each other at a breathtaking pace?
Sure they are, but it makes progs look bad, so like everything else that
makes progs look bad, we're not supposed to talk about it. They add an
exclamation point and a trademark symbol and pretend that means there's
something wrong with the person who brings it up.

Meanwhile, if conservatives did the same thing with "Australia!"(tm),
they'd have a fit and come up with some logically tortured reason why
it's 'different' when they do it.
trotsky
2017-10-13 18:16:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Yep. "Australia!" has become a leftist dogwhistle to the faithful,
where they can push for confiscation without actually saying
it right out.
Kinda like "Chicago!" has been the con dogwhistle for ages now... so
they can be racist without actually saying it right out.
Once again, we note that FPP believes it's racist to talk about reality.
Nope... but "Chicago!" (tm) is the new "Benghazi!" (tm).
So then blacks aren't killing each other at a breathtaking pace?
Sure they are,
Is this the reason you racists don't want gun control, then?
Scout
2017-10-13 22:22:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Yep. "Australia!" has become a leftist dogwhistle to the faithful,
where they can push for confiscation without actually saying
it right out.
Kinda like "Chicago!" has been the con dogwhistle for ages now... so
they can be racist without actually saying it right out.
Once again, we note that FPP believes it's racist to talk about reality.
Nope... but "Chicago!" (tm) is the new "Benghazi!" (tm).
So then blacks aren't killing each other at a breathtaking pace?
Sure they are,
Is this the reason you racists don't want gun control, then?
We see how well gun control is working in Chicago.....
Exeter!
2017-10-13 22:33:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Yep. "Australia!" has become a leftist dogwhistle to the faithful,
where they can push for confiscation without actually saying
it right out.
Kinda like "Chicago!" has been the con dogwhistle for ages
now...  so
they can be racist without actually saying it right out.
Once again, we note that FPP believes it's racist to talk about reality.
Nope... but "Chicago!" (tm) is the new "Benghazi!" (tm).
So then blacks aren't killing each other at a breathtaking pace?
Sure they are,
Is this the reason you racists don't want gun control, then?
We see how well gun control is working in Chicago.....
I figger some of them shooters are blatant racists!
Scout
2017-10-13 23:45:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Exeter!
Post by Scout
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Yep. "Australia!" has become a leftist dogwhistle to the faithful,
where they can push for confiscation without actually saying
it right out.
Kinda like "Chicago!" has been the con dogwhistle for ages now...
so
they can be racist without actually saying it right out.
Once again, we note that FPP believes it's racist to talk about reality.
Nope... but "Chicago!" (tm) is the new "Benghazi!" (tm).
So then blacks aren't killing each other at a breathtaking pace?
Sure they are,
Is this the reason you racists don't want gun control, then?
We see how well gun control is working in Chicago.....
I figger some of them shooters are blatant racists!
Unless you're of the distorted mindset that blacks and other minorities
can't be racist......which is itself a racist view.
Wile E. Coyote
2017-10-14 15:38:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Yep. "Australia!" has become a leftist dogwhistle to the faithful,
where they can push for confiscation without actually saying
it right out.
Kinda like "Chicago!" has been the con dogwhistle for ages now...
so they can be racist without actually saying it right out.
Once again, we note that FPP believes it's racist to talk about reality.
Nope... but "Chicago!" (tm) is the new "Benghazi!" (tm).
So then blacks aren't killing each other at a breathtaking pace?
Sure they are,
Is this the reason you racists don't want gun control, then?
Yeah, that's it, we want them to kill themselves. And they are so stupid
they are doing it.

So the axe did cause permanent intellectual disability?
--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017
trotsky
2017-10-14 16:59:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Yep. "Australia!" has become a leftist dogwhistle to the faithful,
where they can push for confiscation without actually saying
it right out.
Kinda like "Chicago!" has been the con dogwhistle for ages now...
so they can be racist without actually saying it right out.
Once again, we note that FPP believes it's racist to talk about reality.
Nope... but "Chicago!" (tm) is the new "Benghazi!" (tm).
So then blacks aren't killing each other at a breathtaking pace?
Sure they are,
Is this the reason you racists don't want gun control, then?
Yeah, that's it, we want them to kill themselves. And they are so stupid
they are doing it.
So the axe did cause permanent intellectual disability?
So are you agreeing to my point or not?
Wile E. Coyote
2017-10-16 03:38:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by trotsky
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Yep. "Australia!" has become a leftist dogwhistle to the faithful,
where they can push for confiscation without actually saying
it right out.
Kinda like "Chicago!" has been the con dogwhistle for ages now...
so they can be racist without actually saying it right out.
Once again, we note that FPP believes it's racist to talk about reality.
Nope... but "Chicago!" (tm) is the new "Benghazi!" (tm).
So then blacks aren't killing each other at a breathtaking pace?
Sure they are,
Is this the reason you racists don't want gun control, then?
Yeah, that's it, we want them to kill themselves. And they are so stupid
they are doing it.
So the axe did cause permanent intellectual disability?
So are you agreeing to my point or not?
Fuck you Trots. Next time they should use a large caliber handgun and stick
it in your ear. You are repulsive. Your greatest contribution to mankind
would be to stop making CO2.
--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017
FPP
2017-10-13 23:08:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Sure they are, but it makes progs look bad, so like everything else that
makes progs look bad, we're not supposed to talk about it.
The sheer idiocy of that statement is breathtaking.
--
Trump University was a business that gave out business advice, that
literally went out-of-business -Ari Melber
FPP
2017-10-13 23:09:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Yep. "Australia!" has become a leftist dogwhistle to the faithful,
where they can push for confiscation without actually saying
it right out.
Kinda like "Chicago!" has been the con dogwhistle for ages now... so
they can be racist without actually saying it right out.
Once again, we note that FPP believes it's racist to talk about reality.
Nope... but "Chicago!" (tm) is the new "Benghazi!" (tm).
So then blacks aren't killing each other at a breathtaking pace?
Sure they are, but it makes progs look bad, so like everything else that
makes progs look bad, we're not supposed to talk about it. They add an
exclamation point and a trademark symbol and pretend that means there's
something wrong with the person who brings it up.
Meanwhile, if conservatives did the same thing with "Australia!"(tm),
they'd have a fit and come up with some logically tortured reason why
it's 'different' when they do it.
Sure they are, but it makes cons look bad, so like everything else that
makes cons look bad, we're not supposed to talk about it. They add an
exclamation point and a trademark symbol and pretend that means there's
something wrong with the person who brings it up.

Meanwhile, if liberals did the same thing with "Australia!"(tm),
they'd have a fit and come up with some logically tortured reason why
it's 'different' when they do it.
--
Trump University was a business that gave out business advice, that
literally went out-of-business -Ari Melber
Wile E. Coyote
2017-10-14 15:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Yep. "Australia!" has become a leftist dogwhistle to the faithful,
where they can push for confiscation without actually saying
it right out.
Kinda like "Chicago!" has been the con dogwhistle for ages now...
so they can be racist without actually saying it right out.
Once again, we note that FPP believes it's racist to talk about reality.
Nope... but "Chicago!" (tm) is the new "Benghazi!" (tm).
So then blacks aren't killing each other at a breathtaking pace?
Sure they are, but it makes progs look bad, so like everything else
that makes progs look bad, we're not supposed to talk about it. They
add an exclamation point and a trademark symbol and pretend that means
there's something wrong with the person who brings it up.
Meanwhile, if conservatives did the same thing with "Australia!"(tm),
they'd have a fit and come up with some logically tortured reason why
it's 'different' when they do it.
Sure they are, but it makes cons look bad, so like everything else that
makes cons look bad, we're not supposed to talk about it. They add an
exclamation point and a trademark symbol and pretend that means there's
something wrong with the person who brings it up.
Meanwhile, if liberals did the same thing with "Australia!"(tm),
they'd have a fit and come up with some logically tortured reason why
it's 'different' when they do it.
Brain not working?

The Australia Gun Control Fallacy

When someone says the United States ought to adopt Australia's gun laws, he
is really saying that gun control is worth risking violent insurrection.

<img src="http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/New-
Headshot.jpg" alt="Varad Mehta" height="110" width="110" />

By Varad Mehta

JUNE 25, 2015

The massacre in Charleston, South Carolina of nine members of a Bible study
at a historic African-American church has horrified the entire country.
Dylann Roof, a 21-year-old avowed white supremacist, has confessed to the
shooting. As news of this cold-blooded murder spread, attention turned, as
it inevitably (and understandably) does after such incidents, to the
subject of the presence of guns in American society.

Yet it quickly became apparent that America's moribund gun control debate
would remain moribund. President Obama's declaration that the country
"needs a change in attitude" had a rote quality to it, as did Hillary
Clinton's ringing endorsement of "common-sense gun reforms." As for Rep.
Carolyn Maloney's (D-New York) exhortation to pass legislation she recently
introduced to require gun owners to obtain liability insurance on the
grounds that "[i]f you want to buy that Uzi, the thinking goes, you should
also have to pay for the risk that gun poses to society as a result," the
less said the better.

Calls for stronger background checks on gun purchases or a new ban on
"assault weapons" have become formulaic. They're like winding a Victrola:
the record resumes spinning but it plays the same old song. Another tune in
the gun-control songbook, however, is worth listening to. Not as many sing
it, but nonetheless it is instructive as it shows the chorus of the media
and gun-control advocates at their laziest and most uncurious, and at their
most disingenuous if not dishonest. What song do I mean? I forget its name,
but it goes something like this.

What Australia Did After a 1996 Shooting

After any mass shooting someone will invoke the name "Australia" and raise
the question, "Can Australia's gun-control laws be a model for the United
States?" This time the honor belonged to CNN's Laura Smith-Spark, who
recounts the circumstances that led to Australia's current gun-control laws
and outlines their provisions. The laws were passed after the Port Arthur
massacre, a 1996 mass shooting in which one man killed 35 people. Australia
outlawed semi-automatic rifles, certain categories of shotgun, and
implemented strict licensing and registration requirements. The cornerstone
of its new gun-control scheme, however, was a massive gun buyback program.
The Australian government purchased 650,000 to one million guns with funds
raised via a special tax.

The Australian government purchased 650,000 to one million guns with funds
raised via a special tax.

The Australian paradigm became popular in the wake of the Newtown,
Connecticut, school shootings in 2012. USA Today, ABC News, Slate, the
Washington Post, and the Christian Science Monitor were among the outlets
that published articles urging Americans to look closely at the actions
their antipodean cousins took after a similar tragedy. Nor are Americans
the only ones who think we should heed the Australian example. Numerous
Australians have expressed pride in their country's gun laws by penning
columns beseeching Americans to transport America's gun laws from Down
Under.

These articles all point to the reduction in the rate of gun deaths in
Australia after the new system was established as its main achievement. But
it is the policy that allowed that system to be established which holds the
writers' and consequently the reader's attention. That policy is the gun
buyback program, which removed up to one million weapons from Australians'
hands and homes. This was, depending on the estimate, a fifth to a third of
Australia's gun stock. The statistic does not seem remarkable as a raw
number, but it is quite so when expressed as a percentage. No wonder
commentators fixate on it. The problem is the way most of them tell that
tale: when they describe Australia's gun buyback program, almost none of
them tell the truth about it.

The Australian Law Banned and Confiscated Guns

The crucial fact they omit is that the buyback program was mandatory.
Australia's vaunted gun buyback program was in fact a sweeping program of
gun confiscation. Only the articles from USA Today and the Washington Post
cited above contain the crucial information that the buyback was
compulsory. The article by Smith-Spark, the latest entry in the genre,
assuredly does not. It's the most important detail about the main provision
of Australia's gun laws, and pundits ignore it. That's like writing an
article about how Obamacare works without once mentioning the individual
mandate.

Yet when American gun control advocates and politicians praise Australia's
gun laws, that's just what they're doing. Charles Cooke of the National
Review shredded the rhetorical conceit of bellowing "Australia!" last year
after President Obama expressed his admiration for gun control à la Oz:

You simply cannot praise Australia's gun-laws without praising the
country's mass confiscation program. That is Australia's law. When the Left
says that we should respond to shootings as Australia did, they don't mean
that we should institute background checks on private sales; they mean that
they we should ban and confiscate guns. No amount of wooly words can change
this. Again, one doesn't bring up countries that have confiscated firearms
as a shining example unless one wishes to push the conversation toward
confiscation.

Cooke, of course, is right. When gun control advocates say they want
Australian gun control laws in the United States, what they are really
saying is that they want gun confiscation in the United States.

Democrat Leaders Support Gun Confiscation

Not all gun control proponents prevaricate. Some are forthright about their
intentions. After Sandy Hook, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) stated
she was considering legislation to institute a mandatory national buyback
program. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo also expressed an interest in
confiscation, at least for assault weapons. "Confiscation could be an
option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be
an option - keep your gun but permit it." Ultimately, New York did not
institute confiscation, but did require registration of existing assault
weapons and banned all sales of new and existing ones within the state.

Voluntary buyback initiatives are a waste of time and money. So those
hostile to gun rights continue to demand mandatory confiscation.

Gun buybacks remain a popular policy with the Left because it is the only
way of achieving what the Left regards as the only acceptable gun-control
solution: reducing the number of guns in America. Matt Miller of the Center
for American Progress proposed such a program after Sandy Hook. Conceding
that anything mandatory was unlikely to pass Congress, he pitched a gun
buyback program as a form of economic stimulus: give people cash for guns,
which they can then spend on other things. "Make gun owners an offer they
can't refuse. Instead of a measly $200 a gun, Uncle Sam might offer $500."
Why a gun owner would accept $500 for a gun that likely cost considerably
more is a question Miller unsurprisingly does not ask, let alone answer.
Posing it would puncture his balloon.

Voluntary buyback initiatives are a waste of time and money. So those
hostile to gun rights continue to demand mandatory confiscation. Earlier
this year, the advisory commission appointed by Connecticut Gov. Dannel
Malloy after Sandy Hook recommended banning the sale and possession of "any
rifle or handgun that accepts a detachable magazine." Commission members
shrugged off suggestions that this would entail an unconstitutional
prohibition on most firearms Americans own, saying it was not their job to
take such niceties into account. The editorial board of the Newark Star-
Ledger displayed similar "magical thinking" last September when it called
for mandatory confiscation in New Jersey. Predictably, the board cited the
Australian example, pointing to the drop in gun violence there as all the
necessary justification for inaugurating such a program here. The editorial
board concluded by bemoaning America's "hysteria over 'gun confiscation,'"
which would keep their fantasy just that.

How Would Government Get the Guns?

On this point at least they are correct. Gun confiscation is not happening
in the United States any time soon. But let's suppose it did. How would it
work? Australia's program netted, at the low end, 650,000 guns, and at the
high end, a million. That was approximately a fifth to a third of
Australian firearms. There are about as many guns in America as there are
people: 310 million of both in 2009. A fifth to a third would be between 60
and 105 million guns. To achieve in America what was done in Australia, in
other words, the government would have to confiscate as many as 105 million
firearms.

To achieve in America what was done in Australia, the government would have
to confiscate as many as 105 million firearms.

The 310 million guns in America are not owned by 310 million Americans.
Just how many Americans own guns, though, is controversial. The General
Social Survey shows gun ownership on a four-decade downward trajectory, to
32 percent of households in 2015. A 2011 Gallup poll, on the other hand,
found gun ownership at a two-decade high, with 47 percent of Americans
stating they possessed a firearm. As Harry Enten of The Guardian observed,
the answer to the gun ownership question seems heavily dependent on wording
and methodology: phone surveys consistently find higher rates. Moreover,
and this is the key point, those rates, however the surveys are conducted,
have been static for at least 15 years, while background checks have
soared.

A third to a half of the U.S. population translates to 105 to 160 million
people. A fifth to a third of guns is 60 to 105 million. Now that we see
what is required for an American buyback scheme to work on an Australian
scale, we can at last we confront the question gun-control advocates never
ask, let alone answer: how do you take 60 to 105 million firearms from 105
to 160 million Americans? The answer to that question is the answer to the
question of whether the Australian example really is valid for America
after all. If the experience of "blue" states which introduced gun
regulations that have nearly universal approval on the Left is any
indication, liberals are likely to experience keen disappointment.

Americans Resist Gun Confiscation

Both New York and Connecticut imposed strict new rules on the possession
and sale of guns after Sandy Hook. Among these were requirements for the
registration of so-called assault rifles in both states and in New York a
ban on "high-capacity" magazines regardless of when they were manufactured
or purchased. Compliance with the registration requirement has been modest
at best, as hundreds of thousands of gun owners in both states refused to
register their weapons. So far, then, the laws have been most successful in
creating hundreds of thousands of lawbreakers who feel obligated to break
the law.

If New York and Connecticut won't go along, what do Democrats expect would
happen in "red" states?

New York and Connecticut are two of the "bluest" states in the Union,
states with staunchly liberal Democratic governors and legislatures
dominated by Democrats and Northeastern Republicans who vote for gun
control. Yet the residents of these states have refused to go along with
the kinds of laws that gun-control advocates view as a minimum for what
they would like to see adopted at the federal level. If New York and
Connecticut won't go along, what do they expect would happen in "red"
states?Progressives will not answer that question because they never ask
it, not even to themselves, lest somehow they say it out loud. On guns, the
Left is incoherent, even insincere. It won't say what it wants because what
it wants is "a nonstarter politically, unfeasible in reality, and, by the
way, completely unconstitutional"-that is, confiscation on the Australian
model.Liberals refuse to confront the implications of their Australian
dream because doing so would force them to give that dream up. Those
implications are easy to spell out, though. A national gun buyback law
would turn a significant portion of the American people into criminals.
Residents of New York and Connecticut snubbed their new laws. The other 48
states are not New York and Connecticut. Civil disobedience on a national
scale would ensue.

The Australia Plan Would Require Coercion and Conflict

New York and Connecticut authorities so far have shown no inclination to
enforce their laws by going door to door to round up unregistered guns and
arrest their owners. But that's what would be necessary to enforce the law.
A federal law, therefore, would require sweeping, national police action
involving thousands of lawmen and affecting tens of millions of people. If
proponents of gun control are serious about getting guns out of Americans'
hands, someone will have to take those guns out of Americans' hands.

If proponents of gun control are serious about getting guns out of
Americans' hands, someone will have to take those guns out of Americans'
hands.

Australian-style gun control, in other words, would require government
force and coercion on a massive scale. Now, progressives don't understand
the nature of coercion, so maybe they would not see police action to
enforce gun confiscation as coercion. Or, perhaps, they actually do
understand that their ideal form of gun control requires it, which is why
they keep speaking in code and talk about "Australia" and not "wholesale
confiscation."

Let there be no doubt. Gun confiscation would have to be administered by
force of arms. I do not expect that those who dismissed their fellow
citizens for clinging bitterly to their guns are so naive that they imagine
these people will suddenly cease their bitter clinging when some nice young
man knocks on their door and says, "Hello, I'm from the government and I'm
here to take your guns." As though somehow those who daily espouse their
belief that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow citizens to
resist government oppression and tyranny will not use the Second Amendment
to resist what they see as government oppression and tyranny. Or maybe they
are so naive.

Many on the Left-and for this they are to be commended-have voiced their
opposition to the increasing militarization of America's police. Yet only a
militarized police could enforce an Australian gun-control scheme in the
United States. To take arms from men requires men with arms. There's no
other way to do it.

Yet because of the numbers of guns and men with guns in this country, any
policy to remove those guns will inevitably depend on some measure of
coercion, quite possibly a heavy measure. Does anyone honestly believe this
country has the will or resources to seize 60 to 105 million firearms from
105 to 160 million Americans? "Progressives believe it," I hear you answer.
Yes, but the ones who do, believe this dishonestly.

Modeling Australia Means Civil War

When someone says the United States ought to adopt Australia's gun laws as
its own, he is really saying the cause of gun control is so important that
he is willing to impose these laws even at the cost of violent
insurrection. Make no mistake, armed rebellion would be the consequence.
Armed men would be dispatched to confiscate guns, they would be met by
armed men, and blood would be shed. Australia is a valid example for
America only if you are willing for that blood to be spilled in torrents
and rivers. To choose Australia is to choose civil war.

In an op-ed for the New York Times written after Sandy Hook, John Howard,
the prime minister who oversaw the passage of Australia's current gun laws,
implored Americans to consider his nation's example. Yet Howard fully
understood the fundamental irrelevance of his country's laws to the United
States, and undermined his case by highlighting the differences between the
two countries.

Our challenges were different from America's. Australia is an even more
intensely urban society, with close to 60 percent of our people living in
large cities. Our gun lobby isn't as powerful or well-financed as the
National Rifle Association in the United States. Australia, correctly in my
view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say
than America's over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have
less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms. (After
all, the British granted us nationhood peacefully; the United States had to
fight for it.)

Leave aside that Australia had-and has-far fewer guns and people than we
do. Forget the bits about the gun lobby or Australia's greater
urbanization. The crucial point is the final one: Australia does not have a
bill of rights, and that, ultimately, is the reason it was able to
confiscate guns. Australians have no constitutional right to bear arms, so
seizing their weapons did not violate their constitutional rights. Gun
confiscation in the United States would require violating not only the
Second Amendment, but the fourth and fifth as well, and possibly even the
first. Progressives generally have no compunction about breaching the
Second Amendment, but one wonders how many others they would be eager to
violate in their quest to nullify the second. Civil war and a tattered
Constitution: such are the consequences of invoking "Australia." It is not
a model; it is a mirage.

There is an essential mendacity, whether intentional or not, to all
suggestions that Australia's system of gun control is suitable for the
United States. Conjuring Australia isn't innocent. But this trick does
serve one valuable purpose: when gun controllers perform it they reveal
what they truly desire. An Australian-style gun-control regime, it must be
abundantly clear by now, would not only be impractical in the United
States, it would be immoral. We would all be better served if American gun-
control advocates acknowledged this reality and left their fantasy Down
Under where it belongs.
--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017
Lesmond
2017-10-13 04:23:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Voluntary buyback initiatives are a waste of time and money.
Not to mention, they're a great way for criminals to get rid of the
murder weapon. L.A. has these "no questions asked" gun buybacks every
now and then and there's been at least one documented case of a murder
weapon being turned in for cash with no consequence.
Pretty sure most guns used in crimes pass through many hands. Do you have a
way to be sure it was the murderer who cashed it in?
--
She may contain the urge to run away
But hold her down with soggy clothes and breeze blocks
BTR1701
2017-10-13 15:19:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Voluntary buyback initiatives are a waste of time and money.
Not to mention, they're a great way for criminals to get rid of the
murder weapon. L.A. has these "no questions asked" gun buybacks every
now and then and there's been at least one documented case of a murder
weapon being turned in for cash with no consequence.
Pretty sure most guns used in crimes pass through many hands. Do you
have a way to be sure it was the murderer who cashed it in?
Nope, because they're not allowed to ask questions.
Lesmond
2017-10-13 16:06:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Voluntary buyback initiatives are a waste of time and money.
Not to mention, they're a great way for criminals to get rid of the
murder weapon. L.A. has these "no questions asked" gun buybacks every
now and then and there's been at least one documented case of a murder
weapon being turned in for cash with no consequence.
Pretty sure most guns used in crimes pass through many hands. Do you
have a way to be sure it was the murderer who cashed it in?
Nope, because they're not allowed to ask questions.
I'm really not getting your objections to this. What do you think the odds
are that the actual murderer sold his gun? And would it have been better if
he had kept it?
--
She may contain the urge to run away
But hold her down with soggy clothes and breeze blocks
BTR1701
2017-10-13 16:38:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Voluntary buyback initiatives are a waste of time and money.
Not to mention, they're a great way for criminals to get rid of the
murder weapon. L.A. has these "no questions asked" gun buybacks every
now and then and there's been at least one documented case of a murder
weapon being turned in for cash with no consequence.
Pretty sure most guns used in crimes pass through many hands. Do you
have a way to be sure it was the murderer who cashed it in?
Nope, because they're not allowed to ask questions.
I'm really not getting your objections to this. What do you think the
odds are that the actual murderer sold his gun?
Why not? If the cops can't legally ask you any questions (and if they do
it anyway, anything that flows from it can't be used against you in
court), why not make some scratch and get rid of the gun at the same
time?
And would it have been better if he had kept it?
Yeah, 'cause at least he wouldn't have been paid 200 taxpayer dollars
for his murder.
Adam H. Kerman
2017-10-15 18:42:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Both New York and Connecticut imposed strict new rules on the possession
and sale of guns after Sandy Hook. Among these were requirements for the
registration of so-called assault rifles in both states and in New York a
ban on "high-capacity" magazines regardless of when they were manufactured
or purchased. Compliance with the registration requirement has been modest
at best, as hundreds of thousands of gun owners in both states refused to
register their weapons. So far, then, the laws have been most successful in
creating hundreds of thousands of lawbreakers who feel obligated to break
the law.
They're not illegal guns. They're merely undocumented guns.
These guns are W.O.P.s?
T***@agent.com
2017-10-09 11:22:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or ANY
OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
FBI background with polygraph.
Sorry, troll... I'm not spending another minute to amuse you.
Not biting.
C'mon, Fred. I'm sure you know how unreliable polygraphs are.
trotsky
2017-10-09 13:18:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by T***@agent.com
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or ANY
OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
FBI background with polygraph.
Sorry, troll... I'm not spending another minute to amuse you.
Not biting.
C'mon, Fred. I'm sure you know how unreliable polygraphs are.
On TV? Hell yes.
BTR1701
2017-10-09 13:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by T***@agent.com
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or ANY
OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
FBI background with polygraph.
Sorry, troll... I'm not spending another minute to amuse you.
Not biting.
C'mon, Fred. I'm sure you know how unreliable polygraphs are.
Not to mention federal law specifically prohibits forcing people to take
them outside of applying for a national security position.
T***@agent.com
2017-10-09 13:59:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by T***@agent.com
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or ANY
OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
FBI background with polygraph.
Sorry, troll... I'm not spending another minute to amuse you.
Not biting.
C'mon, Fred. I'm sure you know how unreliable polygraphs are.
Not to mention federal law specifically prohibits forcing people to take
them outside of applying for a national security position.
Given the system's documented unreliablility, I wonder if it would
stand up to constitutional challenge if someone today contested a
firing due to a failed poly.
FPP
2017-10-09 21:05:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by T***@agent.com
Post by BTR1701
Post by T***@agent.com
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or ANY
OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
FBI background with polygraph.
Sorry, troll... I'm not spending another minute to amuse you.
Not biting.
C'mon, Fred. I'm sure you know how unreliable polygraphs are.
Not to mention federal law specifically prohibits forcing people to take
them outside of applying for a national security position.
Given the system's documented unreliablility, I wonder if it would
stand up to constitutional challenge if someone today contested a
firing due to a failed poly.
Ask the FBI. They'll tell you no... but their actions say otherwise.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fbi-polygraphs-countermeasures_us_57ffe22ce4b0162c043ae621
--
"It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care center.
Someone obviously missed their shift this morning." - Senator Bob
Corker,‏ TN.
Republican Chairman of Foreign Relations Committee 10-8-17
trotsky
2017-10-09 16:32:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by T***@agent.com
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or ANY
OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
FBI background with polygraph.
Sorry, troll... I'm not spending another minute to amuse you.
Not biting.
C'mon, Fred. I'm sure you know how unreliable polygraphs are.
Not to mention federal law specifically prohibits forcing people to take
them outside of applying for a national security position.
Cite?
moviePig
2017-10-09 16:55:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by T***@agent.com
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or ANY
OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
FBI background with polygraph.
Sorry, troll... I'm not spending another minute to amuse you.
Not biting.
C'mon, Fred. I'm sure you know how unreliable polygraphs are.
Not to mention federal law specifically prohibits forcing people to take
them outside of applying for a national security position.
Cite?
"Subject to restrictions, the [Employee Polygraph Protection Act]
permits polygraph (a type of lie detector) tests to be administered to
certain job applicants of security service firms (armored car, alarm,
and guard) and of pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors and
dispensers."

I looked it up because I was curious. I don't offer it as proof of
who's Right(tm) or who's Wrong(tm), about which I don't care.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
T***@agent.com
2017-10-09 17:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by T***@agent.com
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or ANY
OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
FBI background with polygraph.
Sorry, troll... I'm not spending another minute to amuse you.
Not biting.
C'mon, Fred. I'm sure you know how unreliable polygraphs are.
Not to mention federal law specifically prohibits forcing people to take
them outside of applying for a national security position.
Cite?
"Subject to restrictions, the [Employee Polygraph Protection Act]
permits polygraph (a type of lie detector) tests to be administered to
certain job applicants of security service firms (armored car, alarm,
and guard) and of pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors and
dispensers."
I looked it up because I was curious. I don't offer it as proof of
who's Right(tm) or who's Wrong(tm), about which I don't care.
Thanks, Pig. Does the law say that a failed poly by itself is
sufficient to deny or terminate employment or is it just one
consideration? Or what recourse a person has for an action taken as a
result of a failed poly?

It seems to me that given the pseudoscience surrounding the system it
is ripe for misuse and ensuing lawsuits.
moviePig
2017-10-09 19:55:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by T***@agent.com
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by T***@agent.com
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or ANY
OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
FBI background with polygraph.
Sorry, troll... I'm not spending another minute to amuse you.
Not biting.
C'mon, Fred. I'm sure you know how unreliable polygraphs are.
Not to mention federal law specifically prohibits forcing people to take
them outside of applying for a national security position.
Cite?
"Subject to restrictions, the [Employee Polygraph Protection Act]
permits polygraph (a type of lie detector) tests to be administered to
certain job applicants of security service firms (armored car, alarm,
and guard) and of pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors and
dispensers."
I looked it up because I was curious. I don't offer it as proof of
who's Right(tm) or who's Wrong(tm), about which I don't care.
Thanks, Pig. Does the law say that a failed poly by itself is
sufficient to deny or terminate employment or is it just one
consideration? Or what recourse a person has for an action taken as a
result of a failed poly?
It seems to me that given the pseudoscience surrounding the system it
is ripe for misuse and ensuing lawsuits.
Actually, I was surprised to hear here that private polygraphs are
off-limits to any significant degree. I even wondered if there might be
an attempt to restrict their use so that an industry of "polygraph
deceit" didn't render them *completely* useless. (I wondered that for
only a second or two.)

I suppose they're inherently fallible enough that people's basic rights
ought not be subject to them. But, for positions of high potential
impact to society, "better safe than sorry" is a tolerated standard.

I've sometimes wondered what would become of society and govt. if a
polygraph were devised having, say, a DNA-like level of reliability. I
think that, like fire and the wheel, it'd be a game changer...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
BTR1701
2017-10-09 20:25:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by moviePig
Actually, I was surprised to hear here that private polygraphs are
off-limits to any significant degree. I even wondered if there might be
an attempt to restrict their use so that an industry of "polygraph
deceit" didn't render them *completely* useless. (I wondered that for
only a second or two.)
The government has actively gone after people who run those "Learn How to
Beat the Polygraph" companies.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141115/16013429160/feds-indict-another-person-teaching-people-how-to-beat-polygraph-tests.shtml
Post by moviePig
I've sometimes wondered what would become of society and govt. if a
polygraph were devised having, say, a DNA-like level of reliability. I
think that, like fire and the wheel, it'd be a game changer...
Getting closer.

http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2016/11/10/brain-scans-may-detect-lies-better-than-polygraph-tests-new-study-shows/
Rhino
2017-10-09 21:28:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by moviePig
Post by T***@agent.com
Post by BTR1701
Post by T***@agent.com
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator
Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of
minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or ANY
OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
FBI background with polygraph.
Sorry, troll... I'm not spending another minute to amuse you.
Not biting.
C'mon, Fred. I'm sure you know how unreliable polygraphs are.
Not to mention federal law specifically prohibits forcing people to take
them outside of applying for a national security position.
Cite?
    "Subject to restrictions, the [Employee Polygraph Protection Act]
permits polygraph (a type of lie detector) tests to be administered to
certain job applicants of security service firms (armored car, alarm,
and guard) and of pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors and
dispensers."
I looked it up because I was curious.  I don't offer it as proof of
who's Right(tm) or who's Wrong(tm), about which I don't care.
Thanks, Pig. Does the law say that a failed poly by itself is
sufficient to deny or terminate employment or is it just one
consideration? Or what recourse a person has for an action taken as a
result of a failed poly?
It seems to me that given the pseudoscience surrounding the system it
is ripe for misuse and ensuing lawsuits.
Actually, I was surprised to hear here that private polygraphs are
off-limits to any significant degree.  I even wondered if there might be
an attempt to restrict their use so that an industry of "polygraph
deceit" didn't render them *completely* useless.  (I wondered that for
only a second or two.)
I suppose they're inherently fallible enough that people's basic rights
ought not be subject to them.  But, for positions of high potential
impact to society, "better safe than sorry" is a tolerated standard.
I've sometimes wondered what would become of society and govt. if a
polygraph were devised having, say, a DNA-like level of reliability.  I
think that, like fire and the wheel, it'd be a game changer...
There's a pretty good novel that asks - and tries to answer - that
question. It's called Barking Dogs by Terence Green.

https://www.amazon.com/Barking-Dogs-Terence-M-Green/dp/0312913559/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1507584348&sr=1-1&keywords=Barking+Dogs+Terence+Green

You probably aren't familiar with Green; he's a Canadian and a part-time
writer for most of his career (he was a high school teacher before he
retired) but he's actually rather good.
--
Rhino
trotsky
2017-10-09 18:04:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by T***@agent.com
C'mon, Fred. I'm sure you know how unreliable polygraphs are.
Not to mention federal law specifically prohibits forcing people to take
them outside of applying for a national security position.
Cite?
   "Subject to restrictions, the [Employee Polygraph Protection Act]
permits polygraph (a type of lie detector) tests to be administered to
certain job applicants of security service firms (armored car, alarm,
and guard) and of pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors and
dispensers."
I looked it up because I was curious.  I don't offer it as proof of
who's Right(tm) or who's Wrong(tm), about which I don't care.
Armored cars aren't "national security positions" so Thanny is wrong as
usual. And stop trying to muddy the waters because only one person was
making such a pronouncement. I guess Tom is also wrong because if they
were so "unreliable" they wouldn't be using them to screen any kind of
applicants.
T***@agent.com
2017-10-09 22:31:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by T***@agent.com
C'mon, Fred. I'm sure you know how unreliable polygraphs are.
Not to mention federal law specifically prohibits forcing people to take
them outside of applying for a national security position.
Cite?
   "Subject to restrictions, the [Employee Polygraph Protection Act]
permits polygraph (a type of lie detector) tests to be administered to
certain job applicants of security service firms (armored car, alarm,
and guard) and of pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors and
dispensers."
I looked it up because I was curious.  I don't offer it as proof of
who's Right(tm) or who's Wrong(tm), about which I don't care.
Armored cars aren't "national security positions" so Thanny is wrong as
usual. And stop trying to muddy the waters because only one person was
making such a pronouncement. I guess Tom is also wrong because if they
were so "unreliable" they wouldn't be using them to screen any kind of
applicants.
I've done some research on this over the years, T. Recently John
Oliver had a rather scathing piece poly's reliability. The Skeptical
Inquirer, a magazine of skeptical thought I subscribe to, had an
article recently criticizing the technology.

I quote the following from an article from the American Psychological
Association:


"Polygraph testing has generated considerable scientific and public
controversy. Most psychologists and other scientists agree that there
is little basis for the validity of polygraph tests. Courts, including
the United States Supreme Court (cf. U.S. v. Scheffer, 1998 in which
Dr.'s Saxe's research on polygraph fallibility was cited), have
repeatedly rejected the use of polygraph evidence because of its
inherent unreliability. Nevertheless, polygraph testing continues to
be used in non-judicial settings, often to screen personnel, but
sometimes to try to assess the veracity of suspects and witnesses, and
to monitor criminal offenders on probation. Polygraph tests are also
sometimes used by individuals seeking to convince others of their
innocence and, in a narrow range of circumstances, by private agencies
and corporations.
The development of currently used "lie detection" technologies has
been based on ideas about physiological functioning but has, for the
most part, been independent of systematic psychological research.
Early theorists believed that deception required effort and, thus,
could be assessed by monitoring physiological changes. But such
propositions have not been proven and basic research remains limited
on the nature of deceptiveness. Efforts to develop actual tests have
always outpaced theory-based basic research. Without a better
theoretical understanding of the mechanisms by which deception
functions, however, development of a lie detection technology seems
highly problematic.
For now, although the idea of a lie detector may be comforting, the
most practical advice is to remain skeptical about any conclusion
wrung from a polygraph."

If you want to read the entire article, here is the link:
http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx
FPP
2017-10-09 21:03:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by T***@agent.com
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or ANY
OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
FBI background with polygraph.
Sorry, troll... I'm not spending another minute to amuse you.
Not biting.
C'mon, Fred. I'm sure you know how unreliable polygraphs are.
Not to mention federal law specifically prohibits forcing people to take
them outside of applying for a national security position.
Who forced him to buy the gun again?
--
"It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care center.
Someone obviously missed their shift this morning." - Senator Bob
Corker,‏ TN.
Republican Chairman of Foreign Relations Committee 10-8-17
BTR1701
2017-10-09 22:00:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by T***@agent.com
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or ANY
OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
FBI background with polygraph.
Sorry, troll... I'm not spending another minute to amuse you.
Not biting.
C'mon, Fred. I'm sure you know how unreliable polygraphs are.
Not to mention federal law specifically prohibits forcing people to take
them outside of applying for a national security position.
Who forced him to buy the gun again?
It's a guaranteed constitutional right.

Maybe we should polygraph people before letting them vote, too. Oh, I
forgot... asking for an ID is too much of an imposition when it comes to
guaranteed rights.
FPP
2017-10-10 00:24:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by T***@agent.com
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or ANY
OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
FBI background with polygraph.
Sorry, troll... I'm not spending another minute to amuse you.
Not biting.
C'mon, Fred. I'm sure you know how unreliable polygraphs are.
Not to mention federal law specifically prohibits forcing people to take
them outside of applying for a national security position.
Who forced him to buy the gun again?
It's a guaranteed constitutional right.
Maybe we should polygraph people before letting them vote, too. Oh, I
forgot... asking for an ID is too much of an imposition when it comes to
guaranteed rights.
Wonderful, Capt. Obvious,
Now... who forced him to buy the gun again?

I've already told you at least 20 times. Voter ID isnt a problem.
Using voter ID as a vehicle to deny people their right to vote is.

How dense are you that you can't understand that simple fact?
--
P.T. Barnum: "There's a sucker born every minute…"
Donald Trump: "Hey guys… got a minute?"
BTR1701
2017-10-10 04:57:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by T***@agent.com
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or ANY
OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
FBI background with polygraph.
Sorry, troll... I'm not spending another minute to amuse you.
Not biting.
C'mon, Fred. I'm sure you know how unreliable polygraphs are.
Not to mention federal law specifically prohibits forcing people to take
them outside of applying for a national security position.
Who forced him to buy the gun again?
It's a guaranteed constitutional right.
Maybe we should polygraph people before letting them vote, too. Oh, I
forgot... asking for an ID is too much of an imposition when it comes to
guaranteed rights.
Wonderful, Capt. Obvious,
Now... who forced him to buy the gun again?
Who's forcing people to vote again?
FPP
2017-10-10 05:51:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by T***@agent.com
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of
minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or ANY
OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
FBI background with polygraph.
Sorry, troll... I'm not spending another minute to amuse you.
Not biting.
C'mon, Fred. I'm sure you know how unreliable polygraphs are.
Not to mention federal law specifically prohibits forcing people to take
them outside of applying for a national security position.
Who forced him to buy the gun again?
It's a guaranteed constitutional right.
Maybe we should polygraph people before letting them vote, too. Oh, I
forgot... asking for an ID is too much of an imposition when it comes to
guaranteed rights.
Wonderful, Capt. Obvious,
Now... who forced him to buy the gun again?
Who's forcing people to vote again?
Sure as fuck wasn't a Republican, now was it?
--
P.T. Barnum: "There's a sucker born every minute…"
Donald Trump: "Hey guys… got a minute?"
trotsky
2017-10-10 10:37:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by T***@agent.com
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of
minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or ANY
OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
FBI background with polygraph.
Sorry, troll... I'm not spending another minute to amuse you.
Not biting.
C'mon, Fred. I'm sure you know how unreliable polygraphs are.
Not to mention federal law specifically prohibits forcing people to take
them outside of applying for a national security position.
Who forced him to buy the gun again?
It's a guaranteed constitutional right.
Maybe we should polygraph people before letting them vote, too. Oh, I
forgot... asking for an ID is too much of an imposition when it comes to
guaranteed rights.
Wonderful, Capt. Obvious,
Now... who forced him to buy the gun again?
Who's forcing people to vote again?
Putin.
FPP
2017-10-09 21:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by T***@agent.com
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or ANY
OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
FBI background with polygraph.
Sorry, troll... I'm not spending another minute to amuse you.
Not biting.
C'mon, Fred. I'm sure you know how unreliable polygraphs are.
Yup. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the point.
--
"It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care center.
Someone obviously missed their shift this morning." - Senator Bob
Corker,‏ TN.
Republican Chairman of Foreign Relations Committee 10-8-17
Just Wondering
2017-10-09 18:25:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or ANY
OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
FBI background with polygraph.
Paddock passed at least two FBI background checks.
How do you know Paddock wouldn't have passed a polygraph test?

Answer: You don't.
Polygraph tests would violate the First Amendment.
How would you do that, anyway, station an FBI agent trained
in polygraphs at every gun store?
How are you going to eliminate all the false positives
you'd get with polygraph tests?
FPP
2017-10-09 21:07:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or ANY
OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
FBI background with polygraph.
Paddock passed at least two FBI background checks.
How do you know Paddock wouldn't have passed a polygraph test?
Answer:  You don't.
Polygraph tests would violate the First Amendment.
Tell that to the FBI.
--
"It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care center.
Someone obviously missed their shift this morning." - Senator Bob
Corker,‏ TN.
Republican Chairman of Foreign Relations Committee 10-8-17
Just Wondering
2017-10-09 22:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by Just Wondering
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or ANY
OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
FBI background with polygraph.
Paddock passed at least two FBI background checks.
How do you know Paddock wouldn't have passed a polygraph test?
Answer:  You don't.
Polygraph tests would violate the First Amendment.
Tell that to the FBI.
No need, since your bullshit idea won't ever happen.
FPP
2017-10-10 00:25:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by FPP
Post by Just Wondering
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or ANY
OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
FBI background with polygraph.
Paddock passed at least two FBI background checks.
How do you know Paddock wouldn't have passed a polygraph test?
Answer:  You don't.
Polygraph tests would violate the First Amendment.
Tell that to the FBI.
No need, since your bullshit idea won't ever happen.
Tell that to the FBI.
--
P.T. Barnum: "There's a sucker born every minute…"
Donald Trump: "Hey guys… got a minute?"
Just Wondering
2017-10-10 01:07:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by Just Wondering
Post by FPP
Post by Just Wondering
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or
ANY OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
FBI background with polygraph.
Paddock passed at least two FBI background checks.
How do you know Paddock wouldn't have passed a polygraph test?
Answer:  You don't.
Polygraph tests would violate the First Amendment.
Tell that to the FBI.
No need, since your bullshit idea won't ever happen.
Tell that to the FBI.
OK. HEY FBI, LISTEN UP!! FPP CAME UP WITH A BULLSHIT IDEA
THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. HIS BULLSHIT IDEA IT TO ADMINISTER
A POLYGRAPH TEST EVERY TIME SOMEBODY WANTS TO BUY A GUN OR AMMO.
FBI: Really? We agree, FPP's idea really is bullshit.
FPP
2017-10-10 05:54:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by Just Wondering
Post by FPP
Post by Just Wondering
Post by FPP
Post by FPP
NOT "instead of" anything.  There's not a gun control law, or
ANY OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing.  In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting.  But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
FBI background with polygraph.
Paddock passed at least two FBI background checks.
How do you know Paddock wouldn't have passed a polygraph test?
Answer:  You don't.
Polygraph tests would violate the First Amendment.
Tell that to the FBI.
No need, since your bullshit idea won't ever happen.
Tell that to the FBI.
OK.  HEY FBI, LISTEN UP!!  FPP CAME UP WITH A BULLSHIT IDEA
THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.  HIS BULLSHIT IDEA IT TO ADMINISTER
A POLYGRAPH TEST EVERY TIME SOMEBODY WANTS TO BUY A GUN OR AMMO.
FBI:  Really?  We agree, FPP's idea really is bullshit.
That's not my idea. It was the reply to a moron's question that a
background check didn't exist that would have prevented the shooting.
Well, the moron was wrong.

Then the moron asked if there was a single law that could have prevented it.
Once again, moron was wrong.

What do you have against morons having their moronic ideas shot down? I
always enjoy the exercise.
--
P.T. Barnum: "There's a sucker born every minute…"
Donald Trump: "Hey guys… got a minute?"
Scout
2017-10-10 06:14:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by Just Wondering
Post by FPP
Post by Just Wondering
Post by FPP
Post by Just Wondering
Post by FPP
Post by Just Wondering
Post by FPP
Post by Just Wondering
NOT "instead of" anything. There's not a gun control law, or ANY
OTHER LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing. In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting. But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
FBI background with polygraph.
Paddock passed at least two FBI background checks.
How do you know Paddock wouldn't have passed a polygraph test?
Answer: You don't.
Polygraph tests would violate the First Amendment.
Tell that to the FBI.
No need, since your bullshit idea won't ever happen.
Tell that to the FBI.
OK. HEY FBI, LISTEN UP!! FPP CAME UP WITH A BULLSHIT IDEA
THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. HIS BULLSHIT IDEA IT TO ADMINISTER
A POLYGRAPH TEST EVERY TIME SOMEBODY WANTS TO BUY A GUN OR AMMO.
FBI: Really? We agree, FPP's idea really is bullshit.
That's not my idea. It was the reply to a moron's question that a
background check didn't exist that would have prevented the shooting.
Well, the moron was wrong.
Then the moron asked if there was a single law that could have prevented it.
Once again, moron was wrong.
No, because first you would need a Constitutional amendment, only then could
you impose that single law, and you've not show it would have worked to stop
him.

So....2 laws and an unproven assertion = You lose.
Scout
2017-10-09 23:23:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by Just Wondering
Post by FPP
Post by Just Wondering
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
NOT "instead of" anything. There's not a gun control law, or ANY OTHER
LAW, that if passed would have prevented the LV shooting.
I can think of about 20.
I challenge you to put them down in writing. In fact, don't
go for all 20, just describe ONE law that would have prevented
the LV shooting. But you won't, because you can't, because
there isn't any such thing.
FBI background with polygraph.
Sorry, troll... I'm not spending another minute to amuse you.
He already passed the background checks and I'm pretty certain at the time
he passed the background checks he would have passed a poly even if we
accept it to be as accurate as you seem to believe it to be.
Wile E. Coyote
2017-10-09 13:46:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I'm just plain ignorant. I can't think.
We know.
--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017
Ubiquitous
2017-10-09 01:29:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control, in which he made a series of misleading and
at times outright false claims about guns and mass shootings. Playing
Kimmel's opening monologue line by line, Crowder responded to each of
Kimmel's assertions to highlight the false premises and lack of
factual legitimacy.
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
In other words, you are unable to refute Crowder shredding Kimmel's estrogen
show monologue.
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
http://youtu.be/8D0HSJDkFGI
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
FPP
2017-10-09 06:55:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control, in which he made a series of misleading and
at times outright false claims about guns and mass shootings. Playing
Kimmel's opening monologue line by line, Crowder responded to each of
Kimmel's assertions to highlight the false premises and lack of
factual legitimacy.
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
In other words, you are unable to refute Crowder shredding Kimmel's estrogen
show monologue.
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
http://youtu.be/8D0HSJDkFGI
Right... I can't. Nobody can refute something that didn't happen.
Except morons.
--
"Donald Trump accepted the Republican nomination Thursday July 22nd."
"ISIS claimed responsibility". - J. P. Shanley
TruthBarker
2017-10-09 10:40:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
It is obvious Crowder would prefer Kimmel to crack jokes about the
massacre and have a great laugh.

Crowder makes his money through tragedy in America, laughs all the way
to the bank!
Wile E. Coyote
2017-10-09 13:45:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control,
... instead of the 500 Americans ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.
Where are you on the nigger on nigger shootings every week in Chicago?
--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017
Wile E. Coyote
2017-10-09 13:44:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ubiquitous
On his podcast this week, conservative comedian and commentator Steven
Crowder took some time address late-show host Jimmy Kimmel's tearful
call for more gun control, in which he made a series of misleading and
at times outright false claims about guns and mass shootings. Playing
Kimmel's opening monologue line by line, Crowder responded to each of
Kimmel's assertions to highlight the false premises and lack of
factual legitimacy.
Crowder began with Kimmel's statement that "we'll never know why a
human being would do something like this to other human beings."
"It's a really simple answer why," says Crowder. "It's called evil.
It's something the Left refuses to acknowledge exists ... Listen, it's
horrible. It doesn't mean you have to comprehend evil, but it's not a
complex question. ... What led them to that evil ... and what allowed
them to commit that act of evil and what's the best way to curb it
moving forward? That's the discussion we should be having."
Crowder then addresses Kimmel's suggestion that the Founding Fathers
never intended for us to have AK-47s by noting his previous video,
"The 2nd Amendment: For Muskets Only?" which highlights the wide array
of firearms available at the period, including cannons, which were
specifically allowed.
Crowder also takes a moment to respond to Kimmel's comment about
Americans' reactions to "a guy with a beard" committing an act of
terror by arguing that focusing security measures on radical Islamists
is well-founded, citing a study that shows that Islamic attacks
globally "account for more than 74% of all deaths from terrorism."
As for Kimmel's dismissive reference to travel bans and building
walls, Crowder underscores that those types of security policies "work
everywhere they've been implemented, from Israel to Hungary. Israel
experienced a 90% drop in terror attacks after building a fence on the
West Bank. Hungary cut its influx of migrants from several thousand a
day to less than 40."
Crowder then takes down Kimmel's statement that "all" of the mass
shootings have been committed with "automatic or semi-automatic guns."
Crowder notes that handguns are by far the most commonly used weapons
for shootings, including those involving four or more people. He also
blasts Kimmel's attempt to conflate "automatic" and "semiautomatic."
"Most guns that are sold today [are] semi-automatic," he says.
"Fully-automatic is heavily regulated and basically is not available
to the average person."
In response to Kimmel's claim that these types of guns are not used
defensively, Crowder said he couldn't be more wrong, citing census
bureau information showing that the guns are used defensively more
often than offensively, including rifles.
Crowder goes on to take down Kimmel's other misleading or outright
false claims, including that the administration has made it easier for
people with mental health issues to have access to guns and the Left's
repeated talking point about the so-called "gun show loophole" (which
Crowder exposes in another video).
http://youtu.be/8D0HSJDkFGI
Kimmel's problem is he is not dead.
--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017
Loading...