Five Fast Gun Reforms President Trump Will Sign Into Law - Page 3
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 74

Thread: Five Fast Gun Reforms President Trump Will Sign Into Law

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueshell View Post
    A Google search for substantiating a statistical claim? My goodness. Sourcing etiquette doesn't get any more invalid than that.

    I was going to ask you how many of those results you yourself actually read, but I think I figured it out - only the top one about the San Bernadino killers who got one or two of the several guns they used via a straw purchaser. Otherwise, there's nothing jumping off the pages of the several others I sampled to substantiate your claim, and no indication that you read any of 'em among your "verious" sources.

    To other readers: Disregard the above link as being a source for, or substantiation for, the douchebaggery claim Blueshell made above.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  2.   
  3. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    A Google search for substantiating a statistical claim? My goodness. Sourcing etiquette doesn't get any more invalid than that.

    I was going to ask you how many of those results you yourself actually read, but I think I figured it out - only the top one about the San Bernadino killers who got one or two of the several guns they used via a straw purchaser. Otherwise, there's nothing jumping off the pages of the several others I sampled to substantiate your claim, and no indication that you read any of 'em among your "verious" sources.

    To other readers: Disregard the above link as being a source for, or substantiation for, the douchebaggery claim Blueshell made above.

    Blues
    Well maybe Santa will bring me a PC for Christmas, then I can access my external storage and pull up the well reserched post I have for that question.

    Until then you will need to rely on the efforts to disprove anything anyone says, as you should already be doing anyway.

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueshell View Post
    Well maybe Santa will bring me a PC for Christmas, then I can access my external storage and pull up the well reserched post I have for that question.

    Until then you will need to rely on the efforts to disprove anything anyone says, as you should already be doing anyway.
    To other readers: I suggest you disregard this nonsense as well.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  5. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    To other readers: I suggest you disregard this nonsense as well.

    Blues
    That's their call.

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueshell View Post
    That's their call.
    That's why I offered it as a "suggestion."
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  7. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueshell View Post
    Well maybe Santa will bring me a PC for Christmas, then I can access my external storage and pull up the well reserched post I have for that question.

    Until then you will need to rely on the efforts to disprove anything anyone says, as you should already be doing anyway.
    You have it backwards. It is not up to others to disprove something someone else said but is incumbent upon the person who says something is fact to prove it is indeed fact. That is why when someone is asked, or in some cases challenged, to provide cites and/or links to actual factual sources and no cites and/or links are forthcoming the person who can't prove what they say is factual loses all credibility and their postings become nothing more than opinion... or become misinformation and are less than worthless.
    Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J. C. Watts

  8. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    That's why I offered it as a "suggestion."
    That's why I said it's their call.

  9. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    You have it backwards. It is not up to others to disprove something someone else said but is incumbent upon the person who says something is fact to prove it is indeed fact.

    That is why when someone is asked, or in some cases challenged, to provide cites and/or links to actual factual sources and no cites and/or links are forthcoming the person who can't prove what they say is factual loses all credibility and their postings become nothing more than opinion... or become misinformation and are less than worthless.
    Credibility per-se is worthles. No one should believe anything I say simply because I said it. No one should believe anything you say simply because you said it.

    You should not believe anything anyone else says simply because they said it.

    Reject everything by default.

    No one in the whole world should persue credibility, for me to then need be one one of them.

    Also, one has to accept a challenge in order to suceed or fail the challenge. I accepted no such challenge, and so I've failed nothing.

  10. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Contempt37 View Post
    These decisions are best left to the states... I like them all, BUT this is the federal government interfering with the state right to govern. Abolish the federal bans and then let the residents of the states vote for laws they want.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    I totally agree and would like to add:

    I consider myself an independent when it comes to political matters. Of conservative values I love, it's the idea of small government. And what I can't understand with these proposed laws in the original post (especially the idea of national reciprocity) is how they are praised yet the idea of Obama's executive order on firearms (not a fan of Obama, full disclosure) is seen as tyranny or how marriage equality ruling is seen as taking away States' rights to govern. I'm not arguing any moral stance about Obama's order or marriage equality. Rather, I am pointing out that it is intellectually dishonest to be satisfied with a diversion away from principles when the diversion is self-serving. That is to say, I'm not a fan of the "small government except (insert political issue here)" idea. And this sounds exactly like that kind of idea.
    Last edited by bluerollick; 11-16-2016 at 07:33 PM. Reason: poor grammar first time around.
    :: Blue ::

  11. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by bluerollick View Post
    I totally agree and would like to add:

    I consider myself an independent when it comes to political matters. Of conservative values I love, it's the idea of small government. And what I can't understand with these proposed laws in the original post (especially the idea of national reciprocity) is how they are praised yet the idea of Obama's executive order on firearms (not a fan of Obama, full disclosure) is seen as tyranny or how marriage equality ruling is seen as taking away States' rights to govern. I'm not arguing any moral stance about Obama's order or marriage equality. Rather, I am pointing out that it is intellectually dishonest to be satisfied with a diversion away from principles when the diversion is self-serving. That is to say, I'm not a fan of the "small government except (insert political issue here)" idea. And this sounds exactly like that kind of idea.
    When the state violates a basic right, that's when the Fed stepping in to put an end to the violation is warranted and appropriate.

    States have no right to do whatsoever they please on whatever topic they like. States ratified the Constitution and have agreed to abide by basic rules; one of those rules is to not infringe upon the RKBA.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast