Hey, what a about a response to my post #15?  I thought it was pretty good.

Goose wrote:

Do you really believe that someone who wants background checks is "morally bankrupt" and "would rather dismiss the havoc caused by the murderers, rapists, rioters and robbers walking in their midst, and then, without embarrassment, tell everyone that both police and gun rights people are the savages for exercising the right of self-defense against the lawless horde they protect and nurture". 
 

If you are going to quote my words post them in the context that I used them.  Those descriptors I used were directed at a particular breed of rabid anti-gunner, one who reflexively calls for more and more restrictions on legal firearm acquisition, possession and use, while ignoring the criminal. 

 

Goose wrote:

Frankly, I'm at a loss. Your comments are insane. Frighteningly, hatefully, insane.

Well, that hysterical state is of your making apparently. 

Try addressing what I actually write without putting a spin on it. 

Actually, the concept of “background checks” in general isn’t objectionable to me and those that call for a better system --out of an honest desire to keep gun out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them-- are reasonable and I count myself among them. 

The topic gets sticky when it comes to the push for universal background checks.  A “universal” system can’t function without the registration of guns and gun owners and that will always be unacceptable on its face.

Goose wrote:

If you have something to add to the conversation sir, kindly do it without all the baiting, the cliches about "the left"

If you read the linked article you would see that I am on topic with the OP.  It frames its points against “Obama and his allies in Congress and on the outside” that pushed the anti-gun agenda post Newtown and now.  The article calls out their tactics of demonizing the NRA.  I did too, expanding on the article’s points and noting that your reply (post #2) to the OP continued in that tactic. 

Goose wrote:

The goal here is to discuss the issues of the day in an atmosphere of mutual respect, not to indulge in pointless quarrels and expressions of condemnation and hatred of your fellow posters.

Sounds great . . .   It would be a nice change of pace here for gun rights supporters to be treated as intellectual equals and to be recognized as not mindlessly parroting NRA talking points or Fox News.  It would be refreshing to be treated as if our opposition to gun control might have a principled foundation based on the Constitution and not to be told that we just need to wake up and stop being manipulated by the NRA or Fox News.   Such respect would be a wonderful thing and certainly would lead to a higher level of discourse and debate.

Goose wrote:

Oh, and for God's sake, turn off Fox!

Yeah, sure would be nice to see. 

To speak to your comment though, I’m comfortable knowing that my positions are not the product of someone telling me what to think. 

My well developed opinion of the OP article’s “Obama and his allies in Congress and on the outside” (AKA - the anti-gun left) is a product of listening to and watching them!  BHO and HRC, Schumer and Pelosi and yes, even Maddow and the others articulate the plan quite well and ridicule the principles I cherish . . .  So, I don’t need any cheerleading affirmation of my positions by Fox personality because my beliefs are confirmed by the speech and actions of those who I assign the moniker ‘anti-gun left’.

Fact is, I much rather listen to / read / watch those who I disagree with much more than those that agree with me.  I seek out liberal / progressive voices and commentary and yes, message boards because I enjoy reading and listening to opposing arguments to confirm that my already arrived at positions can withstand challenge.

Here’s hoping that the left leaning posters here can accept that I have arrived at my positions on the Constitution / gun control / gun rights through 35+ years of reading and learning and 21 years of refining my arguments in debate and respond to me without all the baiting and the clichés about the “NRA” and “Fox News”.
 

Jeerleader wrote:

Actually, the concept of “background checks” in general isn’t objectionable to me and those that call for a better system --out of an honest desire to keep gun out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them-- are reasonable and I count myself among them. 

The topic gets sticky when it comes to the push for universal background checks.  A “universal” system can’t function without the registration of guns and gun owners and that will always be unacceptable on its face.


 

So, you don't have a problem with background checks so long as we don't check every gun buyer's background?

How do we determine if a background check is appropriate before we know anything about the buyer's background?

Just which buyers should be subject to a background check?

Why are guns so important to some people?

"Currently illegal, completely unworkable, open to all manner of errors and abuse and as shown by the Canadian model, useless."


I guess that's why Canada is ranked #8 on Humanity world rankings as safe places to live and the U.S. Is ranked #97.

Must be because of those failed gun laws in Canada.

Jeerleader, please help me understand exactly what the process you see as coming to fruition to take away firearms from law abiding citizens in the U.S. Describe that process that you fear. How would this happen? Which government agency would have the responsibility for collecting these weapons? Exactly how would they do it? Do you think that a countrywide confiscation program would ever work?