Still not one single shred of evidence… 
I’m sure you are, fuckwipe.
Must have missed the edit. The rules in the Pit are quite different than the rest of the board. This is detailed in each forum sticky at the top, and if that is not there, then the general rules in ATMB apply. Any questions about the board rules/etiquette, etc. belong in ATMB generally.
TLDR: name calling in the Pit is among the raison d’etre of the Pit.
ahhh… that explains why sparkle boots put this here.
Sorry I crossed the line.
And yet, you don’t refer to Trump as “pussy grabber extraordinaire?”
One more time. Please take your Fox goggles off so you can understand truth and logic.
All I need is a reasonable suspicion that you’re a troll. I already have that. When I have proof, I PM a mod, they send me my 5th, and I toast your bannation.
Seriously, you need to get with Clothahump, he’s got some really fucked political views too.
Far, far too much time in the ultra-right wing echo chamber that is Pacific Pundit.
Actually for a board that leans pretty left, this place is actually very pro-gun. Especially the lawful and responsible ownership of guns for fun and collecting. Not me, just an observation from being here for 12+ years now.
The fact that you’re being challenged is that your Op assumes we know what you’re crowing about and that Fox would be treated as a legit news source. This is a lefty board, many posters trust MSNBC more than they should, but almost no one here treats Fox as anything but the garbage it is.
Could you point out a non-factual or innacurate statement made by a Bloomberg puppet?
Demanding that people read an article you posted before you’ll discuss anything with them is not a productive path.
Of course it is. Citing questionable biased sources and then demanding that people only address what you want is what isn’t well tolerated here.
It might come as a bit of a shock to you, but we’re not all ignorant of the subject and just waiting for you to prove our beliefs wrong. I was an NRA Benefactor member for well over 25 years. I support gun rights. What I don’t support is the modern, fascist propaganda NRA. I also don’t support people whose information comes from known biased sources who refuse to consider that, well, they might be full of shit.
FYI, I PMed you about this, for the purposes of clarification. If you want to discuss this specific decision openly, it’s best to open a thread in ATMB. You could always start another gun-control thread, on the same topic, with a formality of structure similar to what’s floating around in Great Debates… don’t ask me for advice on that, I don’t spend too much time in that forum. My patience is fairly short when it comes to pedantry. But if you look at the other OPs there, you’ll get the gist.
-Spice, who is at best neutral on the subject of gun laws, but generally leans pro 2nd.
Oh, THAT asshole.
The tests performed were for private sellers, not dealers. To quote the GAO report:
“Tests performed on the Surface Web demonstrated that private sellers GAO
contacted on gun forums and other classified ads were unwilling to sell a firearm
to an individual who appeared to be prohibited from possessing a firearm.”
Even if you don’t believe the results reported in the Bloomberg report, a study 5 years later does not disprove it. And the tests carried out for the GAO report, which they emphasizes were for “illustrative purposes”, do not show you can’t obtain guns that way illegally, since they volunteered background information preventing the made up buyers from purchasing firearms.
Now try pointing out an actual error in what I posted.
Well, I took one for the team and read the Fox story. Basically they are saying that when the fake buyer said something like “Hey, selling me a weapon would be illegal, you know”, internet firearms dealers mostly did not complete the sale. I guess that’s a “win” for the OP?? But later, in that same article ( I love when they self-own), the Bloomberg study is “refuted” by pointing out that the Bloomberg funded study
Okay, so what? The recent “hey, I’m a bad guy, will you sell to me” sting seemed to be targeted at dealers specifically. The Bloomberg fact that Fox implies they are refuting concerns private sellers.
So, your Fox link is crap.
So here are some things to consider. Am I willing to concede that federally licensed dealers do a reasonably good job at weeding out some buyers? I don’t know, maybe. Although I am anecdotally convinced that they will err on the side of making the sale as opposed to not making the sale whenever they can. They are in the business of sales, and, by owning a gun related business, they are already on the side of more guns=good.
But, there is still a huge problem of guns being sold with no background check required. Northeastern and Harvard Universities have a more recent study on this topic. The final papers have not been published yet, but here is what we know so far: (source- Politifact)
You get a 5th? I need to re-negotiate. I get a smiley sometimes.
BTW, what does this mean? “nancy”?
That’s a derogatory way to refer to a man’s orientation or identification.
To which an eminently polite person might respond:
Of course, with a mind to not forget it, and a judgement on the person who said it.
A bit late to the party on this one, but in a bit more detail:
The Urban Dictionary defines “Nancy” as a “mocking term for a man engaging in feminine activities or otherwise compromising his masculinity”. In this case it is obviously coming from someone desperate to project jock-type masculinity and who routinely walks around festooned with guns, this display intended to purport evidence of said masculinity. Such a manly man believes that he has thus mitigated any risk of being perceived as effeminate or worse, possibly homosexual, and in any case possesses the ability to shoot anyone guilty of any such misidentification. Such an individual will be perceived in the desired fashion typically only by fellow jocks with a similar level of intellectual dysfunction, and will more generally be perceived as an ineffable cretin with deeply rooted insecurities.
I took it as a reference to Nancy Drew, with the implication that one should dig deeper into the article(s) to get the whole story. But maybe I’m just being naïve and optimistic.