Gun Control & RKBA

flamin lib

(14,559 posts)

12. No, Ducky, admit it. Your arguments are specious.

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 02:03 PM

Jan 2016

Case in point. Here in my city stoplight cameras were installed and tickets issued based on photo evidence of running stop lights. Collisions at major intersections dropped 30% in a few months. Using the same "logic" of your arguments (won't prevent all collisions and not enforceable because the County would not impound cars with outstanding stoplight tickets) the law was repealed.

Cameras were already paid for and the revenue from enforcement paid for maintenance and added to city coffers. But that didn't make any difference to the batshit crazy teabagger city council. Like you they adhered to their own special kind of "logic".

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

28 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

today on MHP [View all] Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 OP

What's dishonest is using this one example SecularMotion Jan 2016 #1

as I have said many times Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #2

You just said you supported background checks SecularMotion Jan 2016 #3

yes, because it is true Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #4

Your claims are ridiculous and your questions are irrelevant. SecularMotion Jan 2016 #6

but that how the pundits Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #7

I'll offer a counter question. flamin lib Jan 2016 #10

many collisions are stopped Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #11

No, Ducky, admit it. Your arguments are specious. flamin lib Jan 2016 #12

this is about background checks, nice try at Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #13

Your case could be bolstered by an example or two ... DonP Jan 2016 #8

my guess is he will not respond Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #9

He posted more in this thread than in his own group for a month n/t DonP Jan 2016 #14

I know, lol Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #15

You can support background checks while detailing the reasons why they're ineffetive, GGJohn Jan 2016 #5

Says the anecdote king. krispos42 Jan 2016 #16

yes, indeed so Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #19

I support UBC's so long as there are protections against registration lists and the cost is minimal. branford Jan 2016 #17

good response, thank you Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #18

As a purely practical matter, I believe UBC's are chip I could see being bargained away branford Jan 2016 #20

Bargained? Yes. beevul Jan 2016 #27

There is NO logic in the position that no gun measure is worth considering unless 100% effective in hlthe2b Jan 2016 #21

so who is saying that? Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #22

I won't give you the time it would take to spew back your gungeon posts... but they are there. hlthe2b Jan 2016 #23

typical, just posting insults Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #24

Nice strawman argument. branford Jan 2016 #25

Generally, it's the anti-gunners that expect 100 percent effectiveness beardown Jan 2016 #26

And if they don't get it, they push another law! Makes perfect sense. Eleanors38 Jan 2016 #28