• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The "90% of citizens want UBC" lie

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
If there are exceptions then it's not technically UNIVERSAL, which means ALL. The current thing being proposed extends background checks to online sales and gun shows, but exempts family/friends/and other private sales, ergo it's not technically universal. The online sales part is still 100% unenforceable, and removing the universal part a gun registry wouldn't work as there would still be many legal ways to transfer firearms without a background check. You can decide if you would like to discuss universal background checks, or the proposed bill that isn't universal.

I can parse words better than most. Let's not parse words here.

It can be a UBC and have exemptions. It's understandable you're looking for an out now.

UBC's under discussion are about the UBC bill. Let's not act as if it isn't.
 

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
I can parse words better than most. Let's not parse words here.

It can be a UBC and have exemptions. It's understandable you're looking for an out now.

UBC's under discussion are about the UBC bill. Let's not act as if it isn't.

I'm not looking for an out, I deal with the truthful wording of things. If it has exceptions, it's NOT universal. It's simply extending the current requirements for background checks. If you take out the milky way galaxy and parade the rest as the entire universe your wrong. So if you take out many of the times one would have to get a background check and parade it as universal your wrong. Once again, you can decide if we are going to talk about UBC, or the proposed bill that extends background checks.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I'm not looking for an out, I deal with the truthful wording of things. If it has exceptions, it's NOT universal. It's simply extending the current requirements for background checks. If you take out the milky way galaxy and parade the rest as the entire universe your wrong. So if you take out many of the times one would have to get a background check and parade it as universal your wrong. Once again, you can decide if we are going to talk about UBC, or the proposed bill that extends background checks.

I am more than happy to discuss the current Bill, and it's UBC system.
 

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
I am more than happy to discuss the current Bill, and it's UBC system.

Guess there is nothing to talk about since it's not a universal system. If this is UBC..then what exactly would you call a system where every transfer required a check? The Multiverseal Background Check? :banghead:
 
Last edited:

arentol

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
383
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
Guess there is nothing to talk about since it's not a universal system. If this is UBC..then what exactly would you call a system where every transfer required a check? The Multiverseal Background Check? :banghead:

Don't bother. Talking to her is like talking to a brick wall. Look at her second post in which she says she can read minds... And you want to try talking to her? You will get nowhere, stop while you are ahead (which you are, by a heck of a lot).
 

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
I don't mean to call you out here, but you didn't know, until I pointed it out to you.

It's not their fault that you were led to believe what you believe; it's your responsibility, ALONE, to understand what you are reading.

I already knew about the wording. That is the entire point of this thread. The issue is that the poll participants take the wording at face value and then progressive sh!tstains claim that 90% of citizens support the specific details. My mention of this does not indicate that I am the one who is misunderstanding the poll questions being asked.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Bogus poll from a liberal organization. The results are exactly as they desire them to be. The poll respondents geographical location is key to understanding the predetermined outcome of this bogus poll.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Don't bother. Talking to her is like talking to a brick wall. Look at her second post in which she says she can read minds... And you want to try talking to her? You will get nowhere, stop while you are ahead (which you are, by a heck of a lot).

Take the above advice, she can't even make up her own mind from one day to the next. Just depends on what Obama tells how high to jump on a daily basis as to her agenda. Last year she was saying she was against laws denying felons losing 2A rights, now she is banging the BG check drum.
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
Earlier tonight, I heard someone misquote a poll result that "the majority of NRA members support universal registration of firearms".
Truth and accuracy is not the domain of politics.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Take the above advice, she can't even make up her own mind from one day to the next. Just depends on what Obama tells how high to jump on a daily basis as to her agenda. Last year she was saying she was against laws denying felons losing 2A rights, now she is banging the BG check drum.

WTF are you talking about? I'm against non-violent felons being barred from owning and carrying firearms. Nothing's changed.
 
Top