Comments on: Condi on guns http://www.saysuncle.com/2005/05/12/condi_on_guns/ Remember, I do this to entertain me... not you. Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:16:33 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: SayUncle http://www.saysuncle.com/2005/05/12/condi_on_guns/comment-page-1/#comment-15590 SayUncle Sat, 14 May 2005 02:42:20 +0000 /?p=5527#comment-15590 Yes, it is. Again, hat other 'controls' would she have referred to? Yes, it is. Again, hat other ‘controls’ would she have referred to?

]]> By: Xrlq http://www.saysuncle.com/2005/05/12/condi_on_guns/comment-page-1/#comment-15588 Xrlq Fri, 13 May 2005 21:08:02 +0000 /?p=5527#comment-15588 You did, by accusing her of "playing the nonexistent gun show loophole card" merely for raising the issue at all. If she had actually said there was a "gun show loophole," your response would have been a fair criticism. She didn't, so it wasn't. You did, by accusing her of “playing the nonexistent gun show loophole card” merely for raising the issue at all. If she had actually said there was a “gun show loophole,” your response would have been a fair criticism. She didn’t, so it wasn’t.

]]> By: SayUncle http://www.saysuncle.com/2005/05/12/condi_on_guns/comment-page-1/#comment-15552 SayUncle Thu, 12 May 2005 23:39:52 +0000 /?p=5527#comment-15552 Who said the issue didn't exist? I said the 'loophole' didn't exist. And i'd have no issue with requring dealers who sell personal stock doing background checks. When such a scheme requires me to, I'd take issue with that. Who said the issue didn’t exist? I said the ‘loophole’ didn’t exist. And i’d have no issue with requring dealers who sell personal stock doing background checks. When such a scheme requires me to, I’d take issue with that.

]]> By: Xrlq http://www.saysuncle.com/2005/05/12/condi_on_guns/comment-page-1/#comment-15549 Xrlq Thu, 12 May 2005 23:21:14 +0000 /?p=5527#comment-15549 Of course it's a reference to that the fact that there is no law specifically requiring gun show sales to be subjected to background checks. That doesn't make the issue "nonexistent." Rational, informed individuals can properly debate whether or not there ought to be a law requiring all gun show sales to be subject to background checks. The only thing phony about debating the "gun-show loophole" is the phoniness inherent in the phrase "gun-show loophole," which Condi did not use. The underlying issue is fair game. Of course it’s a reference to that the fact that there is no law specifically requiring gun show sales to be subjected to background checks. That doesn’t make the issue “nonexistent.” Rational, informed individuals can properly debate whether or not there ought to be a law requiring all gun show sales to be subject to background checks. The only thing phony about debating the “gun-show loophole” is the phoniness inherent in the phrase “gun-show loophole,” which Condi did not use. The underlying issue is fair game.

]]> By: SayUncle http://www.saysuncle.com/2005/05/12/condi_on_guns/comment-page-1/#comment-15542 SayUncle Thu, 12 May 2005 19:36:51 +0000 /?p=5527#comment-15542 So, you're telling me that you don't think <i>all gun show sales should be subject to background checks</i> is not a reference to the transfer provision of the brady bill commonly called the gun show loophole? The loophole which is fully within the law and not typically used to bypass the law. Hence, it's nonexistent. So, you’re telling me that you don’t think all gun show sales should be subject to background checks is not a reference to the transfer provision of the brady bill commonly called the gun show loophole? The loophole which is fully within the law and not typically used to bypass the law. Hence, it’s nonexistent.

]]> By: Xrlq http://www.saysuncle.com/2005/05/12/condi_on_guns/comment-page-1/#comment-15541 Xrlq Thu, 12 May 2005 19:33:37 +0000 /?p=5527#comment-15541 Presumably (and that's all we can do until/unless someone finds a full transcript), Condi thinks all gun show sales should be subject to background checks. That's a position on which reasonable minds can differ, but it has nothing to with her nonexistent reference to a nonexistent loophole. Presumably (and that’s all we can do until/unless someone finds a full transcript), Condi thinks all gun show sales should be subject to background checks. That’s a position on which reasonable minds can differ, but it has nothing to with her nonexistent reference to a nonexistent loophole.

]]> By: SayUncle http://www.saysuncle.com/2005/05/12/condi_on_guns/comment-page-1/#comment-15539 SayUncle Thu, 12 May 2005 19:01:09 +0000 /?p=5527#comment-15539 I'd say it was edited out for space or other reasons. I’d say it was edited out for space or other reasons.

]]> By: countertop http://www.saysuncle.com/2005/05/12/condi_on_guns/comment-page-1/#comment-15535 countertop Thu, 12 May 2005 18:53:54 +0000 /?p=5527#comment-15535 XRLQ The <a href="http://countertop-chronicles.blogspot.com/2005/05/condi-on-king.html">transcript doesn't</a> have her saying anything about guns or the second amendment. XRLQ

The transcript doesn’t have her saying anything about guns or the second amendment.

]]> By: SayUncle http://www.saysuncle.com/2005/05/12/condi_on_guns/comment-page-1/#comment-15519 SayUncle Thu, 12 May 2005 16:27:50 +0000 /?p=5527#comment-15519 Then what other 'controls' would she be referring to? Then what other ‘controls’ would she be referring to?

]]> By: Xrlq http://www.saysuncle.com/2005/05/12/condi_on_guns/comment-page-1/#comment-15516 Xrlq Thu, 12 May 2005 16:19:31 +0000 /?p=5527#comment-15516 <blockquote>Rice said she favored background checks and controls at gun shows.</blockquote> How is that "playing the nonexistent gun show loophole card?" The story doesn't have her saying anything about loopholes.

Rice said she favored background checks and controls at gun shows.

How is that “playing the nonexistent gun show loophole card?” The story doesn’t have her saying anything about loopholes.

]]>