It was a conclusion based on faulty logic, thus irrational.
"Amusing wordgaming, seeing that the rational objection to the "instant check' is that it infringes on the rights of only "legal" buyers."
You never were able to explain how an instant background check infringes on any right. At most all anyone can show is that it's a petty inconvenience. That inconvenience is justified by the fact that the instant background check is near 100% effetive in excluding disqualified felons and crazies from the legal market. It's a moral thing that most people are happy to see accomplished.
"You lawyerly types are so caught up in your own bizarrely 'clever' applications of language, -- that you no longer understand common english law or logic."
Amazing! How about this language? You couldn't find your ass if it was handed to ya.
Try nearly 0% --
100% effective would mean that there are no armed criminals. Somehow that hasn't happened.
It was a conclusion based on faulty logic, thus irrational.
More legalistic wordgaming. You can't fault the logic so you claim its "irrational".
Spunkets cries "Ridiculous!":
You're simply ignoring the fact that the IBC applies to the legal market only.
Amusing wordgaming, seeing that the rational objection to the "instant check' is that it infringes on the rights of only "legal" buyers.
You never were able to explain how an instant background check infringes on any right.
I did on another thread. You never refuted that explanation. - And you can't admit it.
At most all anyone can show is that it's a petty inconvenience.
Bull, the "Check" is an outright infringement on our abilities to buy arms.
That inconvenience is justified by the fact that the instant background check is near 100% effetive in excluding disqualified felons and crazies from the legal market. It's a moral thing that most people are happy to see accomplished.
'Most' brady types. -- Round you go again with the "legal market" ploy.
--- You lawyerly types are so caught up in your own bizarrely 'clever' applications of language, -- that you no longer understand common english law or logic.
Amazing! How about this language? You couldn't find your ass if it was handed to ya.
Thank you for showing your true stripe. -- Unable to make a valid point, you're back to juvenile tactics.
My rights are not determined by the bad acts of others. While the bad guy is simply reminded that he cannot purchase a firearm (and rarely prosecuted for trying) the law abiding citizen is often denied their right mistakenly and then have to pay some lawyer to win back his rights.
As I said the other day, you argue for the right to argue for a fee.
No wonder the country is such an utter mess — legalistic thinking by people llike you.