ChasingBlueSky 0 #101 February 15, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote Good luck with that - because what you're advocating *IS* Big Brother watching you. Lemme know when the criminals start obeying the law, too, will you? Ya, much better to dismiss a viable option and go for the brute force approach instead. And if you think I am advocating Big Brother, you missed everything I said. You're advocating making MORE information (medical records) available to the government to accomplish the extra screening you want done. Quotehttp://rawstory.com/news/2008/Olbermann_Bush_panoramic_invasion_of_privacy_0215.html I asked you before if you cared about the destruction of the 4th Amendment before, and I also mentioned that Big Brother and all your information is already there and accessable without recorse. Warning: The neo-cons will develop a rash going to this site and watching the video._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #102 February 15, 2008 Quote You want to restrict rights with which you do not agree with and complain about what you consider to be rights violations in other topics. In essance, you would be ok with hand gun and semi auto rifle bans, right? Or, you would have weapons stored in such a fashsion to be worthless for self defense. Therefore effectivly removing them The fact that you have to ask shows very clearly that you have NOT bothered to read the thread where I made a couple of serious suggestions that are NOT a ban on any kind of weapon. As usual, you spout off without thinking first.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #103 February 15, 2008 Quote Quote You want to restrict rights with which you do not agree with and complain about what you consider to be rights violations in other topics. In essance, you would be ok with hand gun and semi auto rifle bans, right? Or, you would have weapons stored in such a fashsion to be worthless for self defense. Therefore effectivly removing them Straitght to the PA's. I read that whole thread when you posted that crap. Nothing new, just more law that affects only the law abiding and nothing of any substance that would do any good. And when you got called on it I believe you said nobody liked it because it "inconvenienced" gun owners I await your next condisending PA prof Cause that seems to be all ya got The fact that you have to ask shows very clearly that you have NOT bothered to read the thread where I made a couple of serious suggestions that are NOT a ban on any kind of weapon. As usual, you spout off without thinking first. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #104 February 16, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote You want to restrict rights with which you do not agree with and complain about what you consider to be rights violations in other topics. In essance, you would be ok with hand gun and semi auto rifle bans, right? Or, you would have weapons stored in such a fashsion to be worthless for self defense. Therefore effectivly removing them Your garbled reply is only semi-comprehensible, but it clearly shows EITHER what I previously wrote (you didn't bother to read but spouted off regardless), OR that you did read it but didn't comprehend what you read.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #105 February 16, 2008 Over an hour of searching and this is the most specific reply you have given (that I can find) about what should be done. As follows Quote1. Uniform nationwide gun laws, no patchwork that allows easy circumvention. 2. Registration. Anyone found with an unregistered gun goes to jail. 3. Gun owners 100% responsible for any harm done with a gun registered to them. Burden of proof on owner to show that precautions against theft and misuse had been taken. Inconvenient though. Again, you pick which privacy is important and which is not. Gun owner should be known to the gov in your world. But terrorist should not have phones listened to. Give us an example of 1 and 3"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #106 February 16, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You want to restrict rights with which you do not agree with and complain about what you consider to be rights violations in other topics. In essance, you would be ok with hand gun and semi auto rifle bans, right? Or, you would have weapons stored in such a fashsion to be worthless for self defense. Therefore effectivly removing them Your garbled reply is only semi-comprehensible, but it clearly shows EITHER what I previously wrote (you didn't bother to read but spouted off regardless), OR that you did read it but didn't comprehend what you read. Tell me sir, how many posts to me in this thread where you have not implied an insult? Any?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #107 February 16, 2008 QuoteOver an hour of searching and this is the most specific reply you have given (that I can find) about what should be done. As follows Quote1. Uniform nationwide gun laws, no patchwork that allows easy circumvention. 2. Registration. Anyone found with an unregistered gun goes to jail. 3. Gun owners 100% responsible for any harm done with a gun registered to them. Burden of proof on owner to show that precautions against theft and misuse had been taken. Inconvenient though. Again, you pick which privacy is important and which is not. Gun owner should be known to the gov in your world. But terrorist should not have phones listened to. Give us an example of 1 and 3 I did already, in the thread I referenced. Sheesh, some people.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #108 February 16, 2008 Hey prof How do you keep guns out of the hands of this person? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330856,00.html"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #109 February 16, 2008 Quote I did already, in the thread I referenced. Sheesh, some people. Yes, those were the specific proposals that solved nothing, and violated more rights in the process, most notably, a founding principle of the country - men are innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. They have no bearing on the issue of 'madmen buying guns,' the subject of this thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #110 February 16, 2008 Quote Quote Over an hour of searching and this is the most specific reply you have given (that I can find) about what should be done. As follows Quote 1. Uniform nationwide gun laws, no patchwork that allows easy circumvention. 2. Registration. Anyone found with an unregistered gun goes to jail. 3. Gun owners 100% responsible for any harm done with a gun registered to them. Burden of proof on owner to show that precautions against theft and misuse had been taken. Inconvenient though. Again, you pick which privacy is important and which is not. Gun owner should be known to the gov in your world. But terrorist should not have phones listened to. Give us an example of 1 and 3 I did already, in the thread I referenced. Sheesh, some people. Well 1 and 3? Oh, and I read that other thread you refed. You spoke of TX laws but in reality you did not get much more specific than that.Many generalities........."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #111 February 16, 2008 Pulled from another blog. Seemed relavant to this thread now Quote You have to be quick to find citations for guys like Steve Kazmierczak, the creep who went on a shooting spree in a Northern Illinois University lecture hall yesterday. The school website is quickly dropping all mention of the guy. I did find, however, a citation for Kasmierczak on a paper he collaborated on. Beginning graduate work at Northern Illinois University. In addition to his interests in corrections, political violence, and peace and social justice, he is co-authoring a manuscript on the role of religion in the formation of early prisons in the United States with Jim Thomas and Josh Stone. He is also develops content for online education and is an executive board officer of the NIU student chapter of the American Correctional Association. So he was interested in “political violence, and peace and social justice.” Yeah, that sounds about right - real moonbat stuff. How long do we have to continue to pretend that “rednecks” with guns are the problem? I guess he really was a madman"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #112 February 16, 2008 QuoteQuote I did already, in the thread I referenced. Sheesh, some people. Yes, those were the specific proposals that solved nothing, and violated more rights in the process, most notably, a founding principle of the country - men are innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. They have no bearing on the issue of 'madmen buying guns,' the subject of this thread. First you claim I made no concrete proposal, now you mis-state my proposal and don't like it. Pretty dishonest of you. How does denying guns to the insane violate anyone's rights? Do you believe the insane have a right to firearms>... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #113 February 16, 2008 Quote Quote Quote I did already, in the thread I referenced. Sheesh, some people. Yes, those were the specific proposals that solved nothing, and violated more rights in the process, most notably, a founding principle of the country - men are innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. They have no bearing on the issue of 'madmen buying guns,' the subject of this thread. First you claim I made no concrete proposal, now you mis-state my proposal and don't like it. Pretty dishonest of you. How does denying guns to the insane violate anyone's rights? Do you believe the insane have a right to firearms> truth hurt sir?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites likearock 2 #114 February 16, 2008 QuoteI love how people try to tie 1st Amendment stuff only to the time since 9/11. My apologies if that was not the intent of your post, but I see it over and over. Apologies accepted. And yes, the 1st Amendment stuff was a minor part of my post, which was primarily concerned with the insanity of allowing the general public to carry a gun into a courthouse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #115 February 16, 2008 Both of you cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #116 February 16, 2008 Quote Well 1 and 3? Oh, and I read that other thread you refed. You spoke of TX laws but in reality you did not get much more specific than that.Unsure Many generalities......... You got that right. I think his lack of specificity is very much intentional. Note that there is no mention of what the "[nationally] Uniform laws" should be, so some might infer that Kallend was happy with, for example, the current federal prohibition on purchase or possession of fireams by anyone who "Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution". That inference would be wrong. Upthread (post 81), he makes the following statement: "Incidentlally the perp in the NIU shooting was off his meds, yet managed to buy (at least) two guns legally a week ago, because the existing laws are totally worthless." Now Kallend seems to be providing some of the detail that you tried to get in the "madman" thread, but as usual he's unwilling to be clear and specific. Does his statement mean that he'd like the law changed so that it's illegal for someone who is "off his meds" to buy a gun? Doubtful. It's more likely that he wants a ban on gun ownership not only for those deemed "legally insane", but on anyone who's ever taken "psych meds" or been under the care of a psychiatrist. The more you dig in an effort to find out what he really means, the more you'll need to dig. It sometimes makes me think of fractals "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #117 February 16, 2008 QuoteBoth of you cut it out. Sure. They've already conceded that I had made specific proposals.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #118 February 16, 2008 Quote Quote Both of you cut it out. Sure. They've already conceded that I had made specific proposals. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #119 February 16, 2008 I love it when you get called on the bs you post and you get very very quiet "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #120 February 16, 2008 Quote First you claim I made no concrete proposal, now you mis-state my proposal and don't like it. Pretty dishonest of you. if believing this will give you a pleasant weekend, I'm happy to give you a bone. I got 3 days of fun ahead, myself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #121 February 16, 2008 Quote Quote First you claim I made no concrete proposal, now you mis-state my proposal and don't like it. Pretty dishonest of you. if believing this will give you a pleasant weekend, I'm happy to give you a bone. I got 3 days of fun ahead, myself. a bone?/ eeeeewwwwwwwww "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #122 February 16, 2008 QuoteHow does denying guns to the insane violate anyone's rights? Do you believe the insane have a right to firearms> Your statements in this thread indicate that you believe the NIU killer was allowed to purchase/posses guns despite the fact that he was insane. The killer recently bought one or more guns in IL. In order to do so, he was investigated for disqualifying mental health conditions by both the feds and the state of IL. He "passed" both investigations. Are you suggesting that the (mental health) disqualifying conditions are not restrictive enough? If so, what do you propose as a better way to screen out the "insane"? Please be as specific as possible. Thanks. -------- Below are the current disqualifying conditions for reference: Federal: "Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution" IL (FOID req't): "The person is the subject of a determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, mental impairment, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) is a danger to himself, herself, or to others; (2) lacks the mental capacity to manage his or her own affairs; (3) is not guilty in a criminal case by reason of insanity, mental disease or defect; (4) is incompetent to stand trial in a criminal case; (5) is not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to [the UCMJ]" ----------- "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lindsey 0 #123 February 16, 2008 How does denying guns to the insane violate anyone's rights? You're always talking about "madmen" and "the insane." WHO, exactly, are you talking about??? What qualifies a person to a part of one of these groups. Is it anyone with a DSM IV Diagnosis??? Or a person who is imminently threatening harm to himself or others??? Or anyone who has done so in the past??? Or a person with a thought disorder that affects his/her reality testing???? Your questions would be more answerable if this factor were better defined. imho. linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #124 February 16, 2008 Quote Quote Quote The NRA actually does oppose gun rights for the mentally disturbed. However, it is just lip service, because it does everything it possibly can to oppose any rules that might prevent nutjobs from getting guns. Incidentlally the perp in the NIU shooting was off his meds, yet managed to buy (at least) two guns legally a week ago, because the existing laws are totally worthless. And a non-worthless law would be? Oh ya, and be very specific or you are the one providing, ah, how did you put ? Oh ya "lip service". I will not hold my breath waiting for you to be specific If you held your breath more often you wouldn't spout so much rubbish. However, you could also look in the thread "Do "madmen" and criminals have a right to bear arms?" for one of my specific suggestions, instead of pretending I hadn't made any. A little searching and you'll find others. Then I'll accept your apology. If you had such specific suggestions, Professor, then why did I spend the entire thread asking you for your specific suggestions? You never made a *specific* suggestion in THAT thread either, so here's your chance....remember, SPECIFIC...not "something like Texas' CCW laws". BTW, you can apologize to Rush now.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #125 February 16, 2008 Quote I love it when you get called on the bs you post and you get very very quiet Did you miss this by some chance?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 5 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
rushmc 23 #105 February 16, 2008 Over an hour of searching and this is the most specific reply you have given (that I can find) about what should be done. As follows Quote1. Uniform nationwide gun laws, no patchwork that allows easy circumvention. 2. Registration. Anyone found with an unregistered gun goes to jail. 3. Gun owners 100% responsible for any harm done with a gun registered to them. Burden of proof on owner to show that precautions against theft and misuse had been taken. Inconvenient though. Again, you pick which privacy is important and which is not. Gun owner should be known to the gov in your world. But terrorist should not have phones listened to. Give us an example of 1 and 3"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #106 February 16, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You want to restrict rights with which you do not agree with and complain about what you consider to be rights violations in other topics. In essance, you would be ok with hand gun and semi auto rifle bans, right? Or, you would have weapons stored in such a fashsion to be worthless for self defense. Therefore effectivly removing them Your garbled reply is only semi-comprehensible, but it clearly shows EITHER what I previously wrote (you didn't bother to read but spouted off regardless), OR that you did read it but didn't comprehend what you read. Tell me sir, how many posts to me in this thread where you have not implied an insult? Any?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #107 February 16, 2008 QuoteOver an hour of searching and this is the most specific reply you have given (that I can find) about what should be done. As follows Quote1. Uniform nationwide gun laws, no patchwork that allows easy circumvention. 2. Registration. Anyone found with an unregistered gun goes to jail. 3. Gun owners 100% responsible for any harm done with a gun registered to them. Burden of proof on owner to show that precautions against theft and misuse had been taken. Inconvenient though. Again, you pick which privacy is important and which is not. Gun owner should be known to the gov in your world. But terrorist should not have phones listened to. Give us an example of 1 and 3 I did already, in the thread I referenced. Sheesh, some people.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #108 February 16, 2008 Hey prof How do you keep guns out of the hands of this person? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330856,00.html"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #109 February 16, 2008 Quote I did already, in the thread I referenced. Sheesh, some people. Yes, those were the specific proposals that solved nothing, and violated more rights in the process, most notably, a founding principle of the country - men are innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. They have no bearing on the issue of 'madmen buying guns,' the subject of this thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #110 February 16, 2008 Quote Quote Over an hour of searching and this is the most specific reply you have given (that I can find) about what should be done. As follows Quote 1. Uniform nationwide gun laws, no patchwork that allows easy circumvention. 2. Registration. Anyone found with an unregistered gun goes to jail. 3. Gun owners 100% responsible for any harm done with a gun registered to them. Burden of proof on owner to show that precautions against theft and misuse had been taken. Inconvenient though. Again, you pick which privacy is important and which is not. Gun owner should be known to the gov in your world. But terrorist should not have phones listened to. Give us an example of 1 and 3 I did already, in the thread I referenced. Sheesh, some people. Well 1 and 3? Oh, and I read that other thread you refed. You spoke of TX laws but in reality you did not get much more specific than that.Many generalities........."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #111 February 16, 2008 Pulled from another blog. Seemed relavant to this thread now Quote You have to be quick to find citations for guys like Steve Kazmierczak, the creep who went on a shooting spree in a Northern Illinois University lecture hall yesterday. The school website is quickly dropping all mention of the guy. I did find, however, a citation for Kasmierczak on a paper he collaborated on. Beginning graduate work at Northern Illinois University. In addition to his interests in corrections, political violence, and peace and social justice, he is co-authoring a manuscript on the role of religion in the formation of early prisons in the United States with Jim Thomas and Josh Stone. He is also develops content for online education and is an executive board officer of the NIU student chapter of the American Correctional Association. So he was interested in “political violence, and peace and social justice.” Yeah, that sounds about right - real moonbat stuff. How long do we have to continue to pretend that “rednecks” with guns are the problem? I guess he really was a madman"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #112 February 16, 2008 QuoteQuote I did already, in the thread I referenced. Sheesh, some people. Yes, those were the specific proposals that solved nothing, and violated more rights in the process, most notably, a founding principle of the country - men are innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. They have no bearing on the issue of 'madmen buying guns,' the subject of this thread. First you claim I made no concrete proposal, now you mis-state my proposal and don't like it. Pretty dishonest of you. How does denying guns to the insane violate anyone's rights? Do you believe the insane have a right to firearms>... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #113 February 16, 2008 Quote Quote Quote I did already, in the thread I referenced. Sheesh, some people. Yes, those were the specific proposals that solved nothing, and violated more rights in the process, most notably, a founding principle of the country - men are innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. They have no bearing on the issue of 'madmen buying guns,' the subject of this thread. First you claim I made no concrete proposal, now you mis-state my proposal and don't like it. Pretty dishonest of you. How does denying guns to the insane violate anyone's rights? Do you believe the insane have a right to firearms> truth hurt sir?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites likearock 2 #114 February 16, 2008 QuoteI love how people try to tie 1st Amendment stuff only to the time since 9/11. My apologies if that was not the intent of your post, but I see it over and over. Apologies accepted. And yes, the 1st Amendment stuff was a minor part of my post, which was primarily concerned with the insanity of allowing the general public to carry a gun into a courthouse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #115 February 16, 2008 Both of you cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #116 February 16, 2008 Quote Well 1 and 3? Oh, and I read that other thread you refed. You spoke of TX laws but in reality you did not get much more specific than that.Unsure Many generalities......... You got that right. I think his lack of specificity is very much intentional. Note that there is no mention of what the "[nationally] Uniform laws" should be, so some might infer that Kallend was happy with, for example, the current federal prohibition on purchase or possession of fireams by anyone who "Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution". That inference would be wrong. Upthread (post 81), he makes the following statement: "Incidentlally the perp in the NIU shooting was off his meds, yet managed to buy (at least) two guns legally a week ago, because the existing laws are totally worthless." Now Kallend seems to be providing some of the detail that you tried to get in the "madman" thread, but as usual he's unwilling to be clear and specific. Does his statement mean that he'd like the law changed so that it's illegal for someone who is "off his meds" to buy a gun? Doubtful. It's more likely that he wants a ban on gun ownership not only for those deemed "legally insane", but on anyone who's ever taken "psych meds" or been under the care of a psychiatrist. The more you dig in an effort to find out what he really means, the more you'll need to dig. It sometimes makes me think of fractals "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #117 February 16, 2008 QuoteBoth of you cut it out. Sure. They've already conceded that I had made specific proposals.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #118 February 16, 2008 Quote Quote Both of you cut it out. Sure. They've already conceded that I had made specific proposals. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #119 February 16, 2008 I love it when you get called on the bs you post and you get very very quiet "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #120 February 16, 2008 Quote First you claim I made no concrete proposal, now you mis-state my proposal and don't like it. Pretty dishonest of you. if believing this will give you a pleasant weekend, I'm happy to give you a bone. I got 3 days of fun ahead, myself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #121 February 16, 2008 Quote Quote First you claim I made no concrete proposal, now you mis-state my proposal and don't like it. Pretty dishonest of you. if believing this will give you a pleasant weekend, I'm happy to give you a bone. I got 3 days of fun ahead, myself. a bone?/ eeeeewwwwwwwww "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #122 February 16, 2008 QuoteHow does denying guns to the insane violate anyone's rights? Do you believe the insane have a right to firearms> Your statements in this thread indicate that you believe the NIU killer was allowed to purchase/posses guns despite the fact that he was insane. The killer recently bought one or more guns in IL. In order to do so, he was investigated for disqualifying mental health conditions by both the feds and the state of IL. He "passed" both investigations. Are you suggesting that the (mental health) disqualifying conditions are not restrictive enough? If so, what do you propose as a better way to screen out the "insane"? Please be as specific as possible. Thanks. -------- Below are the current disqualifying conditions for reference: Federal: "Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution" IL (FOID req't): "The person is the subject of a determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, mental impairment, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) is a danger to himself, herself, or to others; (2) lacks the mental capacity to manage his or her own affairs; (3) is not guilty in a criminal case by reason of insanity, mental disease or defect; (4) is incompetent to stand trial in a criminal case; (5) is not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to [the UCMJ]" ----------- "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lindsey 0 #123 February 16, 2008 How does denying guns to the insane violate anyone's rights? You're always talking about "madmen" and "the insane." WHO, exactly, are you talking about??? What qualifies a person to a part of one of these groups. Is it anyone with a DSM IV Diagnosis??? Or a person who is imminently threatening harm to himself or others??? Or anyone who has done so in the past??? Or a person with a thought disorder that affects his/her reality testing???? Your questions would be more answerable if this factor were better defined. imho. linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #124 February 16, 2008 Quote Quote Quote The NRA actually does oppose gun rights for the mentally disturbed. However, it is just lip service, because it does everything it possibly can to oppose any rules that might prevent nutjobs from getting guns. Incidentlally the perp in the NIU shooting was off his meds, yet managed to buy (at least) two guns legally a week ago, because the existing laws are totally worthless. And a non-worthless law would be? Oh ya, and be very specific or you are the one providing, ah, how did you put ? Oh ya "lip service". I will not hold my breath waiting for you to be specific If you held your breath more often you wouldn't spout so much rubbish. However, you could also look in the thread "Do "madmen" and criminals have a right to bear arms?" for one of my specific suggestions, instead of pretending I hadn't made any. A little searching and you'll find others. Then I'll accept your apology. If you had such specific suggestions, Professor, then why did I spend the entire thread asking you for your specific suggestions? You never made a *specific* suggestion in THAT thread either, so here's your chance....remember, SPECIFIC...not "something like Texas' CCW laws". BTW, you can apologize to Rush now.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #125 February 16, 2008 Quote I love it when you get called on the bs you post and you get very very quiet Did you miss this by some chance?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 5 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kallend 2,026 #107 February 16, 2008 QuoteOver an hour of searching and this is the most specific reply you have given (that I can find) about what should be done. As follows Quote1. Uniform nationwide gun laws, no patchwork that allows easy circumvention. 2. Registration. Anyone found with an unregistered gun goes to jail. 3. Gun owners 100% responsible for any harm done with a gun registered to them. Burden of proof on owner to show that precautions against theft and misuse had been taken. Inconvenient though. Again, you pick which privacy is important and which is not. Gun owner should be known to the gov in your world. But terrorist should not have phones listened to. Give us an example of 1 and 3 I did already, in the thread I referenced. Sheesh, some people.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #108 February 16, 2008 Hey prof How do you keep guns out of the hands of this person? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330856,00.html"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #109 February 16, 2008 Quote I did already, in the thread I referenced. Sheesh, some people. Yes, those were the specific proposals that solved nothing, and violated more rights in the process, most notably, a founding principle of the country - men are innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. They have no bearing on the issue of 'madmen buying guns,' the subject of this thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #110 February 16, 2008 Quote Quote Over an hour of searching and this is the most specific reply you have given (that I can find) about what should be done. As follows Quote 1. Uniform nationwide gun laws, no patchwork that allows easy circumvention. 2. Registration. Anyone found with an unregistered gun goes to jail. 3. Gun owners 100% responsible for any harm done with a gun registered to them. Burden of proof on owner to show that precautions against theft and misuse had been taken. Inconvenient though. Again, you pick which privacy is important and which is not. Gun owner should be known to the gov in your world. But terrorist should not have phones listened to. Give us an example of 1 and 3 I did already, in the thread I referenced. Sheesh, some people. Well 1 and 3? Oh, and I read that other thread you refed. You spoke of TX laws but in reality you did not get much more specific than that.Many generalities........."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #111 February 16, 2008 Pulled from another blog. Seemed relavant to this thread now Quote You have to be quick to find citations for guys like Steve Kazmierczak, the creep who went on a shooting spree in a Northern Illinois University lecture hall yesterday. The school website is quickly dropping all mention of the guy. I did find, however, a citation for Kasmierczak on a paper he collaborated on. Beginning graduate work at Northern Illinois University. In addition to his interests in corrections, political violence, and peace and social justice, he is co-authoring a manuscript on the role of religion in the formation of early prisons in the United States with Jim Thomas and Josh Stone. He is also develops content for online education and is an executive board officer of the NIU student chapter of the American Correctional Association. So he was interested in “political violence, and peace and social justice.” Yeah, that sounds about right - real moonbat stuff. How long do we have to continue to pretend that “rednecks” with guns are the problem? I guess he really was a madman"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #112 February 16, 2008 QuoteQuote I did already, in the thread I referenced. Sheesh, some people. Yes, those were the specific proposals that solved nothing, and violated more rights in the process, most notably, a founding principle of the country - men are innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. They have no bearing on the issue of 'madmen buying guns,' the subject of this thread. First you claim I made no concrete proposal, now you mis-state my proposal and don't like it. Pretty dishonest of you. How does denying guns to the insane violate anyone's rights? Do you believe the insane have a right to firearms>... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #113 February 16, 2008 Quote Quote Quote I did already, in the thread I referenced. Sheesh, some people. Yes, those were the specific proposals that solved nothing, and violated more rights in the process, most notably, a founding principle of the country - men are innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. They have no bearing on the issue of 'madmen buying guns,' the subject of this thread. First you claim I made no concrete proposal, now you mis-state my proposal and don't like it. Pretty dishonest of you. How does denying guns to the insane violate anyone's rights? Do you believe the insane have a right to firearms> truth hurt sir?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #114 February 16, 2008 QuoteI love how people try to tie 1st Amendment stuff only to the time since 9/11. My apologies if that was not the intent of your post, but I see it over and over. Apologies accepted. And yes, the 1st Amendment stuff was a minor part of my post, which was primarily concerned with the insanity of allowing the general public to carry a gun into a courthouse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #115 February 16, 2008 Both of you cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #116 February 16, 2008 Quote Well 1 and 3? Oh, and I read that other thread you refed. You spoke of TX laws but in reality you did not get much more specific than that.Unsure Many generalities......... You got that right. I think his lack of specificity is very much intentional. Note that there is no mention of what the "[nationally] Uniform laws" should be, so some might infer that Kallend was happy with, for example, the current federal prohibition on purchase or possession of fireams by anyone who "Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution". That inference would be wrong. Upthread (post 81), he makes the following statement: "Incidentlally the perp in the NIU shooting was off his meds, yet managed to buy (at least) two guns legally a week ago, because the existing laws are totally worthless." Now Kallend seems to be providing some of the detail that you tried to get in the "madman" thread, but as usual he's unwilling to be clear and specific. Does his statement mean that he'd like the law changed so that it's illegal for someone who is "off his meds" to buy a gun? Doubtful. It's more likely that he wants a ban on gun ownership not only for those deemed "legally insane", but on anyone who's ever taken "psych meds" or been under the care of a psychiatrist. The more you dig in an effort to find out what he really means, the more you'll need to dig. It sometimes makes me think of fractals "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #117 February 16, 2008 QuoteBoth of you cut it out. Sure. They've already conceded that I had made specific proposals.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #118 February 16, 2008 Quote Quote Both of you cut it out. Sure. They've already conceded that I had made specific proposals. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #119 February 16, 2008 I love it when you get called on the bs you post and you get very very quiet "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #120 February 16, 2008 Quote First you claim I made no concrete proposal, now you mis-state my proposal and don't like it. Pretty dishonest of you. if believing this will give you a pleasant weekend, I'm happy to give you a bone. I got 3 days of fun ahead, myself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #121 February 16, 2008 Quote Quote First you claim I made no concrete proposal, now you mis-state my proposal and don't like it. Pretty dishonest of you. if believing this will give you a pleasant weekend, I'm happy to give you a bone. I got 3 days of fun ahead, myself. a bone?/ eeeeewwwwwwwww "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #122 February 16, 2008 QuoteHow does denying guns to the insane violate anyone's rights? Do you believe the insane have a right to firearms> Your statements in this thread indicate that you believe the NIU killer was allowed to purchase/posses guns despite the fact that he was insane. The killer recently bought one or more guns in IL. In order to do so, he was investigated for disqualifying mental health conditions by both the feds and the state of IL. He "passed" both investigations. Are you suggesting that the (mental health) disqualifying conditions are not restrictive enough? If so, what do you propose as a better way to screen out the "insane"? Please be as specific as possible. Thanks. -------- Below are the current disqualifying conditions for reference: Federal: "Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution" IL (FOID req't): "The person is the subject of a determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, mental impairment, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) is a danger to himself, herself, or to others; (2) lacks the mental capacity to manage his or her own affairs; (3) is not guilty in a criminal case by reason of insanity, mental disease or defect; (4) is incompetent to stand trial in a criminal case; (5) is not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to [the UCMJ]" ----------- "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #123 February 16, 2008 How does denying guns to the insane violate anyone's rights? You're always talking about "madmen" and "the insane." WHO, exactly, are you talking about??? What qualifies a person to a part of one of these groups. Is it anyone with a DSM IV Diagnosis??? Or a person who is imminently threatening harm to himself or others??? Or anyone who has done so in the past??? Or a person with a thought disorder that affects his/her reality testing???? Your questions would be more answerable if this factor were better defined. imho. linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #124 February 16, 2008 Quote Quote Quote The NRA actually does oppose gun rights for the mentally disturbed. However, it is just lip service, because it does everything it possibly can to oppose any rules that might prevent nutjobs from getting guns. Incidentlally the perp in the NIU shooting was off his meds, yet managed to buy (at least) two guns legally a week ago, because the existing laws are totally worthless. And a non-worthless law would be? Oh ya, and be very specific or you are the one providing, ah, how did you put ? Oh ya "lip service". I will not hold my breath waiting for you to be specific If you held your breath more often you wouldn't spout so much rubbish. However, you could also look in the thread "Do "madmen" and criminals have a right to bear arms?" for one of my specific suggestions, instead of pretending I hadn't made any. A little searching and you'll find others. Then I'll accept your apology. If you had such specific suggestions, Professor, then why did I spend the entire thread asking you for your specific suggestions? You never made a *specific* suggestion in THAT thread either, so here's your chance....remember, SPECIFIC...not "something like Texas' CCW laws". BTW, you can apologize to Rush now.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #125 February 16, 2008 Quote I love it when you get called on the bs you post and you get very very quiet Did you miss this by some chance?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
