"Less Guns = Less Gun Crime!"

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.", majority opinion of the Supreme Court, District of Columbia v Heller, 2008

Which is fine and logical until you start twisting it to catagorize a semi-automatic handgun with machine guns simply because it loads from the bottom. Twist it far enough and the only thing legal will be flintlocks.

I'm simply quoting Scalia's words.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If I suggest something like registration I get the pro-gun folks frothing at the mouth.

Yes, because in the past decade, the state you live in used registration to confiscate. So don't bullshit us about how they're not related, or a valid concern.

I can't think of a single useful new law for California on the subject, and quite a few that could be removed.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.", majority opinion of the Supreme Court, District of Columbia v Heller, 2008

Which is fine and logical until you start twisting it to catagorize a semi-automatic handgun with machine guns simply because it loads from the bottom. Twist it far enough and the only thing legal will be flintlocks.

I'm simply quoting Scalia's words.

So you agree then? Come dude! You know you do! Let me have this one small victory so I can proclaim Kallend agreed me me.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.", majority opinion of the Supreme Court, District of Columbia v Heller, 2008

Which is fine and logical until you start twisting it to catagorize a semi-automatic handgun with machine guns simply because it loads from the bottom. Twist it far enough and the only thing legal will be flintlocks.

I'm simply quoting Scalia's words.

So you agree then? Come dude! You know you do! Let me have this one small victory so I can proclaim Kallend agreed me me.

Well, personally I think DC's definition needs some work. OK?
But the problem with the SCOTUS decision is that it still leaves the question open so it was a hollow victory for Heller and supporters. In fact, the statement in the decision about the right being "not unlimited" might even be considered a setback for the NRA et al. and most certainly IS a setback for Gun Owners of America which essentially opposes any restrictions at all.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.", majority opinion of the Supreme Court, District of Columbia v Heller, 2008

Which is fine and logical until you start twisting it to catagorize a semi-automatic handgun with machine guns simply because it loads from the bottom. Twist it far enough and the only thing legal will be flintlocks.

I'm simply quoting Scalia's words.

So you agree then? Come dude! You know you do! Let me have this one small victory so I can proclaim Kallend agreed me me.

Well, personally I think DC's definition needs some work. OK?
But the problem with the SCOTUS decision is that it still leaves the question open so it was a hollow victory for Heller and supporters. In fact, the statement in the decision about the right being "not unlimited" might even be considered a setback for the NRA et al. and most certainly IS a setback for Gun Owners of America which essentially opposes any restrictions at all.

aw you're like the girl I took to the Prom. Get me all excited and worked up only to leave me lieing on the floor completely unsatisfied.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

We're still waiting for you to tell us how to prevent criminals and mentally ill people from getting guns.

Posted ages ago - memory getting bad?

Which one of the 9,970 posts you've made in the last two years would that one be?

This is just your typical style, and why so many people have such a bad opinion of you here.

You keep bringing up these kinds of shooting episodes, even posting the same story multiple times in different places, which is forbidden by the rules.

You claim to have some magic solution which would reduce or stop such horrible episodes.

But then you don't want to talk about it! Well, why do you bother to bring it up then?

Heck, if you really had such a solution, you should be shouting it from the rooftop at every opportunity.

It's nice of you to share your life-saving suggestion with everyone.

I guess maybe you're unwilling to state it again, whatever it was, because you don't want to have to answer to whatever criticism it would bring. Yeah, that's terrible stuff actually having to justify your ideas and respond to problems associated with it.

It's much easier to just hide out in the shadows, throw out gun massacre stories, and criticize everyone else, while offering nothing of your own.

Yep, that's the typical kallend style.

[JackC 0]

Quote

It's much easier to just hide out in the shadows, throw out gun massacre legislation stories, and criticize everyone else, while offering nothing of your own.

Yep, that's the typical kallend JohnRich style.

[Ron 10]

Actually JR has given several suggestions. The crux of which is to support the 2nd amendment.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

If I suggest something like registration I get the pro-gun folks frothing at the mouth.

Here's an example of why registration is a bad idea for gun owners:
http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2008m9d2-Author-faces-decade-in-prison-for-nonviolent-firearms-violation

You see, it doesn't do a thing to stop the criminals, and is used by anti-gun forces to put good guys in prison over technical paperwork violations.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

It's much easier to just hide out in the shadows, throw out gun massacre legislation stories, and criticize everyone else, while offering nothing of your own.

Yep, that's the typical kallend JohnRich style.

When I start a thread or post a message, I stick around to defend my position. I don't cop-out by playing games to avoid answering questions, or by saying things like "my response is in the archives".

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I just wish that, the anti gun folks would understand, banning good, honest citizens from having guns does not work! The 'bad guys' are always going to have them and usually 'bigger' and 'badder' than law enforcement!

Story in point:
"Firearms: cheap, easy to get and on a street near you"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1

Oh, and for the detractors of "The Sun", this story comes from the Guardian, and includes:

"Home Office data shows that gun crime is up since last year..."

So you see, instead of just making blanket dismissals of anything that comes from The Sun, you should actually check their facts first.

[JackC 0]

Quote

Actually JR has given several suggestions. The crux of which is to support the 2nd amendment.

Several? I couldn't find one.

Take this thread for example. There is not one proposal by JohnRich in this thread to reduce gun crime. There is however plenty of gun legislation stories and criticism of other peoples stance (which is the irony I was refering too in my previous post). In fact I don't ever remember having read a post by John that says "here is a gun law that would/does work".

In fact the only thing that could even remotely be considered a proposal is John's often repeated mantra of "gun laws don't work". So presumably if gun laws don't work as John says, the logical extension is the complete deregulation of all weapons. While that may actually work in some convoluted sense since if nothing you could possibly ever do with a gun would be illegal then gun crime would instantly vanish, it does seems a lot like reducing crime by decriminalising crime.

I honestly don't see what John's point is.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Quote

We're still waiting for you to tell us how to prevent criminals and mentally ill people from getting guns.

Posted ages ago - memory getting bad?

Which one of the 9,970 posts you've made in the last two years would that one be?

.

You could ask mnealtx - he has responded to it, several times. I'm not obliged to post the same thing over and over because your memory is bad.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You could ask mnealtx - he has responded to it, several times. I'm not obliged to post the same thing over and over because your memory is bad.

Quote

Heck, if you really had such a solution, you should be shouting it from the rooftop at every opportunity.

John got this part right.

[Ron 10]

Quote

There is not one proposal by JohnRich in this thread to reduce gun crime

Punish criminals for criminal acts. Don't make it harder for law abiding citizens to have a right verified in the Bill of Rights.

He says that ALL the time.

Quote

In fact I don't ever remember having read a post by John that says "here is a gun law that would/does work".

That is his point, they don't. They only punish law abiding citizens and criminals are not affected.

Quote

I honestly don't see what John's point is.

That might be because you have a preconceived notion and are unwilling to listen.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

There is not one proposal by JohnRich in this thread to reduce gun crime

Punish criminals for criminal acts. =.

That's disingenuous and hypocritical. You say one thing about punishing criminals but then oppose every proposal that enables the law to be effectively implemented.

Example - you claim to support the prohibition on mentally ill people purchasing guns, but steadfastly oppose every effective method of checking on purchasers.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There is not one proposal by JohnRich in this thread to reduce gun crime

Punish criminals for criminal acts. =.

That's disingenuous and hypocritical. You say one thing about punishing criminals but then oppose every proposal that enables the law to be effectively implemented.

Example - you claim to support the prohibition on mentally ill people purchasing guns, but steadfastly oppose every effective method of checking on purchasers.

You mean violating that pesky right to privacy. It may not be literally in the BoRs, but it's long been held to exist, at least since 1973. You seem to hold a belief that it's important when we're talking about the Patriot Act.

No one in the NRA opposes punishing criminals that try to buy guns. Yet the Clinton and Bush Adminstrations haven't bothered to prosecute cases that are essentially slam dunks.

No opposition to increased penalties for crimes committed with guns either.

[juanesky 0]

Ouch, that's got to hurt. What impresses me is the resilience to speak about his great solution, and surpassing his mindless double standard on the issue

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

There is not one proposal by JohnRich in this thread to reduce gun crime

Punish criminals for criminal acts. =.

That's disingenuous and hypocritical. You say one thing about punishing criminals but then oppose every proposal that enables the law to be effectively implemented.

Example - you claim to support the prohibition on mentally ill people purchasing guns, but steadfastly oppose every effective method of checking on purchasers.

You mean violating that pesky right to privacy. It may not be literally in the BoRs, but it's long been held to exist, at least since 1973. You seem to hold a belief that it's important when we're talking about the Patriot Act.

That RED HERRING again. Try to be more original.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." SCOTUS, 2008

Quote

No one in the NRA opposes punishing criminals that try to buy guns. Yet the Clinton and Bush Adminstrations haven't bothered to prosecute cases that are essentially slam dunks.

No opposition to increased penalties for crimes committed with guns either.

Hard to punish someone without catching them first, and the gun lobby has effectively emasculated that process.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

Quote

You say one thing about punishing criminals but then oppose every proposal that enables the law to be effectively implemented.

No I oppose rules that don't work and only serve to make people like you feel better.

Quote

Example - you claim to support the prohibition on mentally ill people purchasing guns, but steadfastly oppose every effective method of checking on purchasers.

That is a prime example of you just making up stuff to try and prove a point.

I don't mind background checks at all...Find one example of me saying anything like that...Go ahead.

I DO mind registration. Since criminals are not going to bother.

I DO mind bans since criminals are not going to bother.

But please, don't let facts stand in the way of your rant.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

You say one thing about punishing criminals but then oppose every proposal that enables the law to be effectively implemented.

No I oppose rules that don't work and only serve to make people like you feel better.

Quote

Example - you claim to support the prohibition on mentally ill people purchasing guns, but steadfastly oppose every effective method of checking on purchasers.

That is a prime example of you just making up stuff to try and prove a point.

I don't mind background checks at all...Find one example of me saying anything like that...Go ahead.

I DO mind registration. Since criminals are not going to bother.

I DO mind bans since criminals are not going to bother.

But please, don't let facts stand in the way of your rant.

The background checks as currently implemented simply don't work. The V. Tech massacre showed that very well. The checks need to be more robust, but the gun lobby opposes all efforts to do that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[downwardspiral 0]

I was thinking more of a license to own utilizing a similar method of background check that we have now minus the gun registration because it isn't necessary to own a weapon to be licensed. However how do they figure out if some one is sane enough to own? Psych eval? If so how often?

If you end up in a mental hospital for a weekend due to anxiety attacks because of job related stress would you be ok with that being on your permanent record so another Vtech doesn't happen? Could that prevent you from ever owning a firearm?

I don't have all the answers but I would much prefer a license rather than background check/waiting period/registration everytime I purchase a firearm.

I'm willing to listen. Bring it on.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

You mean violating that pesky right to privacy. It may not be literally in the BoRs, but it's long been held to exist, at least since 1973. You seem to hold a belief that it's important when we're talking about the Patriot Act.

That RED HERRING again. Try to be more original.

Repeatedly stating this will never make it true.

The only way you prevent mentally suspect people from obtaining weapons from an FFL is to remove any privacy for medical records. Something that will have its own unintended consequences - people won't seek help. End result is likely more shootings, not less.

And that does nothing for illegally obtained weapons, like Columbine.

The red herring is using the mentally ill as your conduit for bans, while leaving the public incapable of self defense.

[Ron 10]

Quote

The background checks as currently implemented simply don't work. The V. Tech massacre showed that very well. The checks need to be more robust, but the gun lobby opposes all efforts to do that.

But guns bans don't work either. Registration does not work either. You have not been able to provide a workable solution that does not remove rights from law abiding citizens. You don't care about those rights, so you don't mind.

I asked for an example and you FAILED to provide it. Instead you go off on some tangent.

Please John, back up what you said, "Example - you claim to support the prohibition on mentally ill people purchasing guns, but steadfastly oppose every effective method of checking on purchasers."

Go ahead, I am still waiting for you to back what you wrote.

Either put up or admit you were wrong...It is not that hard John.

Quote

The V. Tech massacre showed that very well.

You clearly don't really know the VT issue. The law did not fail...The Govt reporting failed, the school failed....You know privacy and all that?

Quote

Professors and school administrators at Virginia Tech could not have known of Cho's emotional disability -- Fairfax officials were forbidden from telling them. Federal privacy and disability laws prohibit high schools from sharing with colleges private information such as a student's special education coding or disability, according to high school and college guidance and admissions officials. Those laws also prohibit colleges from asking for such information.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/26/AR2007082601410_pf.html

They had a one gun a mth rule and he just waited two mths.

The Govt screwed up and failed to report he had been diagnosed as a threat.

So the school and State screwed up.

BTW the NICS was improved after that. HR2640 was supported by the NRA. (So much for the gun lobby not supporting SMART checks).

BTW, I support the NICS as well.

Once again...you have no idea what you are talking about.

I await your apology.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[birdlike 0]

Quote

But the problem with the SCOTUS decision is that it still leaves the question open so it was a hollow victory for Heller and supporters. In fact, the statement in the decision about the right being "not unlimited" might even be considered a setback for the NRA et al. and most certainly IS a setback for Gun Owners of America which essentially opposes any restrictions at all.

What a lot of nonsense. No one with any credibility at all argues that there exists a SINGLE right that is "UNLIMITED." Even one's right to LIVE is not unlimited. So there's no setback involved, here, Kallend, since there was no credible claim ever made in the first place that our 2nd Amendment rights are "unlimited" or are supposed to be.

Sheesh. Talk about a strawman.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire