warpedskydiver 0 #76 April 8, 2009 I merely asked a question so I may ascertain why the poster that IS NOT YOU, is so vehemently against gun ownership. Please try and read questions pertaining to yourself and maybe answer those. Instead of you two covering for each other like a couple of Mexican professional wrestlers dressed up in flamboyant costumes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #77 April 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteYes, this is a case where it is quite appropriate to refer to their phobia. The probability that they'll encounter these gun nuts is quite low, like the risk of being eaten by a shark. But they worry more about it than they do the loss of their freedoms, which will affect millions. You are now claiming that there are millions of mentally ill people with guns? And you support this? There are millions of veterans. . I hope you are not claiming that veterans, as a class, are mentally ill. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #78 April 8, 2009 Quote I merely asked a question so I may ascertain why the poster that IS NOT YOU, is so vehemently against gun ownership. Please try and read questions pertaining to yourself and maybe answer those. Instead of you two covering for each other like a couple of Mexican professional wrestlers dressed up in flamboyant costumes. Last time I checked this was an OPEN forum.Seems like you, JohnRich, mnealtx and kelpdiver are all in cahoots too. Do you use the same script? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #79 April 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteI have an idea, you could move to a place hwere guns are not allowed. Since you cannot get the second amendment repealed why not do the next best thing if you have such strong convictions? Speaking of convictions are you perhaps a felon? YET ANOTHER STRAW MAN. No-one has suggested repealing the 2nd Amendment. The suggestion is properly enforcing existing restrictions on the mentally disturbed. Since you're so worried about checking, are you mentally disturbed? No but I am disturbed about those who seem to want to take away the rights of others based on whims and innuendos. If you are a medical professional and in fact are licensed by the AMA please tell us. If you are an authority on mental issues that would related to any psychological reason for a person to be denied their right please do tell. Otherwise your opinion is that of someone who would merely want to deny others their rights. Would you like some yellow paint to mark the doors of those you deem unworthy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #80 April 8, 2009 Quote YET ANOTHER STRAW MAN. No-one has suggested repealing the 2nd Amendment. The suggestion is properly enforcing existing restrictions on the mentally disturbed. It would probably help if you actually made a suggestion with clarity. Right now you're engaging in the Kallend method of debate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #81 April 8, 2009 Quote I hope you are not claiming that veterans, as a class, are mentally ill. Your ilk has. And there's no question that some of the soldiers returning from combat are badly affected by the experience, so the sorts of magic fixes that would supposedly prevent the Pitts shooting would also mean stripping gun rights from veterans. Quite the reward for their contribution to our nation, isn't it? Jerry is willing to take any measures to prevent the mentally ill from owning guns, and he's really not concerned about anyone else who suffers as a result. When I asked him about that, his answer remains: 'so you support nutters having guns.' Capt Slug - in what circumstances should the government preemptively (ie, no crimes committed) take a citizen's guns and gun purchase rights away? And/or what changes should be made to the current status quo. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #82 April 8, 2009 Quote>Do you want people to be denied constitutional rights without an official >court hearing to protect their rights and give them fair due process? If they are schizophrenic, and want to buy a gun to kill all the secret agents after them - yes. It should be easy enough to create a system that will give them due process, which is necessary to determine that they really are schizophrenic. I'd be concerned about any system that attempted to suspend rights without due process. QuoteIf they want to start a religion that requires human sacrifice - yes. I realize that was meant as an extreme counter example, but I'd defend their right to start such a religion, and to practice any portions of it that don't hurt others. I would not support their right to actually practice human sacrifice. As a rough example, the LDS (Mormon) faith includes dogma which clearly endorses polygamy. Despite the illegal nature of that act, I still believe the LDS religion (which has largely abandoned that practice) has a right to exist. Perhaps I'm a bit biased on that, though, as I don't really see anything wrong with plural (or other non-standard) marriages, provided that all participants are consenting adults.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #83 April 8, 2009 QuoteQuote I hope you are not claiming that veterans, as a class, are mentally ill. Your ilk has. And there's no question that some of the soldiers returning from combat are badly affected by the experience, so the sorts of magic fixes that would supposedly prevent the Pitts shooting would also mean stripping gun rights from veterans. Quite the reward for their contribution to our nation, isn't it? Jerry is willing to take any measures to prevent the mentally ill from owning guns, and he's really not concerned about anyone else who suffers as a result. When I asked him about that, his answer remains: 'so you support nutters having guns.' Why do you repeatedly misrepresent the positions of others? Is it the only way you can "win" an internet debate? The suggestion of several posters is that EXISTING restrictions on nutters owning guns should be effectively enforced. The recent spate of mass shootings shows very clearly that the way it is enforced right now is hopelessly ineffective. No one has suggested repealing the 2nd amendment as warpedskydiver wrote. No one has suggested putting gun owners in concentration camps as JohnRich wrote. Resorting to absurd hyperbole shows that you have no real rebuttal.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #84 April 8, 2009 The problem is that You want to decide who the "Nutters" are and not some legal adjudication with testimony, rights and legal representation. You are asking that rights be abridged or taken away. To you someone may be a nutter because of the way they act is different than you. You may think someone is a nutter because you had your ass kicked by them in the fourth grade. Do you mean you want a test to determine whether someone can own a firearm? Would you like to submit to a test for any other right you have? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #85 April 8, 2009 Have YOU ever been convicted of a crime? Felony? Misdemeanor? Domestic disturbance? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #86 April 8, 2009 If you don't want to answer that's ok. We can all just assume you don't want to tell us that you have not been arrested or convicted of any crime. Since you are an Illinois resident it would be very easy to find out if you have been arrested or convicted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #87 April 8, 2009 Quote The suggestion of several posters is that EXISTING restrictions on nutters owning guns should be effectively enforced. The recent spate of mass shootings shows very clearly that the way it is enforced right now is hopelessly ineffective. How can you say that this is a clear conclusion? You can't possibly have examined the cases closely, so really you're just spouting off based on reading newspaper articles. And every time we've asked you to clarify how you're going to fix this problem, within or beyond existing laws, you hem and haw and make lame attacks. If you feel your views have been misrepresented, then start making clearer statements. But I think you were quite clear in what you think should be done. I'm thankful it's not your call. IMO, it's not possible to know in advance that people are going to lose it. So you either accept that this will happen at some frequency (and a higher one in troubled times), or you preemptively take out the rights of a large swath of people that might get ill. As I suggested, we could stop all gun sales to men. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #88 April 8, 2009 >>Speaking of convictions are you perhaps a felon? >Since you're so worried about checking, are you mentally disturbed? Both of you cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #89 April 8, 2009 QuoteHave YOU ever been convicted of a crime? Felony? Misdemeanor? Domestic disturbance? No, no, no and no. How about you?If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #90 April 8, 2009 QuoteQuote If you feel your views have been misrepresented, then start making clearer statements. But I think you were quite clear in what you think should be done. I'm thankful it's not your call. Maybe you would provide links to all posts where I or anyone else suggested arresting everyone who disagrees with us, putting gun owners in concentration camps, or repealing the 2nd Amendment. All of these straw men have been used by your side in this discussion.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #91 April 9, 2009 Quote Quote Have YOU ever been convicted of a crime? Felony? Misdemeanor? Domestic disturbance? No, no, no and no. How about you? Sure, that is how I got my clearance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #92 April 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteHave YOU ever been convicted of a crime? Felony? Misdemeanor? Domestic disturbance? No, no, no and no. How about you? What is amazing is that you offer no proof, hmmmmmmm. That sounds a lot like the argument you were trying to make. Prove you are not a nutter or a drug addict, that you never engaged in domestic violence or have had mental issues. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites penniless 0 #93 April 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteHave YOU ever been convicted of a crime? Felony? Misdemeanor? Domestic disturbance? No, no, no and no. How about you? What is amazing is that you offer no proof, hmmmmmmm. . Why should we believe what you write? Hmmmmmm. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #94 April 10, 2009 I said I don't think I was coming back, several people asked that I do. If you have a problem with it why not do something about it. Instead of sniveling? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #95 April 10, 2009 Why is it the worst whiners and trolls have no info of any meaning on their profiles? Not even a home DZ Are you not wanted wherever you go? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?username=penniless; Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riddler 0 #96 April 12, 2009 Quote“The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.” Oliver Wendell Holmes Technically, the act of swinging, with the intent of hitting another person, whether or not you make contact, constitutes assault, which is also against the law. If you make contact, that constitutes battery. And these days, if you even think about it beforehand, it probably constitutes a violation of the Patriot Act, so don't even think about it.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #97 April 12, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote I hope you are not claiming that veterans, as a class, are mentally ill. Your ilk has. And there's no question that some of the soldiers returning from combat are badly affected by the experience, so the sorts of magic fixes that would supposedly prevent the Pitts shooting would also mean stripping gun rights from veterans. Quite the reward for their contribution to our nation, isn't it? Jerry is willing to take any measures to prevent the mentally ill from owning guns, and he's really not concerned about anyone else who suffers as a result. When I asked him about that, his answer remains: 'so you support nutters having guns.' Why do you repeatedly misrepresent the positions of others? Is it the only way you can "win" an internet debate? The suggestion of several posters is that EXISTING restrictions on nutters owning guns should be effectively enforced. The recent spate of mass shootings shows very clearly that the way it is enforced right now is hopelessly ineffective. No one has suggested repealing the 2nd amendment as warpedskydiver wrote. No one has suggested putting gun owners in concentration camps as JohnRich wrote. Resorting to absurd hyperbole shows that you have no real rebuttal. And you make an absurd point as well. Ask youself this, do laws preventing drunk drivers from driving and killing stop the driving and killing? You will have the same answer to this as your example......"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 jerryzflies 0 #98 April 12, 2009 Quote Ask youself this, do laws preventing drunk drivers from driving and killing stop the driving and killing? You will have the same answer to this as your example...... Chemotherapy doesn't cure all cancers - using your logic chemotherapy is useless. A reserve parachute doesn't prevent all skydiving fatalities. Using your logic reserves are useless. Seat belts don't prevent all highway fatalities. Using your logic seat belts are useless. I VERY STRONGLY suspect that if laws against drunk driving were repealed, the number of deaths caused by drunk driving would skyrocket. Your fallacy this time is to suggest that because a remedy isn't perfect, it has no beneficial effect at all.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #99 April 12, 2009 Quote Quote Ask youself this, do laws preventing drunk drivers from driving and killing stop the driving and killing? You will have the same answer to this as your example...... Chemotherapy doesn't cure all cancers - using your logic chemotherapy is useless. A reserve parachute doesn't prevent all skydiving fatalities. Using your logic reserves are useless. Seat belts don't prevent all highway fatalities. Using your logic seat belts are useless. I VERY STRONGLY suspect that if laws against drunk driving were repealed, the number of deaths caused by drunk driving would skyrocket. Your fallacy this time is to suggest that because a remedy isn't perfect, it has no beneficial effect at all. my logic?Your logic dude!"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 #100 April 13, 2009 Quote Your fallacy this time is to suggest that because a remedy isn't perfect, it has no beneficial effect at all. And your repeated fallacy is to ignore the costs of a remedy, as well as an inability to even define what the remedy would entail. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 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
warpedskydiver 0 #91 April 9, 2009 Quote Quote Have YOU ever been convicted of a crime? Felony? Misdemeanor? Domestic disturbance? No, no, no and no. How about you? Sure, that is how I got my clearance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #92 April 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteHave YOU ever been convicted of a crime? Felony? Misdemeanor? Domestic disturbance? No, no, no and no. How about you? What is amazing is that you offer no proof, hmmmmmmm. That sounds a lot like the argument you were trying to make. Prove you are not a nutter or a drug addict, that you never engaged in domestic violence or have had mental issues. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #93 April 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteHave YOU ever been convicted of a crime? Felony? Misdemeanor? Domestic disturbance? No, no, no and no. How about you? What is amazing is that you offer no proof, hmmmmmmm. . Why should we believe what you write? Hmmmmmm. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #94 April 10, 2009 I said I don't think I was coming back, several people asked that I do. If you have a problem with it why not do something about it. Instead of sniveling? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #95 April 10, 2009 Why is it the worst whiners and trolls have no info of any meaning on their profiles? Not even a home DZ Are you not wanted wherever you go? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?username=penniless; Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #96 April 12, 2009 Quote“The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.” Oliver Wendell Holmes Technically, the act of swinging, with the intent of hitting another person, whether or not you make contact, constitutes assault, which is also against the law. If you make contact, that constitutes battery. And these days, if you even think about it beforehand, it probably constitutes a violation of the Patriot Act, so don't even think about it.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #97 April 12, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote I hope you are not claiming that veterans, as a class, are mentally ill. Your ilk has. And there's no question that some of the soldiers returning from combat are badly affected by the experience, so the sorts of magic fixes that would supposedly prevent the Pitts shooting would also mean stripping gun rights from veterans. Quite the reward for their contribution to our nation, isn't it? Jerry is willing to take any measures to prevent the mentally ill from owning guns, and he's really not concerned about anyone else who suffers as a result. When I asked him about that, his answer remains: 'so you support nutters having guns.' Why do you repeatedly misrepresent the positions of others? Is it the only way you can "win" an internet debate? The suggestion of several posters is that EXISTING restrictions on nutters owning guns should be effectively enforced. The recent spate of mass shootings shows very clearly that the way it is enforced right now is hopelessly ineffective. No one has suggested repealing the 2nd amendment as warpedskydiver wrote. No one has suggested putting gun owners in concentration camps as JohnRich wrote. Resorting to absurd hyperbole shows that you have no real rebuttal. And you make an absurd point as well. Ask youself this, do laws preventing drunk drivers from driving and killing stop the driving and killing? You will have the same answer to this as your example......"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
jerryzflies 0 #98 April 12, 2009 Quote Ask youself this, do laws preventing drunk drivers from driving and killing stop the driving and killing? You will have the same answer to this as your example...... Chemotherapy doesn't cure all cancers - using your logic chemotherapy is useless. A reserve parachute doesn't prevent all skydiving fatalities. Using your logic reserves are useless. Seat belts don't prevent all highway fatalities. Using your logic seat belts are useless. I VERY STRONGLY suspect that if laws against drunk driving were repealed, the number of deaths caused by drunk driving would skyrocket. Your fallacy this time is to suggest that because a remedy isn't perfect, it has no beneficial effect at all.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #99 April 12, 2009 Quote Quote Ask youself this, do laws preventing drunk drivers from driving and killing stop the driving and killing? You will have the same answer to this as your example...... Chemotherapy doesn't cure all cancers - using your logic chemotherapy is useless. A reserve parachute doesn't prevent all skydiving fatalities. Using your logic reserves are useless. Seat belts don't prevent all highway fatalities. Using your logic seat belts are useless. I VERY STRONGLY suspect that if laws against drunk driving were repealed, the number of deaths caused by drunk driving would skyrocket. Your fallacy this time is to suggest that because a remedy isn't perfect, it has no beneficial effect at all. my logic?Your logic dude!"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 #100 April 13, 2009 Quote Your fallacy this time is to suggest that because a remedy isn't perfect, it has no beneficial effect at all. And your repeated fallacy is to ignore the costs of a remedy, as well as an inability to even define what the remedy would entail. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
