Pittsburgh Shootout - April 4, 2009

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Are you willing to have those same restrictions placed on your right to speak, or vote, or any other right?

The minute you can show me how I personally can directly kill people with my words . . . sure. Go for it.

Give it a shot. Show me. Show me how I can lay in wait for a cop to come to my door and kill him by talking.

You're grasping at straws.

Ok, so you have no problem with restricting rights that YOU don't agree with...gotcha. I'll make sure to remind you later.

No. I'm fine restricting any rights you can find that can be used by people laying in wait to kill cops. Again, go for it. Show me one.

Nice that you finally confessed that you are against the ownership of guns and would like the Second Amendment of the Constitution repealed.

I guess in many respects you are much like the Jews in the ghettos who said "Well at least they did not come after us."

When someone chooses to repeal any of your rights I am sure you would not want anyone's help in resisting that effort.

By the way you can kill with words.

Since you will probably act daft and overlook the obvious I will spell it out slowly for you.

YOU CAN KILL BY SHOUTING AT A PERSON WITH A HEART CONDITION.

You can kill by inciting a person or a crowd into violence.

You can kill by yelling fire in a theater or other venue.

You can kill by yelling "Hey that guy has a bomb" in front of a bunch of cops who are on edge, as you point at some poor SOB.

You can kill by encouraging someone to do something they are not capable of.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

How does the result of this case not qualify? These fuckers didn't do anything but speak.

If you believe that, then you don't understand what they did, because they did far more than just speak.

Did you even read the link I posted?

Did you have an actual point to make with it? It would only take a couple sentences to make it clear. At one point you were insisting that no prolifer has been punished for their speech. Now you're making some fuzzy claim in the form of a cyberlink (ala dreamdancer). I'd say make your fucking point already, but I think it comes down to you getting caught with nowhere to go.

Let me help you: Words can kill. And the 1st Amendment doesn't protect that speech fully.

How many rights are absolute?


Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Heller Decision

The right to swing your fist stops at my nose.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[warpedskydiver 0]

The Solar Plexus, Esophagus, or MO is far better.

[quade 4]

Quote

Nice that you finally confessed that you are against the ownership of guns and would like the Second Amendment of the Constitution repealed.

Yes. Because after all, that is what I said.

Uh . . . no.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Nice that you finally confessed that you are against the ownership of guns and would like the Second Amendment of the Constitution repealed.

Yes. Because after all, that is what I said.

Uh . . . no.

Well, you're just as guilty of making up statements, today.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The right to swing your fist stops at my nose.

Yes. That's why we have laws against shooting other people.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Nice that you finally confessed that you are against the ownership of guns and would like the Second Amendment of the Constitution repealed.

Yes. Because after all, that is what I said.

I'm fine restricting any rights you can find that can be used by people laying in wait to kill cops. Again, go for it. Show me one.

Uh . . . no.

Well tell me which guns your statement does not pertain to.

[quade 4]

Quote

Well tell me which guns your statement does not pertain to.

Didn't say it didn't. It also doesn't "repeal" the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment already allows for restrictions on guns in several cases, notably felons and the mentally disturbed. I would like to make sure those cases are more readily identified.

That said, if you look at the thread in context, that's not what was being talked about at that moment.

If you'd like, I can do what you've done and chop up various posts you've made and take them out of context as well. Would you like me to do that?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[warpedskydiver 0]

Your statement stood on it's own, regardless of the discussion at hand.

It was a blanket statement or otherwise you would have chosen the words you really wanted to use.

Or would you like to say that you really did not mean what you said?

You can't have it both ways.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

What item(s) in his background would you like to see added as lawful reasons to deny gun ownership?

How about his membership of the set of "nutters who shouldn't be allowed to have guns".

You need something a little more specific than that.

But since this is the best answer you can provide, I'm just going to have to assume that you really don't have any answer. You're shooting blanks. You've got nothing.

[quade 4]

I see.

I just called you on editing text to misquote me and now I have to explain the misquote?

Get real.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[warpedskydiver 0]

Are you willing to have those same restrictions placed on your right to speak, or vote, or any other right?

Quote

The minute you can show me how I personally can directly kill people with my words . . . sure. Go for it.

Quote

Give it a shot. Show me. Show me how I can lay in wait for a cop to come to my door and kill him by talking.

Quote

You're grasping at straws.

Quote

Ok, so you have no problem with restricting rights that YOU don't agree with...gotcha. I'll make sure to remind you later.

Quote

No. I'm fine restricting any rights you can find that can be used by people laying in wait to kill cops. Again, go for it. Show me one.

[quade 4]

Having trouble finding the right keys to press?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

If he takes a tray, takes careful aim, swings it as hard as he can, and takes out the eye of an 8 year old girl - then yes, perhaps they should be evaluated for mental stability (and arrested and prosecuted for a violent assault.)

The problem then is not guns. It's the justice system which considers such an assault to be only a misdemeanor. Make it a felony, and then the already existing no-gun prohibition is in effect.

[warpedskydiver 0]

keep dancing, you are so good at it.

What you said it is in the post, if you like I can refer you back to that portion of this thread where yous statement is and what it replied to.

Or would you rather just stand up to your statement and quit playing games?

[quade 4]

Quote

Or would you rather just stand up to your statement and quit playing games?

I've already stood behind my statements several times and explained precisely what was intended.

I don't need to play games of misquoting people. I'll leave that to you. You should try it on people that don't remember what they write. Maybe it will work on them.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I think both I and the NRA agree that legal access to guns needs to be made as difficult as possible for the mentally disturbed. The guy in question in this case was clearly mentally disturbed for a number of years although never technically diagnosed as such and therefore had easy access to legally acquired guns.

I'm still trying to get one of you anti-gun folks to specify what in his background would you like to see implemented as a gun prohibition?

Anyone who is expelled from military boot camp?
Anyone who flunks out of high school?
Anyone who is fired from a job?
Anyone who flunks an English language class?
Anyone whose wife divorces them?
Anyone who lets their dog piss on the carpet?

What exactly in his past should have disqualified him from gun ownership?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I can see that a little inconvenience for you in buying your toys outweighs saving a bunch of lives every year.

What "inconvenience" are you referring to that would save a bunch of lives?

You guys are good at whining about meaningless generalities. But you're really short on actual details. I don't think you really have any.

You spend a lot of time worrying about gun violence. What about motor vehicle violence? 37,000 died last year in auto accidents. Shouldn't we do something to tighten up the rules on who can drive a car? What ideas do you have for that?

[warpedskydiver 0]

Let's examine post #8 and post # 24 and see how it is we are taking your statements out of context.

By all means explain how licensing a right is ok with you and restricting the right to own "anything that can be used to lay in wait in order to kill" is ok with you.

Refer to the post and explain it.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

If he takes a tray, takes careful aim, swings it as hard as he can, and takes out the eye of an 8 year old girl - then yes, perhaps they should be evaluated for mental stability (and arrested and prosecuted for a violent assault.)

The problem then is not guns. It's the justice system which considers such an assault to be only a misdemeanor. Make it a felony, and then the already existing no-gun prohibition is in effect.

Don't be silly, John. The obvious answer in this case is to outlaw trays.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Or would you rather just stand up to your statement and quit playing games?

I've already stood behind my statements several times and explained precisely what was intended.

I don't need to play games of misquoting people. I'll leave that to you. You should try it on people that don't remember what they write. Maybe it will work on them.

Quit dodging, you said it, now defend it.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3532315;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;#3532845

also see http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3532315;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;#3533461

Come on now it is easy enough for you to say it, now defend it.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Don't be silly, John. The obvious answer in this case is to outlaw trays.

Is it one of those lightweight plastic trays? Or one of the heavy metal assault-trays to which you can sharpen the edge like a knife blade? You should have to be licensed to eat off of one of those. Especially when they slop that spoonful of porridge on it - it gets me so enraged I want to swing it at the server!

[quade 4]

Quote

What exactly in his past should have disqualified him from gun ownership?

His mental stability. After so many issues, somewhere along the line he should have been mentally disqualified.

Or do you disagree?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Or would you rather just stand up to your statement and quit playing games?

I've already stood behind my statements several times and explained precisely what was intended.

I don't need to play games of misquoting people. I'll leave that to you. You should try it on people that don't remember what they write. Maybe it will work on them.

Quit dodging, you said it, now defend it.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3532315;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;#3532845

also see http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3532315;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;#3533461

Come on now it is easy enough for you to say it, now defend it.

Asked and answered. Good night. See ya tomorrow.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

What exactly in his past should have disqualified him from gun ownership?

His mental stability. After so many issues, somewhere along the line he should have been mentally disqualified. Or do you disagree?

Then that's not a problem with gun laws. It's a problem with prosecutors not taking appropriate action.

Do you want something like a three-strikes law, whereby three non-felony violent encounters with police would suffice to disqualify someone from gun ownership? I might go for something like that, depending upon what kind of misdemeanors are included. I don't want people with a history of violence to have guns But I don't want non-violent petty crimes to be a disqualifier either. Someone who shoplifted when he was young and dumb ought to still be able to go duck hunting later in life.

How come I have to come up with these ideas? You anti-gun folks are supposed to be doing this. But all I hear from them are whining and meaningless generalities.