Arizona Congresswoman, shot in the head

[rhaig 0]

Quote

So one more person now recognizes that the current state of the laws on firearms is inadequate. Baby steps.

so what would you change? You've only been asked that a half a dozen times in this thread.

choosing not to answer or at least admit that you don't have the answer pretty much identifies you as a troll. I don't think you're a troll, just stubborn and close-minded.

--
Rob

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

It's just amazing how so many people on this forum are in denial that there's a gun violence problem in the USA.

go up thread a bit and read... we have a horrible violence problem. If the guns went away, I don't believe things would get "all better".

You've been asked several times to post your suggestions. You apparently have none except to complain. I've seen several suggestions or enumerations of possibilities. But none from you.

Step 1 - acknowledge the problem. You may have done, but several of the posters here are still in denial. Until gun enthusiasts themselves acknowledge a problem and want it fixed, nothing will get done.

...

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

[rhaig 0]

Quote

All left-wing nut cases with the possible exception of 1, or maybe 2

how about this then: Democrats aren't allowed to purchase firearms. Upon registration with the Democratic party, they must turn in or sell all firearms and submit their property to inspection.

--
Rob

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Step 1 - acknowledge the problem. You may have done, but several of the posters here are still in denial. Until gun enthusiasts themselves acknowledge a problem and want it fixed, nothing will get done.

so you're just going to continue to bitch and moan then...

ok, that's what I thought.

--
Rob

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Step 1 - acknowledge the problem. You may have done, but several of the posters here are still in denial. Until gun enthusiasts themselves acknowledge a problem and want it fixed, nothing will get done.

so you're just going to continue to bitch and moan then...

ok, that's what I thought.

He opened up once a year or two ago

Basicly without saying it outright he is for a defacto ban

Guns are bad unles he and his own them

Kind of like some tv show hosts and Senators from CA we all know about

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

Mr. Loughner had exhibited increasingly strange behavior in recent months, including ominous Internet postings — at least one showing a gun — and a series of videos in which he made disjointed statements on topics like the gold standard and mind control.

Pima Community College said he had been suspended for conduct violations and withdrew in October after five instances of classroom or library disruptions that involved the campus police.

And you see no problem with the current state of the law that allowed him to buy a gun legally.

...

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Mr. Loughner had exhibited increasingly strange behavior in recent months, including ominous Internet postings — at least one showing a gun — and a series of videos in which he made disjointed statements on topics like the gold standard and mind control.

Pima Community College said he had been suspended for conduct violations and withdrew in October after five instances of classroom or library disruptions that involved the campus police.

And you see no problem with the current state of the law that allowed him to buy a gun legally.

I went back through the thread and I do not see where anybody said that. (or even insinuated that) Will you point out the post for us please?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Step 1 - acknowledge the problem. You may have done, but several of the posters here are still in denial. Until gun enthusiasts themselves acknowledge a problem and want it fixed, nothing will get done.

so you're just going to continue to bitch and moan then...

ok, that's what I thought.

He opened up once a year or two ago

Basicly without saying it outright he is for a defacto ban

Guns are bad unles he and his own them

Kind of like some tv show hosts and Senators from CA we all know about

Nice unsubstantiated claim. Not true, of course.

...

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Step 1 - acknowledge the problem. You may have done, but several of the posters here are still in denial. Until gun enthusiasts themselves acknowledge a problem and want it fixed, nothing will get done.

so you're just going to continue to bitch and moan then...

ok, that's what I thought.

He opened up once a year or two ago

Basicly without saying it outright he is for a defacto ban

Guns are bad unles he and his own them

Kind of like some tv show hosts and Senators from CA we all know about

Nice unsubstantiated claim. Not true, of course.

Of course of course

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[winsor 236]

Quote

Winsor, I expect the simplistic comeback from the likes of some here, but not you. You are one of the brightest and erudite minds here, yet, for all your knowledge and wisdom you only seem to be able to see black and white on this issue.

I was hoping for better.

I never suggested making firearms as illegal as cocaine. I never suggested a total nation-wide ban "Like in Rwanda."

I'm asking for a workable solution to the problem of keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people. By all accounts, even the NRA is for that as a general goal, yet the current system is badly broken.

How would you actually fix it?

Your standpoint is that of dumbing down the issue to the lowest common denominator, and that offends the hell out of me. It has the same level of brilliance of the people who, after noting that a huge number of social ills were related to alcohol, saw fit to illegalize the stuff and thus make it unavailable.

Boy, was that a brilliant success.

What is the solution to either? Personal responsibility.

In Switzerland, everyone I knew had a fully automatic firearm and ammunition at home, not to mention sundry personal firearms. One of my friends there pointed out that when Swiss people do kill each other they do not tend to do so with firearms, since firearms entail a great deal of responsibility and they are avoided when acting irresponsibly. They may thus stab or bludgeon someone - but not shoot.

You would not, of course, understand.

Anyone who is not fit to possess a loaded firearm is unfit to populate a free society. For you to impose standards on responsible people based on the limits you envision appropriate for the criminally insane makes for a society in which the criminally insane are at home and responsible people are at a disadvantage.

As usual, you are looking at the wrong part of the equation. The idea that applying sufficient constraints to people will force them to behave is absurd.

88 people were killed in the Bronx by a pissed off boyfriend with $1 worth of gasoline. How do you keep gasoline out of the hands of crazy people?

Even granting there is a problem, nothing you have ever said on the subject suggests that you would recognize a solution if you saw it.


BSBD,

Winsor

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Step 1 - acknowledge the problem. You may have done, but several of the posters here are still in denial. Until gun enthusiasts themselves acknowledge a problem and want it fixed, nothing will get done.

so you're just going to continue to bitch and moan then...

ok, that's what I thought.

He opened up once a year or two ago

Basicly without saying it outright he is for a defacto ban

Guns are bad unles he and his own them

Kind of like some tv show hosts and Senators from CA we all know about

Nice unsubstantiated claim. Not true, of course.

Of course of course

Well, if you want to be believed, post the link to it.

...

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

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Mr. Loughner had exhibited increasingly strange behavior in recent months, including ominous Internet postings — at least one showing a gun — and a series of videos in which he made disjointed statements on topics like the gold standard and mind control.

Pima Community College said he had been suspended for conduct violations and withdrew in October after five instances of classroom or library disruptions that involved the campus police.

And you see no problem with the current state of the law that allowed him to buy a gun legally.

I went back through the thread and I do not see where anybody said that. (or even insinuated that) Will you point out the post for us please?

You may want to read Kennedy's and Mike's posts more carefully.

...

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

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Anyone who is not fit to possess a loaded firearm is unfit to populate a free society.

So how would you deal with mentally unstable people like Cho and Loughner? Concentration camp?

...

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Step 1 - acknowledge the problem. You may have done, but several of the posters here are still in denial. Until gun enthusiasts themselves acknowledge a problem and want it fixed, nothing will get done.

so you're just going to continue to bitch and moan then...

ok, that's what I thought.

He opened up once a year or two ago

Basicly without saying it outright he is for a defacto ban

Guns are bad unles he and his own them

Kind of like some tv show hosts and Senators from CA we all know about

Nice unsubstantiated claim. Not true, of course.

Of course of course

Well, if you want to be believed, post the link to it.

I did once
I dont think I need to do it again

However there is an easy way for you to prove me the liar you like to say I am

Post your plan that will "fix" the issues you say gun owners will not allow them selves to even see

Step by step
How do you propose to stop what just happened in AZ?

If your proposals are deemed by those here not to be a defacto ban I will admit I am a liar (about your position on guns) and offer you a sincere apology

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Mr. Loughner had exhibited increasingly strange behavior in recent months, including ominous Internet postings — at least one showing a gun — and a series of videos in which he made disjointed statements on topics like the gold standard and mind control.

Pima Community College said he had been suspended for conduct violations and withdrew in October after five instances of classroom or library disruptions that involved the campus police.

And you see no problem with the current state of the law that allowed him to buy a gun legally.

I went back through the thread and I do not see where anybody said that. (or even insinuated that) Will you point out the post for us please?

You may want to read Kennedy's and Mike's posts more carefully.

Where in this post is the suggestion that no problem is seen?

Come on John

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Step 1 - acknowledge the problem. You may have done, but several of the posters here are still in denial. Until gun enthusiasts themselves acknowledge a problem and want it fixed, nothing will get done.

so you're just going to continue to bitch and moan then...

ok, that's what I thought.

He opened up once a year or two ago

Basicly without saying it outright he is for a defacto ban

Guns are bad unles he and his own them

Kind of like some tv show hosts and Senators from CA we all know about

Nice unsubstantiated claim. Not true, of course.

Of course of course

Well, if you want to be believed, post the link to it.

I did once
I dont think I need to do it again

No, you didn't. You made the same CLAIM before, but when challenged you couldn't find any post where I wrote any such thing.

...

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

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Mr. Loughner had exhibited increasingly strange behavior in recent months, including ominous Internet postings — at least one showing a gun — and a series of videos in which he made disjointed statements on topics like the gold standard and mind control.

Pima Community College said he had been suspended for conduct violations and withdrew in October after five instances of classroom or library disruptions that involved the campus police.

And you see no problem with the current state of the law that allowed him to buy a gun legally.

I went back through the thread and I do not see where anybody said that. (or even insinuated that) Will you point out the post for us please?

You may want to read Kennedy's and Mike's posts more carefully.

Where in this post is the suggestion that no problem is seen?

Come on John

It's not my fault if you have a reading comprehension problem.

Point to one post where you, Mike, or Kennedy acknowledged that there is a problem.

...

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

[muff528 3]

Quote

Mr. Loughner had exhibited increasingly strange behavior in recent months, including ominous Internet postings — at least one showing a gun — and a series of videos in which he made disjointed statements on topics like the gold standard and mind control.

Pima Community College said he had been suspended for conduct violations and withdrew in October after five instances of classroom or library disruptions that involved the campus police.

And you see no problem with the current state of the law that allowed him to buy a gun legally.

So, seriously, who steps in and says this guy can't get a gun? At what point does "someone", by decree, make (or not make) that decision? A government "czar"? A club or other advocacy group (NRA, for example) to be charged with the responsibility to affirm or deny a person his rights? Wouldn't that simply create an entity that can be held liable and be sued if something goes bad? That's the only reason I can think of that an anti-gun advocate can have for the NRA to take control and "self-govern". How about arresting murderers (regardless of weapon) and tossing them in jail (after a fair trial, of course)?

[rhaig 0]

Quote

And you see no problem with the current state of the law that allowed him to buy a gun legally.

I don't see what can be done without changing the constitution. But you've not supplied your answer, so we have to believe you have none.

You seem to be suggesting a state-sponsored snooping into everything ever done by someone in order to predict if they might go nutter. Either that or you're wanting an outright ban and confiscation.

We've established (even if it's only between a few of us) that there is a violence problem. I don't see how any of this would change the violence problem in the US.

--
Rob

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Anyone who is not fit to possess a loaded firearm is unfit to populate a free society.

So how would you deal with mentally unstable people like Cho and Loughner? Concentration camp?

Did you really ask that? Don't be intentionally obtuse.

Well how do we deal with mentally unstable people now? Mental institution.

next!

--
Rob

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Anyone who is not fit to possess a loaded firearm is unfit to populate a free society.

So how would you deal with mentally unstable people like Cho and Loughner? Concentration camp?

Did you really ask that? Don't be intentionally obtuse.

Well how do we deal with mentally unstable people now? Mental institution.

next!

Which mental institution did Cho escape from? Which mental institution did Loughner escape from?

You are in denial, just like Winsor, Marc, Mike and Kennedy

...

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

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Which mental institution did Cho escape from? Which mental institution did Loughner escape from?

You are in denial, just like Winsor, Marc, Mark and Kennedy

uh.... you're obtuse is showing again.

first you get a court to declare them insane.

That's step one. You're only sharing step one of your plan, so I'll stop there on my plan of dealing with the unstable. Where I'm going with step two is obvious. Hey look!! Our plans have something in common!!

--
Rob

[muff528 3]

OK, re-reading all of kallend's posts in this thread gives me this sense of a 3-pronged approach to a "solution" to the problem (defining the problem as nutcases gaining access to guns):

(1) Gun owner's should willfully turn in all their guns so that they are not being selfish in asserting their rights to the detriment of victims of gun crimes.

(2) The sale of guns should be banned.

(3) All right wing political speech should be banned as inciteful and hateful unless it is self-condemning. The simple fact that right-wing politicians have opposing views from the left is in itself proof that the RW'ers are nuts. No further mental evaluation necessary.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Which mental institution did Cho escape from? Which mental institution did Loughner escape from?

You are in denial, just like Winsor, Marc, Mark and Kennedy

uh.... you're obtuse is showing again.

first you get a court to declare them insane.

!!

Why did you snip your question and self-provided answer, which was:

Well how do we deal with mentally unstable people now? Mental institution.

The obtuse one is you. The law as it stands is clearly unable to stop nutcases like Cho and Loughner from obtaining guns.

...

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

[lawrocket 3]

So is the problem guns? Is it rhetoric?

Or is it untreated mental illness?

I think that in terms of looking for strawmen and political gain, there's a helluva lot of inciteful, angry, horrific shit being said - all of which takes away from the discussion of the issue of mental illness.

Well, let's face it - there's no political haymaker to throw when a mentally ill guy doesn't kill somebody. Let's not treat the mentally ill. No. Let's make sure that we keep guns, knives, and pipes away from them.

Then let's put limits on speech, because there are mentally ill people out there who we don't want to treat but may blow up.

Let me ask anybody out there with any knowledge whatsoever whether what Glenn Beck says is anything remotely near what voices tell these people to do?


It's that you just plain don't fucking care about mental illness. You all have a much better time accusing each other. You all have a wonderful time with your hate-filled blame games.


TREATING THE MENTALLY ILL, I would think, would save lives. Instead of waiting for them to blow so they can be in prison because they killed people.

My wife is hotter than your wife.