kelpdiver 2 #226 April 20, 2011 Quote YOU could say that, but I wouldn't, any more than I'd claim a water gun is a real gun. yet...any crime committed with a fake gun is prosecuted as if it were a real one. You can't use its actual non lethality as a defense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #227 April 20, 2011 QuoteBut still able to prove you have nothing but emotions and no facts to support your position. My position is that the FAA lists them in the same category as powered parachutes. The more you keep denying that, the funnier it gets, and the more delusional you appear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #228 April 20, 2011 QuoteQuote YOU could say that, but I wouldn't, any more than I'd claim a water gun is a real gun. yet...any crime committed with a fake gun is prosecuted as if it were a real one. You can't use its actual non lethality as a defense. I found this interesting this AM. I was listening to the Bill Bennet show and he had this guy on http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/about/director.html R. Gil Kerlikowske Director White House Office of National Drug Control Policy He stated on the show that more people die from pescription drugs than gun shots wounds I wonder where this is going?"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 #229 April 20, 2011 Quote I found this interesting this AM. I was listening to the Bill Bennet show and he had this guy on http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/about/director.html R. Gil Kerlikowske Director White House Office of National Drug Control Policy He stated on the show that more people die from pescription drugs than gun shots wounds I wonder where this is going? more people are saved by prescription drugs than guns as well. A consequence of sheer numbers. cost benefit analysis always needs to consider the positives. As we know, the gun control lobby ignores this entirely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #230 April 20, 2011 QuoteQuote I found this interesting this AM. I was listening to the Bill Bennet show and he had this guy on http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/about/director.html R. Gil Kerlikowske Director White House Office of National Drug Control Policy He stated on the show that more people die from pescription drugs than gun shots wounds I wonder where this is going? more people are saved by prescription drugs than guns as well. A consequence of sheer numbers. cost benefit analysis always needs to consider the positives. As we know, the gun control lobby ignores this entirely. I think I miss stated this a bit here More people die from intentional mis-use of prescription pain killers than those who die from gun wounds Junkies of dr prescribed drugs Over doses of pain killers"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 2,027 #231 April 20, 2011 Quote More people die from intentional mis-use of prescription pain killers than those who die from gun wounds More people die of gun wounds than die in canopy collisions. Did you have an intelligent point to make?... 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
normiss 800 #232 April 21, 2011 Given the SIGNIFICANTLY higher number of gun ownership vs. canopy ownership, I'd expect no less. Much like idiotic insurance companies trying to convince me that motorcycle deaths are up. Duh. Ownership is up by a much higher percentage as well. Odd things about numbers.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #233 April 21, 2011 QuoteQuote More people die from intentional mis-use of prescription pain killers than those who die from gun wounds More people die of gun wounds than die in canopy collisions. Did you have an intelligent point to make? Just as important or intelligent as the points you try to make in all the gun threads you post in Really John We need to keep the loonie Dr's from give meds to people who kill themselves After all, more people die from self medicated perscrition drug overdoses than do gun wounds You are so heartless....."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 2,027 #234 April 21, 2011 Quote Given the SIGNIFICANTLY higher number of gun ownership vs. canopy ownership, I'd expect no less. Much like idiotic insurance companies trying to convince me that motorcycle deaths are up. Duh. Ownership is up by a much higher percentage as well. Odd things about numbers.... Thank you, Captain Obvious.... 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
normiss 800 #235 April 21, 2011 That was my point in re: your silliness. I'm sorry you were raised in a society that doesn't trust the citizens enough to arm themselves. Thankfully we do in this country. The rest of the population shouldn't have to suffer the loss of rights because you're afraid of weapons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #236 April 27, 2011 QuoteYOU could say that, but I wouldn't, any more than I'd claim a water gun is a real gun. Waiting to hear what YOU say. And still take the water gun to a school and show it and let me know what they tell you. Point is that you took a position that is not sustainable and now are dancing around to avoid looking silly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #237 April 27, 2011 QuoteMy position is that the FAA lists them in the same category as powered parachutes. But they are still an airplane according to *definition*. QuoteThe more you keep denying that, the funnier it gets, and the more delusional you appear. I was thinking the same thing about you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #238 April 28, 2011 QuoteBut they are still an airplane according to *definition*. Right, except clearly in a different category than what kallend was talking about, which makes the whole point you are trying to make moot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #239 April 28, 2011 QuoteRight, except clearly in a different category than what kallend was talking about, which makes the whole point you are trying to make moot. Yet it is still a plane, which makes your point moot. You can have a double standard... just expect to get called out for having it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #240 April 28, 2011 QuoteYou can have a double standard... just expect to get called out for having it. LOL and exactly what is my double standard? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 800 #241 April 28, 2011 I think we're headed back to a gun is a gun is a weapon is a firearm. Whether it's a 22 with 5 bullets or an AK-47 with 100. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #242 April 28, 2011 Lol, except, don't think I was part of that discussion. I think you guys should be able to own, carry and shoot whatever the hell you want. Was just pointing out the stupidity of the plane semantics question posed. Now I am just waiting for DaVinci to let me know what he thinks my double standard is. (In this case anyways, as a father of two boys and 1 girl I have a significant amount of double standards) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #243 April 29, 2011 QuoteQuoteMy position is that the FAA lists them in the same category as powered parachutes. But they are still an airplane according to *definition*. Not the definition of the agency charged with regulating airplanes.... 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
kallend 2,027 #244 April 29, 2011 QuoteQuoteYou brought up the topic, not I. Deal with it. I did deal with it... By taking your position and making it look foolish. Still waiting John.... Is this still not a real plane? http://affordaplane.com/ nor this one? http://www.quicksilveraircraft.com/sport.htm You do not need a license or insurance to own AND TO FLY THEM. According to the FAA, they are "ultralight vehicles", not airplanes or aircraft. They fall under FAR Part 103. In particular: Sec. 103.13 Operation near aircraft; right-of-way rules. (a) Each person operating an ultralight vehicle shall maintain vigilance so as to see and avoid aircraft and shall yield the right-of-way to all aircraft. (b) No person may operate an ultralight vehicle in a manner that create a collision hazard with respect to any aircraft. (c) Powered ultralights shall yield the right-of-way to unpowered ultralights.... 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
DaVinci 0 #245 April 29, 2011 QuoteNot the definition of the agency charged with regulating airplanes. So, all things that shoot a projectile by the use of a powder charge is a gun. But not all vehicles that fly a person are planes.... Got it. Nice that you like to play these word games instead of discuss the actual issues. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #246 April 29, 2011 QuoteLOL and exactly what is my double standard? Simple, that you want to claim that a any gun is a gun, but not any plane is a plane. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wsd 0 #247 April 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteNot the definition of the agency charged with regulating airplanes. So, all things that shoot a projectile by the use of a powder charge is a gun. But not all vehicles that fly a person are planes.... Got it. Nice that you like to play these word games instead of discuss the actual issues. It is all he ever does... Ask him a direct question such as "what firearms do you think should be outlawed?" and he will sing and dance but never answer. He will also never how he would decide who should and should not own a firearm, his answer is no nutters and felons, he will not tell you how the decision is to be made on excluding those persons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dks13827 3 #248 April 30, 2011 people shouldnt do that. I carry and I cant even fathom doing such a thing. just cause someone disses you, blow him away ?? come on.. give me a break. used to be,, parents and ministers would teach us better than that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #249 April 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteLOL and exactly what is my double standard? Simple, that you want to claim that a any gun is a gun, but not any plane is a plane. Take it up with the FAA, it's their definition, not mine.... 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
DaVinci 0 #250 April 30, 2011 QuoteTake it up with the FAA, it's their definition, not mine. Still waiting on YOU to answer this one Still waiting... you keep saying that the SC is the final say here in the US. Do you have a problem with the phrase "Shall not be infringed"? You love to claim that the SC is the final say.... Cool. But I have shown, using ONLY SC cases, the SCOTUS has said that an individual is allowed an M-16. You have not been able to counter that claim. United States v. Miller: "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." DC v Heller: that it is "an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia," "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause" McDonald v. Chicago: that it applies to the States You have shown that it is not an unlimited right.... Yes, and to cite the SC they mentioned prohibitions 'against felons and the insane'. But the fact remains that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right to own a 'military-type weapon' in all of the United States. Can you provide a SINGLE SCOTUS quote that proves your position against my comment? Remember, "Shall not be infringed" is already there as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
