2405 shot dead since Tucson

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

There is no answer to that question that you and Kennedy and Kelp and John Rich will find suitable... So... I will just keep what MY response would be to myself.

Thanks for trying to play though.

Ah, the Kallend answer. So we don't have to answer any tough questions either, it appears.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's very hard to divorce your rantings here from your stance that since you live in the country far from police response, it's important that you have a gun to protect yourself.

R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y !!!!!!!!!

I know its hard for those UBBER PARANOIDS that see everone coming to try to get their guns..... but... I tire of argueing with people who are incapable of seeing beyond their narrow BELIEF.

like your own?

don't understand the answer. Isn't it responsible for 21yo students to arm themselves? Just as you do? What's the difference? Or is it merely hypocrisy?

Why 21????

Why not 18???

THOUSANDS of 18 year olds have died for YOUR right to bear arms.... why do YOU consider them unworthy????

They recieved training... so should EVERYONE who owns a weapon.. period. I would go so far as to have them PROVE they are proficient because I do NOT like being around armed idiots who had a larger checkbook than their very small ration of common sence.

OH.. I might add.. that would be a VERY good place to weed out some of those who should NEVER EVER be allowed to purchase a weapon. I know that will disturb those of you who would wish to remove all the laws as unneeded but again.. if you can not demonstrate proper care and use and responsibility with owning and using weapons... how does that help them fit into a "WELL REGUL:ATED MILITIA" ?????

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Why 21????

Why not 18???

THOUSANDS of 18 year olds have died for YOUR right to bear arms.... why do YOU consider them unworthy????

Current law says 21. I would agree that it should be 18, but that wasn't the question at hand.

Quote

They recieved training... so should EVERYONE who owns a weapon.. period. I would go so far as to have them PROVE they are proficient because I do NOT like being around armed idiots who had a larger checkbook than their very small ration of common sence.

OH.. I might add.. that would be a VERY good place to weed out some of those who should NEVER EVER be allowed to purchase a weapon. I know that will disturb those of you who would wish to remove all the laws as unneeded but again.. if you can not demonstrate proper care and use and responsibility with owning and using weapons... how does that help them fit into a "WELL REGUL:ATED MILITIA" ?????

Going back to the other thread, it sounds like you would be comfortable with a return to literacy tests to make sure that minority voter knows what he's doing at the ballot box.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

There is no answer to that question that you and Kennedy and Kelp and John Rich will find suitable... So... I will just keep what MY response would be to myself.

Thanks for trying to play though.

Got it, you will not answer because you know it would show your own hypocrisy.

It is fine for YOU to have guns, just not anyone else.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

There is no answer to that question that you and Kennedy and Kelp and John Rich will find suitable... So... I will just keep what MY response would be to myself.

Thanks for trying to play though.

Got it, you will not answer because you know it would show your own hypocrisy.

It is fine for YOU to have guns, just not anyone else.

Wrong...

I have had the training... from a VERY early age, I have the permit to carry and have proved my proficiency.

Why do YOU expect others to not follow suit????

Face it.. I think you and your fellow travellers are unwilling to even abide by current laws and wish them GONE.

That is why it certainly seems you and the other 1 issue warriors ie. the 2nd Amendment are failing to change with the times or even comply with the wishes of the Founding Fathers and what their intent was.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

That is why it certainly seems you and the other 1 issue warriors ie. the 2nd Amendment are failing to change with the times or even comply with the wishes of the Founding Fathers and what their intent was.

What writings of Jefferson or Madison can you offer up that back your ridiculous statement? The right to self defense, like that of speech or religion, is just as relevant now as it was then.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

That is why it certainly seems you and the other 1 issue warriors ie. the 2nd Amendment are failing to change with the times or even comply with the wishes of the Founding Fathers and what their intent was.

What writings of Jefferson or Madison can you offer up that back your ridiculous statement? The right to self defense, like that of speech or religion, is just as relevant now as it was then.

OMG the British are coming.... The BRITISH are coming....



oh nevermind... wrong centruy

[kelpdiver 2]

you can't answer a single question any more, can you?

so sad.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

you can't answer a single question any more, can you?

so sad.

You cant help youself LYING about my desire for a POLL TAX either.... so totally fucking sad.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

you can't answer a single question any more, can you?

so sad.

You cant help youself LYING about my desire for a POLL TAX either.... so totally fucking sad.

you're perfectly willing to impose an expensive process around obtaining a gun, even though it will have virtually no benefit. What's the difference?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

you can't answer a single question any more, can you?

so sad.

You cant help youself LYING about my desire for a POLL TAX either.... so totally fucking sad.

you're perfectly willing to impose an expensive process around obtaining a gun, even though it will have virtually no benefit. What's the difference?

I would be good with knowledgeable gun owners..both from the standpoint of legal responsibility and functional use.... the rest of you I guess would rather see anyone with a checkbook good to go... and damn the consequences

What a brave new world you want to live in..

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

STRAWMAN.

No-one has suggested preventing stable law abiding citizens from getting guns.

But you have CONSISTENTLY avoided what standards you would like to see put into place.

And the CURRENT laws state that a person who is mentally unstable is not allowed to own a weapon.

Totally pointless since background checks can be avoided with trivial ease, thanks to lobbying by the NRA and others of their ilk.

A good first step is require a background check on ALL sales.

Quote

What EXACTLY would you want to require as a screening? And would YOU be willing to go through the EXACT same process to get and keep your pilots license?

Periodic examination by a medical doctor is required to exercise the privileges of a pilot's license. You seem to have picked a LOSER on that analogy.

...

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

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Also, I'm still trying to figure out where you stand, since you can't or won't link to a post or thread where you've clearly stated your position on individual gun rights.

That's because you don't pay attention.

Really? I'm not paying attention? Then can you please tell us where you answered the questions I've posed to your four times now?

Quote

So what do you think about requiring registration of all firearms?

What do you think about storage requirements of private firearms kept on private property?

Up to the owner, but owner should also have strict liability for any accident or misuse.

What do you think about limiting magazine capacity?
No opinion
What do you think about private ownership of handguns?



Fine


What do you think about private ownership of military styled semi-auto rifles?



Anyone juvenile enough to play soldiers is welcome to do so.


What do you think about private ownership of select-fire or full-auto firearms?



OK, but should be licensed.
What do you think about concealed carry? Should it be banned, licensed, or unlicensed?

Fine but should have mandatory training and a background check. I think that's how Texas does it.

What do you think about open carry of firearms? Should it be banned, licensed, or unlicensed?

If you want to appear like a macho boy, that's fine with me.

So have you answered and I'm not paying attention? Or are you full of shit?

I have answered most of these previously.

Now it's your turn.

Do you think the high firearms death rate in the USA compared to other western industrialized nations is acceptable?

Do you think there's absolutely nothing that can be done about it?

Do your think anyone should be able to buy a gun without a background check, even if it means felons can do so easily?

Do you think restrictions on the right of felons and the mentally unstable to own guns are reasonable? If so, how would you go about enforcing them?

...

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

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

So you admit that I haven't suggested preventing stable law abiding citizens from getting guns. I guess that's progress. Maybe you can tell that to kelpdiver and rushmc, both of whom seem to have comprehension problems.

No, I comprehend you and your constant lying perfectly well.

.

Since you are unable to find a single post where I have advocated banning guns despite your claim that I have made many, your accusation of lying is rather hollow. if you want to see the liar, look in the mirror.

...

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

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

do I know who is the bad guy in this situation?

There were concealed carry holders at the Arizona shooting. They didn't stop Laughner

Seems you just shot down your own argument.

Quote

Your four gunman scenario is a Strawman!

Apparently you don't know what a strawman fallacy is.

...

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Totally pointless since background checks can be avoided with trivial ease, thanks to lobbying by the NRA and others of their ilk.

A good first step is require a background check on ALL sales.

Still charging on the heels of that 1% while ignoring the rest?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DougH 270]

Quote

I would be good with knowledgeable gun owners..both from the standpoint of legal responsibility and functional use.... the rest of you I guess would rather see anyone with a checkbook good to go... and damn the consequences

What a brave new world you want to live in..

Can you back that up with quotes that prove that any of us are advocating for a completely unregulated gun industry.

Here in CT there is background check and a wait period for long guns. Not unregulated.

There is also a pistol permit required to purchase handguns, which requires training, fingerprinting, a complete background check. Not unregulated. It takes up to 8 weeks to get the permit, and it isn't a free process either.

I have no problem with either of these measure in the state, except for the revenue generating part of the pistol permit.

How do you suggest regulating the industry?

The ATF handbook on Federal gun laws and regulations is the size of an average college text book. If we can keep adding laws maybe we can make it compete with the tax code... now the books at my desk for the federal tax regulations is 8 volumes deep... very eficient!!!

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[DougH 270]

Quote

Quote

do I know who is the bad guy in this situation?

There were concealed carry holders at the Arizona shooting. They didn't stop Laughner

Seems you just shot down your own argument.

And which argument would that be Professor? If you read what I said within the context of the post it should be clear that I posted what is quoted above in response to Amazon's claim that concealed carry holders would turn a situation into the wild wild west where every one is gunning each other down. That obviously is not that case. The Laughner shooting proves that while CCW holders are not a SWAT team that can solve every situation they are responsible citizens that can exercise sounds judgement and restraint.

Quote

Apparently you don't know what a strawman fallacy is.

The only thing that I think is apparent is that certain posters here would rather degrade the conversation to the level of personal attacks then anwser each others questions and have a constructive exchange of ideas.

I don't know if that is just because of the atmosphere of the speakers corner, or if it is a reflection on certain posters social skills!
By the way you never took the time to detail out how exactly you propose contain the flow of banned items onto open access communities like most college campuses.

The last I remember you danced around the question with a personal attack, and some love for Walker Texas Ranger.

Care to anwser the question this time around?

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

See all those laws in place have not prevented the lunatic from getting a weapon.. Why are you so adamant about protecting lunatics???

Why are you so adamant that sane people not be able to use the most effective means of defense when confronted with lunatics intent on harming them?

Do you want to hand over all your responsibilty to the government and trust them to protect you? Neither do I. So why would you support requiring others to do that?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

There is no answer to that question that you and Kennedy and Kelp and John Rich will find suitable... So... I will just keep what MY response would be to myself.

Thanks for trying to play though.

So you can't find a reasonable answer, so you're going to keep it to yourself, and somehow this is a failure on my part? Negative, Ghostrider. That's you pulling a five-year-old "Screw you guys, I'm going home, and taking the ball with me."

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

There is no answer to that question that you and Kennedy and Kelp and John Rich will find suitable... So... I will just keep what MY response would be to myself.

Thanks for trying to play though.

So you can't find a reasonable answer, so you're going to keep it to yourself, and somehow this is a failure on my part? Negative, Ghostrider. That's you pulling a five-year-old "Screw you guys, I'm going home, and taking the ball with me."

No its an exercise with argueing with a box of rocks.. I gave up on that when I was 2...

[kallend 2,027]

I answered your questions - why are you being evasive about mine?

...

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

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Totally pointless since background checks can be avoided with trivial ease, thanks to lobbying by the NRA and others of their ilk.

A good first step is require a background check on ALL sales.

Still charging on the heels of that 1% while ignoring the rest?

Still believing the words of convicted felons, most of whom plead "Not Guilty"?

...

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

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Wrong...

I have had the training... from a VERY early age, I have the permit to carry and have proved my proficiency.

Why do YOU expect others to not follow suit????

Haven't been really reading have you?

Post #110 OF THIS VERY THREAD:
2. Training should be up to the person. I have no issue with States requiring training to get a CHL... In fact, you are ignoring that most States require training to get a CHL.

So you failed right there.

Quote

Face it.. I think you and your fellow travellers are unwilling to even abide by current laws and wish them GONE.

Fail again.

Quote

That is why it certainly seems you and the other 1 issue warriors ie. the 2nd Amendment are failing to change with the times

As soon as you start preaching that the 1st only applies to religions that were in existence in 1791

As soon as you start preaching that the internet is not protected by free speech, only printing presses.

As soon as you start preaching that the 4th does not apply to cars and only horse and buggies....

It seems only YOU are not willing to change with the times with regard to the 2nd.

Quote

or even comply with the wishes of the Founding Fathers and what their intent was.

Fail again... the Founding Fathers didn't want required training... YOU DO.

I have already shown that the Founding Fathers wanted anyone capable to have a gun... and you have not even shown anything but your opinion to counter that.

I have already shown that the SC agrees with MY interpretation.... Not yours.

Who is not complying with the wishes of the Founding Fathers again?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

A good first step is require a background check on ALL sales.

Would you be OK with every airplane sale going through a dealer?

Quote

Periodic examination by a medical doctor is required to exercise the privileges of a pilot's license. You seem to have picked a LOSER on that analogy.

Ah, but not to OWN a plane... You failed, not me.