Jimbo 0
QuoteSome people shoot to hone their skills for hunting season.
Animals are people too!
-
Jim
"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.
Kennedy 0
QuoteGuns whose primary design purpose is to kill people not game. This would include any weapon designed for use by the military and guns designed to look like guns designed for the military.
What determines whether a gun is designed for people or animals? Funny, I thought they were all designed to throw small pieces of metal at high speeds.
Who cares what a gun looks like? How do a gun's looks affect how deadly it is?
QuoteYes I know deer rifle can be used to kill people but when someone looks at it that is not what they imagine it being used for.
Why does what someone imagines its use will be affect whether or not I can have it.
When I look at all those little civics on the street with after market looks to them, I imagine they are for street drag races. Should we ban civics from private use?
QuoteIt is also a lot harder to sneak one into a convenience store than say an Uszi (SP?).
Uzis are easier to conceal than a semi-auto M-16 look-alike, too. My question is why do you think a semi-auto rifle that looks like a military weapon is more dangerous than a semi-auto rifle that looks more classic?
QuoteI also believe in mandatory training and licensing. I have to have more training to get a drivers license than to buy a gun.
See, now you're not using equal comparisons. Let's talking licensing vs licensing, or buying versus buying.
You can buy a car with nothing more than proof of insurance and the cash to pay for it.
To buy a gun, you have to go through a background check, plus have any required owner's ID card from the state, plus live up to all the state laws.
To get a driver's license, you have to pass a fifteen minute test and wait in a long line. And be over 16.
To get a carry license, you have to pass a background check, match state requirements for carry, attend any state mandated safety training and advice courses.
Tell me another one.
QuoteIf the weapon is illegal two things happen. Legal demand for it goes away and manufacturing declines or ceases.
Actually, once a firearm is banned, demand for it goes through the roof, because it is now a guaranteed collectible. Full automatic firearms are one of the safest investments in America, because there is a limited supply and they are very hard to get.
QuoteI don't see how you can say it won't make it easier to prosecute them any additional charge helps.
So should we pass a law against murder? It would be totally redundant, but hey, every law helps, right?
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Kennedy 0
QuoteSo wait a minute. You'd be OK with applying car-type laws to guns? i.e. anyone can own a gun as long as they register the gun, carry insurance on it, only carry it in gun-approved areas, get it inspected once a year etc?
No, you're not covering all the bases there.
Everyone would be allowed to buy a gun, carry it everywhere, including other states.
I've told you I wouldn't be against registration if politicians weren't trying to take my guns. You remember the "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in" don't you?
QuoteSen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on CBS "60 Minutes": "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it."
Honestly, if I were shot, I'd want to know where the gun came from, but not at the cost of everyone losing their firearms.
What's this gun approved areas garbage? How does that related to cars?
There is no reason for gun insurance like car insurance because far fewer guns are involved in accidents than cars. Don't bother bringing up crimes, because car insurance doesn't cover crime anyway.
So I pay for a license once, it's good for life, valid everywhere, and no politician tries to take it, then yeah, I'd consider treating gun licensing like car licensing, but never a gun like a car.
Really though, registration is over the top with cars as it is. I would never want that system as a model for anything else. There is enough suffering in the world without more DMVs.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
billvon 2,399
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Everyone would be allowed to buy a gun, carry it everywhere,
> including other states.
Definitely not! You can't drive your car into a movie theatre, school playground, airport boarding areas, most beaches etc. If you want to deal with guns the same way you deal with cars, there would be clear delineations between where you could and couldn't carry.
>I've told you I wouldn't be against registration if politicians weren't
> trying to take my guns.
There are lunatics who use guns to murder, steal and terrorize. That does not mean that all people who own guns are crazed murderers. There are also politicians who are out to achieve their own agendas of gun elimination. That does not mean that everyone who is in favor of a gun control bill wants to "take your guns." Lumping people into either category is silly.
>What's this gun approved areas garbage? How does that related to cars?
Ever seen a "no parking" sign, an "authorized vehicle only" sign or a "no motorized vehicles" sign? And surely you've seen the curbs, fences and barriers that prohibit people from driving through the centers of shopping malls a la the Blues Brothers. Roads, sidewalks and public baseball diamonds are all public property, but you are only permitted to drive on roads.
>There is no reason for gun insurance like car insurance because far
> fewer guns are involved in accidents than cars.
Same reason. Your gun may, through carelessness, injure someome else. Perhaps you fire it in the air and someone is injured by the falling bullet. Perhaps you are shooting in your backyard and you accidentally shoot out someone else's windows. I know, you wouldn't do this, but others might. Just as cars are required to carry insurance to protect against liability claims, so gun owners would be required to carry insurance. If as you claim the percentage of gun accidents is far less than the percentage of auto accidents, that's good news for you - your gun insurance would be very inexpensive.
>So I pay for a license once, it's good for life, valid everywhere, and >no politician tries to take it, then yeah, I'd consider treating gun
>licensing like car licensing, but never a gun like a car.
It sounds like you want all the good parts of car ownership but none of the bad parts. Which is not at all saying that you want to treat gun operation like car operation.
> I would never want that system as a model for anything else. There
> is enough suffering in the world without more DMVs.
I agree there. They are two completely different issues (owning a car and owning a gun.)
> including other states.
Definitely not! You can't drive your car into a movie theatre, school playground, airport boarding areas, most beaches etc. If you want to deal with guns the same way you deal with cars, there would be clear delineations between where you could and couldn't carry.
>I've told you I wouldn't be against registration if politicians weren't
> trying to take my guns.
There are lunatics who use guns to murder, steal and terrorize. That does not mean that all people who own guns are crazed murderers. There are also politicians who are out to achieve their own agendas of gun elimination. That does not mean that everyone who is in favor of a gun control bill wants to "take your guns." Lumping people into either category is silly.
>What's this gun approved areas garbage? How does that related to cars?
Ever seen a "no parking" sign, an "authorized vehicle only" sign or a "no motorized vehicles" sign? And surely you've seen the curbs, fences and barriers that prohibit people from driving through the centers of shopping malls a la the Blues Brothers. Roads, sidewalks and public baseball diamonds are all public property, but you are only permitted to drive on roads.
>There is no reason for gun insurance like car insurance because far
> fewer guns are involved in accidents than cars.
Same reason. Your gun may, through carelessness, injure someome else. Perhaps you fire it in the air and someone is injured by the falling bullet. Perhaps you are shooting in your backyard and you accidentally shoot out someone else's windows. I know, you wouldn't do this, but others might. Just as cars are required to carry insurance to protect against liability claims, so gun owners would be required to carry insurance. If as you claim the percentage of gun accidents is far less than the percentage of auto accidents, that's good news for you - your gun insurance would be very inexpensive.
>So I pay for a license once, it's good for life, valid everywhere, and >no politician tries to take it, then yeah, I'd consider treating gun
>licensing like car licensing, but never a gun like a car.
It sounds like you want all the good parts of car ownership but none of the bad parts. Which is not at all saying that you want to treat gun operation like car operation.
> I would never want that system as a model for anything else. There
> is enough suffering in the world without more DMVs.
I agree there. They are two completely different issues (owning a car and owning a gun.)
Jimbo 0
Quote>Everyone would be allowed to buy a gun, carry it everywhere,
> including other states.
Definitely not! You can't drive your car into a movie theatre, school playground, airport boarding areas, most beaches etc. If you want to deal with guns the same way you deal with cars, there would be clear delineations between where you could and couldn't carry.
We already have laws in place that prohibit one from carrying a gun into schools, bars, airports, etc...
QuoteYour gun may, through carelessness, injure someome else. Perhaps you fire it in the air and someone is injured by the falling bullet.
Again, we have laws to punish anyone who does this. Do we need more? Are more laws likely to prevent your example?
QuoteJust as cars are required to carry insurance to protect against liability claims, so gun owners would be required to carry insurance.
If you're shooting in your back yard (a big no-no in most parts of the US) and shoot out your neighbors window then (a) you probably have homeowners insurance to cover the damage, and (b) you're probably going to face criminal charges. No new laws needed here.
Quote>So I pay for a license once, it's good for life, valid everywhere, and >no politician tries to take it, then yeah, I'd consider treating gun
>licensing like car licensing, but never a gun like a car.
It sounds like you want all the good parts of car ownership but none of the bad parts. Which is not at all saying that you want to treat gun operation like car operation.
Bad parts? Like what? Maintenance? Guns and cars require maintenance, it's up to the owner of each to take care of that. An agreement not to use either in an irresponsible or dangerous manner? We have laws to punish those who use either in an irresponsible or dangerous manner, nothing new there.
The point of this entire post is that we already have laws to punish those who use guns irresponsibly or in a dangerous manner. Do we need more? Will they help? I don't think so, criminals are criminals - all the laws in the world won't stop them. Modern "gun control" seems similar to the pre-emptive policy that the US has taken towards countries that sponsort terrorism. It's interesting, most of the people arguing for gun control are the same ones who denounce the US policy of pre-emptive attacks on countries that sponsor terrorism.
-
Jim
"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.
Amazon 7
oh... lookie.. its over 300 posts... so is this one been beat to death enuff yet??
Jimbo 0
I'm sorry, did you have something constructive to say? I must have missed it.
To those who will pop in and make comments like Jeanne's, I suggest that if people didn't enjoy discussing it, that the thread would die. Apparently, due to the large number of posts in this particular thread, people _DO_ want to continue the discussion. Why would you begrudge them that privilege?
If you're not interested in the subject matter, don't read it. If you have nothing constructive to add, then don't.
This thread, for the most part, has remained civil; let's keep it that way.
-
Jim
To those who will pop in and make comments like Jeanne's, I suggest that if people didn't enjoy discussing it, that the thread would die. Apparently, due to the large number of posts in this particular thread, people _DO_ want to continue the discussion. Why would you begrudge them that privilege?
If you're not interested in the subject matter, don't read it. If you have nothing constructive to add, then don't.
This thread, for the most part, has remained civil; let's keep it that way.
-
Jim
"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.
Amazon 7
whhhhiiiiiiiinnnnneeeeeeee
thump thump thump
thump thump thump
billvon 2,399
>We already have laws in place that prohibit one from carrying a
>gun into schools, bars, airports, etc...
Agreed. Some of the other posters were making comments to the effect that "Yeah, I should be able to carry a gun everywhere just like I can drive my car everywhere."
>Again, we have laws to punish anyone who does this. Do we need
> more? Are more laws likely to prevent your example?
Depends on the law. If it's a good law I'd be for it; if it's a bad law I'd be against it. For example, I would be in favor of a law that closes the "convicted felons can legally lie about their records when buying weapons" loophole. And note I _don't_ think that we should treat guns like cars; they are two completely different things, and I think most gun owners would be royally pissed off if we started trying that.
>If you're shooting in your back yard (a big no-no in most parts of the
> US) and shoot out your neighbors window then (a) you
>probably have homeowners insurance to cover the damage, and (b)
> you're probably going to face criminal charges.
Again, I agree. Hence, another reason why owning a gun is not and should not be like owning a car.
>Bad parts? Like what? Maintenance? Guns and cars require
> maintenance, it's up to the owner of each to take care of that.
No, cars have state-mandated inspections periodically to ensure compliance with basic safety laws concerning brakes, taillights etc.
>An agreement not to use either in an irresponsible or dangerous
> manner?
?? Again, if you want to make owning a gun like owning a car, you're gonna have a _lot_ more laws. Look at how many traffic and parking laws a typical city has. Really want that many laws applied to guns?
>gun into schools, bars, airports, etc...
Agreed. Some of the other posters were making comments to the effect that "Yeah, I should be able to carry a gun everywhere just like I can drive my car everywhere."
>Again, we have laws to punish anyone who does this. Do we need
> more? Are more laws likely to prevent your example?
Depends on the law. If it's a good law I'd be for it; if it's a bad law I'd be against it. For example, I would be in favor of a law that closes the "convicted felons can legally lie about their records when buying weapons" loophole. And note I _don't_ think that we should treat guns like cars; they are two completely different things, and I think most gun owners would be royally pissed off if we started trying that.
>If you're shooting in your back yard (a big no-no in most parts of the
> US) and shoot out your neighbors window then (a) you
>probably have homeowners insurance to cover the damage, and (b)
> you're probably going to face criminal charges.
Again, I agree. Hence, another reason why owning a gun is not and should not be like owning a car.
>Bad parts? Like what? Maintenance? Guns and cars require
> maintenance, it's up to the owner of each to take care of that.
No, cars have state-mandated inspections periodically to ensure compliance with basic safety laws concerning brakes, taillights etc.
>An agreement not to use either in an irresponsible or dangerous
> manner?
?? Again, if you want to make owning a gun like owning a car, you're gonna have a _lot_ more laws. Look at how many traffic and parking laws a typical city has. Really want that many laws applied to guns?
Kennedy 0
Quote>Everyone would be allowed to buy a gun, carry it everywhere,
> including other states.
Definitely not! You can't drive your car into a movie theater, school playground, airport boarding areas, most beaches etc. If you want to deal with guns the same way you deal with cars, there would be clear delineations between where you could and couldn't carry.
First off, by "everywhere," I meant all jurisdictions, as in my Alabama 'license' [assuming I'm still stuck here when you rule the world to enact this
] would be good in California, NYC, etc. Second, you can't drive a car into a shopping mall or movie theater because they are not built to handle it. A car would cause destruction driving though a mall. A handgun can travel anywhere I can unobtrusively and not cause a bit of damage.
Third, there are distinct spaces where CCW permits are not valid. Examples are schools, churches, bars, state government buildings. I don't agree with all those examples, but I understand some distinctions.
Quote>I've told you I wouldn't be against registration if politicians weren't
> trying to take my guns.
There are also politicians who are out to achieve their own agendas of gun elimination. That does not mean that everyone who is in favor of a gun control bill wants to "take your guns." Lumping people into either category is silly.
The fact remains that a powerful set of politicians would be willing, and some of them happy, to take all firearms. Registration has led to confiscation in many places outside the US, and in NY and CA here at home. I'm not anxious to make it easy for them if they do try.
What is left to do in gun control other than ban more firearms? What bad act isn't already against the law?
QuoteEver seen a "no parking" sign, an "authorized vehicle only" sign or a "no motorized vehicles" sign?
Answered above.
Quote>There is no reason for gun insurance like car insurance because far
> fewer guns are involved in accidents than cars.
...I know, you wouldn't do this, but others might. Just as cars are required to carry insurance to protect against liability claims, so gun owners would be required to carry insurance. If as you claim the percentage of gun accidents is far less than the percentage of auto accidents, that's good news for you - your gun insurance would be very inexpensive.
You forget, insurance in basically dependant on the government. This has a number of problems.
(A) This is another opportunity for gun controllers to price gun owners out of existence.
(B) The acts you listed are crimes. No insurance will cover you against committing a crime. I have no problem with companies offering insurance coverage for owners; many already do. But requiring it I have a major problem with.
(C) There were what, about 43000 car accident deaths last year, right? There are less than 1000 accidental firearms deaths. There is about one gun out there for every person in the country right now. There is no reason to ask for required insurance. Don't fix what isn't broken.
This is one instance where the bucket analogy comes in handy. More of them kill than firearms. Are you going to require insurance on buckets? If not, don't ask for it on firearms.
Quote>So I pay for a license once, it's good for life, valid everywhere, and >no politician tries to take it, then yeah, I'd consider treating gun
>licensing like car licensing, but never a gun like a car.
It sounds like you want all the good parts of car ownership but none of the bad parts. Which is not at all saying that you want to treat gun operation like car operation.
> I would never want that system as a model for anything else. There
> is enough suffering in the world without more DMVs.
I agree there. They are two completely different issues (owning a car and owning a gun.)
I already deal with all the negatives of car ownership, I just don't get the benefits. Like I said, I wouldn't mind treating gun licenses like car licenses, but I'd never want to treat guns like cars.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Kennedy 0
QuoteDepends on the law. If it's a good law I'd be for it; if it's a bad law I'd be against it. For example, I would be in favor of a law that closes the "convicted felons can legally lie about their records when buying weapons" loophole.
OK, maybe I'll get the explanation right this time. They can't "legally lie" when filling out their forms. It is against the law to lie on those forms. Hell, it's against the law for a felon to even try to buy a firearm.
The "you can't require this ofa felon" comes into play when requiring current owners to register their firearms. You can't make a felon stand up and say he's breaking the law. However, when he goes into a gun store, he is actively breaking the law.
There's no legal loophole that allows a felon to buy a new gun.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
gary350 0
Quote
I'm sorry, did you have something constructive to say? I must have missed it.
To those who will pop in and make comments like Jeanne's, I suggest that if people didn't enjoy discussing it, that the thread would die. Apparently, due to the large number of posts in this particular thread, people _DO_ want to continue the discussion. Why would you begrudge them that privilege?
If you're not interested in the subject matter, don't read it. If you have nothing constructive to add, then don't.
This thread, for the most part, has remained civil; let's keep it that way.
-
Jim
Interesting, coming from the guy who, in a serious thread about 500 Americans being killed in a war based on lies, contributed a *yawn* and a link to a gay-curious website. Interesting.
quade 3
Quote
There's no legal loophole that allows a felon to buy a new gun.
Technically correct. In practicality however, yes, there is. In many states it's called a "Gun Show".
SOURCE
Quote
In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Bill, which requires federally licensed gun dealers to perform background checks on all gun buyers. And the system has worked fairly well - since this law went into effect in 1994, background checks have stopped over 800,000 convicted felons, domestic abusers and other illegal buyers from getting guns. But because the Brady Bill does not apply to private gun sellers, criminals and other prohibited buyers who cannot buy firearms at gun stores can skirt the law and obtain guns from private sellers at gun shows. In most states, these gun sales do not require a background check. That means no ID, no questions asked.
Criminals and gun-runners have figured it out – according the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, gun shows are now the second leading source of guns recovered in illegal gun trafficking investigation. And it doesn’t stop with domestic criminals: AGS has uncovered cases in which known or suspected terrorists were able to obtain guns at gun shows.
So far, only 18 states have closed the gun show loophole and require background checks for all gun show sales (or require some kind of firearms ID card for purchasing a gun). Colorado and Oregon recently closed the loophole by a vote of the electorate – loophole-closing ballot initiatives in both states passed by wide margins in the 2000 election. But in 32 states, the loophole remains wide open.
That is why AGS is backing federal legislation sponsored by Senators John McCain Jack Reed, Mike DeWine and Joe Lieberman. Their bi-partisan bill will require background checks at gun shows and would finally close this dangerous loophole that allows criminals, domestic abusers and even terrorists to get guns.
Opponents of the legislation argue that requiring background checks for private sellers would “shut down gun shows.” That is simply a myth. Gun shows are thriving in the states where background checks are required: Pennsylvania, which closed the loophole in 1995 when then-Governor Tom Ridge signed a law requiring background checks for all private handgun sales, hosts the second most gun shows of any state in the country. And of the top 5 gun show states, three (PA, IL and CA) require background checks or a firearms ID card for gun purchases.
The fact is, gun show background checks, like checks at gun stores, are a fast, convenient and effective way to help keep guns out of the wrong hands. In fact, 96% are completed within two hours.
Quote
Senators John McCain, Jack Reed, Mike DeWine and Joe Lieberman are sponsoring a bi-partisan bill to require background checks at gun shows that would finally close the dangerous loophole in our laws that allows criminals, domestic abusers and even terrorists to get guns. The McCain-Reed Instant Check Gun Show Bill (S. 1807) would stop illegal buyers from evading background checks while respecting the rights of law-abiding individuals who purchase guns at gun shows. The highlights of the bill include:
• Requiring a criminal background check at all gun shows and public events where at least 75 guns are available for sale;
• Allowing for more rapid background checks for private dealers when states can show that an instant check will not let criminals and other illegal buyers get guns;
• Improving enforcement and increasing penalties for criminals who lie on background checks;
A Common Sense Definition of a Gun Show
• McCain-Reed eliminates the confusing definition of previous bills. It defines a gun show simply as any public event where at least 75 guns are available for sale.
• The bill corrects a flaw in previous legislation and excludes from regulation yard sales, estate sales, sales from the home, sales between family members, and sales between members of private hunt clubs.
Instant Checks at Gun Shows
• Today, 91% of background checks take several minutes, and 96% take less than 2 hours. For the first 3 years after enactment, McCain-Reed allows for a full 3 business days to complete the background check at gun shows. On other words, for 24 of 25 buyers we have instant checks. Four percent of the checks can be more difficult and the FBI is given three business days to complete the search.
• After 3 years, states may reduce the time period for background checks between buyers and private sellers at gun shows to 24 hours, once the Department of Justice has certified that no less than 95% of a state's records are sufficiently automated to prevent prohibited buyers from purchasing guns.
• The bill allows gun show promoters to get licenses to perform background checks for their unlicensed sellers.
Quote
On September 10, 2001, a federal court in Michigan convicted Ali Boumelhem, a known member of the terrorist group Hezbollah, on weapons charges. He is currently serving prison time for attempting to smuggle guns to Lebanon. An undercover federal agent watched Boumelhem buy one of the guns -- an M-16 -- at a Michigan gun show without undergoing a background check.
Muhammad Asrar, an illegal Pakistani immigrant living in Texas, is also in prison on weapons charges. He has admitted that he illegally bought firearms at Texas gun shows without undergoing a background check. He remains under investigation by a federal grand jury on suspicion of involvement with al-Qaeda. Asrar had obtained a pilots license, had looked into renting a Lear jet and had obtained photographs of skyscrapers in U.S. cities. The government has revealed substantial evidence that Asrar was planning terrorist activity.
In Florida, Conor Claxton, an admitted member of the Irish Republican Army, is currently serving a prison term for attempting to smuggle to Ireland guns bought in part at Florida gun shows.
It is now clear that foreign terrorists have taken advantage of the loophole in our laws that allow individuals to purchase firearms at gun shows with no ID, no background check and no questions asked.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
benny 0
QuoteBenny,
I was trying to point out the flawed thought process......it appears that you have the same thought process.
Point is: What I am getting from you is that I don't need an AR-15, so therefore I shouldn't have one.
I used the example: I don't feel people need to own a Ferrari, so the thought process you (I am assuming here) are using says that because there is no need, no one should be able to own one.
I guess that my thought process is different than yours. I feel that if people act responsibly, then they should have more freedom to do what they want to do, not less. Therefore if you are a responsible gun owner, then there should be less limitations on what you should be able to own. Let us also remember that it has been illegal to own a machine gun since 1932(I believe). I also feel that if you are a responsible car owner then it shouldn't matter what car you want to drive.
Josh
My post revealed nothing of my thought process, I was simply stating that the things you pointed out were already an accepted part of our legal system. And I agree with you that responsible people who don't do anything to harm others should be basically allowed to do anything they please, own guns, fast cars, airplanes to jump out of, etc, etc, etc.. On the other hand, we know that there are a good amount of irresponsible people out there. So, the question is, do we have any way of knowing who is responsible and who is not? Are you willing to undergo a complete psychological analysis prior to purchasing your ak or m-16? Are you willing to submit to "recurrency" exams? Given the dangers posed to yourself and others by such firearms, I think this is only reasonable, but possibly too costly for the state. Would you be willing to pay for those exams yourself? Would you be willing to pay a liability insurance for your guns much the same as you pay for a car you drive?
I guess what I'm saying here is that guns definitely should not be outlawed, but there should be requirements to owning certain guns, much like I'd need a new test and new license to drive a big rig when I can already wheel around in my little suzuki just fine. I can do more damage with the big rig.
Never go to a DZ strip show.
QuoteQuoteQuoteXXL said that his intelligence was questioned by someone that doesn't even know what a computer virus is.
Someone that uses computers, even recreationally, really ought to know what a computer virus is.
The level of ignorance it would take to not have at least a basic understanding of the concept of a computer virus ought to call their general intelligence into question.
You are making the mistake of taking his word at face value that this person doesn't know what a computer virus is. If the accuser is referring to the posting I think he is, that wasn't the issue at all. The subject knew what a virus was, and was just asking for some specifics about a particular file type. You shouldn't assume that when someone wants to criticize another, that they are providing you with a correct characterization of that other person's messages. He biased his description in order to make you believe what he wanted you to believe.
If the facts were as you say, I would agree with you. But they aren't.
Quote
John:
I didn't say anything in particular was fact.
Read my post again, and you'll realize that I made a point of qualifying my statements, ie: "XXL said his intelligence was questioned...."
-JoshIf you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.
Amazon 7
QuoteInteresting, coming from the guy who, in a serious thread about 500 Americans being killed in a war based on lies, contributed a *yawn* and a link to a gay-curious website.
[crickets] chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp[/crickets]
Dont pick on the guys who are gay curious...and have sleep disorders
Normally I don't like to comment about politics as it will have no value to us in the after life.. Just one thought sticks in my head as a VET.. What about the poor Americans getting killed in Iraq looking for the Weapons of Mass destruction? And when did we become a conquering Nation?? And, I thought we were already over regulated according the Repulican party.. Thoughts to ponder and wonder..
benny 0
QuoteNormally I don't like to comment about politics as it will have no value to us in the after life.. Just one thought sticks in my head as a VET.. What about the poor Americans getting killed in Iraq looking for the Weapons of Mass destruction? And when did we become a conquering Nation?? And, I thought we were already over regulated according the Repulican party.. Thoughts to ponder and wonder..
Hey there's an idea, wanna buy an AK-47, move to Iraq, it's legal there!
Never go to a DZ strip show.
QuoteQuoteI just want the ability to go after virus makers and torture them to death, as they deserve. Could you imagine if we put some real adept, truly honest and dedicated detectives to work finding these people, and then actually did put them to death? We currently give them slaps on the wrists, and the go and deface government websites with taunts. Kill a few of them and see how long this shit goes on. The world is too fuckin' mamsy-pamsy about handing out STIFF, ULTIMATE PUNISHMENT to people who do things that really harm us and that really piss us off.
I think tirades like this are the reason some of us like gun control. I mean really, get a handle on yourself. If you didn't want to kill everyone who pisses you off maybe we wouldn't have a problem with you playing with guns...
You obviously don't know how to differentiate between venting and tendency toward violence.
Besides, we've seen how good "gun control" is at preventing bad people from getting guns and doing bad things with them. I've had guns for over ten years and no one has so much as even been in the sights of an unloaded gun of mine.
Which "we" were you speaking for, by the way?
I was venting my frustration/anger about the human shitwads who plague what could be a wonderful thing (the internet) and suggested that crimes against something so pervasive in modern life (the internet) will need to be dealt with severely if we expect it to ever be usable to its full potential. Currently, I think one must admit that we haven't been able to NEARLY ensure security and prevent identity theft, fraud and deception over the internet.
So Benny you can take your insinuations and shove 'em. I don't give a damn if you're comfortable with my exercise of my freedom. In the course of a day you probably are passed by many many worse people that you should worry about in the world than me, but you single out a guy (me) who has never done shit to harm anyone else and imply that gun control should maybe prevent me from owning one? Puhlease.
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
QuoteQuote
QuoteI think tirades like this are the reason some of us like gun control. I mean really, get a handle on yourself. If you didn't want to kill everyone who pisses you off maybe we wouldn't have a problem with you playing with guns...
Yes, only people who don't get upset should be allowed to have guns. Emotionless drones. Good idea!
That's up there on my list of "Stupidest things ever said".
-
Jim
Holy shit, I feel so horrible, Jim thinks I've said one of the stupidest thing ever, hold on while I cry a river for you to canoe down. What I said is stupid Jim? There are more than a few people who would consider it more than just a little, unbalanced, improper maybe to be lining up the firing squad for nuisance computer crimes. But I forgot, I am posting with the "bad" people should all be shot crew.
Settle a bet, Benny. I say that anyone who would take someone completely seriously when he suggested a firing squad for computer hackers is a fucking moron, and my buddy says, "Nah, there's a 2% chance he's of normal intelligence."
So, Benny, ARE you the kind of, well, you know, who actually believes what I said was my absolute true feelings about what should be done, or are you smart enough to realize that it was hyperbole written in frustration. I mean jeez, man, you are one of the most intransigent people I have ever seen!
You make yourself look pretty stupid for attempting to use something that someone said in obvious exaggeration as an earnest statement of that person's beliefs and philosophy.
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
Quote>Yes, only people who don't get upset should be allowed to
>have guns. Emotionless drones. Good idea!
People who get so mad they want to kill people should not have guns; I would support a law that took guns away from people who try to kill other people for any reason with any weapon. That's a long way from only allowing emotionless drones to have guns.
How does your plan deal with the FACT that even if you took away the GUNS from such people, if you let them back out to live free among the public, there are loads of other ways in which they can kill people?
I mean, talk about pathetically simplistic! Do you really discount the damage that someone could do with fire, poison, automobiles, blunt instruments, ordinary kitchen knives...? You make it seem like gun murders are the only kind that make sense to attempt to prevent!
It seems to me that if you wish so strongly for deranged kinds of people to be without guns, you should also wish for them to be without anything else at all that could be used as a weapon, and since there IS no way to do that, maybe you should just be for keeping them incarcerated for the rest of their lives...
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
Quote
So wait a minute. You'd be OK with applying car-type laws to guns? i.e. anyone can own a gun as long as they register the gun, carry insurance on it, only carry it in gun-approved areas, get it inspected once a year etc?
The handgun vs car analogy, to me, has always seemed a bit silly. They are nothing like each other. One is used for transportation, the other is used to either kill people, to threaten to kill people, or to practice to do so. (Yes, cars can kill people and handguns can be used to win competitons, but those are not their primary usages.) Ownership of one is protected under the constitution, the other is not. I think this is one of those "be careful what you wish for" things; you would not want guns to be controlled in the same manner cars are, or vice versa.
His application of cars to guns was not about "licensing cars like guns," it was about whether the capacity of the tool (car or gun) is well beyond what anyone anywhere is legally allowed to do with it, and if so, why not just pare-back the capacity of the tool (like the top speed of a car governed electronically).
But since you raised the "cars-to-guns" comparison, I would ask you:
- If we license and register the guns, can we then take them with us anywhere we're legally allowed to be? We do take our cars to school, and banks, and airports. Presumably it's safe because they're licensed, but would be unsafe if they were not, right?
- If we license and register the guns like we do cars, does that mean we don't need a license or registration if we purchase the guns to never be taken in public --- since you don't have to license and register a car that you will never drive on public roadways?
- If we get licenses to own guns, does that mean they will be good in all 50 states and U.S. territories, and all we have to do is go to NRA to get "international gun licenses" for a modest fee so we can take them to, say, England when we go on vacation? This same is true of licensed car drivers.
- If we license and register guns, can we buy as many as we wish to (and can afford) in whatever period of time? No "one-car-a-month" scheme has ever been enacted, to my knowledge.
- If we license guns like cars, and no law says cars can't be capable of XXX speed, does that mean our guns can have more than 10 round magazines?
- Since cars can be modified to accelerate faster, have higher top speeds, handle better, can we do the same to our guns? Increase the ammunition capacity, rate of fire, augment them with things like flash suppressors, bayonet attachments...
Gee, it seems that the gun-controllers will get a little more than they bargained for if we treat guns like cars, doesn't it.
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
Quote>Everyone would be allowed to buy a gun, carry it everywhere,
> including other states.
Definitely not! You can't drive your car into a movie theatre, school playground, airport boarding areas, most beaches etc. If you want to deal with guns the same way you deal with cars, there would be clear delineations between where you could and couldn't carry.
Okay, now you're just using idiotic sophistry, because if you were arguing in good faith you wouldn't be saying this. CLEARLY, we are talking about where it is FEASIBLE to bring the gun or car. Cars are not prohibited from being brought into a movie theater for any reason other than they have absolutely no place there (since you can't drive safely in a theater even if the car would fit). Guns, on the other hand, can be safely brought (concealed) anywhere your physical self can go. The safety of their being there is totally dependent on the use habits of the possessor -- gee, a lot like cars, actually.
Quote>I've told you I wouldn't be against registration if politicians weren't
> trying to take my guns.
There are lunatics who use guns to murder, steal and terrorize. That does not mean that all people who own guns are crazed murderers. There are also politicians who are out to achieve their own agendas of gun elimination. That does not mean that everyone who is in favor of a gun control bill wants to "take your guns." Lumping people into either category is silly.
The problem is, the gun-elimination politicians piggy-back on the supposed reasonability of the more moderate anti-gun politicians. How would we ever be able to tell the difference? To the latter, a given anti-gun law might be all they want. To the former, it is a foot-in-the-door for even more restrictive laws and yes, even the elimination of civilian gun ownership. (Funny, because they often say only cops and military should have guns, and there are an awful lot of examples of even cops and military people who have murdered spouses, been drug-dealers, rapists, murderers...)
Quote>What's this gun approved areas garbage? How does that related to cars?
Ever seen a "no parking" sign, an "authorized vehicle only" sign or a "no motorized vehicles" sign? And surely you've seen the curbs, fences and barriers that prohibit people from driving through the centers of shopping malls a la the Blues Brothers. Roads, sidewalks and public baseball diamonds are all public property, but you are only permitted to drive on roads.
Those curbs and signs delineate those places where it would not be safe or reasonable to bring your car. If the analogy is followed, the places where you couldn't bring your GUN would be dictated by where your gun presented an unreasonable threat to safety and order. Simply being a gun in a school would not be such a case, because the gun in a school is no more dangerous than a gun on a public street, or in a supermarket or shopping mall.
Quote>So I pay for a license once, it's good for life, valid everywhere, and >no politician tries to take it, then yeah, I'd consider treating gun
>licensing like car licensing, but never a gun like a car.
It sounds like you want all the good parts of car ownership but none of the bad parts. Which is not at all saying that you want to treat gun operation like car operation.
Um, when anti-gun people tell us that guns are less regulated than cars (bullshit, by the way) and we say, "Okay, let's regulate guns like cars" and we show them how much more we'd be able to do with guns than we even currently can do, they hem and haw just like you are doing now.
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
Not true. Do you really think that everyone that goes to a target range does so in order to get better at killing people? Some people shoot targets for the enjoyment of it. Some people shoot to hone their skills for hunting season.
never pull low......unless you are