kallend 1,640 #126 February 16, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote The NRA actually does oppose gun rights for the mentally disturbed. However, it is just lip service, because it does everything it possibly can to oppose any rules that might prevent nutjobs from getting guns. Incidentlally the perp in the NIU shooting was off his meds, yet managed to buy (at least) two guns legally a week ago, because the existing laws are totally worthless. And a non-worthless law would be? Oh ya, and be very specific or you are the one providing, ah, how did you put ? Oh ya "lip service". I will not hold my breath waiting for you to be specific If you held your breath more often you wouldn't spout so much rubbish. However, you could also look in the thread "Do "madmen" and criminals have a right to bear arms?" for one of my specific suggestions, instead of pretending I hadn't made any. A little searching and you'll find others. Then I'll accept your apology. If you had such specific suggestions, Professor, then why did I spend the entire thread asking you for your specific suggestions? You never made a *specific* suggestion in THAT thread either, so here's your chance....remember, SPECIFIC...not "something like Texas' CCW laws". BTW, you can apologize to Rush now. I'd like to thank you again for pointing out that the standards Texas has adopted for granting a CCW permit have been very effective in filtering out criminals and nutjobs. I suggested quite clearly that the same standards should be applied to buying a gun. You THEN claimed that they were no different than existing Federal standards for gun purchase, but when I called you on it you had to admit that I was right. It's all in the archives.... 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
mnealtx 0 #127 February 16, 2008 QuoteI'd like to thank you again for pointing out that the standards Texas has adopted for granting a CCW permit have been very effective in filtering out criminals and nutjobs. I suggested quite clearly that the same standards should be applied to buying a gun. You THEN claimed that they were no different than existing Federal standards for gun purchase, but when I called you on it you had to admit that I was right. It's all in the archives. You're right - I did claim that they were the same. I had forgotten about the MORE stringent requirements of a fingerprint card....and HARDLY the same as advocating medical records searches for purchase. It's good to know that you support an even greater intrusion into personal and private matters than what you already decry the government for doing now.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #128 February 16, 2008 Quote Quote I love it when you get called on the bs you post and you get very very quiet Did you miss this by some chance? very very quietBy the way, he thought I posted something to you that I did not. very very quiet"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
rushmc 18 #129 February 16, 2008 . It's good to know that you support an even greater intrusion into personal and private matters than what you already decry the government for doing now. And you have nailed it yet again. HE wants to choose or decry which rights are aceptabel and which are not. HE knows (just ask him) what intrusions are correct and which are an over extention of the govNow he has set his own trap"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 1,640 #130 February 16, 2008 Quote Quote Quote I love it when you get called on the bs you post and you get very very quiet Did you miss this by some chance? very very quietBy the way, he thought I posted something to you that I did not. very very quiet The moderator told BOTH OF US to cut it out. I have, why don't you?... 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
rushmc 18 #131 February 16, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote I love it when you get called on the bs you post and you get very very quiet Did you miss this by some chance? very very quietBy the way, he thought I posted something to you that I did not. very very quiet The moderator told BOTH OF US to cut it out. I have, why don't you? What we were told to stop was the insulting. I never was, you were, you have now stopped insulting me. That is good"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
livendive 8 #132 February 17, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI think deranged individuals are more likely to choose targets based on familiarity and the presence of individuals that they believe are the cause of their problems than whether the targets are "hard" or "soft". I'm sure that plays into the equation as well. I'm sure it plays into the equation more than whether a target is "hard" or "soft" (which do not play or play very little into the equation). Really? Then you should easily be able to find an equal number of multiple victim shootings at police stations and gun shops, then. I look forward to your proof. A mall or school is a far more "target rich environment" than a gun shop or police station, not only due to the disparity in number of guns, but also due to the disparity in population. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #133 February 18, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI think deranged individuals are more likely to choose targets based on familiarity and the presence of individuals that they believe are the cause of their problems than whether the targets are "hard" or "soft". I'm sure that plays into the equation as well. I'm sure it plays into the equation more than whether a target is "hard" or "soft" (which do not play or play very little into the equation). Really? Then you should easily be able to find an equal number of multiple victim shootings at police stations and gun shops, then. I look forward to your proof. A mall or school is a far more "target rich environment" than a gun shop or police station, not only due to the disparity in number of guns, but also due to the disparity in population. Blues, Dave Bonus pointsMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,136 #134 February 19, 2008 These threads are becoming so predictable it would be almost funny if it wasn't for the subject material.... To me the flaw in the system is the ability of people who need mind/mood altering drugs to stay sane to legally acquire handguns. The second question I have is: does the constitution put an age limit/requirement on the right to bear arms? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #135 February 19, 2008 QuoteTo me the flaw in the system is the ability of people who need mind/mood altering drugs to stay sane to legally acquire handguns. The second question I have is: does the constitution put an age limit/requirement on the right to bear arms? Quite a few rights don't exist until you're an adult - that is, 18. Certain rights have been delayed till 21 (alcohol and handguns), but I'm not sure how that is defended as legitimate. By definition, all drugs are altering. So if you want to impose a restriction, how do you do so in a just manner, and without harming society more in terms of privacy invasion or discouraging people from seeking medical care? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FreeflyChile 0 #136 February 19, 2008 Regarding alcohol, if i recall correctly, it's up to the states to regulate. The feds then told the states that, as a condition to receiving certain funds, they have to make the drinking age 21. The Supreme Ct says that this is a-ok. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,640 #137 February 19, 2008 QuoteRegarding alcohol, if i recall correctly, it's up to the states to regulate. The feds then told the states that, as a condition to receiving certain funds, they have to make the drinking age 21. The Supreme Ct says that this is a-ok. Indeed. There seem to be no rights that are absolute. All have some kind of condition attached (be adult, have no felony conviction, "crowded theater" exception, be on GWB's shit list...)... 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
kelpdiver 2 #138 February 19, 2008 QuoteRegarding alcohol, if i recall correctly, it's up to the states to regulate. The feds then told the states that, as a condition to receiving certain funds, they have to make the drinking age 21. The Supreme Ct says that this is a-ok. Federal highway funds require the 21 age, new lanes be HOV, and a few other tags. It's not the only example of federal mandates interferring in states choices, but one of the most prominent. I can see how many are supported, but I don't get the age based restrictions. It may result in a greater good, but how do adults have only 95% of their rights for 3 years? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FreeflyChile 0 #139 February 19, 2008 that makes no sense to me either. i think if you're old enough to go risk your life for your country, you're old enough to enjoy a beer after you survived the fight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #140 February 20, 2008 QuoteQuoteHere is a good idea: Let's not let people on mood altering drugs get guns. Here's a better idea - let's quit having the docs/schools hand them out like M&M's. There are a lot of reasons that people are on so called "mood altering" or "mood stabilizing" meds. In some cases, the mood function of the drug is desired. In others, the person is on a drug for other reasons having nothing to do with mood or psychological problems. For example, for about four years, I took a drug commonly prescribed for depression to treat my migraine headaches. The drug had been invented for depression, but happened to also do a good job on migraines. Taking the drug did not mean I was mentally ill or otherwise incapacitated and about to go on a rampage with my guns. It just meant I had headaches. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #141 February 20, 2008 Quote Federal highway funds require the 21 age, new lanes be HOV, and a few other tags. It's not the only example of federal mandates interferring in states choices, but one of the most prominent. The feds are not interfering. It is the choice of the states whether to accept funds with strings attached. If they want the money, they have to deal with the conditions. Don't want the conditions? Don't take the cash. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #142 February 20, 2008 QuoteQuote Federal highway funds require the 21 age, new lanes be HOV, and a few other tags. It's not the only example of federal mandates interferring in states choices, but one of the most prominent. The feds are not interfering. It is the choice of the states whether to accept funds with strings attached. If they want the money, they have to deal with the conditions. Don't want the conditions? Don't take the cash. That is certainly interference. The people of every state are paying 18 cents per gallon in federal gas taxes and to get it back, they must adhere to quite a few conditions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
