No guns in Chicago = War zone

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

But gun ownership is "not unlimited", and the Supremes have already given their seal of approval to restrictions. So your argument falls flat on it face

And they listed some of those restrictions.

1. Can't be a felon.
2. Can't be insane.
3. Can't carry in a court or school.

How many others did they list John?

Clicky.

...

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

[juanesky 0]

Well, your opinion, as other have of you, never answering anything at all, but diverting the subject with things of the nature but "he lied". Right?

you were right on spot, th first time in a loooooooong time!.LOL.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Well, your opinion, as are other of you, never answering anything at all, but diverting the subject with things of the nature but "he lied". Right?

Would you kindly re-write that in English. Thank you.

...

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

HOW. Stop evading the question. HOW will you identify the mentally disturbed potential purchaser?

Oh, maybe follow the rules fixed with HR2640...which I am quite sure you have never read or heard about till I mentioned it.

As I said there are plenty of laws already in place.

And I have already DL the SC brief....In fact I did that the day it was released.

I am not so sure YOU have read it.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

You just stated you oppose ALL REGULATION of such things to try and prevent death.

You are incorrect. Read my post again.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

HOW will you identify the mentally disturbed potential purchaser?

Are you proposing Vulcan mind melds on all prospective gun buyers?
That's going to keep Spock pretty darned busy...

[birdlike 0]

Quote

While I agree with the whole 'freedom isn't free' (and the immediate song from Team America - it costs a buck-o-five), I don't believe that it's as black and white as you see it.

Do you oppose regulations that require automakers to install safety features in their cars? Do you oppose laws that require licenses for motor vehicles? You just stated you oppose ALL REGULATION of such things to try and prevent death.

I believe that what he was expressing was opposition to the eradication of those things.

Safety features in cars do not make them illegal to have and use, or even inconvenient to use, or inconvenient to obtain. There is no shortage of people who would like to use taxes to make ammunition so impossibly expensive that essentially no one could afford it. There are people who want a repeal of the 2nd Amendment so that an all-out ban on guns would be possible with NO constitutional protection to thwart it.

Nothing like the gun law proposals exists, really, for other things like JohnRich mentioned.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'd actually be ok with that provided I don't have to register my firearms. The government does not need to know which firearms I own.

Do they need to know which car you are driving? Provided your registrations system is the same like ours, you and your car are registered.

Why not doing the same with firearms? What to hide here?

Is automobile ownership a listed constitutional right?

No, I dont think so

But gun ownership is "not unlimited", and the Supremes have already given their seal of approval to restrictions. So your argument falls flat on it face.

How so sir? I have not advocated unlimited ownership. I have pointed out flaws in arguments here. Just as I have yours in this post.

"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 18]

HOW. Stop evading the question. HOW will you identify the mentally disturbed potential purchaser?

Do you think a NICS check would be adequate for someone wanting to purchase a machine gun?

kallned!!!!! that has been the question I and many others have asked you! How do you square advocating this when you blast other (what you think) are gross invasions of privacy? Please, YOU answer the question

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

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Do you think a NICS check would be adequate for someone wanting to purchase a machine gun?

Do you really believe that fully-automatic weapons are that much graver a danger than semi-autos with the same magazine capacities?

Before you ask -- no, I do not.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[FreeflyChile 0]

From what's there now, it looks like I did misread what you wrote.

The post appears to have been edited, so I don't know if you went back and edited it to read what you meant the first time or if I misread it, but in any event, my apologies for that.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

From what's there now, it looks like I did misread what you wrote.

The post appears to have been edited, so I don't know if you went back and edited it to read what you meant the first time or if I misread it, but in any event, my apologies for that.

It's OK, we can accept his opinion that his right to convenience in buying guns is more important than massacre victims' rights not to be shot dead.

It puts all his posts in perspective.

(I think I remember some old saying about "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" - Oliver Wendell Holmes.)

...

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

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

HOW. Stop evading the question. HOW will you identify the mentally disturbed potential purchaser?

Do you think a NICS check would be adequate for someone wanting to purchase a machine gun?

kallned!!!!! that has been the question I and many others have asked you! How do you square advocating this when you blast other (what you think) are gross invasions of privacy? Please, YOU answer the question

I've already answered that. You guys ask the same questions over and over without bothering to read the answers.

Now, how would YOU ensure compliance with existing law concerning loonies and guns. How would YOU change the process which clearly isn't working right now. We've already seen Ron, JR and Kelpdiver cop-out on the question.

...

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

I've already answered that.

No, you never did. Plus you never explained you hypocrisy about model rockets, but your ok with people's private lives on display for firearms.

Quote

We've already seen Ron, JR and Kelpdiver cop-out on the question.

No, we all answered...You didn't like the answer so you make BS claims.

Enforce the current rules...Don't make new ones just to feel good about doing something.

Your level of intellectual dishonestly is surprising.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

>Wow is that so hard to believe considering the authors finished doing just
>that?

Well, given that we have explicitly forbidden people to do that (see the event known as the United States Civil War) I don't think many other people agree with you.

Are you seriously bringing up an event that took place 70 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified and had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

From what's there now, it looks like I did misread what you wrote.

The post appears to have been edited, so I don't know if you went back and edited it to read what you meant the first time or if I misread it, but in any event, my apologies for that.

The edit was done 26 minutes before you made your post. And the quote you included in your reply, includes the statement I made about not being against all regulations - thus, the statement was there for you to read at the time you replied.

So, yes, you did misread it. No big deal. The record is now straight.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

No, we all answered...You didn't like the answer so you make BS claims.

Enforce the current rules...Don't make new ones just to feel good about doing something.

Your level of intellectual dishonestly is surprising.

you were gone a while, Ron. You forgot about his tendencies.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

I've already answered that.

No, you never did. Plus you never explained you hypocrisy about model rockets, but your ok with people's private lives on display for firearms.

Quote

We've already seen Ron, JR and Kelpdiver cop-out on the question.

No, we all answered...You didn't like the answer so you make BS claims.

Enforce the current rules...Don't make new ones just to feel good about doing something.

Your level of intellectual dishonestly is surprising.

Hello Kettle!

YOU have not given ONE detail of how to "enforce existing laws" better tha done right now, despite being asked repeatedly.

Kelpdiver refuses to answer a simple question about appropriate conditions for being allowed to buy a machine gun.

...

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

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

No, we all answered...You didn't like the answer so you make BS claims.

Enforce the current rules...Don't make new ones just to feel good about doing something.

Your level of intellectual dishonestly is surprising.

you were gone a while, Ron. You forgot about his tendencies.

Hello, Pot. I thought you'd gone on vacation.

...

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

YOU have not given ONE detail of how to "enforce existing laws" better tha done right now, despite being asked repeatedly.

Thats because I never said "Better" YOU added that.
Once again your level of intellectual dishonestly is surprising. You are challenging me to answer for a a position I never took.

I think the current laws work well as long as they are followed. YOU have shown time after time that you really have no clue about the current process...Yet that has not stopped you from claiming to know it.

Quote

Kelpdiver refuses to answer a simple question about appropriate conditions for being allowed to buy a machine gun.

He has given that answer...the current rules are fine.

YOU just do not like that answer even though it is a legit answer.

Really, if this is the best you can do...Avoiding giving any real answers, making assumptions and false accusations. I think I am done with your intellectual dishonestly.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

YOU have not given ONE detail of how to "enforce existing laws" better tha done right now, despite being asked repeatedly.

Thats because I never said "Better" YOU added that.
Once again your level of intellectual dishonestly is surprising. You are challenging me to answer for a a position I never took.

I think the current laws work well as long as they are followed. YOU have shown time after time that you really have no clue about the current process...Yet that has not stopped you from claiming to know it.

Quote

Kelpdiver refuses to answer a simple question about appropriate conditions for being allowed to buy a machine gun.

He has given that answer...the current rules are fine.

YOU just do not like that answer even though it is a legit answer.

Really, if this is the best you can do...Avoiding giving any real answers, making assumptions and false accusations. I think I am done with your intellectual dishonestly.

Lame, false and hypocritical.
www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3328053#3328053

...

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

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

YOU have not given ONE detail of how to "enforce existing laws" better tha done right now, despite being asked repeatedly.

Thats because I never said "Better" YOU added that.
Once again your level of intellectual dishonestly is surprising. You are challenging me to answer for a a position I never took.

I think the current laws work well as long as they are followed. YOU have shown time after time that you really have no clue about the current process...Yet that has not stopped you from claiming to know it.

Quote

Kelpdiver refuses to answer a simple question about appropriate conditions for being allowed to buy a machine gun.

He has given that answer...the current rules are fine.

YOU just do not like that answer even though it is a legit answer.

Really, if this is the best you can do...Avoiding giving any real answers, making assumptions and false accusations. I think I am done with your intellectual dishonestly.

No Ron, he REFUSED to give an answer:
Link for proof

So who's the dishonest one?

...

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

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

HOW. Stop evading the question. HOW will you identify the mentally disturbed potential purchaser?

Do you think a NICS check would be adequate for someone wanting to purchase a machine gun?

kallned!!!!! that has been the question I and many others have asked you! How do you square advocating this when you blast other (what you think) are gross invasions of privacy? Please, YOU answer the question

Is it a gross invasion of privacy to have to have a medical exam to be a pilot? To have an eye test to get a drivers license?

A gross invasion of privacy is potentially having your every phone conversation listened to by the government without a warrant, when a simple mechanism for getting a warrant already exists.

...

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

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

HOW. Stop evading the question. HOW will you identify the mentally disturbed potential purchaser?

Do you think a NICS check would be adequate for someone wanting to purchase a machine gun?

kallned!!!!! that has been the question I and many others have asked you! How do you square advocating this when you blast other (what you think) are gross invasions of privacy? Please, YOU answer the question

Is it a gross invasion of privacy to have to have a medical exam to be a pilot? To have an eye test to get a drivers license?

A gross invasion of privacy is potentially having your every phone conversation listened to by the government without a warrant, when a simple mechanism for getting a warrant already exists.

So, answer the question. Even though you mis-characterize the phone conversation part, you still avoid the question.

How do you square the gov having acess to YOUR mental medical records should YOU choose to purchase a firearm? What you post as a pilot exam is not the same. I think you know that.

"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 1,683]

Quote

Quote

I've already answered that.

No, you never did. Plus you never explained you hypocrisy about model rockets, but your ok with people's private lives on display for firearms.

STRAWMAN - no one suggested putting peoples private lives on display.

On the topic of hobby rockets:


1. No homicide or attempted homicide has ever been committed with a hobby rocket.

2. No armed robbery or mugging has ever been committed with a hobby rocket.

3. No hijacking has ever been committed with a hobby rocket.

4. No kidnapping has ever been committed with a hobby rocket.

5. No suicide has ever been committed with a hobby rocket.

6. No drive-by shooting has ever been committed with a hobby rocket.

7. No battery has ever been committed with a hobby rocket.

8. Despite the above, the new rules for owning even one 2 ounce hobby rocket motor are more stringent than the rules for owning a machine gun.

Do you HONESTLY think that makes sense?

...

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