kelpdiver 2 #51 January 22, 2010 QuoteQuote No one was injured, What's the problem here? The problem here is yet another ex-law abiding gun owner going crazy. That is exactly that kind of situation a gun ownership restriction can easily prevent. gun ownership stopped it in this case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #52 January 22, 2010 Quote gun ownership stopped it in this case. It shouldn't had started.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #53 January 22, 2010 QuoteYou obviously ran out of arguments as you started attacking the poster instead of the post. Well you run out of arguments all the time, yet you just skip to another incorrect statement after another. Remember, those Columbine kids drove around with explosives in their car to a place to detonate them and didn't get pulled over like you claimed they would if they drove a GUN somewhere to shoot it. QuoteThat's really scary that so many of you pro-gun guys are only capable to have a civilized discussion during such short time. We do get annoyed when someone claims to know the answers, yet gets so many of their facts wrong, ignores when we correct them, and then claims WE don't know anything. You can only prove someone wrong so many times before you realize that they don't care about the facts and only care about their opinion. I would not call that civilized discussion from your side either."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tsisson 0 #54 January 22, 2010 Can we all just re-read the 2nd Amendment please? And last I checked, we don't have a magic "make the guns disappear" wand. I will stay armed...because I can and because I have a right to protect myself. I'm not a trained Ninja so I'm not too confident of my hand to hand combat with armed assailants that decide to hold up the corner 7-eleven while I'm buying a snickers bar...but I will put a .45 sized hole in some asshat who decides he wants to hurt myself or my family. I chuckle at the signs posted on some establishments in Arizona - the No Guns Allowed signs. Like they create some sort of magical forcefield preventing someone with bad intentions of holding the joint up...because the robber surely would obey that sign and leave his gun in the car. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tsisson 0 #55 January 22, 2010 Quote Do you think a terrorist who has a belt with explosives on him would be scared of your guns? Do you think those who flew the planes into WTC would scared and land the plane back in JFK if the full plane was armed? This is not even funny. The terrorist probably wouldn't be scared because he would be dead. And the terrorist wouldn't be the ones to land the plane back at JFK either - same reason. Dead people cannot fly airplanes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #56 January 22, 2010 QuoteI chuckle at the signs posted on some establishments in Arizona - the No Guns Allowed signs. Like they create some sort of magical forcefield preventing someone with bad intentions of holding the joint up...because the robber surely would obey that sign and leave his gun in the car. At the risk of braving the inevitable reflexive response from someone, I can see a bar owner not wanting weapons in the place under the logic of "alcohol + weapons don't mix". Sort of a "keep fistfights, fistfights" policy. To make it really workable (and address your "robber" concern), I suppose you'd have to screen everyone at the door. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #57 January 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteYou obviously ran out of arguments as you started attacking the poster instead of the post. Well you run out of arguments all the time, yet you just skip to another incorrect statement after another. Remember, those Columbine kids drove around with explosives in their car to a place to detonate them and didn't get pulled over like you claimed they would if they drove a GUN somewhere to shoot it. . Tim McVeigh was arrested because he had a gun, not because of the OKC bombing.... 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
CanuckInUSA 0 #58 January 22, 2010 QuoteI suppose you'd have to screen everyone at the door. Most bars I have been to allow you to just walk in, but I have been to other bars with metal detectors. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #59 January 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteAre they supposed to justify the 120 or so gun homicides that have taken place over the same time period? Would you prefer that number be 130? I'd prefer that nutters couldn't get guns so easily. Until you invent your future crime prediction machine, why are so upset that some citizens are able to successfully defend themselves using their firearms against criminals? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #60 January 22, 2010 QuoteQuote gun ownership stopped it in this case. It shouldn't had started. Let us know when you and kallend build that 'future crime' machine.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #61 January 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote gun ownership stopped it in this case. It shouldn't had started. Let us know when you and kallend build that 'future crime' machine. It would have no impact here. The guy didn't intend to shoot people. He shot in the air intentionally. Looking for attention and he got it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #62 January 22, 2010 QuoteLooking for attention and he got it. In spades.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #63 January 22, 2010 Quote Well you run out of arguments all the time, yet you just skip to another incorrect statement after another. That's what happens if you make things up, and start asking me questions which assume I said those things. I see no reason to answer questions like "have you stopped sucking a dick? please answer yes or no". Quote Remember, those Columbine kids drove around with explosives in their car to a place to detonate them and didn't get pulled over like you claimed they would if they drove a GUN somewhere to shoot it. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Show me where I said that they would get pulled over? Quote We do get annoyed when someone claims to know the answers, yet gets so many of their facts wrong, ignores when we correct them, and then claims WE don't know anything. You can only prove someone wrong so many times before you realize that they don't care about the facts and only care about their opinion. Indeed it sounds like a typical pro-gun person.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #64 January 22, 2010 Quote Can we all just re-read the 2nd Amendment please? And last I checked, we don't have a magic "make the guns disappear" wand. No, we do not. However we can restrict gun ownership to only those who are members of 'militia' (like local police) - this can be done via another SCOTUS decision. The fact 2nd Amendment is there does not mean it will be there forever and ever - after all, this is already an amendment. Another amendment may change its terms, or just repeal the existing amendment (and this happened in past, so it is not unrealistic to expect that). Quote I will stay armed...because I can and because I have a right to protect myself. I'm not a trained Ninja so I'm not too confident of my hand to hand combat with armed assailants that decide to hold up the corner 7-eleven while I'm buying a snickers bar...but I will put a .45 sized hole in some asshat who decides he wants to hurt myself or my family. I'd speculate that all your guns won't help you even against a single skilled assassin who is determined to kill you. Even Presidents have been killed, and they had much more than just people with guns around them. Quote I chuckle at the signs posted on some establishments in Arizona - the No Guns Allowed signs. Like they create some sort of magical forcefield preventing someone with bad intentions of holding the joint up...because the robber surely would obey that sign and leave his gun in the car. That's the difference between "drug ban" in USA and "drug ban" in Singapore. The latter works, the first doesn't. The difference is in enforcement and punishment. For example, enforced mandatory life sentence for bringing a gun in such area would definitely hold most of the robbers, as the penalty for the robbery itself is much less.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #65 January 22, 2010 Quote The terrorist probably wouldn't be scared because he would be dead. And so will be everyone on the plane once it explodes. The difference here is that the terrorist _prepared_ to be dead, unlike the most passengers. Quote And the terrorist wouldn't be the ones to land the plane back at JFK either - same reason. Dead people cannot fly airplanes. So the plane would crash too, as the pilots would be dead as well. And what difference this .38 would make?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #66 January 22, 2010 QuoteLet us know when you and kallend build that 'future crime' machine. A "machine" to prevent such crimes seems to work quite well in Europe.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #67 January 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteLet us know when you and kallend build that 'future crime' machine. A "machine" to prevent such crimes seems to work quite well in Europe. save the occasional genocide. (nevermind all those poor Russian souls) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #68 January 22, 2010 Quote No, we do not. However we can restrict gun ownership to only those who are members of 'militia' (like local police) - this can be done via another SCOTUS decision. The fact 2nd Amendment is there does not mean it will be there forever and ever - after all, this is already an amendment. If you think any of the items in the BoR were later amendments, you have a serious lack of understanding of Constitution. And the 2nd didn't grant new rights, it guaranteed existing ones. Sure, it could be amended in the future. However, have you seen anyone even attempt to do so? The best they can do these days is pretend to support gun rights and hunting, while trying to put up as many barriers as possible. That dog doesn't hunt, as the Democrats learned most recently in 2000. One of many blunders that cost Gore and gave us Bush instead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #69 January 22, 2010 Quote save the occasional genocide. I never knew guns were banned during WWII.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #70 January 22, 2010 QuoteQuote Can we all just re-read the 2nd Amendment please? And last I checked, we don't have a magic "make the guns disappear" wand. No, we do not. However we can restrict gun ownership to only those who are members of 'militia' (like local police) - this can be done via another SCOTUS decision. QuoteWrong. Read Heller. Someone trying to bring a case to the SC on 'militia' grounds would find it very hard to gain cert. ***Held:1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53 QuoteThe fact 2nd Amendment is there does not mean it will be there forever and ever - after all, this is already an amendment. Another amendment may change its terms, or just repeal the existing amendment (and this happened in past, so it is not unrealistic to expect that). Sure - but don't hold your breath waiting on it to happen. QuoteI'd speculate that all your guns won't help you even against a single skilled assassin who is determined to kill you. Even Presidents have been killed, and they had much more than just people with guns around them. *rolls eyes* Yes, the ninja assassins are out to get us... QuoteThat's the difference between "drug ban" in USA and "drug ban" in Singapore. The latter works, the first doesn't. And I'm *sure* you'll provide the data showing no drug confiscations or drug crimes in Singapore, since "their ban works"....right? QuoteThe difference is in enforcement and punishment. For example, enforced mandatory life sentence for bringing a gun in such area would definitely hold most of the robbers, as the penalty for the robbery itself is much less. Well, that's slightly better than some of the other punishments you've come up with, since at least it goes after the criminals. Of course, that still leaves the majority of robberies entirely unaffected by your law, assuming you could get it passed in the first place.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #71 January 22, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Let us know when you and kallend build that 'future crime' machine. A "machine" to prevent such crimes seems to work quite well in Europe. save the occasional genocide. (nevermind all those poor Russian souls) It's folks like you who make it quite hard to find an accordance. People standing on thier own *standpoint* can't see the standpoint. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #72 January 22, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Let us know when you and kallend build that 'future crime' machine. A "machine" to prevent such crimes seems to work quite well in Europe. save the occasional genocide. (nevermind all those poor Russian souls) It's folks like you who make it quite hard to find an accordance. People standing on thier own *standpoint* can't see the standpoint. The same applies to you and George equally as well.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tsisson 0 #73 January 22, 2010 QuoteTo make it really workable (and address your "robber" concern), I suppose you'd have to screen everyone at the door. Exactly...and this doesn't happen. So the sign is useless. If I'm a bad guy and want to rob a store - the first place I'm going is somewhere that has one of those silly "No Guns Allowed" signs posted out front. Then, when I yell "EVERYONE GET DOWN!!!!", I can be more confident that no one is going to stand up for themselves and point the business end of a .45 at me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tsisson 0 #74 January 22, 2010 Quote I'd speculate that all your guns won't help you even against a single skilled assassin who is determined to kill you. Even Presidents have been killed, and they had much more than just people with guns around them. You are absolutely correct! I completely agree with you that I have zero defense against a skilled assassin who attacks me under the complete cover of surprise. No guns or weapons of any kind will ever help me or anyone else in that situation. BUT...that is completely irrelevant to this debate. I'm not talking about protecting myself against skilled assassins. I'm talking about protecting myself and loved ones against something bad happening - like the examples I have given (aka Brown's Chicken). See the difference? The Brown's Chicken massacre was not pulled off by skilled assassins. It was committed by two lunatics who I wish would have been stopped by someone capable of defending themselves. Here's the crime... On January 8, 1993, seven people were murdered at the Brown's Chicken and Pasta at 168 W. Northwest Highway in Palatine. The assailants stole less than 2000 dollars from the restaurant. When Palatine police found the bodies, it was more than 5 1/2 hours after the 9 p.m. closing. Michael Castro's parents called the police a couple hours after closing time. Later, Guadalupe Maldonado's wife had called police, concerned that her husband had not returned home from work and that his car was still in the apparently-closed Brown's Chicken parking lot. When officers arrived at the building, they spotted the rear, employees' door open. Inside, they found the seven bodies, some face down, in a cooler and in a walk-in refrigerator. The victims included the owners, Richard E. Ehlenfeldt, 50, and his wife, Lynn W Ehlenfeldt, 49, of Arlington Heights, Illinois. Also killed were five employees: Guadalupe Maldonado, 46, of Palatine, via Mexico, the cook; Michael C. Castro, 16, and Rico L. Solis, 17, both Palatine High School students working there part-time; and Palatine residents Thomas Mennes, 32, and Marcus Nellsen, 31. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tsisson 0 #75 January 22, 2010 Here are what the two Brown's Chicken "skilled assassins" look like http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42804000/jpg/_42804301_lunadegorsk203iap.jpg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
