Lucky... 0
Recommended Posts
kallend 1,647
QuoteQuote"live and let live liberal" anti-gunner chooses not to own guns but lets other decide for themselves
"other liberal" anti-gunner chooses not to own guns and pushes for legislation for others not to own guns either
glad you are the first kind
you can label that "liberal" if you like, but a lot of others here that also label themselves 'liberal' are the second kind
that's what you get with labels.....
a more accurate label, instead of lib vs cons - would be pro or anti "right to bear arms"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think convicted felons have a right to bear arms?QuoteThe question was relevant to the discussion. Your answer was stupid.
The whole thing was Stupid, John.
It would be the equivalent of me asking you if you thought innocent people should have their right to bear arms taken away.
No, it is NOT, because there is no doubt that innocent (and sane) people have a right to bear arms. There seems, however, to be some dispute about how valid the limits are.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
jtval 0
Alright. take a breath.QuoteNo, it is NOT,
QuoteThere seems, however, to be some dispute about how valid the limits are.
In this thread? I don't see it?
You jumped on Remwha for making a comment on different types of liberals.
I didn't see anything about who should be giving the right to bear arms until you asked your first question.
My photos
My Videos
My Videos
Sure. If they've cleaned their act up.QuoteQuoteQuoteJust a liberal, 'live and let live' thing I guess.
"live and let live liberal" anti-gunner chooses not to own guns but lets other decide for themselves
"other liberal" anti-gunner chooses not to own guns and pushes for legislation for others not to own guns either
glad you are the first kind
you can label that "liberal" if you like, but a lot of others here that also label themselves 'liberal' are the second kind
that's what you get with labels.....
a more accurate label, instead of lib vs cons - would be pro or anti "right to bear arms"
Do you think convicted felons have a right to bear arms?
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
Lucky... 0
QuoteAlright. take a breath.QuoteNo, it is NOT,
QuoteThere seems, however, to be some dispute about how valid the limits are.
In this thread? I don't see it?
You jumped on Remwha for making a comment on different types of liberals.
I didn't see anything about who should be giving the right to bear arms until you asked your first question.
HERE'S A SUMMARY OF THE CONVERSATION:
REHMWA: a more accurate label, instead of lib vs cons - would be pro or anti "right to bear arms"
KALLEND: Do you think convicted felons have a right to bear arms?
REHMWA: Convicted? I guess that depends on the rules the jail has for their inmates?
LUCKY...: Answer the question.
REHMWA: Answer the question? Inmates shouldn't be armed.
LUCKY...: Because it's dishonest to avoid basic questions: Do you think convicted felons have a right to bear arms?
REHMWA: oops - you went from decently discussing to your -less than courteous- mode and I won't continue to support that here
KALLEND: The question was relevant to the discussion. Your answer was stupid.
JTVAL: Rehmwa was simply stating the some people push their agendas on others. (using the bear arms issue as an example.) You asked your question which seems really idiotic to me.
KALLEND: No, it is NOT, because there is no doubt that innocent (and sane) people have a right to bear arms. There seems, however, to be some dispute about how valid the limits are.
JTVAL: In this thread? I don't see it?
I didn't see anything about who should be giving the right to bear arms until you asked your first question.
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Now, let's look at the OP. The sign reads:
My next door neighbor wants to ban all guns.
It was a thread about those who want to ban guns vs those who want gun rights maintained, Kallend asking about the parameters of those who want gun ownership maintained IS in accord with the thread and the issue at hand.
OTOH, REHMWA brought up taxes at least twice, something that isn't within the parametrs of this thread topic, but your participation here isn't to debate any issues, is it? You participation is what the RW does; cover each other's ass via distraction. You do this under the guise of safety in numbers, the very protocol of conservatives. The more people you can get to pull for you, the more right you must be. In fact, your participation in this thread has been worthless; you haven't even discusssed the issue at hand in any context, you just sat by your RW brother and tried to give support. At least REHMWA actually discussed the issue before he refused to answer the question and flew off when cornered.
If you read the transcript you see that as soon as REHMWA had to answer if convicted felons should be allowed to own guns, he replied, "convicted?" What other kind of felons are there? Unconvicted felons isn't an actual term, perhaps defendants in a felony trial, but to ask about convicted felons is ridiculous.
Then REHMWA answered that felons in prison shouldn't be allowed to own guns, another ridiculous reply and pure avoidance.
When I stated it was dishonest to not answer the question, REHMWA suddently became offended and left in a flurry. I think we know REHMWA feels that ex-cons should be able to own guns, but then KALLEND would ask him of the recitivism rate, REHMWA would have to look that up and then be cornered knowing that the recitivism rate is high and to allow a demographic likely to commit crimes, to own guns would be counter to his agenda of gun ownership.
The you jumped in for misdirection. You guys are as clumsy as the RNC for placing Steele as teh chair after Obama was elected. You guys look like a bunch of middle-aged white guys trying to dance.
jtval 0
\Quote
My next door neighbor wants to ban all guns.
It was a thread about those who want to ban guns vs those who want gun rights maintained, Kallend asking about the parameters of those who want gun ownership maintained IS in accord with the thread and the issue at hand.
My question is Why did he ask that question?
When the comment instead of lib vs cons - would be pro or anti "right to bear arms" didn't seem to insinuate that he was for or against. he was taking it to a Pro or anti instead of political labels.
to me its just as obvious that convicts have no rights. why would the rhetorical question be brought up? OF COURSE THEY DON"T DESERVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS. THEY ARE CONVICTS.
Quote
OTOH, REHMWA brought up taxes at least twice, something that isn't within the parametrs of this thread topic, but your participation here isn't to debate any issues, is it? You participation is what the RW does; cover each other's ass via distraction. You do this under the guise of safety in numbers, the very protocol of conservatives. The more people you can get to pull for you, the more right you must be. In fact, your participation in this thread has been worthless; you haven't even discusssed the issue at hand in any context, you just sat by your RW brother and tried to give support. At least REHMWA actually discussed the issue before he refused to answer the question and flew off when cornered.
Let's stop with the lame attempt at a personal attack and the weak desire to label me. I could care less what your affiliation is. I asked a question about why the rhetorical question was brought up. I could care less about RW's affiliation. Yes, his comment on taxes were oddly placed and I have no idea why they were brought up but it is reason I assume RW and Kalland have already pissed on each others corn flakes in the past. I see that you have a nickname for RW so you are well acquainted with his politics. Maybe that is why you assume I am trying to give strength in numbers.
Likewise you are doing the same thing you accuse me of.
Quote
If you read the transcript you see that as soon as REHMWA had to answer if convicted felons should be allowed to own guns, he replied, "convicted?" What other kind of felons are there? Unconvicted felons isn't an actual term, perhaps defendants in a felony trial, but to ask about convicted felons is ridiculous.
Then REHMWA answered that felons in prison shouldn't be allowed to own guns, another ridiculous reply and pure avoidance.
I don't know about avoidance. To me its as obivous as the expected answer. NO! criminals do not retain the right to own guns.
DO we? I stated above a multitude of times that I have no idea wtf the affiliation of any of the posters here are. If there is a history between you and rw or you and Kallend, I have no idea. I came in to read this post. I saw john mitchells already edited original post so I have no fucking clue why youre flipping your lid, other than this is SC and ,well that's what I expect in here.Quote
When I stated it was dishonest to not answer the question, REHMWA suddently became offended and left in a flurry. I think we know REHMWA feels that ex-cons should be able to own guns, but then KALLEND would ask him of the recitivism rate, REHMWA would have to look that up and then be cornered knowing that the recitivism rate is high and to allow a demographic likely to commit crimes, to own guns would be counter to his agenda of gun ownership.
***
The you jumped in for misdirection. You guys are as clumsy as the RNC for placing Steele as teh chair after Obama was elected. You guys look like a bunch of middle-aged white guys trying to dance.
You look like a blindman at an orgy. You're confused and frustrated but you're willing to have that appearance just so you can flame someone you think agrees with RW because I asked a question.
Take a breath,back away from the keyboard and read my posts. I asked a question. You got bent out of shape about it.
It'll be ok.
You'll still be here tomorrow to whine about how everyone is "wronger" than you.
I'll still be here to laugh at it.
My photos
My Videos
My Videos
kallend 1,647
Thread drift happens. Deal with it.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Lucky... 0
Quote
My next door neighbor wants to ban all guns.
It was a thread about those who want to ban guns vs those who want gun rights maintained, Kallend asking about the parameters of those who want gun ownership maintained IS in accord with the thread and the issue at hand.
QuoteMy question is Why did he ask that question?
When the comment instead of lib vs cons - would be pro or anti "right to bear arms" didn't seem to insinuate that he was for or against. he was taking it to a Pro or anti instead of political labels.
to me its just as obvious that convicts have no rights. why would the rhetorical question be brought up? OF COURSE THEY DON"T DESERVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS. THEY ARE CONVICTS.
The topic was all over the place WITHIN the realm of guns/ownership, asking about a person's position on ex-con gun ownership IS in line with the topic. We aren't so narrow here, at least everyone else, that we can't venture around and within an issue. REHMWA's position is that gun ownership shouldn't be abridged in any way, or so it appears, he feesl so as it is supposedly a way to reduce crime. The trap he wouldn't fall into, the very one you haven't figured out yet, was that once he says ex-cons are allowed to own guns, ex-cons recitivate at a high rate; you're putting guns in the hands of criminals. I see he was smart enough to act offended and run, you haven't understood what has been going on here.
Quotehe was taking it to a Pro or anti instead of political labels
Yes, he wasn't about to give his true feelings that ex-cons s/b allowed to own guns; he was aware of the follow-up. So instead he ran off.
>>> Why rhetorical question was brought up. Because it was a set-up so REHMWA could make his assertion that gun rts should not be withheld for anyone, even ex-cons, as it reduces crime. The follow-up would be to say that since the recidivism rate is high, 70% or so, that what you're doing is to put guns in the hands of criminals by permitting them to own guns. REHMWA, to his credit, was smart enough to act offended and run off; what's your excuse?
Quote
OTOH, REHMWA brought up taxes at least twice, something that isn't within the parametrs of this thread topic, but your participation here isn't to debate any issues, is it? You participation is what the RW does; cover each other's ass via distraction. You do this under the guise of safety in numbers, the very protocol of conservatives. The more people you can get to pull for you, the more right you must be. In fact, your participation in this thread has been worthless; you haven't even discusssed the issue at hand in any context, you just sat by your RW brother and tried to give support. At least REHMWA actually discussed the issue before he refused to answer the question and flew off when cornered.
QuoteLet's stop with the lame attempt at a personal attack and the weak desire to label me. I could care less what your affiliation is. I asked a question about why the rhetorical question was brought up. I could care less about RW's affiliation. Yes, his comment on taxes were oddly placed and I have no idea why they were brought up but it is reason I assume RW and Kalland have already pissed on each others corn flakes in the past. I see that you have a nickname for RW so you are well acquainted with his politics. Maybe that is why you assume I am trying to give strength in numbers.
Likewise you are doing the same thing you accuse me of.
Another area of confusion on your part: RW = right wing, REHMWA = REHMWA. No wonder you're so confused, see what happens when you come in so late in a thread?
The taxes gaff: Here is REHMWA's response:
how much extra tax did you volunteer to pay this April?
(Convicted? I guess that depends on the rules the jail has for their inmates?)
He was asked about ex-cons owning guns, squirmed knowing the follow-up, and asked about taxes as a misdirection; is that hard to see?
Quote
If you read the transcript you see that as soon as REHMWA had to answer if convicted felons should be allowed to own guns, he replied, "convicted?" What other kind of felons are there? Unconvicted felons isn't an actual term, perhaps defendants in a felony trial, but to ask about convicted felons is ridiculous.
Then REHMWA answered that felons in prison shouldn't be allowed to own guns, another ridiculous reply and pure avoidance.
QuoteI don't know about avoidance. To me its as obivous as the expected answer. NO! criminals do not retain the right to own guns.
Then how do you explain REHMWA bringing in taxes when cornered by KALLEND about ex-cons owning guns? Right, just cover your RW brother.
Quote
When I stated it was dishonest to not answer the question, REHMWA suddently became offended and left in a flurry. I think we know REHMWA feels that ex-cons should be able to own guns, but then KALLEND would ask him of the recitivism rate, REHMWA would have to look that up and then be cornered knowing that the recitivism rate is high and to allow a demographic likely to commit crimes, to own guns would be counter to his agenda of gun ownership.
QuoteDO we? I stated above a multitude of times that I have no idea wtf the affiliation of any of the posters here are. If there is a history between you and rw or you and Kallend, I have no idea. I came in to read this post. I saw john mitchells already edited original post so I have no fucking clue why youre flipping your lid, other than this is SC and ,well that's what I expect in here.
I'm not flipping my lid, that's as brilliant as REHMWA bringing in taxes. Who cares what the affiliation of posters here is, address the issue.
Quote
The you jumped in for misdirection. You guys are as clumsy as the RNC for placing Steele as teh chair after Obama was elected. You guys look like a bunch of middle-aged white guys trying to dance.
QuoteYou look like a blindman at an orgy. You're confused and frustrated but you're willing to have that appearance just so you can flame someone you think agrees with RW because I asked a question.
You should quit coming into threads midstream.
QuoteTake a breath,back away from the keyboard and read my posts. I asked a question. You got bent out of shape about it.
It'll be ok.
You'll still be here tomorrow to whine about how everyone is "wronger" than you.
I'll still be here to laugh at it.
Jebus, you sound as slapstick as Bob Hope. Is there a thread where you don't write:
- Take a breath,back away from the keyboard
- It'll be ok.
You'll still be here tomorrow to whine about how everyone is "wronger" than you.
I'll still be here to laugh at it.
JTVAL, king of cliche; find a new spiel, it's now tired.
skybill 19
QuoteMy brother in law sent this pic. I think it's great.
Hi John,
'Cute photo, says a lot!! Seen this one around before!! One thing about the photo, the guy posting it is telling everyone that his neighbor "Has No Guns in his house!!," and also, he is telling everyone that,"HE DOES!!" Why advertise?? In the eyes of a burglar,"why bother with the "no Guns" house as I can burglarize the "Gun" house when nobody's home, get lots of loot and,"GUNS TOO!!!!"
What was it ole' Sir Ike said,"For every action ....."
SCR-2034, SCS-680
III%,
Deli-out
III%,
Deli-out
JohnMitchell 14
A few elections ago in WA there was a gun issue on the ballot. I got a few pro-gun signs from the NRA and posted them in my lawn. Like you said, not sure if it was a burglar repellent or attractant. At least I know they'll knock first, just to see if I'm home.
rushmc 18
QuoteQuote
Do you think convicted felons have a right to bear arms?
Only when the courts give them the right to own, back
And I have seen one case of this personally
Congratulations on having your rights restored
Figures
You dont even know the difference between "seen" and "experenced"
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteQuote
Do you think convicted felons have a right to bear arms?
Only when the courts give them the right to own, back
And I have seen one case of this personally
Congratulations on having your rights restored
Figures
You dont even know the difference between "seen" and "experenced"
If you know I'm making a funny, why the first part
rushmc 18
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
Do you think convicted felons have a right to bear arms?
Only when the courts give them the right to own, back
And I have seen one case of this personally
Congratulations on having your rights restored
Figures
You dont even know the difference between "seen" and "experenced"
If you know I'm making a funny, why the first part
Sme reason you made you post to me?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
kallend 1,647
QuoteA few elections ago in WA there was a gun issue on the ballot. I got a few pro-gun signs from the NRA and posted them in my lawn. Like you said, not sure if it was a burglar repellent or attractant. At least I know they'll knock first, just to see if I'm home.
Guns are 3rd or 4th in desirability for burglars, after cash, jewelry (and possibly electronics). Over 300,000 gun thefts occur annually.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
pirana 0
QuoteQuoteA few elections ago in WA there was a gun issue on the ballot. I got a few pro-gun signs from the NRA and posted them in my lawn. Like you said, not sure if it was a burglar repellent or attractant. At least I know they'll knock first, just to see if I'm home.
Guns are 3rd or 4th in desirability for burglars, after cash, jewelry (and possibly electronics). Over 300,000 gun thefts occur annually.
That hamburglar guy must be an exception. He's always after the all-beef patties, special sauce, . . .
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
wmw999 2,147
He looks like all the rest of themQuoteThat hamburglar guy must be an exception.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
JohnMitchell 14
Interesting. I keep most of my cash and all of my guns in a bolted down safe. Except for a few laptops, all my electronics are all at least 5 years old. Jewelry? Nothing worth risking your life for. Unless they are after wood working equipment or a really nice leather sectional couch, they should go down the street.QuoteGuns are 3rd or 4th in desirability for burglars, after cash, jewelry (and possibly electronics). Over 300,000 gun thefts occur annually.
billvon 2,427
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Or perhaps this one:
JohnMitchell 14
QuoteOr perhaps this one:
You wouldn't dare.
"Be careful. It might be a trap!"
Only when the courts give them the right to own, back
And I have seen one case of this personally
Congratulations on having your rights restored
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites