Should guns be banned during emergencies?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Ironic given that one of your recent posts included:

Isn't this an example of playing the player and not the ball?

Don't other people get warned for such activity?

[futuredivot 0]

Only some of us, bro-only some of us

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

In the referenced article, this was invoked during a routine snow storm. I defy anyone here to support that. But if there is city wide rioting, it is at least worthy of discussion, though I do not know what circumstances would warrant loss of the 1st and 2nd and 4th amendments.

And I wonder how many of the people that said it is fine to ignore the 2nd in an emergency would say the same of the 1st or 4th?

I'd venture almost none.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

In the referenced article, this was invoked during a routine snow storm. I defy anyone here to support that. But if there is city wide rioting, it is at least worthy of discussion, though I do not know what circumstances would warrant loss of the 1st and 2nd and 4th amendments.

And I wonder how many of the people that said it is fine to ignore the 2nd in an emergency would say the same of the 1st or 4th?

I'd venture almost none.

Preventing groups from forming would be the method to prevent mobs in a period of unrest. That's the justification that would be used. Individuals are far less likely to commit looting and other crimes when alone.

[billvon 2,400]

>so the answer is zero.

Right. So Nick posts more stuff about the oil spill than John posts about guns.

Must make sense to someone.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Forums: Search Results
Your search for guns in posts made by johnrich returned 1491 results in 0.141s.

And billvon has half as many as I do. So he's still half a gun nut.

[billvon 2,400]

>Isn't this an example of playing the player and not the ball?

John can post whatever he likes here (within the forum rules of course) and does in fact use that freedom to post dozens of gun thread polls, all of them following the same theme (i.e. guns are good, gun control is bad, should we BAN x, y or z.) That's fine.

He can also post stuff bashing someone else for starting two threads with the same theme. That's also fine. He is, however, attacking someone else for doing far less than he himself does - which is why I posted what I did.

[futuredivot 0]

So, subject at hand....No-guns shouldn't be banned during emergencies

Bill-just so you don't think I don't like you any more. I'm certain that you see the difference between threads on somewhat similar topics and nearly identical threads. Not sure what you're trying to prove or if there's compensation issues that I don't care to know about, but it does take a small measure of validity in the perceptions of your usual excellent observations.
And I'll clarify, since I'm me. I don't choose to hide behind royal yous or cute emoticons.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

You post about *guns* on a regular basis.

Oh lookie, another person who doesn't know how to distinguish based upon specificity!
You and billvon - two peas in a pod. Spoiled vegetables.

This is to what billvon refers:
1) http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3896164;
2) http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3876753;

Now, see if you can distinguish anything different between those two thread-starter posts.
Then compare those to my post here, and try and find another one like it. With specificity.

You guys are so blinded by gun hatred that you can't seem to distinguish between different issues.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

When is it appropriate for the state (or Feds, if you recall Lincoln and FDR) to suspect civil liberties for crises?

In the referenced article, this was invoked during a routine snow storm. I defy anyone here to support that. But if there is city wide rioting, it is at least worthy of discussion, though I do not know what circumstances would warrant loss of the 1st and 2nd and 4th amendments.

First, I think you meant "suspend" instead of "suspect". Yes, Lincoln suspended some things during the civil war, like habeas corpus, and he also set up military war trials - and all the liberals think he was a great president. Bush did some of the same things after the attacks on 9/11/01 and those same people think he's an idiot. Go figure.

Firearms are most likely seriously needed during national or natural emergencies. Taking guns away from the people of New Orleans in the midst of lawless chaos following a hurricane was a bad idea. That's when people need them the most for self-protection of their homes and families. No government entity has the right to take that away from them. No such precedent should be set, and I approve of lawsuits challenging such government powers. And we all know what a great job the government did taking care of the citizens of New Orleans in that emergency - do you really want to put your life in the government's hand during such situations, and depend upon them to keep you safe?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>How many other threads have I started recently about gun bans
>during emergencies?

Threads for the past six months alone concerning weapon bans/restrictions:

Poll: Should guns be banned during emergencies?
Poll: California: Gun Registration
Poll: Germany: More Gun Control?
Poll: Scotland: Grandmother jailed over WWII 'family heirloom' pistol
Poll: Toy soldiers run afoul of school's weapons ban
Poll: Canada: Gun Registration
Poll: Should medical marijuana patients be allowed to own guns?
Poll: Tax cheats beware: IRS buying sawed-off shotguns
Poll: Beer Registration
Poll: Gun Store's Little League Baseball Sponsorship Denied
Poll: University Bans Nerf Guns
Poll: England: TV Star Warned Over Waving Knife At Intruders
Poll: Ban military-style semi-auto firearms?
Poll: Restaurant outlaws toothpicks as dangerous

You failed. The question was about "gun bans during emergencies, and in the context of the message it was about natural disasters or government-declared emergency situations. None of those threads you listed have anything to do with those situations.

Gosh, you wasted all that time gathering up that nice list, and all it did was disprove your own point. Tsk tsk.

I would think someone as smart as you would be able to differentiate between banning real guns during national emergencies, and banning toy nerf guns at a university. This just goes to show that for people who hate guns, they're all the same, no matter what type, size or color. And that, in turn, just goes to show how irrational the anti-gun folks are.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Preventing groups from forming would be the method to prevent mobs in a period of unrest. That's the justification that would be used. Individuals are far less likely to commit looting and other crimes when alone.

Yes, but how many people that think the 2nd should not apply would support throwing out the 1st at the same time?

Also security can be found in groups.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

which is why I posted what I did.

So when is it OK to play the player and not the ball? I have seen you warn others for EXACTLY the same action.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

You post about *guns* on a regular basis.

Oh lookie, another person who doesn't know how to distinguish based upon specificity!
You and billvon - two peas in a pod. Spoiled vegetables.

This is to what billvon refers:
1) http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3896164;
2) http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3876753;

Now, see if you can distinguish anything different between those two thread-starter posts.
Then compare those to my post here, and try and find another one like it. With specificity.

You guys are so blinded by gun hatred that you can't seem to distinguish between different issues.

JohnRich, let me explain in few words:

Hatred is sh*t. Needs too much energy. You and your posts are not worth it.

I do rely on brain, not on weapons. Oh, that's not my detection. It's a fact well known all over the world. Perhaps, it never crossed Texas borders.

As you know, I DO have weapons. For hunting. That's all. I do not build my entire personality around some steel tools. Like others are doing. You are doing this.

So stop complaining. Posts of JohnRich usually are needless posts about guns. It's your world, so enjoy it. It's your level.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Isn't this an example of playing the player and not the ball?
Don't other people get warned for such activity?

Yep, but this is how the anti-gun arguers try and deflect attention away from the actual issue. Notice how billvon hasn't actually said anything about that yet.

I'll bet he's got a firearm in the closet on standby in case of emergencies.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Hatred is sh*t. Needs too much energy. You and your posts are not worth it.

Yet you seem to take delight in responding to many of them, always negatively against gun ownership. Except for yourself, of course, because you're better than the rest of us.

Quote

I do rely on brain, not on weapons.

Your brain won't save you when someone comes determined to kill you.

Quote

Perhaps, it never crossed Texas borders.

Your bigotry is showing again.

Quote

As you know, I DO have weapons. For hunting. That's all. I do not build my entire personality around some steel tools. Like others are doing. You are doing this.

Bzzt. Wrong again. You are seeing only what you want to see.

Quote

Posts of JohnRich usually are needless posts about guns.

So how come you can't bring yourself to just ignore them, if they're so needless? You've made 87 posts here containing the word "gun" or "guns". It would seem that you have expended a lot of energy speaking out against gun ownership, and bragging about your own gun lifestyle, just as you've done again here.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

which is why I posted what I did.

So when is it OK to play the player and not the ball? I have seen you warn others for EXACTLY the same action.

"Some animals are more equal than others"

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
You and your posts are not worth it.

JohnRich, if you only would read the title of your thread again: You'd realize how ridiculous it is.

"... during emergencies .."?? What does that mean?

Worthless sh*t, like I said.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

JohnRich, if you only would read the title of your thread again: You'd realize how ridiculous it is.

"... during emergencies .."?? What does that mean?

Worthless sh*t, like I said.

the subject is pretty clear, more so if you read the attached link. I've attempted to even steer us towards it. If you don't understand the question, the problem lies with you. Or maybe it's the different frame of reference - even in a non emergency the 1st amendment equivalent in Germany is pretty weak.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

"... during emergencies .."?? What does that mean?

That is explained in the link that he posted. Here is a quote from the article:

Quote

WND reported earlier this year when residents of King, N.C., were startled by the banishment of firearms during a "declared snow emergency."

North Carolina is among the states that allow such actions. Under its statute 14-288.7, when a municipality declares a state of emergency in which "public-safety authorities are unable to … afford adequate protection for lives or property" – such as during the recent East Coast record snowfall – "it is unlawful for any person to transport or possess off his own premises any dangerous weapon."

In other words, when police can't get through on the roads, the citizens can't take guns off their own property.

I'm wondering what else is included in the "any dangerous weapon" category.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You post about *guns* on a regular basis.

Oh lookie, another person who doesn't know how to distinguish based upon specificity!
You and billvon - two peas in a pod. Spoiled vegetables.

This is to what billvon refers:
1) http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3896164;
2) http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3876753;

Now, see if you can distinguish anything different between those two thread-starter posts.
Then compare those to my post here, and try and find another one like it. With specificity.

You guys are so blinded by gun hatred that you can't seem to distinguish between different issues.

JohnRich, let me explain in few words:

Hatred is sh*t. Needs too much energy. You and your posts are not worth it.

I do rely on brain, not on weapons. Oh, that's not my detection. It's a fact well known all over the world. Perhaps, it never crossed Texas borders.

As you know, I DO have weapons. For hunting. That's all. I do not build my entire personality around some steel tools. Like others are doing. You are doing this.

So stop complaining. Posts of JohnRich usually are needless posts about guns. It's your world, so enjoy it. It's your level.

So why do you demonstrate so much hatred?

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

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

JohnRich, if you only would read the title of your thread again: You'd realize how ridiculous it is.
"... during emergencies .."?? What does that mean?

Firstly, since I typed that thread title, obviously I had to read it. So that comment is just more of your illogic.

Secondly, if you had read the attached news story, you would have understood the context of "emergencies". So you've made yet another criticism, without having first done your homework to even know what you're talking about.

And thirdly, since you don't even understand what these "emergencies" are, then you had no grounds for making your first statement about it being ridiculous. You would first have to understand it, in order to judge it ridiculous. But you admited you don't even understand what it means.

Gosh, it's hard to believe there is so much wrong with such a short little comment from you. Three strikes in one message. You're out!

And notice how I managed to reply without using any foul words.

P.S.

Perhaps you would like to comment on this thread: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3891469;search_string=germany;#3891469 about a movement in your home country of Germany to ban large caliber handguns, ban all semi-auto firearms, and ban possession of firearms in homes. What does the great white hunter have to say about this?

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Ironic given that one of your recent posts included:

"What's the matter - the first time around when you posted this crap a month ago it wasn't good enough for you? Are you going to repeat this sad performance month after month?"

Cut it out. Your one warning.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
What does the great white hunter have to say about this?

The Great White Hunter just says: "I don't care at all". It will take many moons more before anything is changed regarding any ban. Pros and cons are not settled yet.

So, why to worry? And if anything is to be banned, so what?

Horrido

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

which is why I posted what I did.

So when is it OK to play the player and not the ball? I have seen you warn others for EXACTLY the same action.

those rules don't apply to mods apparently.

Yet another reason why I find it odd that mods get so deeply involved in heated discussions.

--
Rob