kallend 1,623 #451 January 11, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Wait............... Who has proposed banning guns? You have No, I have not. You are unable to find a single post where I have suggested that. Oh I linked it is a similar debate a while back No you did not. In fact in your post of Feb 24, 2010, at 4:27 AM you admitted you could not find any such post of mine. Repeating the same lie over and over may have worked for Goebbels, but now we have search functions. At that time, yes I did post that Later I came up with the thread and linked it No, you did not. Ok You cant prove I am a liar Got that fixed now NextHere, Marc, I'll help you out. Some quotes of mine, with dates I made the posts: Quote Guns have legitimate use in self-defense, hunting and sport, and are no threat in the hands of sane, careful, law abiding people. ... In principle I don't think the government should prevent sane, careful, law abiding adults from owning guns. ME, March 11, 2007 or how about this for being specific: Quote We need a few, uniform gun laws that make sense, protect the rights of sane law abiding adults, can't be circumvented by crossing a state line or city boundary, and that severely punish those that abuse them. ME, Sept 1, 2006 or Quote Nothing is to gained by preventing truly law abiding (as opposed to self-proclaimed "law abiding"), sane, responsible adults from having guns. ME, Dec 19, 2007 or Quote Law abiding, sane people should be allowed to own guns. ME, Sept. 5, 2008 or Quote There is no reason a sane, law abiding adult should be prevented from owning a firearm. ME, Sept 7, 2008, IN RESPONSE TO YOU. Now show me a post where I proposed banning guns.... 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
kallend 1,623 #452 January 11, 2011 QuoteQuote>Lame analogy - an M60 tank isn't a personal arm. You are correct! Neither is a Yugo. It is, however, an example of a vehicle you cannot drive on a freeway. So if you want guns treated like cars, there will be some guns you cannot carry in public because the government has determined they're not safe enough, or they do too much damage. So, show where Nelson registered the tank. Oh, wait...you can't. Sucks to be your analogy. QuoteStill want guns treated like cars? >No, you didn't - but what you demand for one right can be demanded for others. Exactly. So still want guns treated like cars? That seems to be the claim of the gun-grabbers. Given my parallels above and abject FAILURE of your analogy, I don't think the grabbers want to treat guns like cars as much as they say they do. In that case, why do the folks who think the current laws are just fine keep bringing up the car analogy? For example, juansky, Sep 10, 2008, 6:02 PM "No, but cars kill more people than guns in america, so using your tactics, and logic, we should ban cars, as they are dangerous." "If it were that simple, we ought to ban cars. Look at how many deaths they cause.", TomAiello, Apr 15, 2009, 11:16 AM and many many more.... 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
Butters 0 #453 January 11, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt is quite properly denied to certain individuals. It is therefore reasonable to have a way of identifying those individuals. You appear to believe that there are numerous individuals who should be denied the right to have a gun who either have a gun or are have the ability to obtain a gun. You appear paranoid ... you don't have a gun do you? No more paranoid than Justice Scalia in the Heller decision. You should try reading it. Do you know whether I read it? No. You appear anti-social. Combine that with paranoid and I have to ask again ... you don't have a gun do you?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #454 January 11, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuotePlease post a link to the post you claim I made with a Youtube clip. Post 99: "Did you look at his youtube channel? Suspect was obviously a nutter." I didn't post the clip, quade did. Try again. Are you now trying to claim that Loughner wasn't disturbed? Nope - just that you were one saying that it was obvious, from the Youtube clips, that he was a nutter. So, again, we're back to the Fed spying on people, or a snitch list like the no-fly stuff - which did you intend it to be? THREE different opportunities to explain EXACTLY what you meant, and you spend it weasel-wording everything. Methinks your argument isn't as robust as you believe it to be.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #455 January 11, 2011 Oh and as a follow up, in Canada people who register their legally obtained firearms are 2nd class citizens who are not covered by Canada's "Charter of Rights and Freedoms". How can I say this? Simple, by registering your firearm you have now given the police the right to enter your property without a search warrant anytime they want to enter. You can thank the Liberal Party of Canada and Allen Rock (author of their beloved Bill C-68) for turning law abiding firearms owners in Canada into 2nd class citizens. Sure is nice to know that Liberals feel it is perfectly acceptable for the police to be able to enter your home anytime they want without a search warrant all because you were stupid enough to add your name to their 2 billion dollar database. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #456 January 11, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe primary purpose of a Gun Registry is to act as a shopping list for gun grabbers. Really? I mean . . . REALLY? How did you arrive at this conclusion? NYC DC Chicago New Orleans All places where registration info has resulted in confiscation. Care to expand on that? Prove that, "The primary purpose of a Gun Registry is to act as a shopping list for gun grabbers." (emphasis mine) It's simply conspiracy theory gibberish that is parroted with no basis in fact.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #457 January 11, 2011 QuoteWinsor, heal thyself. Since guns have never been registered in this country, any assumption you make over gun registration is simply that. What do you think 4473 forms are? FOIDs? QuoteYour logic, in this instance, is faulty. His logic is fine - your KNOWLEDGE is nonexistent.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pbwing 0 #458 January 11, 2011 So if the answer isn't registration, and it's not limiting access to guns, and it's not limiting the number of guns, and it's not limiting the types of guns, does that really mean there is no answer? Are these deaths just an unfortunate (and inevitable) by-product of the right for Americans to own guns? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #459 January 11, 2011 Do you or do you not think Loughner was mentally disturbed? Yes or no? Do you think his Youtube video is indicative of a mentally healthy individual? Yes or no?... 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
lawrocket 3 #460 January 11, 2011 QuoteSo by analogy, you are recommending increased safety measures for firearms. OK. No. I was pointing out that cause and effect are usually more complicated. I also consider motor vehicles and guns to be entirely different things - mainly because the Constitution affirmatively protects the right to bear arms. There is no right to operate a motor vehicle - there is licensing and is caught driving without a license you get in trouble. Now, if there was a Constitutional Amendment that stripped the right to bear arms, I'd have to say, "There is no right to bear arms. There used to be, but not anymore." If there was a Constitutional Amendment that said, "The People of the United States shall be subject to psychiatric evaluation every four years starting with their birthday at age 4 and continuing on. Failure to submit to psychiatric evaluation shall result in imprisonment until such evaluation may occur, and the writ of habeus corpus shall not apply. For those who are found to suffer some form of psychiatric disorder, the protections of the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments shall not be in force." then I would have to say, "Well, the Constitution allows this testing. But, since the Constitution guarantees rights and not safety, then I'm afraid that I'll have to takek my chances. Thus, if safety can be improved in a Constitutionally permissible way, I have no problem. Cmparig cars to guns from a "safety measures" standpoint is, to me, like comparing ars with warrantless searches - because I support safety of vehicles, I therefore support warrantless searches to turn up people who might be plotting something. It does not follow.... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #461 January 11, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote>Lame analogy - an M60 tank isn't a personal arm. You are correct! Neither is a Yugo. It is, however, an example of a vehicle you cannot drive on a freeway. So if you want guns treated like cars, there will be some guns you cannot carry in public because the government has determined they're not safe enough, or they do too much damage. So, show where Nelson registered the tank. Oh, wait...you can't. Sucks to be your analogy. QuoteStill want guns treated like cars? >No, you didn't - but what you demand for one right can be demanded for others. Exactly. So still want guns treated like cars? That seems to be the claim of the gun-grabbers. Given my parallels above and abject FAILURE of your analogy, I don't think the grabbers want to treat guns like cars as much as they say they do. In that case, why do the folks who think the current laws are just fine keep bringing up the car analogy? For example, juansky, Sep 10, 2008, 6:02 PM "No, but cars kill more people than guns in america, so using your tactics, and logic, we should ban cars, as they are dangerous." "If it were that simple, we ought to ban cars. Look at how many deaths they cause.", TomAiello, Apr 15, 2009, 11:16 AM and many many more. Re-read your quoted examples and the reason for the statements *should* be clear, *IF* you can approach the argument with anything resembling rational thought.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #462 January 11, 2011 QuoteSo if the answer isn't registration, and it's not limiting access to guns, and it's not limiting the number of guns, and it's not limiting the types of guns, does that really mean there is no answer? Are these deaths just an unfortunate (and inevitable) by-product of the right for Americans to own guns? Do you blame the baseball when your young son throws it though a window, too? No, they're the unfortunate and inevitable by-product of people who think it is ok to kill someone.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #463 January 11, 2011 Quote Do you or do you not think Loughner was mentally disturbed? Yes or no? Do you think his Youtube video is indicative of a mentally healthy individual? Yes or no? FOURTH opportunity, still weaseling.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #464 January 11, 2011 QuoteDo you or do you not think Loughner was mentally disturbed? Yes or no? YES he is mentally disturbed, and rather unfortunate he was able to use a firearm in his crime spree. It is definitely not something law abiding firearms owners wanted to see happen. I don't know about you, but instead of focusing on the inanimate tool used in his crimes, I am more curious to find out why he has hated Ms Giffords for several years now and wanted her dead with his premeditated assassination attempt. I could be wrong, but I am fairly confident his motives are not what the media wants us to believe (that Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and/or Rush Limbuagh are to blame for his actions). Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #465 January 11, 2011 QuoteQuoteSo by analogy, you are recommending increased safety measures for firearms. OK. No. I was pointing out that cause and effect are usually more complicated. I also consider motor vehicles and guns to be entirely different things So when those who support the current ineffective laws governing access to firearms by loonies and others write things like: "No, but cars kill more people than guns in america, so using your tactics, and logic, we should ban cars, as they are dangerous."juansky, Sep 10, 2008, 6:02 PM "If it were that simple, we ought to ban cars. Look at how many deaths they cause.", TomAiello, Apr 15, 2009, 11:16 AM "Well hell... Why don't we just ban cars and parchutes for all the accidental deaths caused by them? See how silly that sounds? ", btvr, Oct 24, 2007, 7:12 PM "lets not foget the 45,000 that die in auto accidents. Damn cars.....better ban 'em. ", bozo, Jul 9, 2007, 8:37 AM "Ban cars. They are used many more times for illegal activities each year than guns are", burbleflyer, Jul 16, 2004, 7:26 AM etc. etc. they are introducing red herrings.... 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
kallend 1,623 #466 January 11, 2011 QuoteQuote Do you or do you not think Loughner was mentally disturbed? Yes or no? Do you think his Youtube video is indicative of a mentally healthy individual? Yes or no? FOURTH opportunity, still weaseling. Answer the questions yes or no?... 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
lawrocket 3 #467 January 11, 2011 QuoteNow show me a post where I proposed banning guns. You're too smart for that. Indeed, you've got the makings of a legislator. You never propose banning guns. You merely propose keeping them out of the hands of "nutters" or thos who may become "nutters." Because your definition is so broad and expansive, the effect is banning guns. Not banning guns - just keeping them out of the hands of those who might harm someone with them. If a person buys a gun, then that person might harm someone with it, and therefore that person's firearms will be seized. No, guns aren't banned. They are allowed for anyone who cannot possibly harm anybody with them. THat's really what many of us read from what you write, John. A vague and overly broad definition of those who you'd want to keep guns from. As an aside - I myself don't want schizophrenics getting guns. Fortunately, there's a Constitution that protects them from people like me - you know, the ones who will pick and choose whom I feel worthy of gun possession. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #468 January 11, 2011 I see, it's OK to bring up cars as an analogy when it appears to suit your purpose, but not when the flaw in the analogy is highlighted. Bit of a double standard you have going there, Mike.... 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
kallend 1,623 #469 January 11, 2011 QuoteQuoteNow show me a post where I proposed banning guns. You're too smart for that. Indeed, you've got the makings of a legislator. You never propose banning guns. Correct. And Marc Rush has repeatedly made false accusations that I have, and when challenged has never been able to substantiate his false claim.... 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 #470 January 11, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Do you or do you not think Loughner was mentally disturbed? Yes or no? Do you think his Youtube video is indicative of a mentally healthy individual? Yes or no? FOURTH opportunity, still weaseling. Answer the questions yes or no? You first.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #471 January 11, 2011 Quote Because your definition is so broad and expansive, the effect is banning guns. . No, that is just as much a strawman as Mike's arguments. Requiring a background check for private sales does not constitute a gun ban. It just puts them on the same footing as sales by licensed dealers. Doing a more effective check for mental illness does not constitute a gun ban. You have the makings of a lawyer. Oh, wait...... 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 #472 January 11, 2011 Quote I see, it's OK to bring up cars as an analogy when it appears to suit your purpose, but not when the flaw in the analogy is highlighted. Bit of a double standard you have going there, Mike. Perhaps logic isn't your strong suit. Comparing number of deaths between causes != 'treating guns like cars"Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #473 January 11, 2011 QuoteQuote I see, it's OK to bring up cars as an analogy when it appears to suit your purpose, but not when the flaw in the analogy is highlighted. Bit of a double standard you have going there, Mike. Perhaps logic isn't your strong suit. Comparing number of deaths between causes != 'treating guns like cars" Inconvenient when your analogy blows up in your face, isn't it?... 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 #474 January 11, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote I see, it's OK to bring up cars as an analogy when it appears to suit your purpose, but not when the flaw in the analogy is highlighted. Bit of a double standard you have going there, Mike. Perhaps logic isn't your strong suit. Comparing number of deaths between causes != 'treating guns like cars" Inconvenient when your analogy blows up in your face, isn't it? You're the one with the scorched eyebrows, you tell us.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #475 January 11, 2011 What do other peoples' statements have to do with me? And you don't propose banning guns. You propose doing something else that results in banning guns. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
