kallend 1,622 #151 January 9, 2011 QuoteQuoteThe first step to solving a problem is to admit that it exists. The law states that possession is barred from those who have been adjudicated mentally defective or have been admitted to mental institutions. You claim the law is ineffective or not enforced. To prove your statement true, you need to show where those people have bought guns from gunstores - since the law is mute on private sales. We await your report - but forgive us if we don't hold our breath. . That has to be one of your more stupid responses. Private sales are a big part of the problem, and as you point out, the law doesn't address them.... 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
muff528 3 #152 January 9, 2011 QuoteQuoteYou are in denial that there exists a problem to be solved. Your posts just come over as self-serving. and yours come over as intransigent. Do you have a better solution than the current one, an outright ban, or the future prediction method? Please. Let's work together to solve this problem. What could have been done? Banning guns altogether would be one solution. Then the righties would be forced to use bombs, booby traps and sabotage to induce political change ...you know, just like the lefties. As a plus, all of the work-a-day, regular, non-political gun-using criminals would be forced to switch to knives and blackjacks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #153 January 9, 2011 QuoteQuote 50%-75% of the sellers are licensed dealers who are required to perform the backround checks, fill out the forms and wait out any required waiting period. A lot of the non-dealers (private sellers) are collectors selling fairly high-priced stuff. Wow, that only leaves 25% - 50% of unlicensed sellers who don't have to perform background checks etc. Can you spell L O O P H O L E? Can you spell "N O T R E Q U I R E D B Y L A W"? Didn't think so.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #154 January 9, 2011 Since almost 4000 people were killed by unlicensed pilots, have you seen similar loopholes? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #155 January 9, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe first step to solving a problem is to admit that it exists. The law states that possession is barred from those who have been adjudicated mentally defective or have been admitted to mental institutions. You claim the law is ineffective or not enforced. To prove your statement true, you need to show where those people have bought guns from gunstores - since the law is mute on private sales. We await your report - but forgive us if we don't hold our breath. . That has to be one of your more stupid responses. Private sales are a big part of the problem. The law that you so love to whinge over is mute on private sales. Concentrate on proving your point, not moving the goalposts.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,622 #156 January 9, 2011 Quote The law that you so love to whinge over is mute on private sales. s. Thank you for admitting that the law is ineffective since it doesn't apply to private sales.... 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 1,622 #157 January 9, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote 50%-75% of the sellers are licensed dealers who are required to perform the backround checks, fill out the forms and wait out any required waiting period. A lot of the non-dealers (private sellers) are collectors selling fairly high-priced stuff. Wow, that only leaves 25% - 50% of unlicensed sellers who don't have to perform background checks etc. Can you spell L O O P H O L E? Can you spell "N O T R E Q U I R E D B Y L A W"? Didn't think so. So you admit there's a loophole - nutters can bypass all checks by buying privately.... 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 1,622 #158 January 9, 2011 QuoteSince almost 4000 people were killed by unlicensed pilots, have you seen similar loopholes? And the govt. moved quickly to close 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 #159 January 9, 2011 QuoteQuote The law that you so love to whinge over is mute on private sales. s. Thank you for admitting that the law is ineffective since it doesn't apply to private sales. Sorry, no...doesn't work that way. Got those numbers yet?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #160 January 9, 2011 QuoteOne more time. QuoteSo, I ask yet again, what would you have done differently? What is your solution? And just how do you define loony. Or have you perfected your telepathy time machine? Come on professor, we all know things aren't perfect. How would you make things better? In all fairness, he's not the gun expert. You should be asking that question to the NRA.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #161 January 9, 2011 Except for private sales and not somehow magically checking for 'nutters', yes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #162 January 9, 2011 QuoteQuoteCan you spell "N O T R E Q U I R E D B Y L A W"? Didn't think so. So you admit there's a loophole - nutters can bypass all checks by buying privately. Like Cho did? Oh, wait....that's right, he didn't. I would ask if it hurts to be so consistently wrong, but you've trotted this canard out so many times that I'm positive it's nothing but scar tissue now.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #163 January 9, 2011 QuoteQuoteOne more time. QuoteSo, I ask yet again, what would you have done differently? What is your solution? And just how do you define loony. Or have you perfected your telepathy time machine? Come on professor, we all know things aren't perfect. How would you make things better? In all fairness, he's not the gun expert. Then mayhaps he shouldn't attempt to pass himself off as knowing better than everyone else on the subject. QuoteYou should be asking that question to the NRA. Unfortunately, NRA-ILA has to spend much of it's time fighting off laws spurred by the same sort of idiocy that brought us cases like Heller and McDonald.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #164 January 9, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuotenice way to avoid the question. Cho, this event, and many others show that the "system" you so stoutly defend simply does NOT work. So, show the proof where Cho and Loughner were declared mentally incompetent or admitted to mental institutions. . As usual you mis-state my position in order to attack it (strawman). The issue is that THE CURRENT LAW AND ITS ENFORCEMENT ARE TOTALLY INADEQUATE TO PREVENT MASS MURDERS BY LOONEYS. All you do by pointing out that Cho and others weren't prevented from easily obtaining guns is to reinforce my argument. Those who espouse your position that current laws are adequate are enabling these mass murderers. I hope you are proud of it. Are you going to ban and regulate household cleaners too? Where does your intrusion into my life stop so that you can feel comfortable?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #165 January 9, 2011 It doesn't take a gun expert to see the system that is currently in place is broken. It would behoove gun experts to find solution themselves rather than people that don't know what will and won't ultimately work. I've NEVER understood the NRA's position about simply fighting rather than attempting to find workable solutions.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #166 January 9, 2011 My guess is their experience so far. Banning is not a workable solution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #167 January 9, 2011 QuoteMy guess is their experience so far. Banning is not a workable solution. If a blanket ban for all isn't a workable solution, then what is? Better come up with it yourselves, because I can almost guarantee people are sitting around tonight that think this is their excuse to put one in place. There simply HAS to be a better way than what we have now. However, if you deny the problem exists, you're just setting yourself up for capricious regulations that might not even work. YOU GUYS are gun experts; figure it out.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #168 January 9, 2011 Politically and emotionally you're correct. Statistically are you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #169 January 9, 2011 QuoteIt doesn't take a Oil Expert expert to see the system that is currently in place is broken. It would behoove Oil experts to find solution themselves rather than people that don't know what will and won't ultimately work. I've NEVER understood the Anti Drilling Group position about simply fighting rather than attempting to find workable solutions. Those statements are pretty interchangable no matter WHERE you put them. You could transplant Health Care, Tort, Welfare, justice, Treasury, Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, or any number of entities controlled or run by the government.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #170 January 9, 2011 QuoteQuoteIt doesn't take a Oil Expert expert to see the system that is currently in place is broken. It would behoove Oil experts to find solution themselves rather than people that don't know what will and won't ultimately work. I've NEVER understood the Anti Drilling Group position about simply fighting rather than attempting to find workable solutions. Those statements are pretty interchangable no matter WHERE you put them. You could transplant Health Care, Tort, Welfare, justice, Treasury, Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, or any number of entities controlled or run by the government. I'm not certain which point you're trying to make. Are you in favor of tighter government control or the people involved attempting to find better solutions? I'm all for industries finding the best practices, but there is still a place for government oversight and especially when it comes to things that kill people on a regular basis. It's a two way street. However, if you ONLY fight the government oversight and never try to find an actual workable solution, then you're part of the problem.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #171 January 9, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt doesn't take a Oil Expert expert to see the system that is currently in place is broken. It would behoove Oil experts to find solution themselves rather than people that don't know what will and won't ultimately work. I've NEVER understood the Anti Drilling Group position about simply fighting rather than attempting to find workable solutions. Those statements are pretty interchangable no matter WHERE you put them. You could transplant Health Care, Tort, Welfare, justice, Treasury, Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, or any number of entities controlled or run by the government. I'm not certain which point you're trying to make. Are you in favor of government control or the people involved attempting to find better solutions? Nope - And I fall back on an old way of thinking - one that kept us from being invaded . . . Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.” Read more: Why didn't the Japanese invade the US main land in WWII? http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/489861#ixzz1AVusDOJH That makes me feel safer. It's not perfect, but it is better than what everyone else has. It is the worst in the world, except for everyone elses ideas.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #172 January 9, 2011 QuoteI've NEVER understood the NRA's position about simply fighting rather than attempting to find workable solutions. Because all the 'workable solutions' seem to be the gun owners bending over further and further and further backwards. Heller/McDonald are cases in point. "Compromise" to the gun grabbers is 'give me what I want'.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #173 January 9, 2011 QuoteQuoteMy guess is their experience so far. Banning is not a workable solution. If a blanket ban for all isn't a workable solution, then what is? Criminals aren't supposed to get guns NOW - how's *that* working out, that you believe a ban is going to hurt anyone but Joe Public? QuoteBetter come up with it yourselves, because I can almost guarantee people are sitting around tonight that think this is their excuse to put one in place. I really hope not....really, REALLY hope not. QuoteThere simply HAS to be a better way than what we have now. So suggest something - you've been dodging the question ever since I asked it of you upthread. As I also said upthread, better make sure it's a solution you can live with being applied to ALL rights, not just gun ownership. QuoteHowever, if you deny the problem exists, you're just setting yourself up for capricious regulations that might not even work. YOU GUYS are gun experts; figure it out. Typical argument - "You won't give us what we want, you're denying the problem exists!" Do you think that if we HAD some better idea it wouldn't have already been suggested? For all we know, better ideas HAVE been suggested by the NRA and shot down by Congress.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #174 January 9, 2011 Quote However, if you deny the problem exists, you're just setting yourself up for capricious regulations that might not even work. YOU GUYS are gun experts; figure it out. the US has a problem with violent crime. Much of that crime is committed with firearms. Those firearms by and large are not purchased through legal means. Making laws to restrict the availability of firearms will not affect criminals' ability to purchase a firearm. It WILL affect a law abiding citizen's ability to purchase a firearm. If the intent is to solve the violent crime problem, then we should start with laws that affect those committing the crimes. If your intent is to remove guns from the population alltogether, then you need to start by changing the constitution.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
