normiss 622 #76 January 20, 2011 Unlike yourself, yes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #77 January 20, 2011 Quote Unlike yourself, yes. If there was actually some CIVIL discourse from those on the far right instead of the daily BLUDGEONING the rest of us with their stupidity.... it might go a long way towards dialing it back.. I am just trying to return the posts in kind. so NANNY NANNY BOO BOO Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #78 January 20, 2011 Quote Quote Unlike yourself, yes. If there was actually some CIVIL discourse from those on the far right instead of the daily BLUDGEONING the rest of us with their stupidity.... it might go a long way towards dialing it back.. Like the CIVIL discourse of claiming that pro-gun folks don't care about shooting deaths (kallend) and want lunatics to be able to get guns (you)? Quote I am just trying to return the posts in kind. Bullcrap - I can show TONS of examples where your entry into a thread is an attack post. Quote so NANNY NANNY BOO BOO That's the usual level of your discourse, yes.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #79 January 20, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Unlike yourself, yes. If there was actually some CIVIL discourse from those on the far right instead of the daily BLUDGEONING the rest of us with their stupidity.... it might go a long way towards dialing it back.. Like the CIVIL discourse of claiming that pro-gun folks don't care about shooting deaths (kallend) and want lunatics to be able to get guns (you)? Quote I am just trying to return the posts in kind. Bullcrap - I can show TONS of examples where your entry into a thread is an attack post. Quote so NANNY NANNY BOO BOO That's the usual level of your discourse, yes. You really do need to move to Wisconsin when you decide to come back to America for all the CHEESE you need to go with that. So be it...Bludgeon away Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #80 January 20, 2011 Quote If there was actually some CIVIL discourse from those on the far right instead of the daily BLUDGEONING the rest of us with their stupidity.... it might go a long way towards dialing it back.. I am just trying to return the posts in kind. So I take it we won't be seeing an answer to the question of why you fear gun toting prozac users over those smoking crack? Of course it's because of the tone of the question, and not that you lack a good answer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,622 #81 January 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteUnlike yourself, yes. If there was actually some CIVIL discourse from those on the far right instead of the daily BLUDGEONING the rest of us with their stupidity.... it might go a long way towards dialing it back.. Like the CIVIL discourse of claiming that pro-gun folks don't care about shooting deaths (kallend) and want lunatics to be able to get guns (you)? You give LIP SERVICE to caring, but analysis of the content of your posts over many years shows that you really don't care at all. You reject out of hand any and all suggestions that might prevent loonies from getting guns and killing people.... 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 #82 January 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteUnlike yourself, yes. If there was actually some CIVIL discourse from those on the far right instead of the daily BLUDGEONING the rest of us with their stupidity.... it might go a long way towards dialing it back.. Like the CIVIL discourse of claiming that pro-gun folks don't care about shooting deaths (kallend) and want lunatics to be able to get guns (you)? You give LIP SERVICE to caring, but analysis of the content of your posts over many years shows that you really don't care at all. You reject out of hand any and all suggestions that might prevent loonies from getting guns and killing people. Thanks for proving the point. More lies about my views - hopefully you conduct your physics classes with more integrity than you do your posting here.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 #83 January 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteUnlike yourself, yes. If there was actually some CIVIL discourse from those on the far right instead of the daily BLUDGEONING the rest of us with their stupidity.... it might go a long way towards dialing it back.. Like the CIVIL discourse of claiming that pro-gun folks don't care about shooting deaths (kallend) and want lunatics to be able to get guns (you)? You give LIP SERVICE to caring, but analysis of the content of your posts over many years shows that you really don't care at all. You reject out of hand any and all suggestions that might prevent loonies from getting guns and killing people. Thanks for proving the point. More lies about my views - hopefully you conduct your physics classes with more integrity than you do your posting here. Provide a link to any post where YOU have made a suggestion that would help prevent loonies from acquiring 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
mnealtx 0 #84 January 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteUnlike yourself, yes. If there was actually some CIVIL discourse from those on the far right instead of the daily BLUDGEONING the rest of us with their stupidity.... it might go a long way towards dialing it back.. Like the CIVIL discourse of claiming that pro-gun folks don't care about shooting deaths (kallend) and want lunatics to be able to get guns (you)? You give LIP SERVICE to caring, but analysis of the content of your posts over many years shows that you really don't care at all. You reject out of hand any and all suggestions that might prevent loonies from getting guns and killing people. Thanks for proving the point. More lies about my views - hopefully you conduct your physics classes with more integrity than you do your posting here. Provide a link to any post where YOU have made a suggestion that would help prevent loonies from acquiring guns. Provide a link to ANY post where I have said that innocent deaths don't matter.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 #85 January 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteUnlike yourself, yes. If there was actually some CIVIL discourse from those on the far right instead of the daily BLUDGEONING the rest of us with their stupidity.... it might go a long way towards dialing it back.. Like the CIVIL discourse of claiming that pro-gun folks don't care about shooting deaths (kallend) and want lunatics to be able to get guns (you)? You give LIP SERVICE to caring, but analysis of the content of your posts over many years shows that you really don't care at all. You reject out of hand any and all suggestions that might prevent loonies from getting guns and killing people. Thanks for proving the point. More lies about my views - hopefully you conduct your physics classes with more integrity than you do your posting here. Provide a link to any post where YOU have made a suggestion that would help prevent loonies from acquiring guns. Provide a link to ANY post where I have said that innocent deaths don't matter. Lip service, QED.... 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 #86 January 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteProvide a link to ANY post where I have said that innocent deaths don't matter. Lip service, QED. ANOTHER Kallend lie - QED.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 #87 January 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteProvide a link to ANY post where I have said that innocent deaths don't matter. Lip service, QED. ANOTHER Kallend lie - QED. Your crocodile tears over the fate of the victims of Cho, Loughner and other crazies would be far more impressive if you could show a single post of yours where you have suggested a way of keeping guns away from crazies, or even refrained from opposing someone else's suggestions. Apparently you are unable to find any such post.... 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 #88 January 20, 2011 So, still can't find a post of mine stating that innocent deaths are ok? Must suck when you can't back up your lies with any evidence. Let us know when you come up with something that would make any of your various fallacious claims true. I'll enumerate for you, so you can keep your lies 'facts' straight. 1. The claim that I said innocent deaths don't matter. Evidence provided by kallend: none Myth busted. 2. The claim that the law is bad. Proof: Stats showing gun store purchases by those adjudicated mentally deficient or admitted to a mental institution. Evidence provided by kallend: none Myth busted. 3. The claim that the enforcement is bad. Proof: Arrest records for purchaser meeting #2, above. Evidence provided by kallend: none Myth busted.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #89 January 20, 2011 QuoteYou give LIP SERVICE to caring, but analysis of the content of your posts over many years shows that you really don't care at all. You reject out of hand any and all suggestions that might prevent loonies from getting guns and killing people. You give LIP SERVICE to caring about individual freedoms and specifically gun rights, but analysis of the content of your posts over many years shows that you really don't care at all. You reject out of hand any and all suggestions that might prevent loonies from getting guns and killing people someday possibly lead to something bad happening to somebody. And yet you get full of piss and vinegar anytime someone calls you on that. [thinking cap] Now where did I put that definition of hypocrisy...[/cap] QuoteProvide a link to any post where YOU have made a suggestion that would help prevent loonies from acquiring guns. Provide a link to any post where YOU have made a specific suggestion that would help prevent loonies from acquiring guns about what firearms laws should and should not be. The best you could do was a copy and paste of time and day. You never did answer me about what thread your post was supposed to be in. You certainly didn't post a link. Demanding things of others that you won't do yourself, are we?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #90 January 20, 2011 Quote Quote How about manning up to the god damn discussions and stop calling and dismissing people with opposing views as "ignorant" and "stupid"? I'd LIKE to think you're more capable than that. It's quite disappointing that you repeatedly reduce yourself to childish name calling due to a lack of an intelligent response. Yet here we are. How can you just now be noticing this? kallend did take a sabbatical from gun threads for quite a while - I think it was a 2009 New Year's Resolution for him. But now he's back, playing his old games once again. And look at how he's dragged down the level of discourse. I sure wish he would hurry up and perfect his future crime detection machine, so that we wouldn't need these arguments any more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #91 January 20, 2011 Quote Quote Quote How about manning up to the god damn discussions and stop calling and dismissing people with opposing views as "ignorant" and "stupid"? I'd LIKE to think you're more capable than that. It's quite disappointing that you repeatedly reduce yourself to childish name calling due to a lack of an intelligent response. Yet here we are. How can you just now be noticing this? kallend did take a sabbatical from gun threads for quite a while - I think it was a 2009 New Year's Resolution for him. But now he's back, playing his old games once again. And look at how he's dragged down the level of discourse. I sure wish he would hurry up and perfect his future crime detection machine, so that we wouldn't need these arguments any more. Serious Question here John. Somewhere in the recesses of my memory of the 1960's I seem to remember that one of the MAJOR reasons that the 1968 gun laws were put in place at all was a Texan named Whitman. I defer to your constant study of the issue here for information. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #92 January 20, 2011 QuoteSerious Question here John. Somewhere in the recesses of my memory of the 1960's I seem to remember that one of the MAJOR reasons that the 1968 gun laws were put in place at all was a Texan named Whitman. I defer to your constant study of the issue here for information. It was more a culmination of the Kennedy/King assassinations along with Whitman's spree than primarily due to Whitman, I think. What makes it non-sensical from the POV of 'it was due to Whitman' is the fact that suppressive fire from privately owned rifles were considered to be a major factor in preventing a much higher toll.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #93 January 20, 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968 QuoteThe GCA created what is commonly known as the "sporting purposes" standard for all imported firearms, declaring that they must "be generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes." As interpreted by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, "sporting purposes" includes only hunting and organized competitive target shooting, but does not include "plinking" or "practical shooting" nor does it allow for collection for historical or design interest.[1] Hence, foreign made assault rifles and sub-machine guns such as the AK-47, the FN FAL or the Heckler & Koch MP5 could no longer be imported into the United States for civilian ownership (however, semi-automatic models of the same weapons were and are permitted). http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman_police_reportQuoteGUNS FOUND AROUND BODY: Remington Model 700 - 6MM, Bolt action #149037, with Leupold four power - M8-4X scope, cheek stock (serial #61384) and leather strap. Sears 12 gauge 2.75 chamber automatic shotgun, barrel and stock, both sawed off Remington 35 caliber model 141 pump #1859 rifle U.S. Carbine 30 caliber M-1 Universal #69799 with Webb sling. 357 Mag Smith and Weston 4.5 barrel, chrome, Model 19 #K391583 9MM Luger #2010 6.35 MM Caliber Automatic pistol - Galesi-brescia #366869 OK, so none of the guns he had with him were addressed by the law. QuoteUnder the GCA, firearms possession by certain categories of individuals is prohibited. -Anyone who has been convicted in a federal court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices. -Anyone who has been convicted in a state court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding two years, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices. -Anyone who is a fugitive from justice. -Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. -Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution. -Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa. Legal non-immigrant aliens may possess guns if they have a current, valid hunting license. -Anyone who has been discharged under dishonorable conditions from the United States armed forces. -Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship. -Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner. (added 1996) -Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (added in 1996 by the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, or "Lautenberg Amendment.") There are stories that he may have abused amphetamines at one point, but I couldn't find anything clear. Other than that, nothing in the law addressed anything relevant to Whitman. Other than the mass shooting incident at UT, I didn't find anything alleging mental illness or incompetance. Whitman suffered from an aggressive brain tumor that many believeled to his severe headaches and him coming "unhinged." I have to tell you, if the 1968 GunControl Act was meant to specifically address Whitman type incidents, then the politicians weren't paying much attention. It doesn't address anything about him. * * disclaimer: I'm not saying the 1968 GCA is worthless or that I disagree with all of it.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,622 #94 January 20, 2011 QuoteSo, still can't find a post of mine stating that innocent deaths are ok? . You certainly give lip service and crocodile tears, that is not in dispute. You obviously can't find a single post you've ever made in which you made any proposal to make it more difficult for crazy people like Cho and Loughner to get guns. Not one. And you give knee-jerk opposition to any proposal made by others.... 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 #95 January 20, 2011 Quote Quote You give LIP SERVICE to caring, but analysis of the content of your posts over many years shows that you really don't care at all. You reject out of hand any and all suggestions that might prevent loonies from getting guns and killing people. You give LIP SERVICE to caring about individual freedoms and specifically gun rights, but analysis of the content of your posts over many years shows that you really don't care at all. You reject out of hand any and all suggestions that might prevent loonies from getting guns and killing people someday possibly lead to something bad happening to somebody. And yet you get full of piss and vinegar anytime someone calls you on that. [thinking cap] Now where did I put that definition of hypocrisy...[/cap] Quote Provide a link to any post where YOU have made a suggestion that would help prevent loonies from acquiring guns. Provide a link to any post where YOU have made a specific suggestion that would help prevent loonies from acquiring guns about what firearms laws should and should not be. The best you could do was a copy and paste of time and day. You never did answer me about what thread your post was supposed to be in. You certainly didn't post a link. Demanding things of others that you won't do yourself, are we? Several posts in this thread. Even mnealtx agreed that I had indeed done 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
Nightingale 0 #96 January 20, 2011 Quote Your crocodile tears over the fate of the victims of Cho, Loughner and other crazies would be far more impressive if you could show a single post of yours where you have suggested a way of keeping guns away from crazies, or even refrained from opposing someone else's suggestions. Apparently you are unable to find any such post. We need to actually USE the reporting systems we have for "crazies". There were literally thousands of people who should have been on the "too crazy to buy a gun" list for Arizona that were never reported by their doctors and hospitals. There was a system. It's not perfect, but it's there, and it should be used, and it could keep a lot of guns out of the hands of people without the mental competency to handle them appropriately. Where that system breaks down is the people who never get the diagnosis of "crazy." We can't always predict who is going to go nuts. Personally, I think the best solution here is to arm as many responsible citizens as possible. The reality is that we have guns, we aren't going to be able to get rid of them since the bad guys aren't just going to hand theirs over, so we should arm the good guys to even the odds, and sometimes, even the knowledge that the good guys are armed can prevent an attack. For example, according to the data in the "Uniform Crime Reporting Program, United States, 1960-2008." (Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division), Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect. And for whoever above said that CCW/CHL holders don't train for realistic situations, some of us do. The training is out there and available for those who want it (and lucky me, there are some great classes offered about half an hour away Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,622 #97 January 20, 2011 The USA has the highest rate of gun homicides of any first world nation. Do you HONESTLY believe that the system in place right now is the best that can possibly be implemented to prevent inappropriate people from easily obtaining guns? Can YOU not think of a single way in which it could be improved?... 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 #98 January 20, 2011 QuoteQuote Your crocodile tears over the fate of the victims of Cho, Loughner and other crazies would be far more impressive if you could show a single post of yours where you have suggested a way of keeping guns away from crazies, or even refrained from opposing someone else's suggestions. Apparently you are unable to find any such post. We need to actually USE the reporting systems we have for "crazies". There were literally thousands of people who should have been on the "too crazy to buy a gun" list for Arizona that were never reported by their doctors and hospitals. There was a system. It's not perfect, but it's there, and it should be used, and it could keep a lot of guns out of the hands of people without the mental competency to handle them appropriately. Even people who ARE diagnosed as crazy can buy a gun without a background (NICS) check - they just have to buy it from a private seller at a gun show in most states.... 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
Nightingale 0 #99 January 20, 2011 Considering that the background check literally takes seconds now, I don't have a problem with it. I did have a problem with it when it used to take days to weeks, because there were situations where people could very reasonably need a gun for protection in a more immediate situation. Since that's now a non-issue, I don't see any reason why a simple check for psych issues and felonies is a problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #100 January 20, 2011 QuoteThe USA has the highest rate of gun homicides of any first world nation. And few of those will be addressed by anything being discussed here. Felons killing felons will always be present. You can go back to England if inconveniencing tens of millions is preferable to the consequences of freedom here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
