kallend 1,635
JohnRich 4
QuoteYou are delusional.
Oh my, a direct personl insult. I think the moderators are going to have trouble explaining away this one to give you free pass on the rule violation.
rushmc 18
QuoteQuote
FACT IS, I have never made such a statement, which is why you can't find one.
this is techincally correct
You NEVER say anything directly
You dance around the edges but that does not change the fact your solutions would ban gun ownership for nearly everyone
You are delusional.
Delusional?
Maybe
Insane, by the follow definition may be more appropriate.
(Insane, when defined under the following. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting and different result)
So, considering that definition, I will try one more time
What specific actions, would you take, to make us all safer here in the US, in regards to guns law?
You say you have answered this. I say yes, you have. You say that you do support gun bans. I say, yes you do, based on your one time opined solutions.
Many others here have asked you, what do you propose? So obviously, they do not know where you stand.
I do. At least I think I do.
But with this in mind, you can get me to admit I lied about you IF, and only if, you lay out the specifics you would propose regarding gun owner ship (and lets keep the scope small by saying just hand gun owner ship) and those proposals would not SEVERLY limit the ability of buy, own and carry hand guns which is a limited right as held up by the SC.
"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 1,635
QuoteQuoteYou are delusional.
Oh my, a direct personl insult. I think the moderators are going to have trouble explaining away this one to give you free pass on the rule violation.
I expect it will be right after they ban Marc Rush for calling me dishonest.
...
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.
kallend 1,635
QuoteQuoteQuote
FACT IS, I have never made such a statement, which is why you can't find one.
this is techincally correct
You NEVER say anything directly
You dance around the edges but that does not change the fact your solutions would ban gun ownership for nearly everyone
You are delusional.
Delusional?
Maybe
Insane, by the follow definition may be more appropriate.
(Insane, when defined under the following. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting and different result)
So, considering that definition, I will try one more time
What specific actions, would you take, to make us all safer here in the US, in regards to guns law?
You say you have answered this. I say yes, you have. You say that you do support gun bans. I say, yes you do, based on your one time opined solutions.
Many others here have asked you, what do you propose? So obviously, they do not know where you stand.
I do. At least I think I do.
But with this in mind, you can get me to admit I lied about you IF, and only if, you lay out the specifics you would propose regarding gun owner ship (and lets keep the scope small by saying just hand gun owner ship) and those proposals would not SEVERLY limit the ability of buy, own and carry hand guns which is a limited right as held up by the SC.
On Sept 7, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. I wrote, in this forum, IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO YOU:
"There is no reason a sane, law abiding adult should be prevented from owning a firearm."
On March 11, 2007, I wrote, in this forum:
"In principle I don't think the government should prevent sane, careful, law abiding adults from owning guns."
So you can now admit that you lied about me.
...
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.
rushmc 18
On Sept 7, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. I wrote, in this forum, IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO YOU:
"There is no reason a sane, law abiding adult should be prevented from owning a firearm."
"There is no reason a sane, law abiding adult should be prevented from owning a firearm."
Yes, you did
"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
rushmc 18
You have also said to me and others you debate (if what you do here can really be called a debate) that we want loonies to get guns.
Interesting where that leaves this exchange right now, dont you think?
Interesting where that leaves this exchange right now, dont you think?
"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 1,635
Quote
On Sept 7, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. I wrote, in this forum, IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO YOU:
"There is no reason a sane, law abiding adult should be prevented from owning a firearm."
Yes, you did
...
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.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote
On Sept 7, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. I wrote, in this forum, IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO YOU:
"There is no reason a sane, law abiding adult should be prevented from owning a firearm."
Yes, you did
Too bad you can't be as honest with other people's statements.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
DaVinci 0
Quote"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."; Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the Heller decision.
None of what you wrote applies here.
This is not about prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill
This is not about such a school or government building.
DaVinci 0
QuoteIt seems to me that that same people who support this are opposed to the feds telling the states what they can do as far as gun laws go.
Not hard to understand if you look at it using another Amendment.
Would you support a city that passed a law that required a person living there to be a Christian?
Would you support a State that required everyone to go to church?
I would hope not, and you would be supported by the Constitution.
In the end, the Constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed".
So, supporting the State when it is aligned with the Constitution is not hard to understand. Supporting the State when it is aligned with the Constitution but not with the Fed should also not be hard to understand.
And BTW, this is not a new law.... It has been on the books for 10 years. The only new part is the fines for ignoring it.
But, you posed a very good question, I hope I explained my side sufficiently.
DaVinci 0
QuoteSelective Anti-Federalism. The same people who support Federal law dictating marijuana (or anything else they oppose) and not allowing the State to decide are against any action by the Federal government to enact Federal laws on firearms (or anything else they favor.)
Please show me where in the Constitution that marijuana is protected... Cause I can't find it.
BTW, I actually support legalization of marijuana.... But your argument does not really make sense.
QuotePlease show me where in the Constitution that marijuana is protected... Cause I can't find it.
BTW, I actually support legalization of marijuana.... But your argument does not really make sense.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"
kallend 1,635
QuoteQuote"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."; Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the Heller decision.
None of what you wrote applies here.
This is not about prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill
This is not about such a school or government building.
Welcome back. You could try reading the thread for context before shooting from the hip.
...
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.
DaVinci 0
QuoteYou could try reading the thread for context before shooting from the hip.
I did, what I saw was you incorrectly claiming something said something it didn't say. Not hard to see what you were trying to do.
DaVinci 0
QuoteThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The 10th does not PROTECT marijuana. Show me where marijuana is PROTECTED like I asked.
Don't get me wrong, I agree the 10th applies... but the 10th does not PROTECT marijuana like the 2nd protects firearms.
kallend 1,635
QuoteQuoteYou could try reading the thread for context before shooting from the hip.
I did
Well, you also need to comprehend what you read, and clearly you did not.
...
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.
this is techincally correct
You NEVER say anything directly
You dance around the edges but that does not change the fact your solutions would ban gun ownership for nearly everyone
You are delusional.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.