kallend 1,647 #51 February 18, 2012 QuoteI didn't say I agreed with everything G-Don said, I simply complimented him on being "well-reasoned and well-spoken". Unfortunately, I can't say the same about your posts. The only thing I notice from you is that you repeatedly invent your own reality, and that you don't have any valid arguments to rebut my messages, so all you do is attack the messenger. "Play the ball, not the player". Your one warning. - John "pants-not-on-fire" Rich Ha ha. Maybe your pants aren't on fire (yet), but everyone can see that you have made two mutually contradictory statements in the past few weeks, only one of which can be correct. Maybe it's the nose that's growing.... 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
jakee 1,257 #52 February 19, 2012 Quote I didn't say I agreed with everything G-Don said, I simply complimented him on being "well-reasoned and well-spoken". Unfortunately, I can't say the same about your posts. You could, but you won't. I have been more civil with you in this thread than GeorgiaDon (sorry dude, nothing personal). Quote The only thing I notice from you is that you repeatedly invent your own reality, and that you don't have any valid arguments to rebut my messages, You have no message in this thread. All you have is an intentionally derogatory attack piece. The only thing worth doing is point out how hypocritical it is for you to post it and how untruthful it shows you to be in the hope that you might actually notice how badly you contradict yourself. You have clearly shown, in black and white, in the first post of this thread, that you use the phrase gun-o-phobe in an intentionally derogatory fashion, to mean things other than 'person who is afraid of guns'. Less than a week after you strongly defended yourself against accusations that you did just that. It's so perfect it's like you did it on purpose just to fish for a reaction. If we weren't in speaker's corner I'd be amazed that you actually continue to argue the point rather than just admit you weren't being truthful in the other thread but I guess round here it's par for the course.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #53 February 19, 2012 Quote Quote Quote But I live in NJ and one stray 22 could do some serious damage due to population density. an aimed 22 can only do moderate damage. A stray one...no, not really. You'd have to be rather unlucky. A typical rifle round, otoh, can go through quite a few walls. Me personally, I'm still trying to find an article where a law abiding citizen started firing rounds at random into populated areas.....Just to clarify. An AK74 is a .22. Actually a 5.45 mm or .214. So is an M16. at 5.56mm or .218 Robt. Kennedy was killed by a .22 revolver. "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fernjack455 0 #54 February 19, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote But I live in NJ and one stray 22 could do some serious damage due to population density. an aimed 22 can only do moderate damage. A stray one...no, not really. You'd have to be rather unlucky. A typical rifle round, otoh, can go through quite a few walls. Me personally, I'm still trying to find an article where a law abiding citizen started firing rounds at random into populated areas.....Just to clarify. An AK74 is a .22. Actually a 5.45 mm or .214. So is an M16. at 5.56mm or .218 Robt. Kennedy was killed by a .22 revolver. Don't have a dog in that fight. To infer a 22 is not deadly is simply not right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,427 #55 February 19, 2012 >Me personally, I'm still trying to find an article where a law abiding citizen started firing >rounds at random into populated areas..... You'll find it in the same place that a devout Muslim who follows the tenets of his religion turned to terrorism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 58 #56 February 19, 2012 Quote The only thing I notice from you is that you repeatedly invent your own reality, and that you don't have any valid arguments to rebut my messages, so all you do is attack the messenger. I refer to that tactic as being pulled down a rabbit hole. Once in, the only escape is to quit. I don't waste my time any more. In mental health counseling that behavior is a defense mechanism called intellectualization. It does not always require intelligence, however.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #57 February 19, 2012 QuoteQuoteyou don't have any valid arguments to rebut my messages, so all you do is attack the messenger.In mental health counseling that behavior is a defense mechanism called intellectualization. No it isn't. If it was anything, surely it would be the opposite?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #58 February 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote QuoteI can understand how some people may resent crime, and conclude that criminals would be less bold if they weren't so well armed. Great! So let's concentrate on taking the guns away from THEM, and not the law-abiding. Great idea. I look forward to reading your suggestions on making implementation of existing laws prohibiting gun acquisition by felons and the mentally ill more effective. Get us your numbers of those people who were GCA-68 barred who subsequently bought from gunstores and we'll discuss it. After that, we can discuss the 97% or so of crime guns that *DIDN'T* come from gunstores. Thank you for proving the point, yet again. That point that your little crusade has absolutely NO effect on 99% of crime guns? The fact that you STILL haven't come up with any numbers to prove your point? No problem, and you're welcome.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SStewart 13 #59 February 20, 2012 QuoteTake guns away John, here is a serious question; who has ever tried to take your guns away? I own 3 guns, two pistols and a shotgun and not once in my life has anyone tried to take them away from me. I remember in the 92 election I was told that Bill Clinton was a "gun Grabber" and he would take my guns away. He was re-elected in 96 and still no gun grabber showed up at my door. I was also told that Obama would take my guns away. Well so far no and I don't think it will happen after he is re-elected. You seem to be obsessed with a problem that does not exist. How would you categorize me? I own guns but I have not done any shooting in years. I used to go shooting with my buddies at the dropzone after jumping but that was years ago and I have never needed a gun for protection. My dad is a collector and he has all kinds of cool stuff. I support legal gun ownership but I have no problem with reasonable restrictions to keep guns away from dangerous criminals and troubled teenagers. So how do I fit in to you variety of gun-o phobe?Onward and Upward! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dannydan 0 #60 February 20, 2012 well, i see nothing has changed with the mentality of the antis since a few years ago from my last visits here. :( Two things for my brothers in arms, keep yer powder dry, keep yes friends close but your enemies closer! As far as the poster wins father has alot of "coolstuff" Have you not been paying attention to the attacks by the politicians against the entire bill of rights, esp with the reauthorization of the NDAA? I'm also for weeding out of the mentaly ill or outright criminal citizen, but the minute WE THE PEOPLE busy our heads in the sand, will be the minute You did not get handed down all that "cool stuff" Fuck, they do it now in front of us and all anyone does is talk. One of these daze, it'll come down to action. Our rights were fought for once, and we were informed that IF we didn't stay vigilant over the leaders of this land through time there would have to be another fight. The next won't be so easy tho! :( Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #61 February 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote QuoteI can understand how some people may resent crime, and conclude that criminals would be less bold if they weren't so well armed. Great! So let's concentrate on taking the guns away from THEM, and not the law-abiding. Great idea. I look forward to reading your suggestions on making implementation of existing laws prohibiting gun acquisition by felons and the mentally ill more effective. Get us your numbers of those people who were GCA-68 barred who subsequently bought from gunstores and we'll discuss it. After that, we can discuss the 97% or so of crime guns that *DIDN'T* come from gunstores. Thank you for proving the point, yet again. That point that your little crusade has absolutely NO effect on 99% of crime guns? The fact that you STILL haven't come up with any numbers to prove your point? No problem, and you're welcome. Thank you for showing that the existing implementation, which you appear to think is just fine, DIDN'T catch the loonies like Loughner. Cho, The "Santa Claus" killer, etc., etc.,etc., etc.,etc., etc.,etc., etc.,etc., etc.,etc., etc.,etc., etc.,etc., etc.,etc., etc.,etc., etc.,etc., etc.,etc., etc.,etc., etc. www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=shooting+%22history+of+mental+illness%22... 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
DaVinci 0 #62 February 20, 2012 QuoteVery dumb question and I never got this, why isn't guns rights a local issue? 1. Because it is in the Bill of Rights. The BoR's are Federal limitations and almost all of the BoR's have been incorporated to the States. Look at it this way, "Why isn't the right to free speech a local issue?" 2. Because the right to self defense should not depend on your geographical location. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #63 February 20, 2012 Still waiting on your solution you know the one that does not take guns away from everyone else?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #64 February 20, 2012 QuoteStill waiting on your solution you know the one that does not take guns away from everyone else? Baby steps: Step 1. Stop pretending that there isn't a problem.... 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
DaVinci 0 #65 February 20, 2012 QuoteYour piece of crap troll bait (which I admit to biting on) leaves out a lot of people, such as the victims who have suffered great harm at the hands of an armed lunatic It is already illegal to be a lunatic and go hurting people. Would it be better if the lunatic used a bat? QuoteOr the regular people who just want to be able to go pick up a pizza without feeling they have to look over their shoulder all the time lest some punk who feels empowered by his gun decide to relieve them of some cash, or maybe their life. Robbing people is already illegal. Would it be better if the criminal used a knife? QuoteLots of decent folks don't want to feel threatened all the time That is their choice. But why should they get to make me feel threatened? Quotedon't want the responsibility of carrying and the associated implied responsibility of making split second live-or-die decisions Then those people do not HAVE to carry. Why should YOU get to disarm ME if I am willing to take the responsibility? Quoteand resent being effectively barred from going into certain areas or being confined to their homes after dark. Well, those same people are going to be afraid of the guy with a knife, bat, screwdriver. Fact is that it is illegal to do without a gun the same things criminals do with them. AND criminals still do the same crimes without guns. So taking a gun from me will not prevent a criminal from using one. QuoteBut I can understand how some people may resent crime, and conclude that criminals would be less bold if they weren't so well armed. I resent crime but I am smart enough to know that a criminal is going to be a criminal. If they can't use a gun, they will use a stick. I am also smart enough to know that preventing a citizen from something will not prevent a criminal. Just look at drugs... Illegal, but people get them. Just look at guns in Mexico... Illegal, but they have a major gun problem. Banning something from the citizens will not remove it from the criminals. Registering all of the guns will not work... Criminals are not going to follow the law and register their weapons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #66 February 20, 2012 Quote No person will feel more in danger if the law abiding are alowed to carry Thats not exactly true. Some people ARE afraid of citizens being allowed to carry. It is the same as a kid being afraid of the boogie man, but there are people who are afraid of both. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #67 February 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteStill waiting on your solution you know the one that does not take guns away from everyone else? Baby steps: Step 1. Stop pretending that there isn't a problem. Who is doing that?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #68 February 20, 2012 QuoteQuote No person will feel more in danger if the law abiding are alowed to carry Thats not exactly true. Some people ARE afraid of citizens being allowed to carry. It is the same as a kid being afraid of the boogie man, but there are people who are afraid of both. Well that is an ireational reaction and therefore they should not be allowed to own a gun"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #69 February 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote QuoteI can understand how some people may resent crime, and conclude that criminals would be less bold if they weren't so well armed. Great! So let's concentrate on taking the guns away from THEM, and not the law-abiding. Great idea. I look forward to reading your suggestions on making implementation of existing laws prohibiting gun acquisition by felons and the mentally ill more effective. Get us your numbers of those people who were GCA-68 barred who subsequently bought from gunstores and we'll discuss it. After that, we can discuss the 97% or so of crime guns that *DIDN'T* come from gunstores. Thank you for proving the point, yet again. That point that your little crusade has absolutely NO effect on 99% of crime guns? The fact that you STILL haven't come up with any numbers to prove your point? No problem, and you're welcome. Thank you for showing that the existing implementation, which you appear to think is just fine, DIDN'T catch the loonies like Loughner. Cho, The "Santa Claus" killer, etc., etc.,etc., etc.,etc., etc.,etc., etc.,etc., etc.,etc., etc.,etc., etc.,etc., etc.,etc., etc.,etc., etc.,etc., etc.,etc., etc.,etc., etc. www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=shooting+%22history+of+mental+illness%22 Sorry, anecdotal evidence after the fact isn't proof, regardless of how skilled someone THINKs they are at diagnosis via Youtube. Since neither Cho nor Loughner were GCA barred, just what would your solution be other than lame attempts to smear me, John and anyone else that doesn't agree with you?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #70 February 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteStill waiting on your solution you know the one that does not take guns away from everyone else? Baby steps: Step 1. Stop pretending that there isn't a problem. Even smaller steps: Step 0.5: PROVE it's a problem in the first place.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #71 February 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteStill waiting on your solution you know the one that does not take guns away from everyone else? Baby steps: Step 1. Stop pretending that there isn't a problem. Even smaller steps: Step 0.5: PROVE it's a problem in the first place. The link I provided does exactly that. Throw in Loughner, Cho and the Santa Claus gunman for good measure.... 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 1,647 #72 February 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteStill waiting on your solution you know the one that does not take guns away from everyone else? Baby steps: Step 1. Stop pretending that there isn't a problem. Who is doing that? Mnealtx.... 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 1,647 #73 February 20, 2012 Quote Since neither Cho nor Loughner were GCA barred, EXACTLY! A perfect illustration of the inadequate implementation of a prohibition on gun purchases by the deranged.... 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 #74 February 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteStill waiting on your solution you know the one that does not take guns away from everyone else? Baby steps: Step 1. Stop pretending that there isn't a problem. Even smaller steps: Step 0.5: PROVE it's a problem in the first place. The link I provided does exactly that. Really? I must have missed mention of GCA-applicable bans - can you provide a specific link? I remind the good professor of his several-times-repeated statement: Anecdote!=data QuoteThrow in Loughner, Cho and the Santa Claus gunman for good measure Ah, yes...three people WITHOUT GCA applicable bans.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #75 February 20, 2012 QuoteQuote Since neither Cho nor Loughner were GCA barred, EXACTLY! A perfect illustration of the inadequate implementation of a prohibition on gun purchases by the deranged. are you STILL advocating for a psychological screening process with zero alpha error? (or is it beta?) either way, zero of one forces 100% of the other, as you know - you realize you actually are trolling, no matter how you pitch it - because there is no such thing as a perfect solution. you're not building a bridge ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
