First Step Toward Gun Confiscation

[rhaig 0]

we all know around here what you are.

You never respond to questions with answers, only misdirection.

Your posts are all full of opinion and little fact. You use the same tactics in your arguments that you claim your opponents are weak minded for using.

you deserve no respect here, and that's about what you get.

as we would say in Texas... well bless your heart!

have a nice day sir

--
Rob

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

we all know around here what you are.

You never respond to questions with answers, only misdirection.

Your posts are all full of opinion and little fact. You use the same tactics in your arguments that you claim your opponents are weak minded for using.

you deserve no respect here, and that's about what you get.

as we would say in Texas... well bless your heart!

have a nice day sir

Fact is you made an incorrect statement about me, you are unable to cite any post in which I wrote what you claimed I wrote, yet you don't have the common decency to admit it.

At least rushmc has the decency to admit when he's wrong.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[texascrw 0]

As I stated, after rereading your post, you did not come out and say that you agreed with publishing the gunowners data. I have no problem with admiiting when I am wrong. However, I noticed that you neglected to answer the two questions I had for you. First, what exactly did you mean in that post? And second, what is your opinion about publishing the gun owner's data? Do you think it was the correct thing to do? A simple yes/no answer on the second question would be sufficient.

And as you have pointed out before, I must have a comprehension problem. What do you mean by weaseling at the end? My pointing out that I liked the idea that you think Feinstein is a loon also, is just what it said. It was not meant as a way to ingratiate myself to you. I would have said the same thing even if I had never responed to anything you have posted. To be honest, I was very surprised that you weren't a groupie for her, considering the far left leanings that you both have.

Again, you were correct, and I was wrong in my thinking of what you meant. And now we are waiting to hear what you meant exactly by that post and your feelings on the other question.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

As I stated, after rereading your post, you did not come out and say that you agreed with publishing the gunowners data. I have no problem with admiiting when I am wrong. However, I noticed that you neglected to answer the two questions I had for you. First, what exactly did you mean in that post? And second, what is your opinion about publishing the gun owner's data?

1. I generally mean exactly what I write, no more and no less.

2. Any paper is within its rights to publish public information. Personally I think it was inflammatory and unhelpful, but I'm not a newspaper editor.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

As I stated, after rereading your post, you did not come out and say that you agreed with publishing the gunowners data. I have no problem with admiiting when I am wrong. However, I noticed that you neglected to answer the two questions I had for you. First, what exactly did you mean in that post? And second, what is your opinion about publishing the gun owner's data? Do you think it was the correct thing to do? A simple yes/no answer on the second question would be sufficient.

And as you have pointed out before, I must have a comprehension problem. What do you mean by weaseling at the end? My pointing out that I liked the idea that you think Feinstein is a loon also, is just what it said. It was not meant as a way to ingratiate myself to you. I would have said the same thing even if I had never responed to anything you have posted. To be honest, I was very surprised that you weren't a groupie for her, considering the far left leanings that you both have.

Again, you were correct, and I was wrong in my thinking of what you meant. And now we are waiting to hear what you meant exactly by that post and your feelings on the other question.

Getting John to post a yes or no answer in here is a lot like getting out of a plane at 13000 ft and expecting gravity not to work.

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

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

Quote

As I stated, after rereading your post, you did not come out and say that you agreed with publishing the gunowners data. I have no problem with admiiting when I am wrong. However, I noticed that you neglected to answer the two questions I had for you. First, what exactly did you mean in that post? And second, what is your opinion about publishing the gun owner's data?

1. I generally mean exactly what I write, no more and no less.

2. Any paper is within its rights to publish public information. Personally I think it was inflammatory and unhelpful, but I'm not a newspaper editor.

actually, gun owners' data is not public information. At least it definately shouldn't be. They should be sued for releasing it...

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

As I stated, after rereading your post, you did not come out and say that you agreed with publishing the gunowners data. I have no problem with admiiting when I am wrong. However, I noticed that you neglected to answer the two questions I had for you. First, what exactly did you mean in that post? And second, what is your opinion about publishing the gun owner's data?

1. I generally mean exactly what I write, no more and no less.

2. Any paper is within its rights to publish public information. Personally I think it was inflammatory and unhelpful, but I'm not a newspaper editor.

actually, gun owners' data is not public information. At least it definately shouldn't be. They should be sued for releasing it...

They need to post the 'bad guys' and gang-bangers with guns addresses! This might help the cops confiscate their guns and leave law abiding gun owners the hell alone. To me, Feinstein's proposed bill will just make for more victims!!


Chuck

[rushmc 18]

They need to post the 'bad guys' and gang-bangers with guns addresses! This might help the cops confiscate their guns and leave law abiding gun owners the hell alone.


Chuck

[1969912 0]

Quote

They need to post the 'bad guys' and gang-bangers with guns addresses! This might help the cops confiscate their guns and leave law abiding gun owners the hell alone.


Chuck

Cant do that

It would go against the rights of the criminals

[oldwomanc6 38]

Quote

Quote

They need to post the 'bad guys' and gang-bangers with guns addresses! This might help the cops confiscate their guns and leave law abiding gun owners the hell alone.


Chuck

Cant do that

It would go against the rights of the criminals

It'd be racist.

And dare I say it? The only addresses you'd get would be the law-abiding citizens from whom those guns were stolen. No gang addresses.

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[masterrig 1]

Quote

They need to post the 'bad guys' and gang-bangers with guns addresses! This might help the cops confiscate their guns and leave law abiding gun owners the hell alone.


Chuck

Cant do that

It would go against the rights of the criminals

[masterrig 1]

Is anyone here, aware of the fact that Feinstein carried (carries) a pistol?

Also, will politicians be exempt from her bull-shit bill? They like their guns too!


Chuck

[toolbox 0]

Hell ya!

[masterrig 1]

Her bill, absolutely stinks. She is wanting thatnoone in this country owns a gun... of any kind. She mentions every type handgun, rifle and shotgun. She's not just going after so-called 'assault weapons. She's going after the wrong people!!


Chuck

[Skyrad 0]

Its a lot easier than going after the right people.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[masterrig 1]

Yup! She's still wrong.


Chuck

[Skyrad 0]

Agreed

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[texascrw 0]

Quote

Her bill, absolutely stinks. She is wanting thatnoone in this country owns a gun... of any kind. She mentions every type handgun, rifle and shotgun. She's not just going after so-called 'assault weapons. She's going after the wrong people!!


Chuck

Quote

Chuck,

You are missing the point. In her mind, she is going after the 'right' people. If you think about it, who are the only people that will comply with the law? Law abiding citizens. So, if you write a law that only the law abiding will obey, that must have been your target group, not the mass murderers and crazies. It is a logical conclusion then that she wants to disarm the honest citizens. As for her reasons, who knows? Maybe she hates guns, other than her own, or something else. I haven't sent Kallend $19.99 yet for one of his crystal balls, so I can't read her mind. Maybe we will get lucky and none of this worthless trash will get passed. If it does, then people will have to make some hard choices. Depending on the law, turn in guns, register guns, bury guns or just stand your ground and say no. I hope it doesn't come to any of that.

Fred

• Quote

[beowulf 1]

http://youtu.be/iuBbLeqZbPA

Here is a recording of her talking about why she carries a concealed handgun.

[masterrig 1]

You're right! You can bet the farm, without worry, she's too gutless and too stupid to go after the gangers and other bad guys and get their guns. If, any of her bull-shit law passes, we're going to be sitting ducks.


Chuck

[texascrw 0]

I have heard this and I have no problem with someone carrying when they feel they need to. Whether from a direct threat like this or because you want to be prepared for an unexpected event. The problem I have is when the same person that armed themselves because they felt in danger, wants to make life more difficult for the rest of the law abiding community. And after seeing the list of firearms on her wish list, it goes way beyond her call for banning assault rifles, not that I agree with that either. Some of the stuff she is after are some of the most popular handguns for self defense. There is no logical reason for her to say I shouldn't carry a Glock with a 15 round magazine, if I want to. The number of rounds in the magazine is not going to be a deterimining factor in whether I go mad with power. That is determined by the individual, not the number rounds or type of weapon. After having been in a situation that had the potential to be dangerous to her well being, and then arming herself, I have often wondered why she never worked to help other people in California get a CHL? She must have thought arming yourself had merit, so what about all the people that lived in high crime areas? They run a risk of danger every time they walk out their door. Don't they deserve the same option as Diane? California has always been one of those states that the only way most people could legally carry is if they have the political connections to get a permit. After having been out on the sharp end, I would think she would have been trying to change the laws so all the honest citizens would have the option of defending themselves. And before anyone says her situation was unique, I would much rather deal with the crazies she had, than walk through Compton, Cal. or Camden, NJ at night. Everyone should enjoy the same rights, not just some.

[texascrw 0]

Quote

You're right! You can bet the farm, without worry, she's too gutless and too stupid to go after the gangers and other bad guys and get their guns. If, any of her bull-shit law passes, we're going to be sitting ducks.


Chuck

I could be wrong, but with all the animosity of the last four years, and as divided as Congress is, I will be surprised if she gets much, if anything passed. It is a waste of time and will not have any measure of success against nut cases. It would be nothing more than a 'feel good for the moment' fix. Then, when that doesn't work, they will pass something else equally ineffective and silly. They never learn.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

You're right! You can bet the farm, without worry, she's too gutless and too stupid to go after the gangers and other bad guys and get their guns. If, any of her bull-shit law passes, we're going to be sitting ducks.


Chuck

I could be wrong, but with all the animosity of the last four years, and as divided as Congress is, I will be surprised if she gets much, if anything passed. It is a waste of time and will not have any measure of success against nut cases. It would be nothing more than a 'feel good for the moment' fix. Then, when that doesn't work, they will pass something else equally ineffective and silly. They never learn.

That's a true story! I can't believe, people really vote people like Pelosi and Feinstein into office. I think too, it's more of that 'entitlement' mentality. They lack common sense. Feinstein doesn't have to worry. She has armed guards and lives in a secure neighborhood. She doesn't care about real people. She only cares about getting enough votes to stay in office. She's certifiable!


Chuck

[masterrig 1]

Quote

http://youtu.be/iuBbLeqZbPA

Here is a recording of her talking about why she carries a concealed handgun.

Iwas't ableto pull it up but is she going to be the first in line to turn her gun in, when the time comes???


Chuck