warpedskydiver 0 #251 September 5, 2008 It was an outright question which you dodged, again. So please tell us how we will know who is going to commit a crime next. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #252 September 5, 2008 QuoteIt was an outright question which you dodged, again. So please tell us how we will know who is going to commit a crime next. Your STRAWMAN is too obvious.... 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
warpedskydiver 0 #253 September 5, 2008 Tell us how you know which person will commit a crime next Am I going to commit a crime? Does it bother you that I own what you think are assault rifles? Does it make you lose sleep? Does it make you nervous? Would you prefer that I be banned from owning such weapons? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #254 September 5, 2008 QuoteTell us how you know which person will commit a crime next Am I going to commit a crime? Does it bother you that I own what you think are assault rifles? Does it make you lose sleep? Does it make you nervous? Would you prefer that I be banned from owning such weapons? I know nothing about you except that you CLAIM that your name is Randall, and the persona you project on the internet. For all I know you are actually a 9 year old girl.... 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
Butters 0 #255 September 5, 2008 QuoteA homicidal maniac PASSED the current background check, because it is USELESS as currently implemented. How should the background check be implemented then?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #256 September 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteA homicidal maniac PASSED the current background check, because it is USELESS as currently implemented. How should the background check be implemented then? More thoroughly.... 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
warpedskydiver 0 #257 September 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteTell us how you know which person will commit a crime next Am I going to commit a crime? Does it bother you that I own what you think are assault rifles? Does it make you lose sleep? Does it make you nervous? Would you prefer that I be banned from owning such weapons? I know nothing about you except that you CLAIM that your name is Randall, and the persona you project on the internet. For all I know you are actually a 9 year old girl. Ok that is a personal attack since you have met me many times in person. So get your head out of your ass and act like a man, if that is at all possible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #258 September 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteA homicidal maniac PASSED the current background check, because it is USELESS as currently implemented. How should the background check be implemented then? More thoroughly. Such as ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #259 September 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteTell us how you know which person will commit a crime next Am I going to commit a crime? Does it bother you that I own what you think are assault rifles? Does it make you lose sleep? Does it make you nervous? Would you prefer that I be banned from owning such weapons? I know nothing about you except that you CLAIM that your name is Randall, and the persona you project on the internet. For all I know you are actually a 9 year old girl. Ok that is a personal attack since you have met me many times in person. . Maybe you should have introduced yourself, then, and I'd know who you are of the many new people I meet each week.... 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
JohnRich 4 #260 September 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteA homicidal maniac PASSED the current background check, because it is USELESS as currently implemented. How should the background check be implemented then? More thoroughly. Such as ... Yeah, that's how kallend plays his games here. He won't give anything specific, because then we'd be able to criticize it, and he doesn't want to have to answer to that criticism. Apparently he wants everyone who acts a little odd, or is a loner, or who has ever visited a psychiatrist, even once, to be put on the "no guns" list as a looney. That's what his idea of "more thoroughly" seems to consist of. Of course, that would be extremely wrong to label and discriminate against people that way, and if it didn't involve gun ownership, he would be against it for anything else. And since most people consider skydivers loony for jumping out of airplanes, obviously they shouldn't be trusted with guns either. Of course kallend can easily dispel all this guessing about his position, just be being forthright for once, and spelling out exactly what he means. But I'm betting that he just won't do it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #261 September 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteA homicidal maniac PASSED the current background check, because it is USELESS as currently implemented. How should the background check be implemented then? More thoroughly. Such as ... Yeah, that's how kallend plays his games here. He won't give anything specific, because then we'd be able to criticize it, and he doesn't want to have to answer to that criticism. . I have been quite specific in a previous thread in SC and engaged in a discussion with mnealtx, among others, about it. He had reservations (to put it mildly) but I'm sure he'll confirm that it happened. Maybe you could look it up BEFORE being so offensive.... 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
warpedskydiver 0 #262 September 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteTell us how you know which person will commit a crime next Am I going to commit a crime? Does it bother you that I own what you think are assault rifles? Does it make you lose sleep? Does it make you nervous? Would you prefer that I be banned from owning such weapons? I know nothing about you except that you CLAIM that your name is Randall, and the persona you project on the internet. For all I know you are actually a 9 year old girl. Ok that is a personal attack since you have met me many times in person. . Maybe you should have introduced yourself, then, and I'd know who you are of the many new people I meet each week. Quit playing childish games and be a man, you know who I am, and are being purposely ignorant in order to avoid being banned. In fact, you have also made reference to the fact you know who I am in quite a few threads. Unless you suffer from Altzheimers, you have no valid excuse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #263 September 5, 2008 >For all I know you are actually a 9 year old girl. Your one warning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #264 September 5, 2008 Quote I have been quite specific in a previous thread in SC and engaged in a discussion with mnealtx, among others, about it. He had reservations (to put it mildly) but I'm sure he'll confirm that it happened. Maybe you could look it up BEFORE being so offensive. Funny how you're always able to provide a link (usually to a distinctly different conversation) when you feel like it, but not now, when it's about a mythical solution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #265 September 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteHe won't give anything specific, because then we'd be able to criticize it, and he doesn't want to have to answer to that criticism. I have been quite specific in a previous thread in SC and engaged in a discussion with mnealtx, among others, about it. He had reservations (to put it mildly) but I'm sure he'll confirm that it happened. Maybe you could look it up BEFORE being so offensive. Which one of your 9,980 messages in the last two years was that? If this idea of yours is so grand, you should be able to point us to it. If this idea is so great that it would save hundreds of lives, then you should be willing to repeat it. Or perhaps those criticisms made by mnealtx were so valid and powerful, that you're afraid to go through that humiliation again. So maybe you just want to pretend to have a magic solution, when in fact you've really got nothing at all. Your unwillingness to share your idea here, certainly makes it look that way. The phrase "put up or shut up" comes to mind. But I don't really want you to shut up - it's too much fun watching you spin your wheels here, and show everyone just how disingenuous you really are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #266 September 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteHe won't give anything specific, because then we'd be able to criticize it, and he doesn't want to have to answer to that criticism. I have been quite specific in a previous thread in SC and engaged in a discussion with mnealtx, among others, about it. He had reservations (to put it mildly) but I'm sure he'll confirm that it happened. Maybe you could look it up BEFORE being so offensive. Which one of your 9,980 messages in the last two years was that? If this idea of yours is so grand, you should be able to point us to it. If this idea is so great that it would save hundreds of lives, then you should be willing to repeat it. Or perhaps those criticisms made by mnealtx were so valid and powerful, that you're afraid to go through that humiliation again. So maybe you just want to pretend to have a magic solution, when in fact you've really got nothing at all. Your unwillingness to share your idea here, certainly makes it look that way. The phrase "put up or shut up" comes to mind. But I don't really want you to shut up - it's too much fun watching you spin your wheels here, and show everyone just how disingenuous you really are. Try this for a start.... 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
kelpdiver 2 #267 September 5, 2008 QuoteTry this for a start. look, JR, he made a funny! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #268 September 5, 2008 Quotelook, JR, he made a funny! Yeah, only 9,981 messages to read through to find kallend's magic solution to gun violence. No thanks. If it were that good and that important, he wouldn't be trying to hide it like this. So I'm just going to have to presume that it's really nothing but bunk, until such time kallend decides to quit playing games and is actually willing to own up to and express a real idea. kallend: you're getting beat up a lot here, but it's all your own fault for your game-playing debate style, and your reticence to just say what the heck you mean. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #269 September 5, 2008 QuoteQuotelook, JR, he made a funny! Yeah, only 9,981 messages to read through to find kallend's magic solution to gun violence. No thanks. If it were that good and that important, he wouldn't be trying to hide it like this. So I'm just going to have to presume that it's really nothing but bunk, until such time kallend decides to quit playing games and is actually willing to own up to and express a real idea. kallend: you're getting beat up a lot here, but it's all your own fault for your game-playing debate style, and your reticence to just say what the heck you mean. I mean that the current method of establishing compliance with the law is next to useless, and better methods can be found. I've suggested one (see other current thread as well as previous threads)). If you don't like it, come up with a suggestion yourself. But to say no improvement is possible to a system that allowed Cho to buy guns at a gun shop is just ABSURD.... 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
Ron 10 #270 September 6, 2008 Quote But to say no improvement is possible to a systen that allowed Cho to buy guns at a gun shop is just ABSURD. You keep saying that, but it was a FAILURE of the current system to report those incidents. They didn't report them out of fear of violating his rights to privacy. You rail against domestic ease dropping, but seem to be ok with the govt making a file on you for many other things. Also the NRA supported the legislation that fixed the errors in reporting. It should be remembered that people didn't report his issues out of fear of stepping on his privacy. John, in your opinion, how much data should the govt be allowed to collect on a person, how should they be able to collect it, and who should have access to that data?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #271 September 6, 2008 QuoteQuote But to say no improvement is possible to a systen that allowed Cho to buy guns at a gun shop is just ABSURD. You keep saying that, but it was a FAILURE of the current system to report those incidents. INDEED - the system is not doing the job it's supposed to do. THAT is my issue. Quote John, in your opinion, how much data should the govt be allowed to collect on a person, how should they be able to collect it, and who should have access to that data? I agree with billvon's assessment in the other current thread. Medical doctor gives simply a yes/no. Less intrusive than a Class III airman medical.... 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
downwardspiral 0 #272 September 6, 2008 A psych eval? At what point would a doctor say no? Is it possible to hide a mental illness?www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #273 September 6, 2008 QuoteINDEED - the system is not doing the job it's supposed to do. THAT is my issue. Then how about enforcing the CURRENT rules before you add new ones? Quote Medical doctor gives simply a yes/no. I disagree. Why not just have any medical Dr that feels a person is a violent risk to themselves or someone else make a phone call and submit a form that puts that person on a list. That way a person can apply to be removed later if the Doc clears him. As opposed to making anyone that wants a gun to have to go to a Dr and ask permission. And would you support holding the Dr's harmless in case someone "approved" went nuts? Because if not then not many Dr's would take that kind of risk. My version is A LOT less intrusive and only 'reports' those that could be an issue. Anyone that has been through a class III medical knows that it is a waste of time anyway."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #274 September 6, 2008 Quote And would you support holding the Dr's harmless in case someone "approved" went nuts? Because if not then not many Dr's would take that kind of risk. None would participate. Not terribly unlike when guidelines were set up for smaller women to get their airbags turned off. Few mechanics wanted any part of it. Quote My version is A LOT less intrusive and only 'reports' those that could be an issue. Anyone that has been through a class III medical knows that it is a waste of time anyway. As you know, these sorts of steps are really just about making gun ownership as inconvenient and expensive as possible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #275 September 6, 2008 QuoteA psych eval? At what point would a doctor say no? Is it possible to hide a mental illness? Ask a medical doctor if you want a medical opinion.... 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
