Gravitymaster 0 #101 September 21, 2011 Quote Quote Right, voting for a politician who promises free handouts and destroys our economy is just fine and has no impact on society. Do you really want to compare the damage that could be done with one vote in a polling station compared to the damage that could be done with one firearm in a polling station? Nope, I want to point out the damage that can be done by a few. Do you know that there are many politicians who got elected by the slimest of majorities. You remember the 2000 U.S. Presidential Campaign don't you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #102 September 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteI made that exact point earlier today in a different thread. Do try to keep up, dear boy. You must understand ... With all your dodging and tap dancing... It makes it difficult to really understand what you are trying to say. See, that is why people ask you specific questions... But, like always, you refuse to answer them. It's not like I haven't made the exact same point many times before. For example, on Sept 7, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. I wrote, in this forum: "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." And I repeated it in this forum on Aug 5, 2011 Hardly my fault if you have a poor attention span.... 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 #103 September 21, 2011 Quote"There is no reason a sane, law abiding adult should be prevented from owning a firearm." Ah yes, you have SAID that. But then when you discuss the details of your proposal you make them so strict that very few individuals could actually qualify in your eyes. Also, you REFUSE to apply the SAME standards you propose for gun ownership to any activity YOU enjoy... Like owning model rockets, or flying. In fact, didn't you go to court over the toy rocket engine issue to fight regulation by the SAME ATF that regulates guns? So while you claim one thing, your actions and proposed programs speak differently. So you can understand how a person that sees you want MORE regulation on firearms by the ATF, but want LESS regulation for toy rocket motors from the ATF can get a bit confused. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #104 September 21, 2011 QuoteQuote"There is no reason a sane, law abiding adult should be prevented from owning a firearm." Ah yes, you have SAID that. But then when you discuss the details of your proposal you make them so strict that very few individuals could actually qualify in your eyes. Also, you REFUSE to apply the SAME standards you propose for gun ownership to any activity YOU enjoy... Like owning model rockets, or flying. In fact, didn't you go to court over the toy rocket engine issue to fight regulation by the SAME ATF that regulates guns? So while you claim one thing, your actions and proposed programs speak differently. So you can understand how a person that sees you want MORE regulation on firearms by the ATF, but want LESS regulation for toy rocket motors from the ATF can get a bit confused. I supported an organization that sued BATFE to force it to obey the existing laws that Congress passed, and the law was enforced by the judge. Funny that you should complain about forcing BATFE to obey the law. But then, you are a strange guy.... 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 #105 September 21, 2011 QuoteI supported an organization that sued BATFE to force it to obey the existing laws that Congress passed, and the law was enforced by the judge. Funny that you should complain about forcing BATFE to obey the law Ah, you DO have a double standard then. I don't see you helping with project gun walker. Just so we are all clear: Toy rocket engines you will fight for less regulation. Guns you will fight for MORE regulation. QuoteBut then, you are a strange guy. Personal attacks...Lame. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #106 September 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteI supported an organization that sued BATFE to force it to obey the existing laws that Congress passed, and the law was enforced by the judge. Funny that you should complain about forcing BATFE to obey the law Ah, you DO have a double standard then. I don't see you helping with project gun walker. Just so we are all clear: Toy rocket engines you will fight for less regulation. Guns you will fight for MORE regulation. me. INCORRECT YET AGAIN. I fought for the law to be upheld exactly as written - not for more OR less regulation. Your strawmen are so lame it's amazing that you have the nerve to place them on a public forum.... 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 #107 September 21, 2011 QuoteI fought for the law to be upheld exactly as written - not for more OR less regulation. The BATF has decided, just administratively, all on their own, to start requiring southwest gun stores to report the sale of 2 more more long guns at one time, despite the fact that they have no legislative authority to do this. Given your statement above, then I take it that you are opposed to the BATF exceeding their authority on this? After all, I'm simply asking if you support the BATF enforcing the law only exactly as written, and no more. A simply yes or no answer will suffice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #108 September 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteAll these arguments should not matter. They matter. It is the difference between having a right, or having to EARN a right. QuoteAccording to the article in the original post this man had been through a committment proceeding and held in psychiatric care. Ergo, according to the law he should not have been legally able to get a gun. The article does not tell us but it is likely that either 1) he was not put on the ineligible list due to an oversight of some kind or 2) he was put on that list but acquired firearms by other means. OK, but that is a failure of the Govt, just like Cho the VT shooter. He was also not eligible to own a firearm. The Columbine shooters were also not legal to own the weapons they had either. But the basic idea of you have rights till they are taken away VS. You have to earn your rights is a very valid discussion. OK, those may be worthwhile discussions to have but the original post and linked article did not address any of those points. This guy had previously been committed and shouldn't have been allowed to have a gun."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #109 September 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteright, so while you may have to register to vote, that DOES NOT mean you should have to register to own or carry a gun.... Which also means that the determination of mental capacity for owning a gun, voting and excercising free speech is different. So you get to pick which right is more important than another? NOT"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 2,151 #110 September 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteI fought for the law to be upheld exactly as written - not for more OR less regulation. The BATF has decided, just administratively, all on their own, to start requiring southwest gun stores to report the sale of 2 more more long guns at one time, despite the fact that they have no legislative authority to do this. Given your statement above, then I take it that you are opposed to the BATF exceeding their authority on this? A simply yes or no answer will suffice. It will? I think the law should be enacted as written, and if the Congress passes a bill empowering BATFE, FAA, DoE or any other agency to enact regulations on their own authority, so be it. So to answer your question, if BATFE is overstepping its delegated authority to make regulations, take it to court and see if the judge agrees. In the APCP case, the outcome was that BATFE had acted outside of its regulatory locus of authority and the judge threw out their rule. You too can exercise your right to have your grievances heard, like we did.... 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 2,151 #111 September 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteright, so while you may have to register to vote, that DOES NOT mean you should have to register to own or carry a gun.... Which also means that the determination of mental capacity for owning a gun, voting and excercising free speech is different. So you get to pick which right is more important than another? NOT STRAWMAN - he said no such thing.... 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
rushmc 23 #112 September 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteright, so while you may have to register to vote, that DOES NOT mean you should have to register to own or carry a gun.... Which also means that the determination of mental capacity for owning a gun, voting and excercising free speech is different. So you get to pick which right is more important than another? NOT STRAWMAN - he said no such thing. Directly? No But this is the result of that position"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
quade 4 #113 September 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteright, so while you may have to register to vote, that DOES NOT mean you should have to register to own or carry a gun.... Which also means that the determination of mental capacity for owning a gun, voting and excercising free speech is different. So you get to pick which right is more important than another? It means the judicial system does, and they do. Generally speaking it has to do with the general safety of the population. A single crazy person with a gun can kill a LOT of people in a little amount of time. A single crazy person casting a vote or writing a poem generally can't.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #114 September 21, 2011 QuoteSo you get to pick which right is more important than another? I don't, but other people, like your law makers and your judges, do. Sometimes the right to vote is more important than the right to bear arms or have free speech. Probably one of the reasons they don't want guns in polling stations. Probably also why free speech is restricted in polling stations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #115 September 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteright, so while you may have to register to vote, that DOES NOT mean you should have to register to own or carry a gun.... Which also means that the determination of mental capacity for owning a gun, voting and excercising free speech is different. So you get to pick which right is more important than another? NOT STRAWMAN - he said no such thing. Directly? No But this is the result of that position No, it isn't. He doesn't get to choose any such thing, and your logic is faulty for inferring that he even suggested 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
DaVinci 0 #116 September 21, 2011 QuoteINCORRECT YET AGAIN. I fought for the law to be upheld exactly as written - not for more OR less regulation. INCORRECT YET AGAIN... You fight for MORE regulation about gun ownership. QuoteYour strawmen are so lame it's amazing that you have the nerve to place them on a public forum. Wow, so out of content you try personal attacks? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #117 September 21, 2011 Quote Quote INCORRECT YET AGAIN. I fought for the law to be upheld exactly as written - not for more OR less regulation. INCORRECT YET AGAIN... You fight for MORE regulation about gun ownership. Quote Your strawmen are so lame it's amazing that you have the nerve to place them on a public forum. Wow, so out of content you try personal attacks? It is you who seems to resort to that tactic all too often... like your lame ass attempts at trying to call my a hypocrite... but its the cost of trying to have a discussion with you. I should know better than to try to engage with any of you on the fringe right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #118 September 21, 2011 QuoteThis guy had previously been committed and shouldn't have been allowed to have a gun. Neither should have Cho been allowed (He had been committed). Neither should have Loughner (Arrest for drug paraphernalia, five incidents with police for disruption, drug use) Neither should have Harris and Klebold (They were charged with mischief, breaking and entering, trespassing, and theft in 1988. Both were underage, Harris had court-ordered anger management ) And if you look at the stats for gun crime... Most of the people that Kill or shoot someone (already illegal) have prior convictions that prevent them from possessing a gun. These are all just failures of the Govt to do what it said it is going to do.... New laws and regulations are not needed... We just need to actually use the ones we have. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #119 September 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteINCORRECT YET AGAIN. I fought for the law to be upheld exactly as written - not for more OR less regulation. INCORRECT YET AGAIN... You fight for MORE regulation about gun ownership. Ha ha. Today must be "Strawman Day". All I ask is that existing regulations and Constitutional restrictions be properly enforced instead of easily circumvented.... 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 #120 September 21, 2011 QuoteIt is you who seems to resort to that tactic all too oftenke your lame ass attempts at trying to call my a hypocrite... Really? You tried to call others "Travelers", tried to insult people as being "bubba".... When you call people a redneck when they don't own a truck and have never been hunting.. But YOU DO AND HAVE. That IS being a hypocrite. When you want OTHERS to not be armed, but are fine with you being armed... That IS being a hypocrite. When you claim others are mentally deficient when you THINK they might shoot a person.... All while you had BEEN READ TO DO IT... You are a hypocrite. Sorry darling, but your own words prove you to be a hypocrite. that is not an insult, it is the very definition of the word. QuoteI should know better than to try to engage with any of you on the fringe right.CrazyCrazy Another perfect example of your inability to refrain from insults. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #121 September 21, 2011 QuoteAll I ask is that existing regulations and Constitutional restrictions be properly enforced instead of easily circumvented You have time after time suggested additional regulations to control gun ownership. You do know that everyone already knows your position and can see right through your current claims right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #122 September 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteIt is you who seems to resort to that tactic all too oftenke your lame ass attempts at trying to call my a hypocrite... Really? You tried to call others "Travelers", tried to insult people as being "bubba".... When you call people a redneck when they don't own a truck and have never been hunting.. But YOU DO AND HAVE. That IS being a hypocrite. When you want OTHERS to not be armed, but are fine with you being armed... That IS being a hypocrite. When you claim others are mentally deficient when you THINK they might shoot a person.... All while you had BEEN READ TO DO IT... You are a hypocrite. Sorry darling, but your own words prove you to be a hypocrite. that is not an insult, it is the very definition of the word. QuoteI should know better than to try to engage with any of you on the fringe right.CrazyCrazy Another perfect example of your inability to refrain from insults. Hmmm so how is this supposed to go... oh yes.... Blah Blah Blah Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #123 September 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteAll I ask is that existing regulations and Constitutional restrictions be properly enforced instead of easily circumvented You have time after time suggested additional regulations to control gun ownership. You do know that everyone already knows your position and can see right through your current claims right? And which additional regulations would they be? Please provide links.... 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
popsjumper 2 #124 September 21, 2011 QuoteI made that exact point earlier today in a different thread. Do try to keep up, dear boy. As if we should ALL be sitting on the edge of our seats frantically searching for Kallend inanities throughout the entire site. How arrogant can one get? *shaking head icon*My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #125 September 21, 2011 Quote Quote I made that exact point earlier today in a different thread. Do try to keep up, dear boy. As if we should ALL be sitting on the edge of our seats frantically searching for Kallend inanities throughout the entire site. How arrogant can one get? *shaking head icon* Whats wrong Pops... short term memory running into some "senior moments" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites