Ron

And we are waiting for you to back up your comments. You know like the one where "80 criminals admitted to getting guns from a gun show" but you refuse to give the number of criminals asked. 80 out of 100 and there would be a problem, 80 out of 1 million and there is not a problem. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Got it, you think ONE guy acts like an idiot and the whole country is jacked up. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

The percentage of deaths by swimming pool to deaths to firearms is 100 to 1. When a child dies by gun shot, people try to ban guns. But more children die by swimming than guns by a long shot....Where is the demand to ban swimming pools? Pool registration? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

You still using a fire extinguisher to blow out birthday candles? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

A person wanted to commit a crime. How much you wanna bet that those 11,000+ other homicides all required a person to pull the trigger also? Do you have any idea how stupid it is to blame a tool for the actions of the user? Very few guns are used to kill people as well (in both raw numbers and percentage). Your arguments are getting worse. 200M cars 192M guns 40k killed by cars 30k deaths from guns... Over HALF were suicides (55%). So, both the raw number of deaths AND the percentage of deaths are LOWER with gun ownership...And that is true even if you include suicides. Even swimming pools kill more than guns....100 to 1 in fact. Him claiming all you have is rhetoric is dead on...It does not take long to peg you. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

And I and others have SHOWN where registration has lead to CONFISCATION. Even IN THE US. Who is burring their head in the sand in the face of evidence to the contrary to their position? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Like I said before...It happened in New Orleans...But you made excuses for that one. How about NY in 1990? So, the Govt HAS used registration information to confiscate. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Still waiting for you to man up and give the "out of number"...You know, like 80 out of ?????? 100 or 1 million? But, I am willing to bet you will not, since it will just make your claim silly. And I am still waiting on what limits you would approve on the 1st? The 4th? The 14th, 15th? I guess you want to have background checks to vote then? Of course, I don't expect you to answer that either. You will just tap dance around like normal. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

As soon as you admit that the Hughes Amendment banned a type of fire arm that has been used in TWO crimes since 1934. But you seem to think that was fine. I don't care what you "claim". I care that your facts are wrong. Registration HAS lead to confiscation. Germany, England, Australia, and here in NYC in the 90's and New Orleans after Katrina. Considering you STILL do not grasp what the Hughes Amendment did...Do you really want to go there? Two Federal Treasury Agents named Turner and Anderson were laying in wait to arrest someone for moonshining. It was June 1938. They jumped out of the woods and arrested two men, Miller and I think Lawson, or maybe Layton. They found no moonshine, but they did find a shot gun that was a few inches two short. Miller WON in the district court having his lawyer claim that a 200.00 "tax" on a 10 dollar weapon was a "prohibitive" tax and that a short barrel shotgun WAS a military Arm. Miller Lost in the SC since NO ONE went to DC to fight it. Read the case file. Now, you wanna bring the class up to speed on WHY the 1934 NFA act was put into place? Read, yet DC STILL tried to do an end run. And the 1934 NFA is STILL on the books, and the HUGHES AMENDMENT is STILL on the books. The whole "NFA State" is against the Constitution since the 2nd clearly speaks (And the SC in Miller agreed with) to owning weapons that are like the type in military service. The Hughes Amendment is against the 2nd as Chief Justice Roberts said in Heller v DC, "What is reasonable about a ban?" Yet, you still defend both. EXACTLY...IT DOES NOT WORK. Cho got both of his pistols legally AND with a "one gun a mth" law in place. Yet you want MORE regulations that do not work and more paperwork that does not work. No, clearly you don't. Wrong...You don't know me. I am not a member of the NRA. Maybe you should quit slinging Brady and VPC rhetoric? I gave my suggestions in the first page of this thread. Maybe you should read them again? And you really should read the Hughes Amendment....It is clear you have never read it. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

That is because your only argument is semantics. You will never just answer a simple question for fear of looking silly. You defend your nitpicking, yet insult others when they point out you doing it. Amazing! Dr. Kallend and Mr Hyde is alive. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

And yet you do it all the time. How do you feel about nit picking a comment instead of accepting the intent...You know like you did in the other thread? "The BoR was NOT in the original Constitution as ratified, and that is FACT." So, you are just as guilty of that action, if not more guilty, than anyone else....The irony of you trying to blame me for it is, well amazing. Pot, meet kettle. Edit: Merry Christmas to Dr. Kallend. Bah Humbug to Mr Hyde. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Funny, I feel the same way about what you say about others. But the simple fact here is that you felt some need to try and insult me...When in some threads at least we were getting along. So why the need to jump in and throw an insult? You just do not want to even attempt to get along? Edit to add: Merry Christmas. I hope you have a good one. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

I find it even more funny that you feel you have to try and attack me to make yourself feel better. Not my fault you are afraid to stand behind your words. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

That is because your only argument is semantics. You will never just answer a simple question for fear of looking silly. Or maybe you just like the exercise you get from all the tap dancing? You do that a lot, so you must like it. In person, you are a much more reasonable person....I think your whole reason to be on here is to troll. It is like Dr. Kallend and Mr Hyde. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Maybe *I* don't see anything so bad right now as to sacrifice my life over it? I assume you have a fire extinguisher in your home? Ever use it? If not, then why not just throw it out and never replace it? See, I support the second because it is a tool that can be used in the event that I feel it is needed. Only *I* can make the call when *I* feel it is needed. What else could it be? It is not alive, it does not have feeling, and it does not harbor intent. That would be like me telling you to use your fire extinguisher to blow out your birthday candles and if you don't, then claim you don't need a fire extinguisher since you are not willing to use it. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

No, but you can BUY one without any paperwork. To drive it would be like to CARRY a gun. But you can BUY cars all day long without govt involvement. And you ignored that the Hughes Amendment banned a type of weapon from civilians against the 2nd and the SC take in US v Miller. That's where you failed... No, it is clear you did not read anything about the Hughes Amendment. My last purchase cost 3 grand more than it should since of it, not Obama. Really, please go read the Hughes Amendment this time...Pay close attention that it's sole purpose was to ban a type of weapon from civilians....Then try to claim the Govt is OK with civilians being armed....Then for fun, go look at the 1994 AWB. And many that were...Such as his support of handgun bans. Some of his positions Obama's voting record and statements are quite clear. From his own website: Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets. That by the very nature means taking away a right we currently have. FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns." Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line: 35. Do you support state legislation to: a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes. b. ban assault weapons? Yes. c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes. "I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry"--Obama * Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons. * Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms. * Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms. Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998 The Post quotes Obama out of context, claiming that he only wanted to tax “certain types” of guns in 1999. But the full sentence in the 1999 article reads, “Obama is also seeking to increase the federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm, ammunition [sic] -- weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths.” Chinta Strausberg, Obama unveils federal gun bill, Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999, at 3. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On March 13, 2003, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee for a bill that would have enacted a much broader gun ban. (The vote tally sheet is available at http://www.nrapvf.org/Media/pdf/sb1195_obama.pdf). The bill under debate that day, SB 1195 (available at http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/93/...300SB1195lv.pdf), would have made it illegal to “knowingly manufacture, deliver, or possess” a “semiautomatic assault weapon.” The bill defined a “semiautomatic assault weapon” to include “any firearm having a caliber of 50 [sic] or greater.” See SB 1195, page 2, line 10 (emphasis added). Under this bill, a firearm did not actually have to be semi-automatic to be a “semiautomatic assault weapon.” Shotguns 28-gauge or larger (by far the majority of shotguns owned in the United States) are all “.50-caliber or greater.” See National Rifle Ass’n, Firearms Fact Book 183 (3d ed. 1989). SB 1195 did exclude any firearm that “is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action” and “any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.” SB 1195 p.3, lines 12-23. However, the bill did not exclude firearms with hinge or similar actions, such as single-shot or double-barreled shotguns used by millions of hunters. Anyone who possessed one of these firearms in Illinois 90 days after the effective date would have had to “destroy the weapon or device, render it permanently inoperable, relinquish it to a law enforcement agency, or remove it from the state.” SB 1195, p. 5, line 33. Anyone who still possessed a banned gun would have been subject to a felony sentence. SB 1195, p. 5, line 15. This “seizure and surrender” provision was much more severe than the former federal “assault weapons” ban, which had a “grandfather clause” to allow current lawful owners to keep their guns. See 18 U.S.C. 922(v)(2) (repealed). So Obama voted that you would have to surrender you weapons or you would be considered a felon. I put the references so you can look them up yourself. Try to do a better job than you did with the Hughes Amendment. #1. There is no "title III" You are confusing "class III DEALERS" who are allowed to sell TITLE II weapons. #2. Registration has lead to confiscation. You however seem to be fine with confiscation....That is why you have no problem. The gun is not being "re-entered" into anything. When you call NICS it does not ask for a serial number. It asks, "Handgun, Longgun, Other". There is a yellow sheet done, but the dealer keeps that in a file. He sends it nowhere. You keep proving you have no clue how the process actually works. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

You expected different from him? When he can't answer, he avoids the question with some top notch tap dancing. Lame, but totally predictable from him. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Why should I entertain his questions when he avoids mine? My 5 year old understands that concept as well. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Anyone find it funny you misspelled complex while trying to insult me? I find it funny as hell. Irony score 10/10 "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

The Bill of rights included the first 10. This is a discussion about them. Where did YOU learn your civics? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

So you approve of violence when it suits you then? Nope...You have just shown how you are afraid to answer simple questions. What would you do if a student threw a shoe at you? Do you approve of violence? Simple questions....Try to give simple answers "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Then that is not answering the question. What is 2 + 2? "If I had an extra 1 then it would be 5." Is not answering the question. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Fail again. WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF A STUDENT THREW A SHOE AT YOU? Simple question, you look silly avoiding it...And you still get an "F" "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

I am still waiting for your answer...You are still at an "F" What would you do if a student threw a shoe at you? Try to answer that simple question. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Simple, you replied to ME. I am still waiting for you to back up your claim. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334