Ron

No, in this thread. Try reading them instead of thinking you already know everything. When I say Harris and Klebold did "X".... That is a reference. You only seem to think only links are references.... That is just you refusing to admit you don't know what you are talking about. But hey.... Here is one where they posted on a website about building and testing bombs: But if you had known anything about the case.... You would have already known that. Just admit that your opinions don't stand the light of day. Well you have admitted you are unwilling to learn about the things you already claim to "know"... You have shown how stupid and uninformed your position is through your posts. And you have admitted you would rather stay ignorant than learn anything. I guess we really are done. I have provided references to real world examples that have crushed your ignorant opinions. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Duel exhaust DOES increase performance. Why do you paint your MG? I assume it has paint right? If it were primer gray it would perform the same right? You still can't make the basic connection that most gun banners go after the looks, and most pro gun people go for function. People behind the 94 ban ADMITTED to using LOOKS as the method to decide what weapons to ban, and didn't ban weapons of the same caliber and functionality.... You really have no leg to stand on here. For example they tried to ban the AR15, yet didn't ban the mini14. Same bullet, both take magazines, but only one LOOKS "evil". I am STILL waiting on you to answer these. They were all banned in 94: Care to explain to the group how many crimes have been committed with a bayonet? Care to explain to the group how a flash suppressor on a semi auto makes any difference? Care to explain to the group why a grenade launcher ban seemed to make sense when Grenades are HIGHLY regulated and care to tell the class how many crimes were committed with GRENADES? Maybe you could explain how the DOJ said that even before the ban only 3-4% of crimes were committed with the types of weapons banned meant that they should be banned? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

And yet you have provided NONE at all. And I have referenced REAL world examples that have proven you wrong. Yet you still ignore them. May I suggest you actually know the topics before you claim to be an expert? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

So does FedEx and UPS. AND certain services. Now, what exclusive services are you going to grant govt HC? No, actually the point is what exclusive SERVICES are you going to grant the Govt HC system? What imposed extra prices or reduction in quality are you going to impose on private providers. Because: 1. The USPS is allowed by LAW to provide exclusive services. Say only the Govt can provide cancer treatments. 2. BY LAW any private company has to charge twice the Govt charge OR the service has to depreciate. So say the Govt is the only one that can provide cancer treatment, or the private company can only provide less effective programs.... BY LAW. So, what exclusive rights are you going to give the Govt? And how much extra will private company's have to charge? Explain THAT and then you can reasonably compare the Post office as a HC model. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Too bad you really don't do that. WOW, irony score off the chart!!!!!!!!! "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Clearly YOU have no idea, and don't get it. You want to compare a Govt protected monopoly and use it as a comparison for HC while ignoring the facts. You have the right to think that way, but it is not logical and makes no sense. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

This just shows you have no idea what you are talking about either.... You did notice the post where I said I worked for FedEx for 18+ years right? Sheesh... Once again you claim to be an expert on something you have no idea about. Why is it that people that clearly have no clue act like an expert? (Rhetorical question). "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

I have provided links and reference REAL world situations. For example you tried to claim that kids like Harris and Klebold would not be able to drive far away and practice using a banned item.... Yet they DID EXACTLY that with explosives. Then you made that stupid comment about how you could identify the people with CHL's and shoot them first. You just make up stuff and hope it sticks. All of it 100% wrong. You keep bitching about facts.... you didn't provide any sources either. Sources? Links? Facts? See you don't provide ANY, yet once you realize you don't have any you bitch the others don't. Changing your tune? First you said they would have to LEARN to use it.... Now it is about culture? You keep changing your talking points when you are shown to be wrong. Actually the police knew it was them.. .AGAIN MAYBE YOU SHOULD KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DISCUSSING BEFORE YOU MAKE CLAIMS OF FACT! The police were told it was them when they made a threat to another kid. Really, maybe you should know what you are talking about before you start talking. Well you are 100% wrong. I am amazed you still think you know what you are talking about. I am not paying for legalization, I am paying higher prices based on basic supply/demand curves. Since they can't be made for civilians anymore the supply is fixed, so demand goes up. Really. You just keep showing you have no idea of what you are talking about. Please CITE and provide a valid link to back your claim that you need training to operate a firearm. All that information is available IF YOU DO SOME READING. I already know, it is clear you don't. Besides, you made the claim they would get caught if they tried to travel a distance (since teenagers get into more accidents) to train with illegal weapons... Yet they did and they didn't get caught. So basically you are wrong. I have provide actual proof... You have not provided A SINGLE piece of data. So for you to claim *I* have not done anything when I have and YOU have done nothing is ironic. It has been proven since I referenced real world examples that proved your theory wrong. Sorry, you are clearly wrong. I have referenced real world examples.... You have not. You have made claims without data, I took real world examples and showed your example was wrong. It is pretty clear you are going to continue to spout crap without data, and when I prove you wrong you are going to continue to claim I didn't provide references.... And like I have said all along... you need to read up on Harris and Klebold and see how stupid your arguments are.... Cause everything you have said is wrong. But please, don't take my word for it.... Read it for yourself. Then you will see how stupid your arguments are. You are free to continue this.. but since it is clear you are not capable of providing any data (while bitching at me, when I HAVE) and you will continue to make claims that have already been shown to be BS.... You can continue this on your own. I have better things to do on Xmas even than try to discuss a topic with a person who is ignorant on the topic, and chooses to remain ignorant while claiming to know it already. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

BTW still waiting: Care to explain to the group how many crimes have been committed with a bayonet? Care to explain to the group how a flash suppressor on a semi auto makes any difference? Care to explain to the group why a grenade launcher ban seemed to make sense when Grenades are HIGHLY regulated and care to tell the class how many crimes were committed with GRENADES? Maybe you could explain how the DOJ said that even before the ban only 3-4% of crimes were committed with the types of weapons banned meant that they should be banned? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

It is not about the name... It is about the type of service. REALLY, read up on it and quit taking stabs in the dark hoping something sticks. I have worked in this industry for 18+ years. You have no idea what you are talking about. REALLY, READ THE DAMN RULES and THEN get back to us. Cause until you do, and it is CLEAR you have not.... I am just wasting my time with you. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Nope, and I said that until they actually do it, they are not guilty of it. You want to punish based on thinking about doing it. But hey.... Don't let facts and real data influence your own little world. It is really sad the levels of lying you do. I like you personally, but when it comes to gun topics any personal integrity you have seems to vanish. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Sorry did not know that. I just remember the USPA issue. Feel free to bring it up. Still, most non-skydivers are not going to care. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Comments like that just show you have not even bother to read anything I have posted. Seriously, you are starting to look worse with every post. Still waiting for your answers BTW: Care to explain to the group how many crimes have been committed with a bayonet? Care to explain to the group how a flash suppressor on a semi auto makes any difference? Care to explain to the group why a grenade launcher ban seemed to make sense when Grenades are HIGHLY regulated and care to tell the class how many crimes were committed with GRENADES? Maybe you could explain how the DOJ said that even before the ban only 3-4% of crimes were committed with the types of weapons banned meant that they should be banned? Try to READ them and answer them if you can. Otherwise just admit you don't have a leg to stand on. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Nope....BY LAW FedEx and UPS are not allowed to deliver 1st and 3rd class mail. Seriously, read up on it and get back to us....Cause you are not even close. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Wow you just make things up don't you? Because they serve a different purpose, does not mean any ban is justified.... Except it seems in your own world where you make up things at your whim. Try to stay with me for a second. Care to explain to the group how many crimes have been committed with a bayonet? Care to explain to the group how a flash suppressor on a semi auto makes any difference? Care to explain to the group why a grenade launcher ban seemed to make sense when Grenades are HIGHLY regulated and care to tell the class how many crimes were committed with GRENADES? Maybe you could explain how the DOJ said that even before the ban only 3-4% of crimes were committed with the types of weapons banned meant that they should be banned? Really John... The more you type, worse you look. I am willing to bet you would not accept this same type of logic from your students. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

No, and no logical person would have jumped to that conclusion from what I have written. Seriously.... Start actually READING what is written or maybe get some new reading glasses. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Cool, but you do realize that most people are not going to care. While we (to include myself) don't like skyride.... The courts have ruled that they have done nothing wrong. So it is your right to ask.... But a non-jumper (and some jumpers) are just not going to care. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Worked for FedEx for 18+ years. So, yes.... I have heard of them. Better check again. By LAW they are not allowed to send letters like the USPS. Reference: The private express statutes. Nope, BY LAW FedEx and UPS are not allowed to offer the same types of services.... Tell ya what, actually read the private express statutes and get back with us. Here is just a quick synopsis for you: So BY LAW FedEx and UPS are not allowed to deliver 1st and 3rd class mail. Seriously, read up on it and get back to us. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Why would you buy a handgun here in the US in 2000 when you claim you don't need them except for hunting? Also, as my data shows, it is highly unlikely that you bought a handgun in FL after 1991 by only showing a credit card. So which was it... Did you pay with a CC like you said before or cash like you are claiming now? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Fixed. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Which ones... The ones I correct all your errors, or the ones that I provide facts and data that prove you wrong? I see you can't debate the facts and have now turned to insults.... Pretty normal for a guy that has run out of intellectual ammo. Both are illegal and both are felonies. There are differences.... Black market guns can cost LESS than straw purchased guns in most cases. As for risk... well anytime you deal in the black market you engage in risk... But that does not really stop anyone or else the black market would not exist. Again.... Guns are illegal in Mexico, yet they have massive gun crime. Drugs are illegal here, yet we have drugs everywhere.... This is clear evidence that bans don't work. Name one..... Fact is that places that have bans still have gun crime. Again, my FACTS beat your opinion. Of course they are different, but the fact is the bans don't work since bans don't work. You mean like the explosives they had? Or like the guns that had that were already banned? Nonsense. Utter nonsense. A gun is not a difficult device to figure out. It is not like a criminal is going to need to take gun classes at Front Sight to shoot a person. Plus, wasn't it YOU that said just having a gun was enough to stop the attack in MS and the knife attack just last week? Just having a gun is enough to scare a person into giving you everything or letting them rape you.... and you don't need any training for that. And people find drug dealers ALL the time. These kids found someone who would buy for them, gang bangers get guns ALL the time. People in England get guns, people in Russia get guns. Again, you are wrong. Those two had WEBSITES where they talked about going on killing sprees. Really, you need to do more research before you have "expert" opinions. Machine Guns made after 1986 are illegal in the US except in special circumstances.... You can still buy them and they cost LESS than legal versions. So no... your point is not made. So, how many black market guns have you bought to come up with your data? Again nonsense. Training can help, but a gun is not a complex device. How often do you see LA gang bangers out at the range? Then you would think all the EXPLOSIVES they detonated would have made them get caught... But they didn't. Your point has dissolved right there... They did use ILLEGAL explosives and they didn't get caught. They had to drive far out into the mountains to use those illegal explosives, and they didn't get pulled over and arrested, they didn't get into an accident either. Really, you might want to read up on them a bit before you make these easy to prove false claims. Data to back up your opinion? Because the bans in Russia, Mexico, England...All don't seem to be stopping anything. In fact all three are seeing a RISE in gun crime. Military, I was one of two in my infantry unit sent to learn explosives. Several improvised devices were covered, built, and detonated. How about you? See, even you agree a ban does not work. Did you read the report, yes or no? It clearly WAS relevant. It does not seem to matter how many I bring forth.... You just continue to claim to know more than everyone else. The POLICE disagree with you. They know more than you. Actually most committed suicide when faced with armed opposition. That opposition was not always LEO and the report said that. It is clear you didn't read the report and it is also clear you have not let that stop you from claiming to "know" everything about it. Except for the fact that I actually seem to know them, and you don't. Your posts do not back that position up. My "puff" beat your ignorance into pieces. You have not provided ONE shred of data, only opinions. You clearly have ZERO knowledge of the events being discussed, nor the laws being discussed. Now if you would just do the same and actually READ UP on the events being discussed you will stop using the lame arguments you are claiming. Again, your "they are illegal and hard to get", and "they would have to drive far" argument has CLEARLY been proven false with the explosive example. And for every theory you have provided I HAVE PROVIDED ACTUAL REAL WORLD DATA THAT PROVES YOU WRONG. As long as you continue to provide ZERO data, and as long as you continue to fail to understand the ACTUAL events we are discussing... There is no point. This is just an exercise in futility... You bring nothing, I bring facts and data yet you just keep ignoring them and claiming victory. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Or, 1. He came on here once already and was bitched and yelled at so much that he just does not see the point in getting into a pissing match. If I was running for anything, the last thing I would do is talk about it in here. 2. He has not logged back in for almost a mth: Registered: Oct 1, 2003, 12:00 AM Last Login: Nov 22, 2009, 2:17 PM Posts: 9 (0.0 per day) Local Time: Dec 23, 2009, 1:32 AM Call him or email him and ask. He is not shy, but that does not mean he will be on here defending himself. My bet is he realized that getting into a pissing match online with people who are not in his district is just a waste of time and would only do more harm than good to his run. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

To buy a weapon in FL you need: Florida ID Fill out a 4473 Pass the background check/call Handgun you have to wait 3 days (5 in some areas) Unless you are an FFL, C&R, or have a CHL or are trading in another handgun. For a rifle/shotgun FLL has a 3 day wait. Some details: http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_fl.htm More info: http://www.rpfoley.com/lawyer-attorney-1225994.html Now the laws were different before May 5, 1991. And they were very different before 1968. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Seriously.... You need to actually start reading before you start claiming things. Or maybe try a RIF class. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Data to back up your comment? I don't mind not being armed.... But then again, I am a 37 year old fit male with a black belt. Still, I recognize that criminals prey on the weak and they are more likely yo attack my 70 year old father. Also, I realize that as soon as the attacker brings a gun or a buddy I am at a disadvantage. Ah, so it is better for women to be rapped and old men to be robbed than the woman or old man to be armed in your opinion? BTW, I let this go... But now I am back on it. I call BS. I LIVE in FLL and to buy ANY gun from a dealer there is a MANDATORY 3 day wait in FLL and 5 days in MIA, unless you have a FLORIDA CHL (my TX CHL would not work, and I had to get a FL Drivers License). I also lived in FL from 1980-1987, 1996-1999, 2002-2005 and having a FLORIDA DL was required all those years as well, and from May 5, 1991 to present there has been a mandatory 3 day wait except for LEO/CHL. And a ATF 4473 has been required since 1968. http://www.rpfoley.com/lawyer-attorney-1225994.html So while I did not live in FL in 2000.... The law has been in place since 1968, and a MANDATORY 3day wait has been in place since May 5, 1991. Besides, why would a you be buying a handgun in the US anyway if all you need are hunting rifles locked up hundreds of miles away? And if YOU should be allowed, why would *I* not be allowed? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334