rhaig

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

yet it has also been attacked. Even using the NCVU's numbers of 100K DGU's per year, you would rather see those 100K people become victims of violent crime? Based on FBI crime stats about 1.214% of the violent crimes in 2011 were murders. So would you rather see 1214 people dead, and 98,785 people raped robbed and assaulted? -- Rob

Your memory is faulty, that is NOT what I wrote. I told you not to be a total jackass, and that even you (with your warped sense of what was right) should see that it was an irresponsible act. You responded completely tangentially indicating you are a complete jackass and that you don't see publishing those locations as an irresponsible act. -- Rob

This is exactly what happened to my brother. JerryBaumchen That is the way that "legal" guns fall into the hands of criminals. Those responsible, law abiding gun owners make it easy for the criminals. Guns are in the top 3 favorite targets of burglars. and yet you're OK with a list of gun owners being published. You want to make it easier for criminals to steal guns. hypocrite. -- Rob

which other of the amendments are you willing to discard for the "greater good"?? -- Rob

Those laws should be made at the state level as they already are in many states. If a state wants to make that a law, I have no problems with that. Sale of private property between private individuals should not (in my opinion) be overseen by any branch of the government, but should a state decide that they should make a law regarding said transfers, that is of the powers "reserved to the states or the people." -- Rob

more likely, you'll sell the other two, pay nothing for the third and have enough left over to buy cases and cases of ammo. -- Rob

so let's make a law against it. or better yet... ban sales all together. Hold on... I need to go buy some pot and some meth. -- Rob

ASS-ume whatever you like. You know what they say about ass-umptions. Newspapers do what they do. It is their right. yep... they make an ASS out of U and ME. I already know I'm ass. Now you know you are too :) -- Rob

Right, we'll be invaded just like Canada and Australia. Iraq, which was awash with guns, never got invaded. Good theory that. The only invasion I'd expect once the guns were pulled from US homes is home invasion robberies. Note the increase in home invasion robberies in .au post their gun "buyback". I won't quote any numbers as you wouldn't trust any source I came up with, you'd accuse me of using a slanted source or cherry-picking data rather than refute with your own data. You've become predictable in your old age. -- Rob

Currently legal firearms will all of a sudden be illegal unless registered, and there will be a grace period where they will have to be registered and (likely) have the additional tax paid. This registration process involves local law enforcement and will, as such, put an undue strain on their personnel and paperwork processing time costing them extra money. -- Rob

so not declaring this an irresponsible act, I'll assume the first part of my previous statement was true (which we all pretty much knew around here anyway). -- Rob

don't be a total jackass... even your warped sense of right should see this is an irresponsible act. -- Rob

and in response, the names addresses and phone numbers of the columnist who wrote the article, president of the paper, editors of the paper, and CEO of the parent company have also been published online. I wonder whose lawyers will win. Oh wait... the lawyers always win, and the clients always lose. -- Rob

don't forget about charges for the poor sap(s) that purchased it, transported it, and gave it to him. Charges for them too. unless of course it's defended under freedom of the press... in any case, it will be interesting to see what happens here. -- Rob

Take those vocabulary lessons yet? and another veiled PA. This thread is rife with them. -- Rob

making popcorn ... This should be good. -- Rob

Yeah. Please help us out on that one. Obama Derangement Syndrome. I've seen plenty of that in his supporters as well as his detractors. -- Rob

So the loonies will then target donut shops! but think of the children!!! -- Rob

When weather being climate suits him, that's what it is. When it's the other way around he pulls out the whip. -- Rob

I was speaking with our school principal this morning. She mentioned that all the building security won't stop the phoned in bomb threat that empties the building. Then the crazy drives his car through the crowd and/or gets out and starts shooting. -- Rob

It does, however, prevent it from being sold openly at Walmart, which is not nothing. Lemme ask you something, how much meth do you have in your house right now? I assume none. So drive the sales of these banned guns into the dark where there will be no regulation, no background check, nothing but an exchange of cash. That's what you're proposing then. -- Rob

Almost all of the discussion I have heard on this topic is around eliminating the access to guns by people with a mental disorder. To me that seems like treating the symptom, not the root cause. We glorify violence to such a degree, that people with a mental disorder think it's a way to get their 15min of fame while they suicide by cop (or their own weapon). The acceptability of violence is part of the problem. The AWB is not the answer. A small percentage of murders are committed with rifles. The AWB as it was written and has been proposed, does not address but a small percentage of those rifles even. Look at our rates of murder by beating, or stabbing, or "other weapon". All are higher than murder (this goes back to the glorification of violence). Mental health care. We don't have any anymore. Not really. But discussing mental health isn't as politically charged as discussing gun bans. So nobody talks about it. In my way of thinking, glorification of violence, and the lack of mental health care are the two major factors. Putting limits on the general public because of our neglect of a subset of that public is wrong on a few different levels. Mainly the fact that it means continued neglect on the subset of the public that needs help. And really... don't bother talking about wanting to allow hunting. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. -- Rob

make sure you clean out your ears when you pull your head out of the sand. -- Rob

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/worldwide-reactions-to-the-ipcc-ar5-leak/ interesting info out of the IPCC -- Rob