ChangoLanzao

are they verbatim in any publicly available NRA sources? You should be able to show that without too much effort. (should you choose to do more than make assertions) I will try to do that as time allows.

So when someone wants to own a gun, at what point does a doctor or judge get to decide if that person is a "loonie"? And at what point is someone too much of a "loonie" to own a gun? (Sex addict? Bipolar? Anxiety Disorder? Homicidal Maniac?) Someone who is unstable enough that it's impossible to tell whether he is about to turn into one of those or not at any moment. Well, there ya' go, folks. That includes every single man, woman and child on the face of the earth. It could be anyone that goes "postal". Some more likely? Yes. Give the baddies and the fruitcakes guns and lock 'em up in a gang cell or Detroit. Touché! I could have worded that better

Are you suggesting that private citizens should be required to undergo psychiatric evaluation before being allowed to own guns? You didn't answer my question. I'm not exactly an expert on the military, but I do believe that they make some effort to "weed out the loons". But I think it's a little more complicated when it comes to "weeding out the loons" among the civilians who want to own guns. So maybe now you can answer my question? My point is that there IS a way to screen out the loons. I'm not an expert on the military or in psychological evaluation, but I think it needs to be done for civilians too. I don't know that it would be practical to do a full psych eval on everyone who buys a gun, but something should be done, especially for certain types of weapons that clearly are not needed for self defense. At the very least, the system should make it very difficult for a violent felon or someone who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution in the past to have firearms. The military doesn't just accept and hand out weaponry without training and evaluation to anyone who walks in off the street. Why should the City of Chicago be willing to stand by and allow unregulated gun sales to any loon who walks into a gun shop. Why should the city allow loons to open gun shops and sell guns. There has to be regulation, especially in a densely populated city. That's what Chicago is going to do and I think it makes sense.

Are you suggesting that private citizens should be required to undergo psychiatric evaluation before being allowed to own guns? You didn't answer my question.

So when someone wants to own a gun, at what point does a doctor or judge get to decide if that person is a "loonie"? And at what point is someone too much of a "loonie" to own a gun? (Sex addict? Bipolar? Anxiety Disorder? Homicidal Maniac?) Someone who is unstable enough that it's impossible to tell whether he is about to turn into one of those or not at any moment. So, anyone who posts in the Bonfire shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, since they all seem to be possible sex addicts? And nowadays, basically anyone who sets foot in a psychiatrist's office is labeled "bipolar," so I suppose that seeking psychiatric help should automatically prevent someone from owning a gun? (As if people need further discouragement from seeking help when they may need it.) Does the military track the psychiatric health of soldiers? Do they have a method of weeding out the loons? Or do they just let anyone train and carry weapons?

Phony quote. http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/niem.htm It's an interesting side note, but it is clear even from that reference that the commonly citation is a paraphasing, not a falsehood. He meant that same message. It's the reason why civil rights matter, even when it's someone you don't give a shit about being trampled. "The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco'' - mark twain. OTOH, this does appear to be a false attribution, even though the statement has a large element of truth in it. I'm sorry, there is quite a difference between paraphrasing and quoting. The former involves original thought. The latter is phony if it is not word for word actually what was said. As far as I can tell, you guys are just cut and pasting bullshit out of NRA sources.

So when someone wants to own a gun, at what point does a doctor or judge get to decide if that person is a "loonie"? And at what point is someone too much of a "loonie" to own a gun? (Sex addict? Bipolar? Anxiety Disorder? Homicidal Maniac?) Someone who is unstable enough that it's impossible to tell whether he is about to turn into one of those or not at any moment.

I await the court's decision. Once again your moral compass is wimpy, relying only upon someone else's court decisions to tell you what is right and wrong, instead of having the guts to make up your own mind and express your opinion. It's not my decision (or yours) to make. You have already shown that you put your own opinion above that of the law. I don't. We're not asking you to put yourself above the law. We're asking your opinion of what you think is right. Have the moral courage to take a stand for something. If someone ever needs your immediate help in a life or death situation, then I will pity them, for your philosophy seems to be to stand and do nothing, until some judge decides, years later, what is right. If you can't take a stand for what is clearly proper, then don't expect people to come to your aid or defense when you are victimized. "In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then, they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics. I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up." - Reverend Martin Niemoller, German Lutheran pastor arrested by the Gestapo, 1937, a decorated U-Boat skipper during WWI. Phony quote. http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/niem.htm

that's sig material right there! You betcha!

Hitler, Pol Pot and the rest had guts, you've made no valid point; guts w/o compassion and intelligence is meaningless. Prove it!

Sarah Palin for President, 2012!!!!

True... But as long as you just make BS up without anything to back it up.... Expect to get called on it. Fine ... and as long as people cut and paste phony quotes from NRA propaganda sources ... don't expect me to try to prove negatives.

A strange accusation. You are assuming that there are actually readers of SC who have been convinced by reading pages of phony quotes here. I don't actually believe that anyone here is a moron, so I really don't know what you're talking about. nice backpedal. Thanks again!

What is the source for this update? It sure sounds like a great spin on the story. This is just the kind of story that can get spun out of control (by both sides). in one thread you berate readers for not doing some simple googling yet here you're too lazy to follow your own advice. http://www.google.com/search?q=15+year+old+shot+border+patrol look... first hit. how about that http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/us/26brfs-TEENAGERSHOT_BRF.html Yes. I was a bit lazy, perhaps. But I did want to see the specific source that you had found. So ... thank you.

It's one step closer! CLICKY

A strange accusation. You are assuming that there are actually readers of SC who have been convinced by reading pages of phony quotes here. I don't actually believe that anyone here is a moron, so I really don't know what you're talking about.

So you're not interested in explanations with facts, logic and reasoning. You're just here to holler "Is to!" and "Is not!"? You're not going to convince anyone with that kind of schoolyard approach. From what I've seen, it is an exercise in futility to try to convince you of anything. I don't think most people would be convinced with stating opinion, and then failing to back it up by saying you don't have anything to prove. I think most people are convinced by following up an idea by doing their own research and convincing themselves, based on their own readings. For example, only a moron is going to be convinced by reading a page of phony quotes. Anyone can look at a list of quotes and pretty easily do their own research (making an honest attempt to find the most objective sources, of course) to find out whether they actually appear as quoted in any historical documents or whether they have been conflated and taken out of context.

What is the source for this update? It sure sounds like a great spin on the story. This is just the kind of story that can get spun out of control (by both sides).

I think you would not regret it one bit. Based on your account, the real world experience you have, coupled with a degree, should make you extremely valuable. I would not worry too much about Bolas' fear of arguing with the profs if I were you; your profs will probably be willing to hire you to work in their labs fixing stuff for them while you're in school!

So you're not interested in explanations with facts, logic and reasoning. You're just here to holler "Is to!" and "Is not!"? You're not going to convince anyone with that kind of schoolyard approach. From what I've seen, it is an exercise in futility to try to convince you of anything.

No, I understand that you want to try and tie the KKK and the NRA together to try and make you weak point stronger. Prove it, or at least admit you are unable and just running off at the mouth. You should just use this as your sig line.

It's unconstitutional for states to have their own immigration laws. really? where is that written? Use the Google.

Prove it. Because you know you are unable, you will not. I don't have to prove anything to you.

So then, since the Constitution gives the Federal government no authority to regulate guns, I take it that you also disapprove of all Federal gun laws? Your premise is wrong. Agreed.

Here's one for ya Sorry, I forgot that conservvatives have a very hard time finding objective sources on their own through the internets.