DaVinci

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. Personal attacks...Lame.

No, but I may be beginning to see your problem. You are unable to string any sentence together. See, we were discussing the "fair tax" prebate system.. Something you clearly either didn't understand, or just choose to ignore. Then I said I could support the "fair tax" system without the prebates. So me saying that I don't see how CREATING a system that has a whole bunch of folks waiting on checks is a good idea.... Seems the separation between the sentences must have thrown you off. I have tried to avoid having you stray again, by writing one long paragraph this time. If I must, if the punctuation marks still distract you, I guess I could try leaving them out as well so you will be able to stay on topic and keep up. Just let me know how I can better format my posts so you can actually understand them.

True, you want their to be a process in place BEFORE you own a gun. But, would you be OK with that SAME process to be put into place BEFORE you are allowed to vote?

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.

See, I see it a a freedom issue. I don't think it is a good idea to skydive (or any other higher risk activity) without health insurance. And I will not do it, and my wife will not either. BUT, that does not mean I think I have the right to tell YOU what YOU should do. I DO think that if you engage in a higher risk activity without health care coverage... That you should NOT expect the best care available without being willing to pay for it. That does not mean if you femur in that we just leave you there if you do not have HC... But we provide basic life saving services and not the 100k dollar rod in the leg walking in two weeks super surgery. Leg set and in a cast... You might have a limp afterward. You want the 100k surgery? Then you ask for it and you get billed for it. And you can't just claim bankruptcy and walk away from the bills. If TK and other DZO's really cared about this situation... they would REQUIRE HC to jump there. That would be fine by me. In the end it boils down to personal freedom and personal responsibility. You are free to do as you please as long as you don't hurt someone else, but that also means you are responsible for your actions. You want to wake and bake? Cool, but do not expect society to pay for your drug issues. You want to drink yourself into a stupor? Fine, but don't expect to live in a bottle and off the govts teat. You want to not pay for HC and do dangerous things? Fine, but don't expect society to pour tons of money to make sure you don't have a limp. In the end, if HC ends up like some want... Where we are single payer... then yes. I think Skydiving and every other high risk activity should be taxed to help pay for it. I think that cigarettes and booze should be taxed to help pay for those health issues. I think that beaches should be taxed to help pay for skin cancer. I think that junk food should be taxed to pay for problems with obesity. AND I think that if we have a single payer system that mandatory workout programs be created. You would HAVE to show up or you would lose your HC. This however is NOT the life I want. I do not want people meddling in my affairs and I don't want their affairs to be meddled in.... I'd much rather the individual take the initiative and not act foolish. I have friends with children that were looking for some life and disability insurance. I hooked them up with a friend in the business. They claimed that it was too expensive.... Yet I see them making 20-30 jumps a month and going on trips to the windtunnel. I know skydivers that have no HC, yet manage to go to the Nationals every year and are on a team. Both are just glaring examples of people that COULD afford health coverage, but choose not to have it. All of these people also support a single payer HC system.... any surprise?

Not really. I asked if you would be fine with it. The next sentence said "maybe" and we could discuss it later "if it comes up". "Maybe we do, but that is a specific funding issue that could be addressed when it arises (which it has not) " My question to you was simple.... would you support the 100 tax IF the money went to HC? Simple question about your position.

BRAVO... Way to take the sentence out of context. You must work really hard to distort things that much!!!!

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.

Not true. So you would be fine if the 100 dollars went to healthcare?

Exactly. So maybe the trick is to prevent the shooter with a history of mental problems from doing it... As opposed to preventing honest citizens from being allowed to carry there would be the right move? Would you approve of the SAME standard being applied to get a model rocket motor as you propose for guns? And the SAME standard to keep and use them?

Firearms are not allowed at polling stations.

I am just pointing out that you have a double standard... One standard for you, and another for anyone that is not you. I am pointing out that you are insulting anyone that would defend themselves, while you admitting to being ready to defend yourself. Again, do not blame me for your inconsistencies. True, and BOTH with the current laws should not have been allowed to posses weapons. This speaks more to the failures of Govt to govern than the laws in question. But there is no proof it would... Cho and others for example. See, you were willing to kill, yet you call me "bloodthirsty". see the issue here? Only one of us has ever stated they were in a position ready to kill someone.... And it was not me. And would I take an eval? Well I took several in the Military. But no... I think that the current process if used properly works fine. All of this is nothing more than a personal attack on me..... Pathetic. How exactly am I "enriching myself at the cost of others"????? Also, I have never said everyone should have guns. I don't think that if you don't want one, you should be forced to have one. I don't think people with criminal records should have them. I don't think people who have been judged mentally deficient should have them. So simply put... You are wrong on your BS claims about me. 1. You are the hunter with a truck. I have never hunted nor ever owned a truck. that makes you more "Bubba than me" 2. I have no gun shop. In fact, I have only ever sold one firearm in my life... to a person who needed a firearm because of a crazy person who was making threats to him. Once again, you have shown you have no idea what you are talking about and shown your hypocrisy... ie calling me a Bubba when you are the hunter with a truck.

Oh look, you can't stick to the topic and instead start the insults.... That is your issue. For a guy that is supposed to be smart, you sure debate like you are not.

Ignoring the context of the post is even more pathetic. Oh look, you made up stuff again... Kinda like where you claim I said to "Fuck Them" when I didn't.

No, just watching you dodge and avoid. kinda like you were taking tap lessons from Fred Astair.

Oh look, when out of intellectual ammo, you try to start insulting people. The fact is that you have claimed that people should have to have mental health checks, but you have not had them. You have claimed that people who want to be able to defended themselves have issues... Yet YOU were willing to do it yourself. Do not blame me that you are unable to see past your own hypocrisy.

Luckily, we already have a process in place for each example you have given. But he is trying to claim that one method does not apply to all.... Which means that just because you have to register to vote does not mean the same standard should apply anywhere else.

Out of debate tactics so soon? For the record, I have never hunted and never owned a truck. You have said you have done both. That makes you more a Bubba than me. Again, have you gone through the mental screenings you demand that others go through to own a firearm? Cause if not, then you are a hypocrite. You are also a hypocrite for saying that others that YOU THINK would defend themselves have mental issues... Yet you were ready to defend yourself with a gun yet claim you do not. Stick to a side of your own argument. Either EVERYONE should have to get a mental health screening to own a gun TO INCLUDE YOU. Or not. Either you are mentally issued for wanting to defend yourself, or you are not. But right now you are claiming that everyone BUT YOU should go through a mental health check to own a firearm. And everyone BUT YOU is crazy for wanting to be able to defend themselves. That is, by the very definition.... A Hypocrite.

right, so while you may have to register to vote, that DOES NOT mean you should have to register to own or carry a gun....

But YOU just said: "Yes I did.. but why was it up to me to defend my life or the lives of those around me... to shoot the stupid fucker dead on the spot when he was menacing with a deadly weapon.." So YOU just contradicted yourself. Or are you are a "Conservative Christian" espousing "Family Values"????? Again, YOU just said you were ready to defend yourself.... Irony score of the chart!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, I don't either since it is clear you cannot hold a position without making your own argument look silly. You want YOU to have a gun for protection without having to submit to mental health evaluations... But OTHER must submit to them. You were FINE with YOU having a gun for self defense, but you were not fine with anyone ELSE having the same right. Out of this discussion.... Only one of us has said they were ready to shoot someone.... Hint: It was not ME. Where have I ever claimed to be Christian? Or are you just making things up again? What I AM is a uniform supporter of the Bill of Rights.... You seem to only support it when it only applies to YOU. So, did you go through a mental health screening like you want others to go through? Cause if not, you are a hypocrite. I am glad you were able to defend yourself.... Shame you don't want others to have that same right.

See, exempt the items that are staples and get rid of the prebate would make me a bit more supportive. I just fail to see how handing out Govt checks each mth is a good idea.

Neither of the people listed intend to deceive. I don't remember the person Quade is bitching about.... Either Beck or Rush or someone like that.... But they NEVER claimed to have been a SEAL. The person said they were given it by one and either asked to wear it, or wore it in support of them. No one in their right mind would think Beck or Rush or whoever it was was actually a SEAL and he didn't claim to be one. Doug Forth also never claimed to be a person with a combat jump. He was also given it. I don't see a real issue with either case, but Quade posted the story to bash Rush or Beck, but he is friends with Doug who is doing the SAME THING.

So, why should YOU be allowed a weapon, but not others? Have YOU been through the psychological testing you advocate for others to own a weapon? Because you are responsible and because the supreme court has ruled the police have no duty to protect you. Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278 South v. Maryland, 59 U.S.The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws Also see DeShaney v. Winnebago County, Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, 1981) ((O)fficial police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5 (1975) The administrator of the estate of Ruth Bunnell who had been killed by her estranged husband brought a wrongful death action against the city whose police department refused to respond to her call for protection some 45 minutes before her death. Mrs. Bunnell had called the police to report that Mack Bunnell had called saying he was on his way to her home to kill her. She was told to call back when Mack Bunnell arrived. Davidson v. City of Westminister, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252 (1982) (A husband and wife who were assaulted in a laundromat while the assailant was under surveillance by officers There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones." That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that "the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole." So, why do YOU have to be ready to protect yourself and your loved ones? 1. Because you are a responsible person. 2. Because the Police have no duty yo protect you individually. 3. Because the Police cannot be everywhere. 4. Because the Supreme Court has said , "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones." Yet, only one here was ready to actually do it... YOU. So who is the nutter, the person YOU THINK would do it, or the person who YOU KNOW was READY to do it? Seems you are fine owning weapons without YOU going through the process you seem to want OTHERS to go through. That is the very definition of hypocrisy. So, have you been through the mental evaluations you claim everyone should go through? For one, I am GLAD you were armed and ready to protect yourself.... It is shame you only want that same level of protection for you and you alone.

Doug Forth has a set of mustard jump wings... Do you also consider him to be a disrespectful, dishonest, P.O.S???