DaVinci

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    3,518

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by DaVinci

  1. DaVinci
    Bob, the question is WOULD YOU SUPPORT REMOVING THOSE OTHER RIGHTS USING THE SAME PROCESS? And there is CURRENTLY a process to remove a persons right to keep and bear arms, Bob. I see it, I asked a simple question about using the SAME process to remove other rights. So, again the simple question was: Would you approve of using the SAME PROCESS you want to remove a persons right to firearms for the other rights? Again, SAME process, OTHER rights? Well, Bob?
  2. DaVinci
    Upset because you know you would not even be in the running?
  3. DaVinci
    It is what you do best.... So maybe you see it all the time due to your own inclination?
  4. DaVinci
    It will help more than not doing it. It will help more than not doing it. It will help more than not doing it. Just raising taxes on the "Rich" won't solve the debt problem And taxes will have to be raised... But only an idiot would raise taxes before trying to cut spending. This congress has shown they will spend even when they do not have the money.... so just handing them more money will not cut spending... And spending needs to be cut.
  5. DaVinci
    So if you have two cars and Bob has none, he IS fine to take yours?
  6. DaVinci
    Would you propose the same standards for voting and free speech? If not, then there is an inconstancy in your position. Would this include his skydiving rig? Would it include his car? Would it include all the knives in his house? Baseball bats? And you tried to claim mine was that anyone insane should be allowed to have a gun. So, simple question.... Would you approve of this SAME process to remove any of the other Constitutional rights? Voting? Free Speech? Religion? Protection from Illegal search? Right to a fair trial? Right to confront witnesses? Trial by jury? Protection from Cruel and Unusual punishments? Removing rights without due process?
  7. DaVinci
    No, it goes to show that the Govt makes mistakes. "err on the side of what is prudent"....... Well, yes.... I am unwilling to remove a right defined in the Constitution without due process. the thing is I am that way with ALL the rights.... you seem to be only OK with one right being limited... As you say "err on the side of prudent". You would not accept a mental evaluation before someone had the right to free speech would you? It is an affront when someone goes off the deep end. I also see it as an affront when well meaning people piss on the Constitution whenever they don't like it. BTW, when this nutter was acting... well, nutty. Did you have a gun to protect yourself?
  8. DaVinci
    WOW, you must be old
  9. DaVinci
    The "fair tax" creates the LARGEST govt payout program in the WORLD in the form of "Pre-bates" If it did not have that, it if did not INCREASE the size of the govt and INCREASE the number of people waiting each month on a handout... I might have gotten behind it.
  10. DaVinci
    Why do you not have this comment when talking about other industries?
  11. DaVinci
    Yes, do you have friends that own guns?
  12. DaVinci
    The difference between a bench shooter and a guy that likes to run and gun. I can't stand sitting in a bench with the gun on sandbags and trying to punch the same hole over and over in the paper target. I much prefer to set up multiple targets and hit them while moving and in teams. To each his own. Also, people who I take out shooting WANT to shoot the "AK". They hear so much about them that they want to try them out. People enjoy it more than my MP5SD. Uh, the AK is one tough SOB. If I had to choose an M16 or an AK in a swamp.... I'd take the AK.
  13. DaVinci
    75/K, not M. And it was a place called "Academy". They had some kind of issue and accidentally ordered WAY too much 7.62 X 39. I was told they were selling it for 75/k and went in to buy 2k. The sales person asked (almost begged) if I would take more. I ended up leaving with something like 6k rounds. I gave 1k rounds to a buddy of mine and kept the rest. I still have 4k rounds left.
  14. DaVinci
    No, I defend YOUR right to be armed so you will not be a helpless victim to this kind of nutter. I hope you were well protected while that guy lived in your area..... I also want that same type of protection available to other honest citizens. The lack of police action for so long should go to show that they are not there to protect you. Just because some nutter scared you.... That does not give you the right to disarm someone else.
  15. DaVinci
    Still waiting on this BTW: Especially in light of this: Article I, Section II, Clause I Amendment XV Amendment XVII Amendment XIX Amendment XXIV And still waiting on you to explain where you got your definition of "bear" as in "to keep and BEAR arms"
  16. DaVinci
    Ah, I get it... I never said it and you just claimed I did.
  17. DaVinci
    Sounds like you should have waited till you had 20% for a down payment.
  18. DaVinci
    Nope..... Read the GCA of 1968. What I hear YOU saying is that a person should have to submit to the board BEFORE they can own a gun. What I am saying a person is free to exercise their rights UNTIL proven they are not able to act of a sound mind. You would not accept a board vote before a person was allowed to vote... You would not accept a board to see if a person is allowed to exercise the right to free speech.... Yet you advocate when it comes to gun rights to demand mental evaluations just to own one or to carry one. Why the inconstancy?
  19. DaVinci
    They matter. It is the difference between having a right, or having to EARN a right. OK, but that is a failure of the Govt, just like Cho the VT shooter. He was also not eligible to own a firearm. The Columbine shooters were also not legal to own the weapons they had either. But the basic idea of you have rights till they are taken away VS. You have to earn your rights is a very valid discussion.
  20. DaVinci
    That is not "fair" that is "easy" The fairest is a poll tax.... but that is not really workable. The next is a flat rate tax based on govt expenditures. You take the years projected expenses and calculate the rate each individual over the age of 18 would have to pay to pay off the projected debt. So anything earned from 1 dollar to 1B dollars would be taxed at the same *rate*. That way each individual person has to pay SOMETHING.
  21. DaVinci
    Impossible, but more logical than your approach. Easy, prevent them from going to them. (Kinda like how I would not let a suicidal person go to the DZ to jump). Poison is just as easy, hanging is just as easy.... Yet you don't mention taking the persons shoelaces. Just admit you don't like guns and are against people owning them and looking for any reason to prevent them from owning them..... I'd have much more respect for you if you were honest.
  22. DaVinci
    For once it would be nice if you tried to have a real discussion instead of your normal posts. BTW, Running a red light has killed innocents Doing 100 in a school zone has killed innocents Drunk Driving has killed innocents Air races over congested areas has killed innocents. See you ignore the post and attack one small part. It is pathetic and called a strawman, BTW.
  23. DaVinci
    Yes, those kinda acts do make a person loose credibility. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4007047;search_string=SEAL;#4007047 BTW still waiting for an answer there
  24. DaVinci
    Still waiting for you to answer honestly.
  25. DaVinci
    No, but gun ownership did increase last year. The number of States that granted the right to carry went up as well. So, you may not be able to say the increase in guns and gun rights was responsible for the drop in crime.... But you can say that the increase in guns and gun rights didn't increase crime at all. Higher number of guns clearly didn't increase the crime rates.