DaVinci

Your idea of "fair" does not seem to jive with reality. So if you and your wife have a car and I need one it is "fair" to take one of yours?

So take the 750.00 voucher and get a cheap American made gun... Like a DPMS AR. But given the choice of a 750.00 AK (Yugo) or a 750.00 AR (DPMS).... I'll take the AK. They run very well, you can treat them like crap and they still run very well. I used to buy 1k rounds of 7.62 X 39 for 75 dollars. 1k rounds of 5.56 X 45 runs about 300.00 Now I don't shoot it much, but it is tons of fun to just blast away at stuff and not think twice about the price.

When you think that when it comes to guns and guns alone it is fine to require a person to submit to testing BEFORE they have done anything wrong, but would be up in arms if that same standard was applied to any other right.... Yes, you are showing a double standard.

No one forced you to buy a house. No one forced you to buy a house that cost more than you thought it was worth. YOU decided the house was 'priced right'. Then YOU bought it.

I don't think the Govt should be allowed to tell you that you may not do something that does not intentionally hurt anyone else. For example, the crash in Reno..... While tragic there are people calling for air races to be banned to "save lives". If a person wants to take a 2.5m airplane and race around some cones.... Fine. If people want to go watch, also fine. If either the pilot or the spectators are so stupid as to not realize the danger of doing it, or being there.... Well..... It was not that long ago that the ATF tried to prevent you from having model rocket motors..... Why should the Govt be allowed to say you can't fly model rockets just because THEY don't see the point? The Govt should stay the hell out of most of an individuals choices as long as those choices only affect the individual making them. Wanna smoke and eat HoHo's all day???? Fine, but don't expect me to pay for your bad choices. Wanna skydive without health insurance? OK, but don't expect me to pay your health care expenses when you break your leg, and don't get upset that you don't get the BEST care.

Or they might just assume something like "Skydivers are suicidal". And someone that has seen a person get shot does not automatically become depressed and need meds.... Yet, I have seen docs try to make that claim. Yet, we have seen Dr's be wrong. The difference between us is that I am willing to protect the individuals freedom when not sure where you seem to be willing to remove it when not sure. The sad thing is you seem to only hold this position when it comes to guns.

From your posts and your posts on this subject in particular.

The 25-30% number is for mortgage, taxes and insurance. The 8% was considering those same costs.

Still waiting for you to show where I said "Fuck them"

A guy that you THINK it suicidal. You advocate removing one type of their property that and has been used to commit suicide. Another object that can and has been used to commit suicide you ignore. You can't see the issue there? You are willing to remove one object, but willing to overlook the other. Personally... If I thought someone was on suicide watch, I'd remove everything that would assist them. You seem to only be willing to remove ONE type of object.

It is not anyone's fault but yours you bought more than you could afford. I ran the numbers...... Traditional knowledge is that around 25-30% of your take home pay should be for housing.... Mine is 8% Don't blame anyone but yourself that you overspent.

Bingo. I think people have the rights in the Constitution till they prove they should not have the right. The bad part is those that advocate that a person have to go to a therapist before they can own a gun (and some try to claim every few years to prove they should be allowed to keep it) would NEVER suggest that a person have to go to a therapist before being allowed to vote, or get a drivers license. Some military therapist just automatically assume that you have a condition after certain events. That is just total BS. Some therapists see skydiving as proof of insanity. I don't want someone with a bias like some on here have being in charge of my freedoms.

Well, most of us said we don't think you should be allowed to take away a persons right without due process.... Something you seemed then, and still, have a problem understanding. The CGA of 1968 made it illegal for a person who was 'insane' to own a weapon. You seem to think that pretty much anyone should be allowed to declare a person unfit, while I tend to think it should be a Dr. You seem to think a person should have to prove he is not insane, while not providing that same level of scrutiny to any other freedom in the Constitution BTW, while I tend to think it is the responsibility of the State to prove he is not capable. A subtle difference where some of us think a person has a right TILL they have been through a process to remove that right, while you want to make a person prove they are capable BEFORE they can exercise that right. While your position is not unusual, it is strange that it only seems to apply to guns and not any other freedom in the Constitution.

To be fair, they also agree with aborting a perfectly healthy baby.

Actually, we are not. We don't think the Govt should have control over our lives. So, I don't think a Govt should mandate that I do X,Y, or Z.... I also do not think they should mandate that they make YOU do X,Y, or Z. So I don' think the Govt should be involved in providing HC, or mandating that group "X" pays more. Would you be OK with the Govt saying that anyone who skydives pay a higher rate than a non-jumper?

Well, he failed right there...... Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million live with a serious illness caused by smoking (CDC numbers).

Then using your own logic, a person should not be allowed to drive to a bar.... after all, they may get drunk and drive home. Still waiting on your to answer what "to bear" means and that voting is not a right, BTW....... Fact is you dislike the idea of anyone carrying a gun in a situation that you do not trust YOURSELF. You admit to being in several bar fights.... So you don't like the idea of anyone having a gun since if you had it YOU might have used it... And that you don't want to face a gun with a gun when you are in a fight. That speaks to you and your fears.

Fact is that the guy that has a gun has a much better of surviving an attacker that has a gun if he has one than if he is unarmed. So the hit percentage is really not that important. Take the Walgreens case. The BG jumped over a counter and pulled the trigger THREE times while pointing a gun at a guy. The guy pulled his own gun and while all three of his shots missed, the BG's ran out of the store as fast as they could. So even while the good guy missed, the act of having a gun and shooting it changed the outcome and got the BG's to run away. I still call that a victory even with a zero hit rate.

And a bar is also the kinda place where drinking and then getting into a car has a higher chance of happening. But in the case of the car, we ban the ACT of driving under the influence. In the case of the gun you want to ban the object. Why not either ban both objects at bars, or ban both acts? This just goes to show an anti gun bias.... Both driving under the influence and carrying a gun is bad... But In one case, you want to ban the act. The other you want to ban the object.

No, your point is that you would want to disarm a suicidal person... But you would let them still have many methods to kill themselves. Personally, if I thought a guy was suicidal.... I'd work to remove ANY method, not just guns. (and yes, I have done it as well). I can think of several examples that proves you wrong.

Really???? Article I, Section II, Clause I: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." How do you think they are chosen by the people? The U.S. Constitution stated in Amendment XV, which was ratified by the states in 1870: "Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The RIGHT of WHO to do WHAT again? The U.S. Constitution stated in Amendment XVII, which was ratified by the states in 1913: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures." The U.S. Constitution stated in Amendment XIX, which was ratified by the states in 1920: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. The U.S. Constitution stated in Amendment XXIV, which was ratified by the states in 1964: "Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax." Again... REALLY???? The SC has ruled it is an INDIVIDUAL right. And the phrase "The People" is in several amendments.... Do you think that "the people" does not apply as an individual in the 4th? "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." So, the SC HAS ruled it is an individual right. And "to bear" means "to carry" by pretty much any dictionary.

Where did I say to "fuck them"?????

And somehow it is impossible for a person to protect himself if he were in a bar? This thread was not about them... Brandishing is illegal in pretty much all states. It is in the Bill of RIGHTS... Keep and BEAR arms. "Bear" means "to carry". Show me where the right to drive in in the Bill of Rights? Show me where a hunting license is in the Bill of Rights. Is getting married a right? Then why do you need a marriage license? You clearly have not read the 2nd Amendment. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Re-read his post and try again.... You missed the topic by a mile. This was not about serial numbers or vin numbers. Again, he asked a question and then he answered it later unknowingly. You should READ before posting.

Yes, it is hard to tell when you say something and then when called out on it later claim it to have been a joke because you can't defend your earlier position. So, a simple question. Should a non-prohibited person in CA be allowed to carry a concealed weapon?