warpedskydiver

YET ANOTHER STRAW MAN. No-one has suggested repealing the 2nd Amendment. The suggestion is properly enforcing existing restrictions on the mentally disturbed. Since you're so worried about checking, are you mentally disturbed? No but I am disturbed about those who seem to want to take away the rights of others based on whims and innuendos. If you are a medical professional and in fact are licensed by the AMA please tell us. If you are an authority on mental issues that would related to any psychological reason for a person to be denied their right please do tell. Otherwise your opinion is that of someone who would merely want to deny others their rights. Would you like some yellow paint to mark the doors of those you deem unworthy?

I merely asked a question so I may ascertain why the poster that IS NOT YOU, is so vehemently against gun ownership. Please try and read questions pertaining to yourself and maybe answer those. Instead of you two covering for each other like a couple of Mexican professional wrestlers dressed up in flamboyant costumes.

I have an idea, you could move to a place hwere guns are not allowed. Since you cannot get the second amendment repealed why not do the next best thing if you have such strong convictions? Speaking of convictions are you perhaps a felon?

Maybe you should stay inside and build a panic room to keep you safe.

Are you certain that what they endure is worse than the treatment they would have received elsewhere? No I think prisoners deserve the treatment they receive for the acts perpetuated. When it comes down to it the CIA has acted far better than the so called Civilized nations who have screamed about the so called torture.

The economic damage he was willing to sign will damage us for the next 50 years. As for giving him a chance, were you so willing to give any other president a chance if he were not a liberal? I guess you feel that Obama repealing welfare reform and applying it on the basis of race is fine. Call it reparations, but don't lie about what it is meant to do. Providing generational welfare is about making sure a voting block is entirely dependent upon the party.

Goodness gracious, forced shaving and threats of rape. Good thing they were not sent to Cook County Jail huh? How will they ever recover?

Facebook?

Para Ordnance and combat Tupperware owners might disagree. A full sized P15 .45 holds 17 rounds in its fat little belly with +2 magazine floor plates . Glock people can get an aftermarket model-18 like magazine which nets 25 rounds of .45 hanging out the bottom of their gun. But then they can't have arms like a broomstick

Extra virgin Uranus? California calls those VISITORS

Slob, Quade and Jerryzflies are all ok with prosecuting anyone they do not agree with, eroding civil rights(except their own) and arresting anyone they deem dangerous regardless of the actual evidence required to do so. EXCEPT WHEN IT IS THEM OR THEIR RIGHTS BEING INFRINGED. Thomas Jefferson might have just beaten them into pulp for offering to give away everything he fought so hard for us to retain.

No, Uranus is cooling and yes that's mooning

Give him a chance and you will see he is just another player from the same team. He is just a damned salesman and you are falling for it.

The book Red Hot Lies, Christopher C. Horner. Regnery Publishing, Inc.; ISBN: 1596985380. Is a very good book and carefully illustrates the hoax that is being perpetuated upon the world. So far it has cost over $8,000,000,000,000 and there seems to be no end in sight.

I accept that some believe that - wouldn't be fun if we all thought the same.... but compared to the last one (who really did do loads of damage and not only to America!!). OB looks for now to be doing O.K. Also it's worth remembering that OB did NOT get the country into the state that it currentloy is - someone((s) else did but he at least is trying to fix it. Oh you mean he just got into elected office? Did you forget he was a senator during the fiasco that caused the crisis? He was also against welfare reforms.

His mental stability. After so many issues, somewhere along the line he should have been mentally disqualified. Or do you disagree? Then that's not a problem with gun laws. It's a problem with prosecutors not taking appropriate action. Do you want something like a three-strikes law, whereby three non-felony violent encounters with police would suffice to disqualify someone from gun ownership? I might go for something like that, depending upon what kind of misdemeanors are included. I don't want people with a history of violence to have guns But I don't want non-violent petty crimes to be a disqualifier either. Someone who shoplifted when he was young and dumb ought to still be able to go duck hunting later in life. How come I have to come up with these ideas? You anti-gun folks are supposed to be doing this. But all I hear from them are whining and meaningless generalities. wash out your mouth with soap John Rich. Non felonies and you want to use that as a measure to restrict a right? Two kids in school can get a couple misdemeanors just getting into a fist fight. I was in 82 fights in the eight grade alone, it was a pretty messed up school and if you could not defend yourself you would be beaten into a pulp. (Busing was supposed to be the best thing that was ever devised to ensure all kids were exposed to other cultures and people of other races, no matter what the cost. that was another liberal failure) Would that be enough to restrict my rights? I know you probably said so out of being tired and frustrated by misdemeanors don't mean squat. People get misdemeanors now for what was commonplace to get a warning for just two decades ago.

Whatever, just admit you are against the right of the people to keep and bear arms and it will all be settled. I bet you long for the day that you can restrict any right you disagree with, unless it restricts your own rights of course. You are willing to throw away our freedom for your own sense of safety.

I've already stood behind my statements several times and explained precisely what was intended. I don't need to play games of misquoting people. I'll leave that to you. You should try it on people that don't remember what they write. Maybe it will work on them. Quit dodging, you said it, now defend it. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3532315;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;#3532845 also see http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3532315;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;#3533461 Come on now it is easy enough for you to say it, now defend it.

Let's examine post #8 and post # 24 and see how it is we are taking your statements out of context. By all means explain how licensing a right is ok with you and restricting the right to own "anything that can be used to lay in wait in order to kill" is ok with you. Refer to the post and explain it.

keep dancing, you are so good at it. What you said it is in the post, if you like I can refer you back to that portion of this thread where yous statement is and what it replied to. Or would you rather just stand up to your statement and quit playing games?

Are you willing to have those same restrictions placed on your right to speak, or vote, or any other right?

Your statement stood on it's own, regardless of the discussion at hand. It was a blanket statement or otherwise you would have chosen the words you really wanted to use. Or would you like to say that you really did not mean what you said? You can't have it both ways.

He and quade are on the same team, along with kallend er "captain slob"

Yes. Because after all, that is what I said. I'm fine restricting any rights you can find that can be used by people laying in wait to kill cops. Again, go for it. Show me one. Uh . . . no. Well tell me which guns your statement does not pertain to.

What's your proposal? I doubt you'd like my proposal. I guess it surprises me that you defend the right of nutters to own guns, when they bring such discredit on gun owners in general. What's your proposal? Whether I like it or not is immaterial. If you have an idea you think will work, put it out here for everyone to review. Do you have the faith in your idea to do that? You like to sit back and snipe at everything gun owners say - do you have the guts to put forth your ideas and stand up and defend it? I don't defend the rights of nuts to own guns. If they've been judged mentally incompetent, I don't want them to have guns. That's the current law, and I agree with that. Nuts bring no discredit upon normal law-abiding gun owners whatsoever. They do not represent gun owners in general. The fact that you equate the two as somehow being connected shows that you have an irrational and unwarranted bias in the matter. There have been a number of proposals suggested here over the last few years. You (plural) always dismiss them as infringing on some supposedly absolute right, and then pretend they never were made. A common-sense proposal is to require something stronger than self-certification of sanity when buying a gun. Kallend it is OK for you to come out of the closet.