georgerussia

Prove it. Show us those examples. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It looks like you're trying to compare apples with oranges. Your numbers say nothing about how many of those 40% are robbers. Not a big deal. The whole fuss about it was exactly because too many people noticed that - and, I guess, they didn't look with the same scrutiny as a robber would. Cops tend to carry loaded guns, and represent something significantly different comparing to average Joe with a gun. It is backup (including legal and financial) and a lot of other things average Joe simply doesn't have. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You probably missed what exactly we were talking about. I suggest you follow up the thread back to the post #47. To make it clear, it was NOT about gun owners preventing crimes against themselves, it was about situation when a gun owner saved those that were against guns or open carry. And if you want to introduce something as the evidence, have the courtesy to provide links. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Indeed it would be naive to expect 100% compliance with the gun ban. But it does not matter. History shows that the law compliance rate is typically large enough to provide significant reduction in gun crime. For most people their guns would not be worth spending a year in federal prison. Technically by doing so you would be abandoning them, so I'm not even sure it would be considered breaking the law. But what is the point? This way you wouldn't be able to use them for self-defense against criminals, and even taking care of those guns would be quite risky (a chance to get noticed while excavating or burying them, a chance to be stopped by cops while driving them back, cleaning them up carefully not to leave fingerprints and so on) so I don't think a number of people doing so would be significant enough. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It also tastes weird. Virtually everyone I talked to from recent European immigrants also said that. It is hard to explain how "too sweet" should feel, but that's the way we explain it. We only buy sweets from Trader Joe (where they use sugar instead). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

As I said, I had no idea it was actually "protest". If you look through comments, pretty much nobody else seen it as "protest" either as it wasn't obvious what they protest against. Why? Another place may have another one. Much easier to ask those open carriers with unloaded guns to drop them on the floor (and shot them if they don't). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

My point there was that there are NO fewer voters in Richmond - there are more. Since their voters are equal in election, and votes are only useful during election, this is all that matters. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Not to mention some little things about his past like going AWOL from National Guard or being busted for drunk driving. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Indeed, you're one of very reasonable gun owners here, and you obviously deserve a well-though answer. It depends on how it is implemented. Yours is kinda on extreme side (although it was done exactly like that in a post-war Russia). For example, it might start with a regular postal mail saying something like that we have information that you have illegal guns, and you're offered a chance to surrender them by paying a small $500 fine and avoiding any criminal charges. I guess a lot of people would take that. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So you're admitting you lied? Good! And I wish you took some English classes where they would explain you what "present indefinite" means, and that a phrase like "I believe in God" or "I do not read dropzone.com" describe _current_ situation, do not mean a promise and say nothing about future (which may change tomorrow). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That was you who introduced the criteria "haven't done anything no harm anyone". A drunk driver by this definition is fine unless he harms anyone. So are drug dealers - if two grown-up adults do a drug deal, how does it harm anyone else? How does illegal gambling, which you conveniently skipped? This is your speculation. If the law making gun ownership illegal passes (which is the hypothetical situation we are discussing), owning guns will be as illegal as owning drugs now. Why should be any difference there? So why do we have Supreme Court and all those procedures in place if you think it is completely fine for people to start shooting everyone trying to enforce any law which you think is against Constitution? And how do you know that YOUR interpretation of Constitution is correct? Do you have a legal degree at all (esp. in Constitutional law?) I didn't say you do. Read what you reply to before claiming something like that. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

And as usual, you only answered with rants and claims and did not provide any proof you said you did. Where is your proof that the gun crime in UK is going up as you claimed here that you provided "OVER AND OVER"? I explicitly requested it, and you replied to everything in my post except this request. So you're admitting that you lied, and that you did not provide anything like that. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, dude, this is relevant. You claimed that a phrase "with a potential to be stopped for a violation or got into accident" mean "they should have been be stopped" (and even went so far as claiming you "proved me 100% wrong"). This is also despite the obvious rationale that in any subjective matter nobody can ever be 100% right or 100% wrong, and it is just brazen to claim that. You also claimed that a phrase "I just ignore Ron posts" mean "I will ignore Ron's posts forever" because it does not contain any reference to a time frame. And now you are saying that my questions whether the phrase "I believe in God" according to you should mean "I will always believe in God" following the same rule is irrelevant, and that is why you ignored it? This is extremely lame attempt to admit your failure, which is obvious to everyone. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, reasonable people understand that it is not possible to prove a hypothetical situation, and they typically do not ask for a "proof". Those who do are either completely unreasonable, or are trying to score lame points. Lame point. Good for you. Now do you remember that I was explicitly talking about DURING WWII? Of course you do - that's why all the time you're providing information about things which happened BEFORE WWII! An attempt to reduce gun crime by reducing guns works very well in Europe and NYC. It is foolish to argue otherwise with all the facts being presented. "I have already proven you're wrong! You just do not have balls to admit it!" * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This is a reasonable question for which you didn't even provide an ANSWER. Yet again you already claimed that you "proved" something. So naive. Guns are not that big in Europe either, and definitely are much harder to find comparing to baseball bats (which are legally sold). This does not explain anything. I have NEVER seen a valid proof that the violent crime rate in UK is going up. You are saying you provided it? Reply with a link to your post where you did it. You can't? Then you didn't provide it, you just lied about it. What you _provided_ is just brazen bragging and groundless claims like above. Everything else is just your lies. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Unlike you - who keeps skipping 3rd time in a row the relevant example of your own screw-ups - I admit when I do. This is not the case though. Look on yours first. You claimed that a phrase "with a potential to be stopped for a violation or got into accident" mean "they should have been be stopped" (and even went so far as claiming you "proved me 100% wrong"). This is also despite the obvious rationale that in any subjective matter nobody can ever be 100% right or 100% wrong, and it is just brazen to claim that. You also claimed that a phrase "I just ignore Ron posts" mean "I will ignore Ron's posts forever" because it does not contain any reference to a time frame. And you repeatedly ignored my questions whether the phrase "I believe in God" according to you should mean "I will always believe in God" following the same rule. It seems your English needs work. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The law says that the votes ARE equal. Everything else is your speculation in attempt to avoid admitting that you screwed up saying there are fewer voters in Richmond. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Do you claim to have presented any relevant evidence? Before answering please follow up the thread, and read what kind of evidence we're talking about - so you wouldn't bring something completely irrelevant again, as you often do. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Who do you think a robber would shot the first in such a case? I bet it would be the person(s) who open carry. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Easy. The jury of your peers would decide if you were negligent (and therefore guilty), or you took all reasonable steps to secure your guns from criminals, and therefore not guilty :) * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You already live in such society where citizens who haven't done anything to harm anyone are rounded up and thrown in jail. Well, maybe they just bought or sold some illegal drugs, maybe they drank too much before driving home on suspended license without insurance, or participated in some illegal gambling - but they didn't harm anyone! When the guns are illegal, it is irrelevant. I have never heard the DEA to pay compensation while seizing illegal drugs from someone. I see no reason to compensate for illegal guns either. For those voluntarily surrendered, however, it makes sense to pay compensation. Not a big real. Are you saying that those "law-abiding gun owners" are only going to abide the laws they like, and as soon as there is a law they don't like, they're going to use violence to oppose it by committing crimes against the government employees whose duty is to uphold the law? This doesn't sound at all like a law-abiding person! I'm not expecting YOU to take me (or anyone else who screams about their pro-gun stance in every post) seriously. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

My point is that carrying a loaded gun at least makes sense "to protect themselves". Carrying unloaded gun? No really different than carrying a strap-on - just to seek attention. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It may be, or may be not, depending on how well you secured your guns. For example, having them on a table near the window with an open window is a good example of such negligence. Note that there are cases where the law punishes the victim for not being negligent enough to protect their possessions, even if the possessions got stolen by means of crime (for example, health or financial information). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Could you point out a few cases like you describe - when "a gun owner saved others (those against guns) because of some thug coming in to rob this place"? That is exactly what you mentioned here, and this is what I'm interested in. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Bush would never do that!. What a shame! * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *