How many innocent lives are your guns worth?

[Flaming Pie]

People sell to others (without keeping or checking records) all the time. HERRO?

 

[gagekko]

Norway has some of the toughest gun controls in the world - Didn't stop someone from killing 77 people (33 of which were under eighteen). To say America will be gun free is a fantasy... Bad shit happens in life, would everyone feel better if the school was blown up instead?

 

[Dr Kynes]

Because no law in the world can stop you from selling me anything. And it has gotten so that we will simple ignore all this, like when they tried to ban alcohol. We think it is already beyond reasonable.

You ideas of reason, don't withstand the first link in the logic train. Your ideas of law abiiding is a moving target, so you've srewed that, also.
To ask us to be "even more reasonable" when the crime rate is heading down is stupid. It is a tempest in a tea pot. It is Agenda to disarm civilians. No good.

The 2nd has already warned us. So, now you are beginning to arouse the sleeping giant, the Heartland. They don't have to time to sort your specious arguments. Your dilettante persuasions. Your temper tantrums. The have no patience for your clear intentions to disarm us. It doesn't matter what you proven Sophists have to say.

They, like the Taliban sees us all, are beginning to wonder it would be better if you insurrectionists were dead in a ditch. Now you have two groups after you.

pish.

flyover country is irrelevant.
new york washington miami chicago boston los angeles san francisco.
thats where america lives.

oh wonderful for rent control
for amber rocks of crack
the purple pimpmobile's majesty
and empty bodega's racks
Harlem Harlem, Al Sharpton shed his Perm for thee.
and drowned thy hood in crime for good
with gangs as far as you can see!

we should all strive to reach the glorious examples set by new york.

 

[Doer]

Exactly. The facts are there to find. I've posted plenty. There is no gun control problem. It should give these Gestapo types pause when they see NBC lying about AR-15s. But, then I realize NBC was co-opted long ago.


It is now the Gestapo cheerleader along with MSNBC.

 

[st0wandgrow]

Because no law in the world can stop you from selling me anything. And it has gotten so that we will simple ignore all this, like when they tried to ban alcohol. We think it is already beyond reasonable.

You ideas of reason, don't withstand the first link in the logic train. Your ideas of law abiding is a moving target, so you've screwed that, also.

To ask us to be "even more reasonable" when the crime rate is heading down, is stupid. It is a tempest in a tea pot. It is Agenda to disarm civilians. No good. THERE IS NO PROBLEM. The killer of children is autos, not guns. You just can not hear what I'm saying.

The 2nd has already warned us. So, now you are beginning to arouse the sleeping giant, the Heartland. They don't have to time to sort your specious arguments. Your dilettante persuasions. Your temper tantrums. The have no patience for your clear intentions to disarm us. It doesn't matter what you, proven Sophists, have to say.

They, like the Taliban sees us all, are beginning to wonder it would be better if you insurrectionists were dead in a ditch. Now you have two groups after you.

"The have no patience for your clear intentions to disarm us. It doesn't matter what you, proven Sophists, have to say."

No matter how many times you continue to repeat this, it doesn't make it any less paranoid and ridiculous.

What part of "I have no interest in limiting what types of guns, or how much ammo a law abiding citizen can have" do you find objectionable? Would you prefer that to be expanded to "I have no interest in limiting what types of guns, or how much ammo any rapist, murderer, or gang-banging thug can have"?

Do you draw any lines here, or are you firmly on the side of unfettered access to guns for EVERYONE?

Can you answer that, or should I expect more of your sophistry?

 

[Dr Kynes]

"The have no patience for your clear intentions to disarm us. It doesn't matter what you, proven Sophists, have to say."

No matter how many times you continue to repeat this, it doesn't make it any less paranoid and ridiculous.

What part of "I have no interest in limiting what types of guns, or how much ammo a law abiding citizen can have" do you find objectionable? Would you prefer that to be expanded to "I have no interest in limiting what types of guns, or how much ammo any rapist, murderer, or gang-banging thug can have"?

Do you draw any lines here, or are you firmly on the side of unfettered access to guns for EVERYONE?

Can you answer that, or should I expect more of your sophistry?

so, i can have as many of whatever arms i choose, provided i am permitted to do so by the government.

it's like totally not a gun ban, since SOME people will be able to have any weapon they want, like FFL holders can today.
you can even get a permit for field artillery, mortars, rocket launchers and fighter jets, provided the government approves your request.

yep. by making us beg permission to exercise our rights you can take those rights away, without ever having to admit that your taking our rights away.

you just want to turn our rights into privileges.
how very Animal Farm of you.

 

[st0wandgrow]

so, i can have as many of whatever arms i choose, provided i am permitted to do so by the government.

it's like totally not a gun ban, since SOME people will be able to have any weapon they want, like FFL holders can today.
you can even get a permit for field artillery, mortars, rocket launchers and fighter jets, provided the government approves your request.

yep. by making us beg permission to exercise our rights you can take those rights away, without ever having to admit that your taking our rights away.

you just want to turn our rights into privileges.
how very Animal Farm of you.

Tell me then ....

Should guns be OK for convicted murderers to own? How about rapists?

Where do YOU stand? Do YOU draw any lines here?

You should be able to tackle this one in a few sentences or less.......

 

[Dr Kynes]

Tell me then ....

Should guns be OK for convicted murderers to own? How about rapists?

Where do YOU stand? Do YOU draw any lines here?

You should be able to tackle this one in a few sentences or less.......

A well regulated militia(every free male between 16 and 60) being necessary to the security of a free state(of which there were 13, this refers to The States not the union),
The right of the People to keep (own) and bear (carry about on your person) arms (weapons of every description) Shall Not Be Infringed.

seems pretty clear to me, every person (with the emancipation proclamation, the 14th amendment, women's sufferage blacks and women get the right too) who is not otherwise encumbered by law (convicted felons, people in prison, crazy people, etc...) is a member of the militia, and thus is not only entitled, but in the past has been REQUIRED, to own arms ranging from a pocket knife to a howitzer as they desire.

further, those persons may also carry those arms upon their person in a manner they deem appropriate.

so, those who have been found, BY THEIR ACTIONS, in the courts BY LAW, to be irresponsible (crazy, criminal or just stupid) may be prohibited from owning or possessing arms until they courts deem them once again fit for society.

those who have NOT been found ineligible for ownership of arms must be PRESUMED INNOCENT. and thus may build a tank in their garage if they so desire.

 

[st0wandgrow]

A well regulated militia(every free male between 16 and 60) being necessary to the security of a free state(of which there were 13, this refers to The States not the union),
The right of the People to keep (own) and bear (carry about on your person) arms (weapons of every description) Shall Not Be Infringed.

seems pretty clear to me, every person (with the emancipation proclamation, the 14th amendment, women's sufferage blacks and women get the right too) who is not otherwise encumbered by law (convicted felons, people in prison, crazy people, etc...) is a member of the militia, and thus is not only entitled, but in the past has been REQUIRED, to own arms ranging from a pocket knife to a howitzer as they desire.

further, those persons may also carry those arms upon their person in a manner they deem appropriate.

so, those who have been found, BY THEIR ACTIONS, in the courts BY LAW, to be irresponsible (crazy, criminal or just stupid) may be prohibited from owning or possessing arms until they courts deem them once again fit for society.

those who have NOT been found ineligible for ownership of arms must be PRESUMED INNOCENT. and thus may build a tank in their garage if they so desire.

"so, those who have been found, BY THEIR ACTIONS, in the courts BY LAW, to be irresponsible (crazy, criminal or just stupid) may be prohibited from owning or possessing arms until they courts deem them once again fit for society.

those who have NOT been found ineligible for ownership of arms must be PRESUMED INNOCENT. and thus may build a tank in their garage if they so desire."




So what's the rub? I've stated several times that I do not wish to restrict the types of weapons, or the amount of ammo that a law abiding citizen can have. I further clarified my position with examples of people that should NOT be allowed to legally own a gun using murders and rapists as examples.

 

[ak47caretaker]

should of banned guns around 1750, then we wouldn't have this argument, the indigenous people(Indians) would still be running this country

 

[Doer]

"The have no patience for your clear intentions to disarm us. It doesn't matter what you, proven Sophists, have to say."

No matter how many times you continue to repeat this, it doesn't make it any less paranoid and ridiculous.

What part of "I have no interest in limiting what types of guns, or how much ammo a law abiding citizen can have" do you find objectionable? Would you prefer that to be expanded to "I have no interest in limiting what types of guns, or how much ammo any rapist, murderer, or gang-banging thug can have"?

Do you draw any lines here, or are you firmly on the side of unfettered access to guns for EVERYONE?

Can you answer that, or should I expect more of your sophistry?

You are beating the drums of dismantlement of the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't matter what say with these finely parsed arguments. They aren't even yours. You begin with Sophistry, as you have been taught. You argue from the BIG LIE, that there is this gun problem. It doesn't matter if you are the willing or unwilling DUPE.

I say there is no problem. We are reasonable. We see your Agenda as manufacturing this problem, in a pick and choose manner. And then lying about it. The stats are there. The facts don't lie.

So, in a word, it is you who are repeating the lies and not listening. Just spewing the Agenda talking points. It is so transparent to me. How many times do I have to say it?

There is no problem with the current situation. Nothing for you to label us gun nuts, numb-nuts. Nothing for us to be more reasonable about.

Only one reason to present these false arguments, Sophist. And I suggest next time, when you find a word beyond you, just look it up before you, Na-Na, you too.

 

[st0wandgrow]

You are beating the drums of dismantlement of the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't matter what say with these finely parsed arguments. They aren't even yours. You begin with Sophistry, as you have been taught. You argue from the BIG LIE, that there is this gun problem. It doesn't matter if you are the willing or unwilling DUPE.

I say there is no problem. We are reasonable. We see your Agenda as manufacturing this problem, in a pick and choose manner. And then lying about it. The stats are there. The facts don't lie.

So, in a word, it is you who are repeating the lies and not listening. Just spewing the Agenda talking points. It is so transparent to me. How many times do I have to say it?

There is no problem with the current situation. Nothing for you to label us gun nuts, numb-nuts. Nothing for us to be more reasonable about.
Only one reason to present these false arguments, Sophist. And I suggest next time, when you find a word beyond you, just look it up before you, Na-Na, you too.

That's what I thought. All bluster, no answer. Deflect all you want, but you still refuse to answer the very simple question asked. Let me dumb this down even further for you ......

Should a convicted murderer be allowed to legally purchase a gun upon his release?

You can ramble on some more, or you can answer the question .....

 

[Dr Kynes]

"so, those who have been found, BY THEIR ACTIONS, in the courts BY LAW, to be irresponsible (crazy, criminal or just stupid) may be prohibited from owning or possessing arms until they courts deem them once again fit for society.

those who have NOT been found ineligible for ownership of arms must be PRESUMED INNOCENT. and thus may build a tank in their garage if they so desire."




So what's the rub? I've stated several times that I do not wish to restrict the types of weapons, or the amount of ammo that a law abiding citizen can have. I further clarified my position with examples of people that should NOT be allowed to legally own a gun using murders and rapists as examples.

nope.

denied.

you have advocated a government permission slip to ALLOW the ownership of arms, not a check to see if you are ineligible (which we already have).
you have further declared that no-one should be permitted weapons of war, which is in clear opposition to the second amendment's purpose and text.
you have even FURTHER demanded all arms be secured in a manner you deem appropriate, which in some places requires dis-assembly and locking up, and in some countries includes locking them up at a gun club making their use for defense impossible.

all those "common sense" and "sensible solutions" proposals fall under the heading of INFRINGEMENT.

 

[Doer]

should of banned guns around 1750, then we wouldn't have this argument, the indigenous people(Indians) would still be running this country

At some point I expect an attempt to ban high capacity shells. Those are the ones with more than one pellet. Who needs more than one pellet?

And of course, then why would civilians be allowed any rifling at all. A .30 cal smooth bore, single shot. (required trigger lock, not included)

100 gr black power, muzzle loader. But, even that is banded in the Cities.

Yes, you numb-nuts, we are laughing at you. For now, it is still funny with these made up arguments.

We see what you are trying to do. All the fancy persuasions, and loose goose arguments will just make it worse.

Meanwhile Islamic Jihad is also laughing at the numb-nuts, but for very different reasons and with lips smacking anticipation.

 

[Doer]

That's what I thought. All bluster, no answer. Deflect all you want, but you still refuse to answer the very simple question asked. Let me dumb this down even further for you ......

Should a convicted murderer be allowed to legally purchase a gun upon his release?

You can ramble on some more, or you can answer the question .....

No Gestapo, this is sophistry. You are all over the map with these stupid, hypothetical questions and, Fritz, you just ain't listening. I have written that exclusion is not infringement.

THERE IS NO PROBLEM.

Maybe you should try to make it back to the shallow end to troll.

 

[TonyKush]

you dont get do you.there taking away all your rights not just right to bare arms. and there telling you its to protect your kids. your being led to the slaughter your a sheep

 

[TonyKush]

im not being mean you just need to look more into certain things before you go giving away your rights

 

[ak47caretaker]

truthfully i think guns are great everyone should own a dozen, have thousands of rounds, maybe then American citizens would have the balls to stand up to the government and get this country(that i love) back on track and make the government walk the straight and narrow and do their job.

 

[UncleBuck]

you dont get do you.there taking away all your rights not just right to bare arms. and there telling you its to protect your kids. your being led to the slaughter your a sheep

did the government also take away your ability to spell?

 

[UncleBuck]

truthfully i think guns are great everyone should own a dozen, have thousands of rounds, maybe then American citizens would have the balls to stand up to the government and get this country(that i love) back on track and make the government walk the straight and narrow and do their job.

so let me get this straight: government force = bad, but force in the other direction = good?

some people don't understand their own stupidity.