Guns don't kill people, gun owners kill people.

[Dr Kynes]

You want to come up with a definition of Mental Ill? That is the problem. It is like Sex Offender. A horse shit, PC-PA, idea. A label of scorn to stoop to.

Do you know about HIPA? Medical Privacy? Do you know about not saying Yes, OR No? Did you know that you are certainly Mentally Ill as am I?

We can both get well, but never get a yes or no from the authority...in this case BATF. Doesn't matter about guns for you. But, think of something you might want, that the label of Mental Ill would stop.

Owning a car
having kids
free to travel
any other GD restriction that can be cooked up by the black heart of man.
What job you can have....Brave New World.

You are being selfish because you are probably not mentally fit, by definition, and so you should not be allowed.....what....Leather Shoes? Could be a weapon.

Do you really want me defining mental fitness for you?

the "Mentally Ill" are already prohibited from owning arms, the legal definition of mental illness is anyone who has been adjudicated "insane" committed to an assylum, found mentally incompetant to stand trial, or has been determined by a psychiatric professional to be a danger to themselves or others.

and this impediment also can be relieved when a psychiatric expert determines the person is no longer "insane" (this excludes those who's Noodle Factory must be controlled with drugs for the rest of their lives, even if the drugs are working)


again, Burgertime's "question" is fraught with Hyper-Emotional subtext.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I just wanted a stance. It is to see if regulation is ever necessary on this issue. It is not about scary people and guns. It is about the point you see fit to deny someone their 2nd amendment right.

so you are begging the question, and attempting to create some sort of "Logical Trap" to score "Intellectual Checkmate"...

the 1964 omnibus crime bill has already established that crazy people, "felons" and those actively engaged in treason, as well as those who have surrendered their citizenship at any time (...Barack... im looking at you...) are barred the ownership of arms, as well as the right to vote, and a great many professional licenses due to their lack of responsibility and past Bad Acts.

the law also makes clear the processes by which those rights can be reclaimed, so climb down off your high horse and ask why the BATF is Violating The Law.

the Government doesnt trust lawbreakers and crazy people with guns.

i dont trust a lawbreaking crazy government with guns.

 

[burgertime2010]

I'll be what ever your label happens to be on which day, I guess. You said Felon and I said even that is something you don't understand and did not come up with for yourself. It is part of the driven insane that are afraid of guns, agenda.

I say they are just a tool. I said the Numb Nuts created the Gun Nuts. But the Gun Nuts are a fringe, that is the loud Anti-Con's backlash for playing with fire. I said all that, before.

You ignored all that and went SMALL.

I am not anti-gun I am anti-irresponsible gun owner. It is the idiots I don't trust and the benefit of the doubt most don't deserve. I am just looking for some meat on the other side to no avail. This has nothing to do with you, mentally ill, felons rights but just to see how gun owners respond to legitimate public safety concerns. You are selfish not me. This thread is speaking loudly. Reduce me all you want by more insults and accusations, I am just curious. You owe the public a safety because you are decent and not because of any law.

 

[burgertime2010]

so you are begging the question, and attempting to create some sort of "Logical Trap" to score "Intellectual Checkmate"...

the 1964 omnibus crime bill has already established that crazy people, "felons" and those actively engaged in treason, as well as those who have surrendered their citizenship at any time (...Barack... im looking at you...) are barred the ownership of arms, as well as the right to vote, and a great many professional licenses due to their lack of responsibility and past Bad Acts.

the law also makes clear the processes by which those rights can be reclaimed, so climb down off your high horse and ask why the BATF is Violating The Law.

the Government doesnt trust lawbreakers and crazy people with guns.

i dont trust a lawbreaking crazy government with guns.

Nice try, comparatively my horse a giraffe in these parts. Just asking questions....

 

[Dr Kynes]

I am not anti-gun I am anti-irresponsible gun owner. It is the idiots I don't trust and the benefit of the doubt most don't deserve. I am just looking for some meat on the other side to no avail. This has nothing to do with you, mentally ill, felons rights but just to see how gun owners respond to legitimate public safety concerns. You are selfish not me. This thread is speaking loudly. Reduce me all you want by more insults and accusations, I am just curious. You owe the public a safety because you are decent and not because of any law.

i owe nobody a "safety" if you cannot keep your QB from falling back into your own end zone, thats your problem.
my defensive line is just doing it's job.

Nice try, comparatively my horse a giraffe in these parts. Just asking questions....

"just asking questions" is a cop out. you are pushing your agenda by making statements that are hiding behind question marks.

your agenda is fine, if you want to have NO GUNS in your house, go for it.

you best keep out of MY House though cuz i shoot first ask questions later.

 

[burgertime2010]

You sound like a felon now too!!! Blatant disregard for public safety, hostile, aggressive, big chip on your shoulder, something to prove......you are the average American. How many pounds overweight?

 

[Dr Kynes]

You sound like a felon now too!!! Blatant disregard for public safety, hostile, aggressive, big chip on your shoulder, something to prove......you are the average American. How many pounds overweight?

my guns have NEVER threatened public safety, quite the contrary they enhance public safety, and have been useful in securing my own safety to boot.

i am anything but hostile, in the actual sense, but i am more than willing to defend myself and my rights to do so with any of the delightful selection of armaments at my disposal.

i am also hardly "aggressive, preferring to adopt a defensive posture whenever possible.

i do NOT have a "chip on my shoulder". that more accurately describes yourself and your hair-trigger butthurt (see above quoted post for an example)

i got nothing to prove, since YOU are the one making claims (disguised as "questions")

and finally, my weight has ZERO to do with my credibility, even if i top out at 500 lbs with 6 chins and a bad case of "Never Seen My Dick-itis" i am still right, and you are still wrong.

baseless ad hominems are the stock in trade of the leftist asshole with an indefensible position.

thanks for proving you are full of shit once again.

 

[Doer]

I am not anti-gun I am anti-irresponsible gun owner. It is the idiots I don't trust and the benefit of the doubt most don't deserve. I am just looking for some meat on the other side to no avail. This has nothing to do with you, mentally ill, felons rights but just to see how gun owners respond to legitimate public safety concerns. You are selfish not me. This thread is speaking loudly. Reduce me all you want by more insults and accusations, I am just curious. You owe the public a safety because you are decent and not because of any law.

Well, try not to take this personal, but I find the entire argument...not you yourself, clear? ...but the argument is specious. And anyone who swerves to personal has emotional baggage.

Now, having been a professional flame fanner of high regard, I can tell these are not your origional thoughts. Sorry. I have heard this juxtaposition logic bombs long before now.

The Bolded defies logic and Law, again.

Fear
Un-certainly and
Doubt

Fanned into made up safety concerns. So, the false flattery is thin worn rhetoric. Look over there. Ignore the stats.

THERE IS NO SAFTEY ISSUE. You ignore the reality we put out for months. Is that not a troll? Damn son, all powertools are dangerous. If you turned all these lies and blind eyes against table saws, you would win.

Not a Constitutional guarantee. So, baiting a forum into discussing limiting reasonably, for safety and public good is stupid. Take this personal. If you engage in it you are being stupid.

It would be hell in America. So, it is already unreasonable and anti-con, but you ain't listening, just baiting. You want me to think you are reasonable? No.

 

[burgertime2010]

my guns have NEVER threatened public safety, quite the contrary they enhance public safety, and have been useful in securing my own safety to boot.

i am anything but hostile, in the actual sense, but i am more than willing to defend myself and my rights to do so with any of the delightful selection of armaments at my disposal.

i am also hardly "aggressive, preferring to adopt a defensive posture whenever possible.

i do NOT have a "chip on my shoulder". that more accurately describes yourself and your hair-trigger butthurt (see above quoted post for an example)

i got nothing to prove, since YOU are the one making claims (disguised as "questions")

and finally, my weight has ZERO to do with my credibility, even if i top out at 500 lbs with 6 chins and a bad case of "Never Seen My Dick-itis" i am still right, and you are still wrong.

baseless ad hominems are the stock in trade of the leftist asshole with an indefensible position.

thanks for proving you are full of shit once again.

The sad part is the "I know you are but what am I defense" is not playing like it was in the 80's so unfortunately you might try having a "because I say so clause" in there. Here it is. I am curious, I have a stance, I am flexible, all of which are seen as weakness in the world you live in. The only things you say are reactive. You don't have any balls man....btw to be wrong you have to have a point of your own. Because you are ashamed, you run from logic because it is a trap. Well, I have tons of problems but checkmate is not one of them. Wallow in sloth....

 

[burgertime2010]

Well, try not to take this personal, but I find the entire argument...not you yourself, clear? ...but the argument is specious. And anyone who swerves to personal has emotional baggage.

Now, having been a professional flame fanner of high regard, I can tell these are not your origional thoughts. Sorry. I have heard this juxtaposition logic bombs long before now.

The Bolded defies logic and Law, again.

Fear
Un-certainly and
Doubt

Fanned into made up safety concerns. So, the false flattery is thin worn rhetoric. Look over there. Ignore the stats.

THERE IS NO SAFTEY ISSUE. You ignore the reality we put out for months. Is that not a troll? Damn son, all powertools are dangerous. If you turned all these lies and blind eyes against table saws, you would win.

Not a Constitutional guarantee. So, baiting a forum into discussing limiting reasonably, for safety and public good is stupid. Take this personal. If you engage in it you are being stupid.

It would be hell in America. So, it is already unreasonable and anti-con, but you ain't listening, just baiting. You want me to think you are reasonable? No.

Look......I am waiting for an answer. I asked a question which you claim to have answered and the cycle continues. All you have is that I am wrong....you came out guns loaded. I have had extended debates with you before and had none of this garbage. You don't get it....fair enough. Why can someone see a safety issue when guns are involved? are you kidding me? I am entitled to ask a question that is hard to answer, you see it as bait because you would have to tell a troubling truth? The gun issues are serious and watching you meandering and pontificating is bullshit. Everything you will ever know you already do but don't assume I am not listening. I am not agreeing. That doesn't work well for you and I apologize. The safety risk as I see it is when dumb people listen to you and think like you. It's is revealing when one views reasonable questions as traps. I don't use flattery as a weapon....if you think that is happening that is also telling. Earlier you called me Freud.....that was perceptive.....as was the emotional baggage I have but the song remains the same.....I am waiting not baiting. Your casual attitude is contagious.....we are talking about guns here and you and I see them in a very different light. Thank you for the psychological profile.

 

[Dr Kynes]

The sad part is the "I know you are but what am I defense" is not playing like it was in the 80's so unfortunately you might try having a "because I say so clause" in there. Here it is. I am curious, I have a stance, I am flexible, all of which are seen as weakness in the world you live in. The only things you say are reactive. You don't have any balls man....btw to be wrong you have to have a point of your own. Because you are ashamed, you run from logic because it is a trap. Well, I have tons of problems but checkmate is not one of them. Wallow in sloth....

you are not "Just Asking Questions". each of your statements pretending to be questions is full of sub-text and is based on assumptions which turn the "Question" into an accusation.

doer is 100% right, you are a passive aggressive politically correct faux-intellectual repeating the talking points you got from Handgun Control International.

you think you are the cleverest mouse in the corn bin but in fact you are just one more in a long line of dolts who repeated this same bullshit line of illogic, and you're not even doing it very well.

we need no more gun bans, we need LESS gun bans.

crazy people who have been so determined by a competent medical professional are already forbidden the ownership of guns, which NOBODY has tried to change. you cant even find anybody who thinks this particular ban is a bad idea.
this specific group of persons cannot be trusted with scissors much less a .45 automatic, but this select group is also prohibited from voting.

likewise persons convicted of felonies are also prohibited the use of arms, based on their own past deeds, not possible future crime.

implying that since This group or That group have been disarmed (FOR GOOD REASON) that perhaps Other Groups should also be disarmed ignores the REASON the persons not allowed arms are so encumbered.

this ploy has been used before, and with far more satisfying results by a great many persons far smarter than yourself.
this tired worn out strawman is tremendously more pathetic and less effective due to your bumbling incompetence and inability to craft a cogent sentence.

your smug self-indulgent delusion that you are somehow "winning" this argument just makes you look more and more the fool.

by all means, do carry on.

you're hilarious.

 

[burgertime2010]

Guess what? You have a broad and expansive control of the English language.....that makes you right.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Guess what? You have a broad and expansive control of the English language.....that makes you right.

no. that just helps me frame my thoughts into words.

having the THOUGHTS makes me right.

 

[burgertime2010]

you are not "Just Asking Questions". each of your statements pretending to be questions is full of sub-text and is based on assumptions which turn the "Question" into an accusation.

doer is 100% right, you are a passive aggressive politically correct faux-intellectual repeating the talking points you got from Handgun Control International.

you think you are the cleverest mouse in the corn bin but in fact you are just one more in a long line of dolts who repeated this same bullshit line of illogic, and you're not even doing it very well.

we need no more gun bans, we need LESS gun bans.

crazy people who have been so determined by a competent medical professional are already forbidden the ownership of guns, which NOBODY has tried to change. you cant even find anybody who thinks this particular ban is a bad idea.
this specific group of persons cannot be trusted with scissors much less a .45 automatic, but this select group is also prohibited from voting.

likewise persons convicted of felonies are also prohibited the use of arms, based on their own past deeds, not possible future crime.

implying that since This group or That group have been disarmed (FOR GOOD REASON) that perhaps Other Groups should also be disarmed ignores the REASON the persons not allowed arms are so encumbered.

this ploy has been used before, and with far more satisfying results by a great many persons far smarter than yourself.
this tired worn out strawman is tremendously more pathetic and less effective due to your bumbling incompetence and inability to craft a cogent sentence.

your smug self-indulgent delusion that you are somehow "winning" this argument just makes you look more and more the fool.

by all means, do carry on.

you're hilarious.

Do you know your IQ? What kind of doctor are you?

 

[Dr Kynes]

Do you know your IQ?

yep. tested when i was 12.

 

[burgertime2010]

yep. tested when i was 12.

Were you forever changed by that information?

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Do you know your IQ? What kind of doctor are you?

Let the spice flow!

 

[Dr Kynes]

Were you forever changed by that information?

nope.
even when i was 12 i knew better than to place much value on a test which is so subjective as to be pointless.

i did score higher than my twin brother, which was hilarious.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Let the spice flow!

shhh

lets see if he can figure it out by himself...

 

[burgertime2010]

Let the spice flow!

here we go......real genius arrived.