Another idiot with a gun

[_Simpson_ 250]

In and out, actually. Like I said... we have to follow the money trail to the root profiteers.

I may not be the biggest supporter of standardized personality tests for employment... but they can be modified and even computerized- keeping costs down.

Sound reasonable, I just dont know how affective it would be

It has potential.

Result:

Legal, sane gun owners get to keep their arsenal.

Crazies...

don't.

This with a very strict control of manufacturing and sales tracking (not disturbing the flow to sane, non violent legal buyers)... could help.

Of course if people in this country kneejerk over an Obama speech to schookids... imagine when they 'go after' Bessie on the gun rack. Well... perceived paranoia is already a boon for the gun and ammo industry is it not?

Dont forget the knee jerk reactions by those on the left every time something like this happens, they want new laws or try to push towards a ban.

[HAL 9000 96]

In and out, actually. Like I said... we have to follow the money trail to the root profiteers.

I may not be the biggest supporter of standardized personality tests for employment... but they can be modified and even computerized- keeping costs down.

Sound reasonable, I just dont know how affective it would be

It has potential.

Result:

Legal, sane gun owners get to keep their arsenal.

Crazies...

don't.

This with a very strict control of manufacturing and sales tracking (not disturbing the flow to sane, non violent legal buyers)... could help.

Of course if people in this country kneejerk over an Obama speech to schookids... imagine when they 'go after' Bessie on the gun rack. Well... perceived paranoia is already a boon for the gun and ammo industry is it not?

manufacturing, distribution, sales from dealers aren't controlled?

Where do criminals get their weapons from? Santa Claus?

Read it again Natty... very strict control. Call it a 'cradle to grave' concept (for the gun).

[HAL 9000 96]

I am still waiting for someone to explain why gun control will not work when the US's homicide by means of firearms is 160 times that of a country with reasonable gun control; not ban, but control.

Campaign contributions.

Well guns aren't made illegally to my knowledge. The money can be followed if there were better tracing methods.

We can start with a whole battery of mental tests for those that want to purchase guns. And then move on to ones that currently own them. That way, not one mental test can be singled out as defective by the likely crop of sudden experts in mental health that is sure to arise out of something like this.

reference the bolded - i suppose innocent until proven guilty isn't in your lexicon.

and who's gonna be making this test you advocate?

It can at renewal time. Bold that.

I think what you are looking for is an ex post facto principle. By changing renewal procedures, you take care of that. Of course there are those lazies that just resist change 'just because'...

As many Republicans would say with the Patriot Act... If you have nothing to hide... you wouldn't mind this intrusion into your privacy...

Difference is that this isn't a privacy issue, in case you didn't get the parallel logic.

Because it isn't.

what is this renewal you speak of? there is no requirement for me to have a license for any gun i own. perhaps you might be thinking of a conceal carry licence, but that only applies to handguns.

here's your sign: fail

Who's talking about any existing permit structures? That's why I think I am mentioning control legislation as a theoretical thing- as in... it doesn't really exist yet.

Maybe you can read back beyond your stumble there.

so now that i've nailed your feet to the floor, you're gonna dance. so now you are on record as willing to give up your rights under the constitution to some nameless panel that is gonna make a test you have to pass or else.

'Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither' - Benjamin Franklin

What was it that I was sacrificing again?

Lets see... under what I am theorizing on...

1. I am not crazy. So I could pass these psychological tests.

2. I could arm myself to Timbutku legally.

3. You're making sh!t up and piling it on my 'thought experiment.'

No Charles... this 'idea' would not take your Boomsticks away from you if you were mentally healthy or not prone to violent behavior.

Why so defensive?

same for me with 1 and 2. but you want to dip into a gestapo environment and force everyone who wants to exercise their constitutional guaranteed rights to an unwarranted invasive investigation. what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?

Gestapo? Now that is hilarious.

Try accountability as a better term. Like I mentioned to Simpson... these tests can be administered painlessly and at testing locations. Remember- I'm talking about mental health checks. You can add to it all the privacy protection if you want.

What part about that do you not understand? Wasn't it a Republican motto to be held accountable and responsible for one's choices? Well...

[natty bumppo 297]

In and out, actually. Like I said... we have to follow the money trail to the root profiteers.

I may not be the biggest supporter of standardized personality tests for employment... but they can be modified and even computerized- keeping costs down.

Sound reasonable, I just dont know how affective it would be

It has potential.

Result:

Legal, sane gun owners get to keep their arsenal.

Crazies...

don't.

This with a very strict control of manufacturing and sales tracking (not disturbing the flow to sane, non violent legal buyers)... could help.

Of course if people in this country kneejerk over an Obama speech to schookids... imagine when they 'go after' Bessie on the gun rack. Well... perceived paranoia is already a boon for the gun and ammo industry is it not?

manufacturing, distribution, sales from dealers aren't controlled?

Where do criminals get their weapons from? Santa Claus?

Read it again Natty... very strict control. Call it a 'cradle to grave' concept (for the gun).

the legal channel is there.

criminally exchanged is what you're trying to get to ...

[HAL 9000 96]

In and out, actually. Like I said... we have to follow the money trail to the root profiteers.

I may not be the biggest supporter of standardized personality tests for employment... but they can be modified and even computerized- keeping costs down.

Sound reasonable, I just dont know how affective it would be

It has potential.

Result:

Legal, sane gun owners get to keep their arsenal.

Crazies...

don't.

This with a very strict control of manufacturing and sales tracking (not disturbing the flow to sane, non violent legal buyers)... could help.

Of course if people in this country kneejerk over an Obama speech to schookids... imagine when they 'go after' Bessie on the gun rack. Well... perceived paranoia is already a boon for the gun and ammo industry is it not?

Dont forget the knee jerk reactions by those on the left every time something like this happens, they want new laws or try to push towards a ban.

While logical, its not practical in this nation.

Which is why the appropriate verbiage follows 'sensible' laws. As in what I am theorizing here. It is really weird how 'rights and infringement' comes automatically into the discussion where it is not even impinged upon in what I theorize.

In and out, actually. Like I said... we have to follow the money trail to the root profiteers.

I may not be the biggest supporter of standardized personality tests for employment... but they can be modified and even computerized- keeping costs down.

Sound reasonable, I just dont know how affective it would be

It has potential.

Result:

Legal, sane gun owners get to keep their arsenal.

Crazies...

don't.

This with a very strict control of manufacturing and sales tracking (not disturbing the flow to sane, non violent legal buyers)... could help.

Of course if people in this country kneejerk over an Obama speech to schookids... imagine when they 'go after' Bessie on the gun rack. Well... perceived paranoia is already a boon for the gun and ammo industry is it not?

manufacturing, distribution, sales from dealers aren't controlled?

Where do criminals get their weapons from? Santa Claus?

Read it again Natty... very strict control. Call it a 'cradle to grave' concept (for the gun).

the legal channel is there.

criminally exchanged is what you're trying to get to ...

Sure, that could be the other part of it. The legal channel you're referring to otoh, is what I'm theorizing could be modified to prevent yadda yadda.

[The Dude 206]

Some people simply refuse to look at the 2nd amendment in any sort of modern view. Other amendments are up for interpretation, but the 2nd can only be looked at in the most literal form.

[Peikko 1,575]

rioters with bricks = apparently you missed something, and i'm not surprised.

The purpose of a brick is to build.

i'm sure reginald denny would agree with you.

As I said, you missed that part where there are two separate arguments in this thread. Politically motivated groups can and will cause mischief regardless of whether they or the government is armed. A politically motivated individual with a gun can do #### all.

As far as incidents of mass murder/suicide are concerned, the gun is the preferred weapon because it's the best tool to deliberately take out targets as apposed to just anyone.

personally, i think a tanker truck would do more mayhem. any idea how many propane trucks run around the country?

Really? How exactly do you ensure that the target that you intend to kill is taken out with a tanker? Let's assume for a moment, that with these murder suicides you wish to take out particular people (as that is the evidence we are presented with, particular family members, people against whom you hold some kind of grudge or personal vendetta) and not other 'innocent' bystanders? How do you ensure that your target is in the path of a tanker? Not to mention the availability of tankers which, if I am not much mistaken, would be extremely expensive to buy for such a mission and don't seem too readily available for hire. Seems to me that this would be a most unwieldy method in all sense of the word.

you would actually buy/ hire the tanker?

location location location (and timing). just set the trigger and wait. you'll get the mark

if someone wanted a terminate a target ... why would they care about collateral damage?

The fact is, that they do - even assasins balk at taking out people that do not present any particular threat/danger to themselves and who are not on the 'hit list'. Innocent bystanders are rarely included in these personal vendettas and certainly not by choice. As I said, unless you have control over the tanker, how can you ensure that your target will die? Even if you have control of the tanker, it's not as sure a thing whereas a bullet almost always is in these indicents - hence why we dont have any examples of murder/suicde/assasination by tanker. Who knew?

[Ban Hammer 14,236]

I am still waiting for someone to explain why gun control will not work when the US's homicide by means of firearms is 160 times that of a country with reasonable gun control; not ban, but control.

Campaign contributions.

Well guns aren't made illegally to my knowledge. The money can be followed if there were better tracing methods.

We can start with a whole battery of mental tests for those that want to purchase guns. And then move on to ones that currently own them. That way, not one mental test can be singled out as defective by the likely crop of sudden experts in mental health that is sure to arise out of something like this.

reference the bolded - i suppose innocent until proven guilty isn't in your lexicon.

and who's gonna be making this test you advocate?

It can at renewal time. Bold that.

I think what you are looking for is an ex post facto principle. By changing renewal procedures, you take care of that. Of course there are those lazies that just resist change 'just because'...

As many Republicans would say with the Patriot Act... If you have nothing to hide... you wouldn't mind this intrusion into your privacy...

Difference is that this isn't a privacy issue, in case you didn't get the parallel logic.

Because it isn't.

what is this renewal you speak of? there is no requirement for me to have a license for any gun i own. perhaps you might be thinking of a conceal carry licence, but that only applies to handguns.

here's your sign: fail

Who's talking about any existing permit structures? That's why I think I am mentioning control legislation as a theoretical thing- as in... it doesn't really exist yet.

Maybe you can read back beyond your stumble there.

so now that i've nailed your feet to the floor, you're gonna dance. so now you are on record as willing to give up your rights under the constitution to some nameless panel that is gonna make a test you have to pass or else.

'Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither' - Benjamin Franklin

What was it that I was sacrificing again?

Lets see... under what I am theorizing on...

1. I am not crazy. So I could pass these psychological tests.

2. I could arm myself to Timbutku legally.

3. You're making sh!t up and piling it on my 'thought experiment.'

No Charles... this 'idea' would not take your Boomsticks away from you if you were mentally healthy or not prone to violent behavior.

Why so defensive?

same for me with 1 and 2. but you want to dip into a gestapo environment and force everyone who wants to exercise their constitutional guaranteed rights to an unwarranted invasive investigation. what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?

Gestapo? Now that is hilarious.

Try accountability as a better term. Like I mentioned to Simpson... these tests can be administered painlessly and at testing locations. Remember- I'm talking about mental health checks. You can add to it all the privacy protection if you want.

What part about that do you not understand? Wasn't it a Republican motto to be held accountable and responsible for one's choices? Well...

accountable to what? what have gun owners done to be accountable to? you? and mandatory testing when it's a right in the constitution. enjoy that slippery slope you're on, because it leads to a ban, which is probably what you are after.

[Peikko 1,575]

That's what I really find obnoxious, this attempt to suggest that guns are so innocuous and that anything else could and would do by those who purport to be 'responsible' gun owners. No, it would not. Guns were invented for a reason and it wasn't because they looked cool.

[natty bumppo 297]

rioters with bricks = apparently you missed something, and i'm not surprised.

The purpose of a brick is to build.

i'm sure reginald denny would agree with you.

As I said, you missed that part where there are two separate arguments in this thread. Politically motivated groups can and will cause mischief regardless of whether they or the government is armed. A politically motivated individual with a gun can do #### all.

As far as incidents of mass murder/suicide are concerned, the gun is the preferred weapon because it's the best tool to deliberately take out targets as apposed to just anyone.

personally, i think a tanker truck would do more mayhem. any idea how many propane trucks run around the country?

Really? How exactly do you ensure that the target that you intend to kill is taken out with a tanker? Let's assume for a moment, that with these murder suicides you wish to take out particular people (as that is the evidence we are presented with, particular family members, people against whom you hold some kind of grudge or personal vendetta) and not other 'innocent' bystanders? How do you ensure that your target is in the path of a tanker? Not to mention the availability of tankers which, if I am not much mistaken, would be extremely expensive to buy for such a mission and don't seem too readily available for hire. Seems to me that this would be a most unwieldy method in all sense of the word.

you would actually buy/ hire the tanker?

location location location (and timing). just set the trigger and wait. you'll get the mark

if someone wanted a terminate a target ... why would they care about collateral damage?

The fact is, that they do - even assasins balk at taking out people that do not present any particular threat/danger to themselves and who are not on the 'hit list'. Innocent bystanders are rarely included in these personal vendettas and certainly not by choice. As I said, unless you have control over the tanker, how can you ensure that your target will die? Even if you have control of the tanker, it's not as sure a thing whereas a bullet almost always is in these indicents - hence why we dont have any examples of murder/suicde/assasination by tanker. Who knew?

are you thinking of a mobile tanker? think more in line with OK City ... will that help?

[Ban Hammer 14,236]

The fact is, that they do - even assasins balk at taking out people that do not present any particular threat/danger to themselves and who are not on the 'hit list'. Innocent bystanders are rarely included in these personal vendettas and certainly not by choice. As I said, unless you have control over the tanker, how can you ensure that your target will die? Even if you have control of the tanker, it's not as sure a thing whereas a bullet almost always is in these indicents - hence why we dont have any examples of murder/suicde/assasination by tanker. Who knew?

apparently you've never heard of the oklahoma city bombing.......

[HAL 9000 96]

Some people simply refuse to look at the 2nd amendment in any sort of modern view. Other amendments are up for interpretation, but the 2nd can only be looked at in the most literal form.

Do you think we can parallel the Story of Creation in the Bible? IMO its the same 'backwards' thinking that allows some folks to be complete sexual deviants on one side... yet strict social conservatives in another. No reference to anyone here, seriously.

[Ban Hammer 14,236]

That's what I really find obnoxious, this attempt to suggest that guns are so innocuous and that anything else could and would do by those who purport to be 'responsible' gun owners. No, it would not. Guns were invented for a reason and it wasn't because they looked cool.

no, what's really obnoxious is someone who can't even vote here telling usc's that they shouldn't own guns.

[The Dude 206]

That's what I really find obnoxious, this attempt to suggest that guns are so innocuous and that anything else could and would do by those who purport to be 'responsible' gun owners. No, it would not. Guns were invented for a reason and it wasn't because they looked cool.

no, what's really obnoxious is someone who can't even vote here telling usc's that they shouldn't own guns.

Someone must be scared about potentially taking a mental health exam

Edited September 8, 2009 by Naked_Smurf

[Peikko 1,575]

The fact is, that they do - even assasins balk at taking out people that do not present any particular threat/danger to themselves and who are not on the 'hit list'. Innocent bystanders are rarely included in these personal vendettas and certainly not by choice. As I said, unless you have control over the tanker, how can you ensure that your target will die? Even if you have control of the tanker, it's not as sure a thing whereas a bullet almost always is in these indicents - hence why we dont have any examples of murder/suicde/assasination by tanker. Who knew?

apparently you've never heard of the oklahoma city bombing.......

If you want to move the goal posts, go ahead and do so, but you can talk to yourself.