Another idiot with a gun

[natty bumppo 297]

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.......

beirut ...

[HAL 9000 96]

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.

Accountable to their mental health state.

And no, I am not after any ban. Get over it that many people can be open minded about this issue in the interest of public safety.

It really is strange how fast your knee jerks to this Charles. I don't want you to lose your arsenal. Seriously. You are sane, right?

[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.

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

When I do so, feel free to be outraged, until then all I can say is

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.......

beirut ...

Similarly. If we want to examine terrorism and the preferred methods of attack let's start a new thread.

[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.

Someone must be scared about potentially taking a mental health exam

and on the other hand, you probably invite the cops to search your car when stopped for speeding too. i on the other hand won't surrender my rights to satisfy the gun grabbers.

if you're trying to insinuate i'm worried about a mental health exam, you're wrong. if you think otherwise, perhaps you should go visit your local fbi office and run your mouth to them as i do have a security clearance.

[Heracles 417]

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

Freedom as in living without violence, in exchange for the security of a gun. Checkmate.

don't interrupt the adults, you should be seen and not heard.

We need Minimum IQ requirements for such threads.

[natty bumppo 297]

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

maybe you should be required to pass a test to vote? sound fair?

maybe you should be required to pass a test to prove you can live alone ... without gov't people in your house?

maybe you should be required to pass a test before writing, talking, etc

maybe you should be required to pass a test to to be protected from a unnecessary search and or seizure

maybe you should pass a test to determine if you are accorded due process

etc ....

[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.......

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

i suppose it's not easy for you to admit defeat, but that's your problem.

one difference between you and i is this. you don't like guns period and don't want anyone to have them. i don't see the point behind having a semi-auto like an ak-47 for hunting. however, just because i don't see the point to it does not mean i jump on some bandwagon to take them away.

[Peikko 1,575]

Yet, you don't seem to understand the lethal nature of these particular fire arms. Curiouser and curiouser.

By the way Charles, when you are billeted on army grounds, what is the procedure for firearm use in the bunk houses? Do soldiers often sleep with guns under their pillows in case of intruders?

[Ban Hammer 14,236]

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.

Accountable to their mental health state.

And no, I am not after any ban. Get over it that many people can be open minded about this issue in the interest of public safety.

It really is strange how fast your knee jerks to this Charles. I don't want you to lose your arsenal. Seriously. You are sane, right?

and you're for this because it does not apply to you, right?

and perhaps you should define "arsenal" while you are at it and how it has anything to do with this?

Edited September 8, 2009 by charles!

[Heracles 417]

maybe you should be required to pass a test to vote? sound fair?

Doesn't have the potential to kill someone.

maybe you should be required to pass a test to prove you can live alone ... without gov't people in your house?

Doesn't have the potential to kill someone.

maybe you should be required to pass a test before writing, talking, etc

irrelevant.

maybe you should be required to pass a test to to be protected from a unnecessary search and or seizure

irrelevant.

maybe you should pass a test to determine if you are accorded due process

irrelevant.

[Ban Hammer 14,236]

Yet, you don't seem to understand the lethal nature of these particular fire arms. Curiouser and curiouser.

By the way Charles, when you are billeted on army grounds, what is the procedure for firearm use in the bunk houses? Do soldiers often sleep with guns under their pillows in case of intruders?

why don't you google that and find out rather than pose silly questions?

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

Freedom as in living without violence, in exchange for the security of a gun. Checkmate.

don't interrupt the adults, you should be seen and not heard.

We need Minimum IQ requirements for such threads.

why would you vote yourself off the island?

[HAL 9000 96]

Them gun grabbers...

[natty bumppo 297]

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.

just providing an example to help you focus.

assassination ... murder ... (you can call it terrorism if it makes you feel better) is about taking out a target. how hard is it to park something beside you ... outside ... etc and simply light the fuse? not hard. just takes a little advance work and ... boom. game over.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Natty Bumppo

[Heracles 417]

Yet, you don't seem to understand the lethal nature of these particular fire arms. Curiouser and curiouser.

By the way Charles, when you are billeted on army grounds, what is the procedure for firearm use in the bunk houses? Do soldiers often sleep with guns under their pillows in case of intruders?

Well natty already challenged me to describe the guns they had in 1777. I did better and took a photo from George Washington's house, where they are on display. Every single gun fires a a single shoot and took a while to prepare for the next shot. They didn't have 16 round pistols, let alone semi-automatics.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Booyah!

[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.

i suppose it's not easy for you to admit defeat, but that's your problem.

one difference between you and i is this. you don't like guns period and don't want anyone to have them. i don't see the point behind having a semi-auto like an ak-47 for hunting. however, just because i don't see the point to it does not mean i jump on some bandwagon to take them away.

I don't have a problem and your arguments certainly have not thrown any light onto the reasons for the use of guns in domestic murder/suicides which is after all what we were discussing before you starting throwing red herring after red herring into the argument.

As for my position on who should and shouldn't be allowed to own guns, you really earn a serious fail because that is not what I have said ever, period.