Another idiot with a gun

[Peikko 1,575]

I already know. My point is that in the armed forces no one pretends that guns are innocuous. They take very serious measures to ensure everyone's safety and do not allow guns and ammunition to just sit around unaccounted for. If they did so, there would be an awful lot more accidental deaths in the armed forces.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Ban Hammer 14,266]

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.

and you're missing the pertinent point about it - that was the typical firearm of that day. hello!

[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?

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?

Charles if it makes you feel any better, I would gladly go and take a mental health exam with you. If I pass I might even consider holding some nice, cold, hard steel in my hand again.

I am being figurative with the word arsenal. IMO, if you pass these tests... you could have as many weapons as you like/afford.

Why? Because we can argue that these tests would statistically suggest beyond any reasonable level of confidence that those who pass would NOT use or distribute these weapons for the detriment of humanity. Its a win win for all of us, and no rights get infringed upon.

[Ban Hammer 14,266]

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.

oh please. you're all for some restriction if not an outright ban. spare me more idiocy.

[natty bumppo 297]

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.

yea we know ... in the BY world ... rights are selective and irrelevant

[Ban Hammer 14,266]

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?

Charles if it makes you feel any better, I would gladly go and take a mental health exam with you. If I pass I might even consider holding some nice, cold, hard steel in my hand again.

I am being figurative with the word arsenal. IMO, if you pass these tests... you could have as many weapons as you like/afford.

Why? Because we can argue that these tests would statistically suggest beyond any reasonable level of confidence that those who pass would NOT use or distribute these weapons for the detriment of humanity. Its a win win for all of us, and no rights get infringed upon.

and just what test would determine that in bold? are you suggesting mind readers are using for this "test" of yours?

and yes, by being forced to take this test you propose, your rights are being infringed.

[natty bumppo 297]

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.

and your comment had what to do with MC's questions about soldiers housing?

nothing ...

result: epic fail ...

[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?

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?

Charles if it makes you feel any better, I would gladly go and take a mental health exam with you. If I pass I might even consider holding some nice, cold, hard steel in my hand again.

I am being figurative with the word arsenal. IMO, if you pass these tests... you could have as many weapons as you like/afford.

Why? Because we can argue that these tests would statistically suggest beyond any reasonable level of confidence that those who pass would NOT use or distribute these weapons for the detriment of humanity. Its a win win for all of us, and no rights get infringed upon.

and just what test would determine that in bold? are you suggesting mind readers are using for this "test" of yours?

and yes, by being forced to take this test you propose, your rights are being infringed.

Now we can theorize about the potential items tested for.

Like I said about driver's licenses. You need one to operate a motor vehicle. In many jurisdictions, aging drivers have to prove that they can do so safely. Same sh!t with operating weapons designed to kill.

Thing is- if guns don't kill people, like many people that defend 2nd Amendment rights love to mention... then people do. So... people in this case need to be prevented from owning guns if they are prone to being violent or showing moral scruples that would permit them to let someone else do so with that which they obtain. That is the rationale behind this idea. How to do this?

Well... your security clearance didn't come automatically. You were vetted for loyalty, trustworthiness, financial integrity, etc. As I've mentioned previously before your knee jerk, personality exams already exist that gauge these things (and you know this). More tests can be designed, and they can be randomized to ensure that testing fluke is not a factor in denying someone ownership rights.

One question... so... based on how you feel consists of ownership right infringement- which clearly does not... but giving you the benefit of the doubt... it 'would'... you'd prefer nutcases to be able to own firearms just because you have an emotionally charged interpretation of the US Constitution that is contextual to date issues?

[Heracles 417]

yea we know ... in the BY world ... rights are selective and irrelevant

Not my world, it's called the developed world natty

[HAL 9000 96]

One potential test is being developed at Los Alamos National National Laboratory that has to do with the functional detection of truthful states.

[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

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 ....

The first one, I would agree to, and would welcome it in this country. The rest of those are a red herring. None of those have the ability to take someone elses lives. Nice try though natty, do try again.

[Ban Hammer 14,266]

Now we can theorize about the potential items tested for.

Like I said about driver's licenses. You need one to operate a motor vehicle. In many jurisdictions, aging drivers have to prove that they can do so safely. Same sh!t with operating weapons designed to kill.

fail. driver's licenses are for driving, and driving isn't a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Thing is- if guns don't kill people, like many people that defend 2nd Amendment rights love to mention... then people do. So... people in this case need to be prevented from owning guns if they are prone to being violent or showing moral scruples that would permit them to let someone else do so with that which they obtain. That is the rationale behind this idea. How to do this?

such measure exist and we've gone over them many times before. if you want to do something productive, get the states to exchange information about who is deemed mentally ill by a qualified person to prevent over the state line sales.

Well... your security clearance didn't come automatically. You were vetted for loyalty, trustworthiness, financial integrity, etc. As I've mentioned previously before your knee jerk, personality exams already exist that gauge these things (and you know this). More tests can be designed, and they can be randomized to ensure that testing fluke is not a factor in denying someone ownership rights.

that was in response to someone else, not you, and was posted due to the insinuation that poster was making and which i didn't care for.

One question... so... based on how you feel consists of ownership right infringement- which clearly does not... but giving you the benefit of the doubt... it 'would'... you'd prefer nutcases to be able to own firearms just because you have an emotionally charged interpretation of the US Constitution that is contextual to date issues?

the only emotion i have about this topic is the shortsightedness so many in this thread have displayed in their willingness to give away their rights; the ability to have a firearm, to not being presumed guilty until proven innocent (as per your proposed test), and so on. it amazes me how so many who have leftward leaning political ideology are so set against guns to the point where they are willing to give up their own rights to satisfy their private agenda.

as for your question - yes, just as you'd rather see ten guilty men escape the electric chair than one innocent die.

[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.

and you're missing the pertinent point about it - that was the typical firearm of that day. hello!

Therefore the amendment was written according to the time. Aka context. Since they had no way of ever imagining that such powerful guns would be produced, they did not account for them. That's a no brainer.

Its also disingenuous to use something written in 1787 and pretend it applies in 2009; all while disregarding the world we live in. At one stage, only white men could vote. Maybe you should have kept that too . Do you honestly think if we brought the founding fathers to 2009 and showed them Americans being killed in cold blood, that this is what they intended? That they would be like Bravo chaps. Even with the first amendment, you think they would cheer on the ####### that people get away with in America, in 2009, because of it; hell no. Even I know the 2nd amendment was a result of the threat of England invading; furthermore, the fact that English troops used to simply walk into a house and make themselves at home. Same way slavery and white men only voting no longer exists, that era no longer exist.

America is not the only country to have had a similar amendment. However, in the last decade or so, most other developed countries have amended their constitution to reflect the world of today. The tyranny of a gun is no longer considered a means of freedom unless you are a police officer or in the military; as it should be.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Booyah!

[Ban Hammer 14,266]

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 ....

The first one, I would agree to, and would welcome it in this country. The rest of those are a red herring. None of those have the ability to take someone elses lives. Nice try though natty, do try again.

so you support jim crowe laws. amazing how full circle the left has become.

[Ban Hammer 14,266]

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.

and you're missing the pertinent point about it - that was the typical firearm of that day. hello!

Therefore the amendment was written according to the time. Aka context. Since they had no way of ever imagining that such powerful guns would be produced, they did not account for them. That's a no brainer.

Its disingenuous to use something written in 1787 and have it apply in 2009; while disregarding the world me live in. Only white men could vote at one stage so maybe you should have kept that too. Do you honestly think if we brought the founding fathers to 2009 and showed them Americans being killed in cold blood, that this is what they intended? That they would be like Bravo chaps. Even with the first amendment, you think they would cheer on the ####### that people get away with it in America, in 2009, because of it; hell no. Even I know the 2nd amendment was a result of the threat of England invading; furthermore, the fact that English troops used to simply walk into a house and make themselves at home. Same way slavery and white men only voting no longer exists, that era no longer exist.

America is not the only country to have had a similar amendment. However, in the last decade or so, most other developed countries have amended their constitution to reflect the world of today. The tyranny of a gun is no longer considered a means of freedom unless you are a police officer or in the military; as it should be.

context is the average american has the same individual rifle that the armed forces do. you're busy trying to have your cake and eat it too.