Another idiot with a gun

[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.

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

Nice try there Charles, but still a failed attempt. You going to use a mulligan on that swing?

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.

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.

I am? First I heard that I want to ban guns but then you are the master of reading things that are not there so why am I surprised?

Truth is, you spout a lot of nonsense about guns for someone who purports to be an expert.

[Heracles 417]

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.

Only a farmer or someone who a hunter should have a riffle. For everyone else, they should have to go to a shooting club / ranges and keep their guns there. As they do in the UK and Aus.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Booyah!

[Ban Hammer 14,234]

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.

Nice try there Charles, but still a failed attempt. You going to use a mulligan on that swing?

i bolded it for you since you seemed to have forgotten which one it is. need a towel to wipe that egg off your face?

[HAL 9000 96]

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.

I am sure if there were cars back in the 18th century...

Update your clock- its the 21st.

Your idea about states sharing info might work. Its a step in the right direction at least.

Fine on the security clearance. The example still stands.

And fine on the testing part- its your interpretation of the legal loop behind the reasoning, which isn't yours, so by definition, excludes your imposition of value unto my idea. Insanity, nevertheless... IS NOT a normal mental state. Hence, he test does not assume insanity. It assumes sanity, with likely controls being actual insane personality traits. You understood that right? Its not my problem you have an emotional reflex to other people saying they want to take away your Boomstick. They are not me, and I am not them.

Furthermore, I am not anti-death penalty 100% of the time, so what is that... like conceptual FAIL #5 for you in this thread?

Calm down homeboy.

[Ban Hammer 14,234]

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.

I am? First I heard that I want to ban guns but then you are the master of reading things that are not there so why am I surprised?

Truth is, you spout a lot of nonsense about guns for someone who purports to be an expert.

at least i'm a bit more broad minded about gun ownership and have some expertise in the matter, as opposed to you.

[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.

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

Nice try there Charles, but still a failed attempt. You going to use a mulligan on that swing?

i bolded it for you since you seemed to have forgotten which one it is. need a towel to wipe that egg off your face?

Sorry Charles, I didn't go straight for the racist insinuation. Thought maybe a genuine IQ test would be a good idea. You know, one that ISN'T biased so that only one group can pass it. You still fail for going straight to the racist innuendo. Keep grasping.

[Ban Hammer 14,234]

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.

Only a farmer or someone who a hunter should have a riffle. For everyone else, they should have to go to a shooting club / ranges and keep their guns there. As they do in the UK and Aus.

well isn't that special? here again, we have someone who can't even vote telling usc's what they should or shouldn't do. i'm so glad you exclude grandma and grandpa, single women, and the physically disabled from your narrow mind as they need to be able to defend themselves.

[rebeccajo 14]

at least i'm a bit more broad minded about gun ownership and have some expertise in the matter, as opposed to you.

And I have some expertise about mental patients, as opposed to you.

This thread is about a guy who (whilst in an obviously unstable state) murdered HIS WIFE, HIS SON, and shot HIS PREGNANT DAUGHTER IN LAW.

Is there something about this that alludes you?

I did not start the thread to advocate overall gun control. I started the thread to have a discussion about WHETHER OR NOT someone who has been certified unstable, or who has had a recent mental health commitment, should be allowed to possess a gun.

Is there not something about two innocent dead bodies that doesn't say to you there is room here for some discussion AWAY FROM THE SECOND AMENDMENT in certain situations?

Come on now..........think about it!

[Ban Hammer 14,234]

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.

I am sure if there were cars back in the 18th century...

Update your clock- its the 21st.

Your idea about states sharing info might work. Its a step in the right direction at least.

Fine on the security clearance. The example still stands.

And fine on the testing part- its your interpretation of the legal loop behind the reasoning, which isn't yours, so by definition, excludes your imposition of value unto my idea. Insanity, nevertheless... IS NOT a normal mental state. Hence, he test does not assume insanity. It assumes sanity, with likely controls being actual insane personality traits. You understood that right? Its not my problem you have an emotional reflex to other people saying they want to take away your Boomstick. They are not me, and I am not them.

Furthermore, I am not anti-death penalty 100% of the time, so what is that... like conceptual FAIL #5 for you in this thread?

Calm down homeboy.

no kidding, it's the 21st century. and the document is still as valid today as it was then. while you may be gung ho to put your rights in the hands of some faceless bureacrat, i'm against the idea.

[Ban Hammer 14,234]

Sorry Charles, I didn't go straight for the racist insinuation. Thought maybe a genuine IQ test would be a good idea. You know, one that ISN'T biased so that only one group can pass it. You still fail for going straight to the racist innuendo. Keep grasping.

just pointing out that it's been done before. but pardon me for knowing about jim crowe laws while you didn't.

and you missed a spot on the left side of your nose.

[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.

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

I am? First I heard that I want to ban guns but then you are the master of reading things that are not there so why am I surprised?

Truth is, you spout a lot of nonsense about guns for someone who purports to be an expert.

at least i'm a bit more broad minded about gun ownership and have some expertise in the matter, as opposed to you.

I don't purport to be a gun expert. As to how 'broad minded' I am regarding gun ownership - that's guess work on your part. The only things you know for certain about my opinion on guns is that it's foolish to assume a cavalier attitude about firearms in order to further an agenda. Foolish in the extreme. That it's foolish to believe that gun owners are some how safer than non gun owners and that there is no correlation between legal gun ownership and gun crime and finally that this notion that gun ownership rights guarentee the integrity of freedom as being about as foolish a notion as you can get. That's all you know because that's all I have ever posted.

[Ban Hammer 14,234]

at least i'm a bit more broad minded about gun ownership and have some expertise in the matter, as opposed to you.

And I have some expertise about mental patients, as opposed to you.

This thread is about a guy who (whilst in an obviously unstable state) murdered HIS WIFE, HIS SON, and shot HIS PREGNANT DAUGHTER IN LAW.

Is there something about this that alludes you?

I did not start the thread to advocate overall gun control. I started the thread to have a discussion about WHETHER OR NOT someone who has been certified unstable, or who has had a recent mental health commitment, should be allowed to possess a gun.

Is there not something about two innocent dead bodies that doesn't say to you there is room here for some discussion AWAY FROM THE SECOND AMENDMENT in certain situations?

Come on now..........think about it!

i am well aware of all of that, thank you. however, where is your outrage for those trying to use this as a reason to institute broad reaching gun control laws?

as posted just a bit ago, i'm all for states sharing information on those deemed mentally ill. and i'm all for states have a better system for tracking those within their state that has been declared mentally ill. and i'm all for mental health professionals being required to inform the state about anyone they deem mentally ill or whatever term you may want to apply.

next?

[HAL 9000 96]

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.

I am sure if there were cars back in the 18th century...

Update your clock- its the 21st.

Your idea about states sharing info might work. Its a step in the right direction at least.

Fine on the security clearance. The example still stands.

And fine on the testing part- its your interpretation of the legal loop behind the reasoning, which isn't yours, so by definition, excludes your imposition of value unto my idea. Insanity, nevertheless... IS NOT a normal mental state. Hence, he test does not assume insanity. It assumes sanity, with likely controls being actual insane personality traits. You understood that right? Its not my problem you have an emotional reflex to other people saying they want to take away your Boomstick. They are not me, and I am not them.

Furthermore, I am not anti-death penalty 100% of the time, so what is that... like conceptual FAIL #5 for you in this thread?

Calm down homeboy.

no kidding, it's the 21st century. and the document is still as valid today as it was then. while you may be gung ho to put your rights in the hands of some faceless bureacrat, i'm against the idea.

And yet... once again... what rights are being impinged upon?

Calm down there Charles. Unless you're crazy. Then you get 'license' to get defensive about this 'idea' that has nothing to do with taking guns away from people prone to using them against innocent people. That's been stated already though... just in case you selectively blocked that out.

[The Dude 206]

Sorry Charles, I didn't go straight for the racist insinuation. Thought maybe a genuine IQ test would be a good idea. You know, one that ISN'T biased so that only one group can pass it. You still fail for going straight to the racist innuendo. Keep grasping.

just pointing out that it's been done before. but pardon me for knowing about jim crowe laws while you didn't.

and you missed a spot on the left side of your nose.

I'm well aware of the past. However, I was trying to have a modern discussion. I guess I was hoping for too much from this crowd. But it does seem to be indicative of your views of law and order in this country.