Posted:
#26
Quote Originally Posted by darkhorse12:
What you said here is no different. Cars, pools and guns are all tools.
seems like typical bureaucracy... as slow as the DMV
0
At a gun show
Posted:
#27
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
And for These supposed "loopholes" my background check is taking forever.
And for These supposed "loopholes" my background check is taking forever.
rick as I always say... even though we both lean conservative we dont always agree... but I do respect your opinion because it comes from a place of personal experience and perception...
the current fox"news"/propaganda is to talk about "good guys/bad guys" or to compare guns to other things to make the case that other things are more dangerous... I remember the thread about hammers we saw earlier...
I am not sure about the agenda of your initial post... it definitively got the fantasy land lemmings going...but what is it that you are really trying to say?
and if you do not like how it went at the gun show... what is the solution? how do you think the whole process should go in your opinion?
0
Posted:
#28
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
My sister drowned in a swimming pool when she was 4 and I was 8.5. Many more people die from water than guns in the USA. Should we ban water? Or swimming pools?
They cause way more grief than guns do here. I have two half brothers that were killed in a car accident too...you don't see me tryna ban cars.
Waaa Waaaa!
My sister drowned in a swimming pool when she was 4 and I was 8.5. Many more people die from water than guns in the USA. Should we ban water? Or swimming pools?
They cause way more grief than guns do here. I have two half brothers that were killed in a car accident too...you don't see me tryna ban cars.
Waaa Waaaa!
bowl, I'm not a proponent of confiscation nor a repeal on the 2nd Amendment.
If you've read ALL my posts about this issue,I'm sure you would've understood this.
The arbitrary and 'nebulous' definement of AW's is certainly a current hindrance for adequate knowledge pertaining to what guns are within designation as being an actual AW.
However,yes,I believe that the criterion for firearms being designated AW's should be expanded even further !
How many guns can you guys fire at 'one time?' TWO,most likely,right ?!
But some of you certainly don't want to be legally restricted to owning only two guns,right ?
Admit it,some of you guys enjoy gun shows,handling your guns,firing them either at a target range or whilst hunting,cleaning them,concealing them as you deem most securely,but at your ready for use.
ADMIT IT, you ENJOY GUNS and the possession of one / many !
If YOU LIKE your gun(s),simply acknowledge THAT !
Well,do you ?
0
Posted:
#29
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
The term assault weapon is a red herring. It is a nebulous term that essentially means nothing, and is being used to take away the right to own firearms. A semi automatic is not an assault weapon. A frigging pump action shotgun is not an assault weapon. So let's go ahead and clear that up now.
I know that it seems like a good idea to ban scary looking rifles. If I thought it would help I would change my buttstock, pistol grip and forward grip. But I think any rational thinking human being understands that a buttstock, or grip cant kill someone. It is a witch hunt, and people are being lied to to pass an agenda that has been on the table for decades.
How can you say that Feinstein, the brady campaign, and Eric holder do not want to get rid of guns. Do you know who is writing this gun legislation?
There is a video of Feinstien admitting that if she thought that she could get the votes she would deny Americans the right to any gun rights?
The ultimate goal is a total confiscation and we are following the same step by step plan that europe and australia did that is why I hope that no further legislation is enacted.
I know for a fact that the letters and phone calls that poured into my senator's office after he said he was willing to talk about more regulation changed his tune pretty fast.
https://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/05/joe-manchin-about-that-gun-grabbing-thing/
Paranoia [?pær?'n??.?] is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion
0
Posted:
#30
Quote Originally Posted by dl36:
rick as I always say... even though we both lean conservative we dont always agree... but I do respect your opinion because it comes from a place of personal experience and perception...
the current fox"news"/propaganda is to talk about "good guys/bad guys" or to compare guns to other things to make the case that other things are more dangerous... I remember the thread about hammers we saw earlier...
I am not sure about the agenda of your initial post... it definitively got the fantasy land lemmings going...but what is it that you are really trying to say?
and if you do not like how it went at the gun show... what is the solution? how do you think the whole process should go in your opinion?
IT was fine. I do not mind background checks. I never have. They take a while to call in. No big whoop.
The point was to illustrate that I was at a gun show, and getting a background check.
Many people will try to tell you that a gun show is a free for all where nobody gets checked and criminals go there to buy guns.
I was attempting to sarcastically say that contrary to popular belief, people get background checks at gun shows.
0
Posted:
#31
Quote Originally Posted by darkhorse12:
Paranoia [?pær?'n??.?] is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion
I do not feel like I am being Irrational nor delusional.
People that have stated that they do not believe in the individual right to posses firearms are mounting a campaign to regulation firearm ownership in this country?
In their own words they have talked about outright bans, and dropping semi autos, and weapons with the ability to utilize detachable magazines (which is essentially 95% of all weapons in this country).
I am really at a loss here, I do not know how to paint a clearer picture for you.
0
Posted:
#32
Quote Originally Posted by OakleyDoak:
bowl, I'm not a proponent of confiscation nor a repeal on the 2nd Amendment.
If you've read ALL my posts about this issue,I'm sure you would've understood this.
The arbitrary and 'nebulous' definement of AW's is certainly a current hindrance for adequate knowledge pertaining to what guns are within designation as being an actual AW.
bowl, I'm not a proponent of confiscation nor a repeal on the 2nd Amendment.
If you've read ALL my posts about this issue,I'm sure you would've understood this.
The arbitrary and 'nebulous' definement of AW's is certainly a current hindrance for adequate knowledge pertaining to what guns are within designation as being an actual AW.
However,yes,I believe that the criterion for firearms being designated AW's should be expanded even further !
How many guns can you guys fire at 'one time?' TWO,most likely,right ?!
But some of you certainly don't want to be legally restricted to owning only two guns,right ?
Admit it,some of you guys enjoy gun shows,handling your guns,firing them either at a target range or whilst hunting,cleaning them,concealing them as you deem most securely,but at your ready for use.
ADMIT IT, you ENJOY GUNS and the possession of one / many !
If YOU LIKE your gun(s),simply acknowledge THAT !
Well,do you ?
In the hands of a law abiding citizen, it doesn't matter how many guns they possess so long as they aren't acting like a gun seller.
Since we already have laws intended to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or mentally Ill, why should we enact more obsolete laws?
Criminals already are breaking laws if they possess a firearm. What good would more legislation do?
Also, describe to me the probability of criminals obeying any future laws.
0
Posted:
#33
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
IT was fine. I do not mind background checks. I never have. They take a while to call in. No big whoop.
The point was to illustrate that I was at a gun show, and getting a background check.
Many people will try to tell you that a gun show is a free for all where nobody gets checked and criminals go there to buy guns.
I was attempting to sarcastically say that contrary to popular belief, people get background checks at gun shows.
Ive been to a gun show before and I dont know who will tell you that it is a free for all unless they have never been to a real one...
But I guess you were tring to bring up the talking point of criminals that the partisan lemmings seem to be clinging to so tightly...
First off the black and white criminals/law abiding is a stupid distinction... people break the law daily running through red lights, parking violations, etc... are they criminals?
technically they are breaking the law right?
Have you ever been found guilty of a crime ever? doesnt that make you a criminal?
The truth is that neither criminals or law abiding citizens will give up their guns...
This is why the slogan from "from my cold dead hands" has lasted so long...
The reality is that both criminals and NRA enthusiasts will not give up their guns... that is why it wont work...
I have kept saying over and over that it is a time for us to keep it simple and be conservative minded... not a time to take a tragedy and push a gun agenda like liberals do... it is also not a time to try to play this "criminals label" talking point because although I agree with the idea of not taking guns away, the rationale how the conclusion is made through this "criminals label talking point" make the basic sentiment seem like it is simpleton's point on the level of a child...
it really is a silly argument and the child like level of thinking appeals to the fantasy land prescribed rhetoric lemmings...
like I always say... it is not what they think that make them look so silly... it is how they think
I get it that you feel the pressure of a sentiment to take your guns away... but lets get leave fantasy land and get real...
If a law is passed banning assault weapons that neither the criminals nor the NRA law abiding citizens would give up their guns....
unless the "from my cold dead hands" is simply a bluff... like the idea that carrying concealed weapons would make us safer... how is it safer when you carry it as a bluff and wont use it and follow through on what you say...
Rick I actually believe what you post as you have a history of an honest opinion... so I am wondering about your honest opinion about my ideas concerning this "criminals label talking point"
0
Posted:
#34
A ban will make me a criminal, and I suspect I will be treated as such. I promise that I will not turn in my firearms under any circumstance.
Your distinction is valid in a way.
I suppose a better argument would be that suicidal and homocidal people do not care about laws that have been made to restrict their crimes.
Your distinction is valid in a way.
I suppose a better argument would be that suicidal and homocidal people do not care about laws that have been made to restrict their crimes.
0
Posted:
#35
DL, Why is it that you label everything you don't want to talk about along with everything you don't understand a 'talking point'.
Its getting to the point where one cannot even have a discussion with you because everything you don't agree with is a 'talking point'.
Get over yourself.
Whats this crap you wrote about people running red lights? Did you put that in because you want to get nit picky about something I said about criminals that don't obey current gun laws and won't obey future gun laws? Why did you need to put some bs in about traffic lights?
Its getting to the point where one cannot even have a discussion with you because everything you don't agree with is a 'talking point'.
Get over yourself.
Whats this crap you wrote about people running red lights? Did you put that in because you want to get nit picky about something I said about criminals that don't obey current gun laws and won't obey future gun laws? Why did you need to put some bs in about traffic lights?
0
Posted:
#36
Waiting for any answer's to bowlslit's key question's.
" Since we already have law's intended to keep gun's out of the hand's of criminal's and the mentally ill, why should we enact more 'obsolete' law's " ? Don't think think the law's are obsolete though slit. Please explain, but somebody please answer the Q. As well as,
" Criminal's are already breaking law's if they possess a firearm. What good will more legislation do " ? Really looking forward to any real attempt at that one.(beyond traffic light's)
Also would like to see any attempt at refutation of statements;
" In the hands of a law abiding citizen, it doesn't matter how many gun's they possess as long as they aren't acting like a gun seller. " How many guns do you have to have " dodges don't count. " As many as I darn well please as long as I don't break the law " is already the answer to that. As well as,
" Also, describe to me the probability of criminals obeying any future law's ". (and I'll add, ' as well as the already 20 thousand already all over the country ' .)
Anyone ?
Rick. Slit. 
0
Posted:
#38
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
A ban will make me a criminal, and I suspect I will be treated as such. I promise that I will not turn in my firearms under any circumstance.
Your distinction is valid in a way.
I suppose a better argument would be that suicidal and homocidal people do not care about laws that have been made to restrict their crimes.
A ban will make me a criminal, and I suspect I will be treated as such. I promise that I will not turn in my firearms under any circumstance.
Your distinction is valid in a way.
I suppose a better argument would be that suicidal and homocidal people do not care about laws that have been made to restrict their crimes.
Rick...
thank you again for posting a real life perspective... anyone can simply turn on foxnews to hear someone parrot the "criminal label talking point"....
but you speak the truth about NRA/real gun people that a ban on guns would make the real people criminals... It makes you wonder then who the heck is spouting this idiotic idea that if there was a ban that NRA/real gun people would give up all their guns and criminals wont...
I mean who the hell came up with that talking point? Obvious not a real gun person... Any real NRA/gun person would know that if there was a gun ban then neither "criminals" (what ever that means) and non criminals would give up their guns...
The "criminal label talking point" smells of the same fantasyland ignorance as the gun bans...
I think tho if we are looking in response to the murder/suicides, you make a good point in terms of the law being a factor for them... the shooter in oregon had NO History of criminal behavior or record... so technically he was not a "criminal"...
It is funny how the propaganda parrots get so upset when ever a honest, real life dialog starts up.... mainly because reality seems to disprove their fantasy land talking points...
"from my cold dead hands"
0
Posted:
#39
Quote Originally Posted by djuengoe:
Waiting for any answer's to bowlslit's key question's.
Waiting for any answer's to bowlslit's key question's.
" Since we already have law's intended to keep gun's out of the hand's of criminal's and the mentally ill, why should we enact more 'obsolete' law's " ? Don't think think the law's are obsolete though slit. Please explain, but somebody please answer the Q. As well as,
" Criminal's are already breaking law's if they possess a firearm. What good will more legislation do " ? Really looking forward to any real attempt at that one.(beyond traffic light's)
Also would like to see any attempt at refutation of statements;
" In the hands of a law abiding citizen, it doesn't matter how many gun's they possess as long as they aren't acting like a gun seller. " How many guns do you have to have " dodges don't count. " As many as I darn well please as long as I don't break the law " is already the answer to that. As well as,
" Also, describe to me the probability of criminals obeying any future law's ". (and I'll add, ' as well as the already 20 thousand already all over the country ' .)
Anyone ?
Rick. Slit.
Guys like dl36 will try to deflect and minimize these points until someone else calls him out on his bs.
He has no rational answer to these questions. Thus he will continue to deflect and run away from the discussion. Like a coward.
0
Posted:
#40
Slit. Okay, thank's.
dl36. ZOINK's !! WHAT ??? You gotta lay off the drug's (or whatever) pal !
Criminal ; noun ; 1. One who has committed a crime. 2. One who has been convicted of a crime. 3. Constituting, implying, or involving a crime or an element of crime 4. Pertaining to some aspect of the penal code or it's administration (he said "penal ". Heeh !)
Crime; noun ; !. An action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare and that is deemed legally prohibited.2. Criminal activity or those engaged in it. 3. The habitual or frequent commission of crimes.
I hope that help's you. Personally, I've never had to look them up. Just always knew.
Now, if you would be kind enough to just stay with us for a second, carefully read my above post, and stick to what it specifically says, that would be grand. If your capable of that, that is. Somehow I don't think you are.
0
Posted:
#42
Quote Originally Posted by djuengoe:
Slit. Okay, thank's.
Slit. Okay, thank's.
dl36. ZOINK's !! WHAT ??? You gotta lay off the drug's (or whatever) pal !
Criminal ; noun ; 1. One who has committed a crime. 2. One who has been convicted of a crime. 3. Constituting, implying, or involving a crime or an element of crime 4. Pertaining to some aspect of the penal code or it's administration (he said "penal ". Heeh !)
Crime; noun ; !. An action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare and that is deemed legally prohibited.2. Criminal activity or those engaged in it. 3. The habitual or frequent commission of crimes.
I hope that help's you. Personally, I've never had to look them up. Just always knew.
Now, if you would be kind enough to just stay with us for a second, carefully read my above post, and stick to what it specifically says, that would be grand. If your capable of that, that is. Somehow I don't think you are.
Leave it to dl36 to not understand the difference between a misdemeanor, felony, and infraction.
Running a red light although can kill...is not a felony, or a misdemeanor. Parking tickets are not a felony or misdemeanor.
I would love for him to restore my confidence in him knowing these differences.
0
Posted:
#46
Quote Originally Posted by dl36:
Rick...
thank you again for posting a real life perspective... anyone can simply turn on foxnews to hear someone parrot the "criminal label talking point"....
but you speak the truth about NRA/real gun people that a ban on guns would make the real people criminals... It makes you wonder then who the heck is spouting this idiotic idea that if there was a ban that NRA/real gun people would give up all their guns and criminals wont...
I mean who the hell came up with that talking point? Obvious not a real gun person... Any real NRA/gun person would know that if there was a gun ban then neither "criminals" (what ever that means) and non criminals would give up their guns...
The "criminal label talking point" smells of the same fantasyland ignorance as the gun bans...
I think tho if we are looking in response to the murder/suicides, you make a good point in terms of the law being a factor for them... the shooter in oregon had NO History of criminal behavior or record... so technically he was not a "criminal"...
It is funny how the propaganda parrots get so
upset 
when ever a honest, real life dialog starts up.... mainly because reality seems to disprove their fantasy land talking points...
upset when ever a honest, real life dialog starts up.... mainly because reality seems to disprove their fantasy land talking points... "from my cold dead hands"
almost prophetical 
I start an honest conversation with rick and these "two posters" get all upset flooding the thread with posts...
seems like something I posted really struck a nerve...
because the "bail out" wouldnt be coming into try to save the day
0
Posted:
#47
Quote Originally Posted by dl36:
almost prophetical
I start an honest conversation with rick and these "two posters" get all upset flooding the thread with posts...
seems like something I posted really struck a nerve...
because the "bail out" wouldnt be coming into try to save the day
You wouldn't know an honest conversation if it bit you on the nose.
Once again.......more bs deflection and irony.
0
Hot Forum Topics
