Brian,

Drink a warm glass of milk and go to bed.

(May 7, 2017 at 11:36 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(May 7, 2017 at 11:08 am)KUSA Wrote: You got me on that one. Dang, I need to try harder.

BULLSHIT and you know it.

I don't want all firearms banned. Saying you don't need big clips or spray riffles does not mean an all out ban. Saying we don't do enough to prevent the mentally ill or violent felons or domestic abusers from getting them, ALSO NOT A CALL FOR AN ALL OUT BAN.

You can legally buy a car. But you cant drive a an armed military tank on a public highway, much less own one. 

Seat belts are not anti car. Speed limits are not anti car. Saying we need to get off burning fossil fuels, also not anti transportation.

Idiots like you would rightfully agree that you would not want your gun used unauthorized. I agree ONLY YOU should be using it. But you are so stuck in the past, and paranoid you wont even consider makers moving to smart guns which would prevent unauthorized use.

The Second Amendment was never intended as "anything goes" free for all. Just like "no taxation without representation, never meant no taxes at all" With rights come responsibility, and with political pluralism which is what the west rightfully values, one lobby does not get to dictate by itself. Not getting everything you want all the time is not oppressing you. 

YOUR EGO, is the problem, not your right to own a firearm. Your "anything goes" bullshit is the problem, not gun ownership itself. But more importantly FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY, your "nothing bad will happen because I was legal at the time of buy" is mental laziness, and FOR YOU, for your own safety, that alone makes you far more dangerous to yourself.

NOBODY IS OUT TO GET YOU. How is it you can apply rightful skepticism on religion, but when it comes to guns you scream like a fucking brat "BLASPHEMER" when nobody is out to oppress you for pointing out your lack of pragmatism. I cant oppress religion either, but when when it gets out of hand, it should be challenged to a manageable level.

We have a gun injury death epidemic. You like right wing Muslims and right wing Christians blindly defend a topic when nobody is arguing an all out ban, or should for that matter. 

GROW THE FUCK UP. Safety isn't a call for a ban. Regulations are not a ban. Your attitude sucks.

Hi Brian. 

I am not sure that I ever wrote that you won't to ban all guns, but I do get the sense that you are anti-gun and anti-gun ownership.  

What we have in the US is a crime epidemic and a murder-by-any-means epidemic and a drug epidemic.  We do not have a gun injury and death epidemic.

You seem to believe because you do not call for a ban on all guns that NOBODY is out to do so....and that is just uninformed nonsense.  The anti-gun and Socialist bunch have been out to remove all guns from all private citizens for decades.  Perhaps because you sort of agree with them, you never noticed.  

Sarah Brady said long ago, "Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."

Of whom do you think she was speaking?

Janet Reno said, "Waiting periods are only a step.  Registration is only a step.  Prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

Charles Schumer said, "We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy!  We're going to beat guns into submission."

Sounds to me and to many others that a whole bunch of powerful people want to take our guns away and just delete the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights.

And...of course, Lenin told them, "A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie."

I appreciate your not wanting to have a gun around you, as my sister is the same.  Although she once broke a wine glass to slice her wrists when she had suicidal ideations last time many years ago.

Men do tend to like to make a show of it and guns certainly do that.  

My way of looking at this is that the law-abiding gun owners have already grown up and faced reality and we will continue to proceed accordingly.

-Jeanne

(May 9, 2017 at 3:49 pm)Jeanne Wrote:

(May 7, 2017 at 11:36 am)Brian37 Wrote: BULLSHIT and you know it.

I don't want all firearms banned. Saying you don't need big clips or spray riffles does not mean an all out ban. Saying we don't do enough to prevent the mentally ill or violent felons or domestic abusers from getting them, ALSO NOT A CALL FOR AN ALL OUT BAN.

You can legally buy a car. But you cant drive a an armed military tank on a public highway, much less own one. 

Seat belts are not anti car. Speed limits are not anti car. Saying we need to get off burning fossil fuels, also not anti transportation.

Idiots like you would rightfully agree that you would not want your gun used unauthorized. I agree ONLY YOU should be using it. But you are so stuck in the past, and paranoid you wont even consider makers moving to smart guns which would prevent unauthorized use.

The Second Amendment was never intended as "anything goes" free for all. Just like "no taxation without representation, never meant no taxes at all" With rights come responsibility, and with political pluralism which is what the west rightfully values, one lobby does not get to dictate by itself. Not getting everything you want all the time is not oppressing you. 

YOUR EGO, is the problem, not your right to own a firearm. Your "anything goes" bullshit is the problem, not gun ownership itself. But more importantly FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY, your "nothing bad will happen because I was legal at the time of buy" is mental laziness, and FOR YOU, for your own safety, that alone makes you far more dangerous to yourself.

NOBODY IS OUT TO GET YOU. How is it you can apply rightful skepticism on religion, but when it comes to guns you scream like a fucking brat "BLASPHEMER" when nobody is out to oppress you for pointing out your lack of pragmatism. I cant oppress religion either, but when when it gets out of hand, it should be challenged to a manageable level.

We have a gun injury death epidemic. You like right wing Muslims and right wing Christians blindly defend a topic when nobody is arguing an all out ban, or should for that matter. 

GROW THE FUCK UP. Safety isn't a call for a ban. Regulations are not a ban. Your attitude sucks.

Hi Brian. 

I am not sure that I ever wrote that you won't to ban all guns, but I do get the sense that you are anti-gun and anti-gun ownership.  

What we have in the US is a crime epidemic and a murder-by-any-means epidemic and a drug epidemic.  We do not have a gun injury and death epidemic.

You seem to believe because you do not call for a ban on all guns that NOBODY is out to do so....and that is just uninformed nonsense.  The anti-gun and Socialist bunch have been out to remove all guns from all private citizens for decades.  Perhaps because you sort of agree with them, you never noticed.  

Sarah Brady said long ago, "Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."

Of whom do you think she was speaking?

Janet Reno said, "Waiting periods are only a step.  Registration is only a step.  Prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

Charles Schumer said, "We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy!  We're going to beat guns into submission."

Sounds to me and to many others that a whole bunch of powerful people want to take our guns away and just delete the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights.

And...of course, Lenin told them, "A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie."

I appreciate your not wanting to have a gun around you, as my sister is the same.  Although she once broke a wine glass to slice her wrists when she had suicidal ideations last time many years ago.

Men do tend to like to make a show of it and guns certainly do that.  

My way of looking at this is that the law-abiding gun owners have already grown up and faced reality and we will continue to proceed accordingly.

-Jeanne

Holy crap, nobody is accusing you of saying that. Others here have accused me of that.

You get the sense? Oh so you are inside my head controlling my thoughts? You can read minds?

I am NOT anti firearm as in "ban all guns". I am pro sanity, and right now I don't see it with all the firearm injuries and deaths reported every day.

This is nuts, I cant even point to firearm owners who AGREE WITH ME, like Gawdzilla.

This is the same crap I get from people on issues of economics.

"You hate the private sector"

Me, "No I do think it lopsided benefiting the top far to much at this current point in history".

You," So you do hate the private sector"

Me, "Fine, if you wont listen to me, how about PHD economists and billionaires like Nick Hanauer who don't agree with you?"

Since when is Janet Reno the totality of America? If you are going to go there, Trump called himself a democrat back then so? 

I don't live in a utopia, nor am I trying to push one. Any liberal claiming it is possible to ban all firearms I don't agree with. And again, liberals own firearms too. There is no political oath litmus test to own one.

NO, for the last time I AM NOT for an all out ban.

I am for regulations, I am for limits on clip sizes, and bans ONLY on certain types, not all.

Just like it is legal to buy Aspirin over the counter, but you cant buy or sell oxycoten as a civilian. Is limiting which drugs laypeople who are not doctors or pharmacists a ban on Aspirin?

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/look-...ol-history

FYI, I have always hated the term "gun control" that makes the far right paranoid. I say "gun safety". 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in...ted_States

And even as much as I hated Conservative SCOTUS Scalia, even he said this. 

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

"Like most rights, THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT IS NOT UNLIMITED"

Now, that was NOT me saying that, that was a GOP Conservative SCOTUS.

I agree, and just like religion, you have a right to believe what you want, but we also have laws against allowing your kid to die because you claim your religion gives you the right to deny medical care.

He is saying even given that right REGULATIONS ARE LEGAL.

The state can ban the mentally ill, the state can ban felons, the state can make gun laws regarding schools, the state can ban certain types too. Thus his use of "CONDITIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS".

So even SCALIA, a republican judge was saying the 2nd Amendment isn't a free for all.

REGULATIONS are not bans, just like it is legal to drink beer and even make and sell beer, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS and you cant drink and drive and if you make beer you have to follow health codes, and you cannot sell beer to minors. 

Now if you want to argue our current regulations are too strict, well in that MSNBC article 56% of Americans say they are not strict enough. I agree, we don't vet well enough. But that is not a call for an all out ban. 

Mostly what i object to is the marketing of the NRA. If they were still the safety advocates they were when they started out as i would have no problem with them. 

The state can also decide it is lawful for law abiding citizens to own machine guns, rifles that fire 20 mm cannon ammunition, and fully functional tanks if they jump through enough flaming hoops. Which by the way is exactly what they have decided.

(May 9, 2017 at 5:03 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: The state can also decide it is lawful for law abiding citizens to own machine guns, rifles that fire 20 mm cannon ammunition, and fully functional tanks if they jump through enough flaming hoops. Which by the way is exactly what they have decided.

Slavery was also once legal, just because something can be made a law does not make it a good idea.

Remember that stupid argument when the next mentally ill with no record at time of buy, like the Va Tech shooter murders 32 people. Remember that the next time someone with Autism gets a hold of their parents firearm because the parent is too stupid to realize it is a bad idea to have in the house. 

Regulations are not illegal to make, even SCALIA himself said it was not a free for all. 

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

EVEN HE SAID IT IS NOT A FREE FOR ALL.

No sorry, in a political pluralistic society, not getting everything you want all the time, is not oppressing you. No point in voting if we only do what one minority sect of society wants. NRA members only number 5 million, that is not even the majority of gun owners. 
 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/09/22/study-guns-owners-violence/90858752/

According to that article 55 million Americans own firearms. That still is bigger than the 5 million firearm owners who belong to the NRA. So the NRA is NOT representative of the majority of firearm owners.

So the reality is, we have a small minority holding the nation hostage.

(May 9, 2017 at 4:37 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Holy crap, nobody is accusing you of saying that. Others here have accused me of that.

You get the sense? Oh so you are inside my head controlling my thoughts? You can read minds?

You seem to be able to read minds. You have said many times that my first reaction to an adverse situation is to use my gun. No matter how many times I point out the falsehood of that you keep on going on with that premise.

Quote:NO, for the last time I AM NOT for an all out ban.

You are for an all out ban on the guns that I own.

Quote:I am for regulations,

I don't mind some regulations as long as people like you are not writing them.

Quote:I am for limits on clip sizes,

I don't much care about clip sizes. You can have all the clips you want. I don't own any clips.

Quote:and bans ONLY on certain types, not all.

The types I own. You can't have my guns Brian.

(May 9, 2017 at 5:36 pm)KUSA Wrote:

(May 9, 2017 at 4:37 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Holy crap, nobody is accusing you of saying that. Others here have accused me of that.

You get the sense? Oh so you are inside my head controlling my thoughts? You can read minds?

You seem to be able to read minds. You have said many times that my first reaction to an adverse situation is to use my gun. No matter how many times I point out the falsehood of that you keep on going on with that premise.

Quote:NO, for the last time I AM NOT for an all out ban.

You are for an all out ban on the guns that I own.

Quote:I am for regulations,

I don't mind some regulations as long as people like you are not writing them.

Quote:I am for limits on clip sizes,

I don't much care about clip sizes. You can have all the clips you want. I don't own any clips.

Quote:and bans ONLY on certain types, not all.

The types I own. You can't have my guns Brian.

You don't mind regulations as long as I am not writing them? Ok, what about liberal gun owners who DO hold office? You think that is a myth? You think there are no democrats in red states who own firearms? You think out of the over 400 districts in America there is not one single local or state politician in a red state who is a Democrat AND also owns a firearm?

Oh and considering your post on the other website about how frustrated you are about life, I wish I was a lawmaker, I would get you help before you get that desperate knowing you also have access to firearms. I would want to prevent you from harming yourself. I am not even being sarcastic or joking about that. I am being dead serious.

That is the difference between you and me. I also suffer from depression and get frustrated by life too. But I am self aware, you don't seem to be, and FOR YOU, not me, BUT YOU, you really need to understand that for your own safety.

I am not even trying to be mean or sarcastic in saying that. Mental illness should not be stigmatized, but just like alcohol, it is not a good combo with firearms. You need to think about that for YOU. 

I have had several times I thought about calling it quits. And every time I look back at it now, I think about everything I would have missed, AND always glad I didn't have a firearm. 

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...t-problems

Now, to the OTHER 2nd Amendment advocates, if you would argue I should not have one, go to that thread and read KUSA's post. 

KUSA I can take lots of insults, and even with all that I have always said I don't hate you. Your talk and behavior is a concern to me, as a human being, not even as a political issue. It DOES worry me that you start a thread like that, and also have access to firearms. NOT BECAUSE I HATE YOU, your logic maybe, sure, but  it worries me because I don't want to see you hurt yourself.

Just like others here expressed their concerns with MYSTIC and his dreamy eyed talk about the Koran.

---

(May 9, 2017 at 5:36 pm)KUSA Wrote:

(May 9, 2017 at 4:37 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Holy crap, nobody is accusing you of saying that. Others here have accused me of that.

You get the sense? Oh so you are inside my head controlling my thoughts? You can read minds?

You seem to be able to read minds. You have said many times that my first reaction to an adverse situation is to use my gun. No matter how many times I point out the falsehood of that you keep on going on with that premise.

Quote:NO, for the last time I AM NOT for an all out ban.

You are for an all out ban on the guns that I own.

Quote:I am for regulations,

I don't mind some regulations as long as people like you are not writing them.

Quote:I am for limits on clip sizes,

I don't much care about clip sizes. You can have all the clips you want. I don't own any clips.

Quote:and bans ONLY on certain types, not all.

The types I own. You can't have my guns Brian.

Guns are not children, they are objects. Taxes can be raised to buy them back so you don't lose money, you'd still be able to buy other types to replace them. But again, considering the thread you started on TTA about life sucking, not sure even then it is a good idea for you to be around them.

The last time Gallup asked Americans if Americans should be allowed to own assault rifles Americans voted yes by a fairly wide margin.

(May 9, 2017 at 6:09 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: The last time Gallup asked Americans if Americans should be allowed to own assault rifles Americans voted yes by a fairly wide margin.

Yea and? You ignored the USA poll, seems like selection bias on your part.

---

(May 9, 2017 at 6:16 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(May 9, 2017 at 6:09 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: The last time Gallup asked Americans if Americans should be allowed to own assault rifles Americans voted yes by a fairly wide margin.

Yea and? You ignored the USA article, seems like selection bias on your part.

And so what, long ago most humans thought the earth was flat. If Americans were suddenly polled and wanted slavery back you'd be for it? Tons of people also deny climate change too, our species will pay for that denial long term.

No other westernized 1rst world nation has the volume of mass shootings America has had in it's history.

Ok Brian, you crossed the line this time. I am putting you on ignore here. I hope everybody else does the same.