(May 9, 2017 at 8:25 pm)Lutrinae Wrote: Can someone tell me where it states one MUST own a gun?

Therefore, gun owners should do us all a favor and not own guns.

Don't go there, some of the far right worshipers would mandate that. I don't want one. 

They should do us a favor and consider our current laws are not as effective as they'd like to believe.

36,000 firearm deaths on average per year of all types and mostly with the user or someone the user knows, would not indicate to me we have a grip on effectively reducing gun deaths.

And again, the reason I don't want one isn't demanding nobody ever have one. I am only arguing that we have small minority of gun users who don't want to face that we have a gun death epidemic.

---

(May 9, 2017 at 8:27 pm)Fireball Wrote:

(May 9, 2017 at 6:57 pm)Brian37 Wrote: And again if Gallop polled people and 56% of those polled thought the earth was flat, would the earth be flat? If 56% of Americans were polled and thought it was ok for a 30 year old man to marry a 13 year old, would that make it ok?

Again, you are cherry picking one poll, I gave you two other links the USA link and the MSNBC link.

Just because you can do something does not make it wise. 

And again, I also gave you SCALIA's quote saying the 2nd was not a free for all.

---

Thanks for getting me banned on TTA for "harrassment" when I was trying to help you.

That is ok, if it gets you the help you need, and you don't hurt yourself and it makes you feel better, I don't mind.

Your silly assed idea of "help" is neither needed or helpful. You got a time out at TTA, not a ban. I think that you need help, personally. You don't even understand his situation, you just went on another blithering anti-gun tirade. :dodgy:

Ok fine, you can use that line of argument too.

You, "You're the one who needs help"

See that doesn't help your side of the argument, because currently our vetting system would NOT prevent me from legally buying a firearm because right now, I have not legally documented record of violent felonies nor would my depression prevent me from legally buying one under my current status. Again, I feel lucky about myself because I am self aware. I don't want one, much less feel I need one. But strictly from a legal standpoint, if I were too buy a firearm tomorrow, I would be "legal at time of buy".

Cant have it both ways. KUSA thinks conservatively I am liberal, other liberals own firearms, but the one thing we do both have in common is admitting to thoughts of calling it quits. Now do you seriously think anyone, left or right who expresses those thoughts should be near a loaded weapon or have access to weapons and ammunition? Now even if you are not concerned with me, KUSA also expressed those thoughts, so again, you don't have to like me, but if you care about him, then his expressions of calling it quits and being around weapons SHOULD concern you.

Go back and read that CDC list.

And how dare you claim that his life is worse than mine, or because I am a liberal I don't share the same mental issues. The only difference between him and me  our economic political views. I have never, nor will ever claim I am perfect, or the deserves harm because I don't like his arguments. 

I do know what it is like to have my life put in danger around someone with a firearm who shouldn't have had one. I do know what it is like to intensely feel "life sucks". I do know what it is like to worry about my other family members whom have the same issues as I do, but again, they don't see what I see, they don't see that those issues are not good combos mixed with weapons. And these are NOT people I hate, these are people I love, people in my own family.

And you have not been paying attention to him dishing it out a year go bragging about how Trump would win, his views have changed since then, but that is not the point. You didn't notice his thread using "you live in your mommy's basement" and wouldn't even listen to me when I said, "I don't even like that argument when Liberals use that against conservatives. He used very blunt and salty language to me. I was more ticked at his logic than his word choice.

You, "I need help", well again, unfortunately that would not prevent most firearm buyers with mental issues whom have no record at time of buy.

You are being selective because he ALSO expressed how his life sucks. So you saying because he likes guns like you that magically will prevent him from hurting himself even though he has talked like he is tired of life?

---

(May 9, 2017 at 8:29 pm)Lutrinae Wrote: It is not as though the gun is a biological part of you; therefore, you should have no legal right to it.

See now when the right  wingers read this they will gloss over my disagreement with this.

From the Standpoint of SCALIA I agree, firearm ownership is not a free for all.

But no, if someone can prove like you do with a drivers licence, that they can do it right, and have no mental illness or addictions or history of violence, and lock them up, and don't brag about it, I can see people having them.

I have only been arguing all this time, that our current laws are NOT keeping them out of the wrong hands, because most firearm deaths are with the user, not user vs complete stranger.

I do agree with the right to own a firearm, UNDER THE RIGHT CONDITIONS and with the right and effective regulations. 

Saying the mentally ill, the addict, the abuser should not have them is reasonable. Saying that we don't do enough vet those people who can be legal at time of buy but become an addict, become depressed or become an abuser after their legal perchase, is also reasonable. Saying that you don't need big clips or spray weapons is not a call for an all out ban.

But again, this is what frustrates me. I cant even get people to see that I am disagreeing with your statement. 

Guns are not humans, that is what you mean by that. I agree, humans have rights, objects are not humans and don't deserve protection. Having a right to any form of property is not saying that property itself should be a free for all. Your house has certain wiring specks, certain required studs per feet, certain load bearing beams required, and it would not be legal to sell a house if those specks are not met.

(May 9, 2017 at 8:35 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(May 9, 2017 at 8:25 pm)Lutrinae Wrote: Can someone tell me where it states one MUST own a gun?

Therefore, gun owners should do us all a favor and not own guns.

Don't go there, some of the far right worshipers would mandate that. I don't want one. 

They should do us a favor and consider our current laws are not as effective as they'd like to believe.

36,000 firearm deaths on average per year of all types and mostly with the user or someone the user knows, would not indicate to me we have a grip on effectively reducing gun deaths.

And again, the reason I don't want one isn't demanding nobody ever have one. I am only arguing that we have small minority of gun users who don't want to face that we have a gun death epidemic.

---

(May 9, 2017 at 8:27 pm)Fireball Wrote: Your silly assed idea of "help" is neither needed or helpful. You got a time out at TTA, not a ban. I think that you need help, personally. You don't even understand his situation, you just went on another blithering anti-gun tirade.

Ok fine, you can use that line of argument too.

You, "You're the one who needs help"

See that doesn't help your side of the argument, because currently our vetting system would NOT prevent me from legally buying a firearm because right now, I have not legally documented record of violent felonies nor would my depression prevent me from legally buying one under my current status. Again, I feel lucky about myself because I am self aware. I don't want one, much less feel I need one. But strictly from a legal standpoint, if I were too buy a firearm tomorrow, I would be "legal at time of buy".

Cant have it both ways. KUSA thinks conservatively I am liberal, other liberals own firearms, but the one thing we do both have in common is admitting to thoughts of calling it quits. Now do you seriously think anyone, left or right who expresses those thoughts should be near a loaded weapon or have access to weapons and ammunition? Now even if you are not concerned with me, KUSA also expressed those thoughts, so again, you don't have to like me, but if you care about him, then his expressions of calling it quits and being around weapons SHOULD concern you.

Go back and read that CDC list.

And how dare you claim that his life is worse than mine, or because I am a liberal I don't share the same mental issues. The only difference between him and me  our economic political views. I have never, nor will ever claim I am perfect, or the deserves harm because I don't like his arguments. 

I do know what it is like to have my life put in danger around someone with a firearm who shouldn't have had one. I do know what it is like to intensely feel "life sucks". I do know what it is like to worry about my other family members whom have the same issues as I do, but again, they don't see what I see, they don't see that those issues are not good combos mixed with weapons. And these are NOT people I hate, these are people I love, people in my own family.

And you have not been paying attention to him dishing it out a year go bragging about how Trump would win, his views have changed since then, but that is not the point. You didn't notice his thread using "you live in your mommy's basement" and wouldn't even listen to me when I said, "I don't even like that argument when Liberals use that against conservatives. He used very blunt and salty language to me. I was more ticked at his logic than his word choice.

You, "I need help", well again, unfortunately that would not prevent most firearm buyers with mental issues whom have no record at time of buy.

You are being selective because he ALSO expressed how his life sucks. So you saying because he likes guns like you that magically will prevent him from hurting himself even though he has talked like he is tired of life?

---

(May 9, 2017 at 8:29 pm)Lutrinae Wrote: It is not as though the gun is a biological part of you; therefore, you should have no legal right to it.

See now when the right  wingers read this they will gloss over my disagreement with this.

From the Standpoint of SCALIA I agree, firearm ownership is not a free for all.

But no, if someone can prove like you do with a drivers licence, that they can do it right, and have no mental illness or addictions or history of violence, and lock them up, and don't brag about it, I can see people having them.

I have only been arguing all this time, that our current laws are NOT keeping them out of the wrong hands, because most firearm deaths are with the user, not user vs complete stranger.

I do agree with the right to own a firearm, UNDER THE RIGHT CONDITIONS and with the right and effective regulations. 

Saying the mentally ill, the addict, the abuser should not have them is reasonable. Saying that we don't do enough vet those people who can be legal at time of buy but become an addict, become depressed or become an abuser after their legal perchase, is also reasonable. Saying that you don't need big clips or spray weapons is not a call for an all out ban.

But again, this is what frustrates me. I cant even get people to see that I am disagreeing with your statement. 

Guns are not humans, that is what you mean by that. I agree, humans have rights, objects are not humans and don't deserve protection. Having a right to any form of property is not saying that property itself should be a free for all. Your house has certain wiring specks, certain required studs per feet, certain load bearing beams required, and it would not be legal to sell a house if those specks are not met.

I don't have enough straw to stuff the army you have constructed. "Rational poet"? Holy shit. You have the signal honor of being the first person I have ever set to ignore on the entire internet. Dude, you need to get a grip.

(May 9, 2017 at 9:38 pm)Fireball Wrote:

(May 9, 2017 at 8:35 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Don't go there, some of the far right worshipers would mandate that. I don't want one. 

They should do us a favor and consider our current laws are not as effective as they'd like to believe.

36,000 firearm deaths on average per year of all types and mostly with the user or someone the user knows, would not indicate to me we have a grip on effectively reducing gun deaths.

And again, the reason I don't want one isn't demanding nobody ever have one. I am only arguing that we have small minority of gun users who don't want to face that we have a gun death epidemic.

---

Ok fine, you can use that line of argument too.

You, "You're the one who needs help"

See that doesn't help your side of the argument, because currently our vetting system would NOT prevent me from legally buying a firearm because right now, I have not legally documented record of violent felonies nor would my depression prevent me from legally buying one under my current status. Again, I feel lucky about myself because I am self aware. I don't want one, much less feel I need one. But strictly from a legal standpoint, if I were too buy a firearm tomorrow, I would be "legal at time of buy".

Cant have it both ways. KUSA thinks conservatively I am liberal, other liberals own firearms, but the one thing we do both have in common is admitting to thoughts of calling it quits. Now do you seriously think anyone, left or right who expresses those thoughts should be near a loaded weapon or have access to weapons and ammunition? Now even if you are not concerned with me, KUSA also expressed those thoughts, so again, you don't have to like me, but if you care about him, then his expressions of calling it quits and being around weapons SHOULD concern you.

Go back and read that CDC list.

And how dare you claim that his life is worse than mine, or because I am a liberal I don't share the same mental issues. The only difference between him and me  our economic political views. I have never, nor will ever claim I am perfect, or the deserves harm because I don't like his arguments. 

I do know what it is like to have my life put in danger around someone with a firearm who shouldn't have had one. I do know what it is like to intensely feel "life sucks". I do know what it is like to worry about my other family members whom have the same issues as I do, but again, they don't see what I see, they don't see that those issues are not good combos mixed with weapons. And these are NOT people I hate, these are people I love, people in my own family.

And you have not been paying attention to him dishing it out a year go bragging about how Trump would win, his views have changed since then, but that is not the point. You didn't notice his thread using "you live in your mommy's basement" and wouldn't even listen to me when I said, "I don't even like that argument when Liberals use that against conservatives. He used very blunt and salty language to me. I was more ticked at his logic than his word choice.

You, "I need help", well again, unfortunately that would not prevent most firearm buyers with mental issues whom have no record at time of buy.

You are being selective because he ALSO expressed how his life sucks. So you saying because he likes guns like you that magically will prevent him from hurting himself even though he has talked like he is tired of life?

---

See now when the right  wingers read this they will gloss over my disagreement with this.

From the Standpoint of SCALIA I agree, firearm ownership is not a free for all.

But no, if someone can prove like you do with a drivers licence, that they can do it right, and have no mental illness or addictions or history of violence, and lock them up, and don't brag about it, I can see people having them.

I have only been arguing all this time, that our current laws are NOT keeping them out of the wrong hands, because most firearm deaths are with the user, not user vs complete stranger.

I do agree with the right to own a firearm, UNDER THE RIGHT CONDITIONS and with the right and effective regulations. 

Saying the mentally ill, the addict, the abuser should not have them is reasonable. Saying that we don't do enough vet those people who can be legal at time of buy but become an addict, become depressed or become an abuser after their legal perchase, is also reasonable. Saying that you don't need big clips or spray weapons is not a call for an all out ban.

But again, this is what frustrates me. I cant even get people to see that I am disagreeing with your statement. 

Guns are not humans, that is what you mean by that. I agree, humans have rights, objects are not humans and don't deserve protection. Having a right to any form of property is not saying that property itself should be a free for all. Your house has certain wiring specks, certain required studs per feet, certain load bearing beams required, and it would not be legal to sell a house if those specks are not met.

I don't have enough straw to stuff the army you have constructed. "Rational poet"? Holy shit. You have the signal honor of being the first person I have ever set to ignore on the entire internet. Dude, you need to get a grip.

Good, that is what the ignore option is there for. I have never used it myself at this website, but I have used block on Facebook and Twitter. 


Even outside the issue of this website. Both with my late mother AND with my older biological sister, since we don't agree on most topics, I kept my social media life separate from my phone calls or in person visits. So yea, I really would not demand you exchange posts with me.

Yea I am being Rational FYI, not that you will read this. 

Rational, " I have no doctors licence so I should not be a doctor".
Rational, " I have mental health issues, so probably not a good idea for me to possess a firearm"
Rational, "Even though I admit I should not have one, I never claimed other people should not".

Irrational, " I have no training to be a surgeon but I want to skip medical school and do it anyway".
Irrational, " I have mental issues, but have good intent and am legal right now, and will assume that nothing will ever go wrong despite that"

But, you put me on ignore, which is fine because that is the right thing to do instead of needlessly torturing yourself.

(May 9, 2017 at 8:25 pm)Lutrinae Wrote: Can someone tell me where it states one MUST own a gun?

Therefore, gun owners should do us all a favor and not own guns.

The FUD system is firmly in place. Some folks, like my cousins, are completely unable to think about not owning guns. They can't organize a landslide but they think they can "resist" tyrannical forces that would be coming for their guns.

(May 9, 2017 at 11:59 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(May 9, 2017 at 8:25 pm)Lutrinae Wrote: Can someone tell me where it states one MUST own a gun?

Therefore, gun owners should do us all a favor and not own guns.

The FUD system is firmly in place. Some folks, like my cousins, are completely unable to think about not owning guns. They can't organize a landslide but they think they can "resist" tyrannical forces that would be coming for their guns.

Right, so if anyone here thinks I am "not all there", it would seem that they would not want me to own a firearm. But yet they scream "It's the mentally ill" and I agree, they shout "YOU WANT TO BAN ALL GUNS". 

I have mental health issues, yes, but I am not insane or crazy. Based on your assessment I'd say your cousins should worry about hurting themselves with their own firearms if what you say is true. 

That is the other thing, I hate Trump, but no, give me a machine gun, he still has tanks and jets, how moronic. I was hearing that shit for 8 years when Obama won. 

The reason we have guns is to kill other living creatures. Guns kill so that you don't have to get up close. Long range rifles keep you even farther away from the creature that you intend to kill.

The reason that we have large capacity magazines is so we can shoot more times before reloading; so killing more living creatures or giving us more of a chance to kill one if conditions are not conducive to a single-shot kill.

The reason that the Bill of Rights includes the common sense Second Amendment is to provide The People with the means to keep their governments free of tyrants and to keep their liberties intact, as well as, provide for the defense of their communities and nation. It was such a common sense liberty that there were many who thought it need not be included in this extremely important document.

Our Constitution has always been to protect the rights of the individual and the states, while allowing for a well-controlled central government.

So...it IS about me. It IS about each of us and what rights we have guaranteed by the supreme law of our land.

In some locales, citizens are encouraged to responsibly own at least one firearm per household and I think there is one county that makes it a local law to do so.

Each and every regulation acts to restrict in some manner the right of the individual to bear arms.

In the situations described in the Second Amendment, The People should want up-to-date firearms with large capacity magazines and more than just pistols and rifles in order to be "well regulated."

Would it be a fool's errand to stand against tyranny? Do we currently see citizens of nations standing against tyranny without guns? Are they fools? Do they have a natural right to fight against tyranny in their own countries? Would you fight with them if you were a citizen there? Would you rather have a gun?

Those who carry long rifles in public do so to make the point that each of us has that right. Too many have forgotten that it is the individual who is of supreme importance in the framing of the Constitution. How can many be granted the liberty to govern themselves and still form a nation united? That was a tricky business, which I think went well. It was always accepted that its citizens must be responsible, informed and moral for it to keep working well.

Was it the gun that became the "fly in the ointment" or was it something else? Is the gun just an easy target for those who WANT a different America now? When I read the quotes of Leftists who would alter the Bill of Rights in many ways, I see the gun as just that; proceed down this path and then The People will be lambs to the slaughter and we will finally have our Communist America.

This is why for many of us we agree; "from my cold dead hands."

Are we any more extreme than others whose vision is for America in serfdom?

Stop discussing who wants bans or partial bans or restrictions and laws and get to the heart of why we have a Bill of Rights, which includes a Second Amendment, a First Amendment, etc.

-Jeanne

(May 10, 2017 at 7:46 am)Jeanne Wrote: The reason we have guns is to kill other living creatures.  Guns kill so that you don't have to get up close.  Long range rifles keep you even farther away from the creature that you intend to kill.

The reason that we have large capacity magazines is so we can shoot more times before reloading; so killing more living creatures or giving us more of a chance to kill one if conditions are not conducive to a single-shot kill.

The reason that the Bill of Rights includes the common sense Second Amendment is to provide The People with the means to keep their governments free of tyrants and to keep their liberties intact, as well as, provide for the defense of their communities and nation.  It was such a common sense liberty that there were many who thought it need not be included in this extremely important document.

Our Constitution has always been to protect the rights of the individual and the states, while allowing for a well-controlled central government.

So...it IS about me.  It IS about each of us and what rights we have guaranteed by the supreme law of our land.

In some locales, citizens are encouraged to responsibly own at least one firearm per household and I think there is one county that makes it a local law to do so.

Each and every regulation acts to restrict in some manner the right of the individual to bear arms.  

In the situations described in the Second Amendment, The People should want up-to-date firearms with large capacity magazines and more than just pistols and rifles in order to be "well regulated."  

Would it be a fool's errand to stand against tyranny?  Do we currently see citizens of nations standing against tyranny without guns?  Are they fools?  Do they have a natural right to fight against tyranny in their own countries?  Would you fight with them if you were a citizen there?  Would you rather have a gun?

Those who carry long rifles in public do so to make the point that each of us has that right.  Too many have forgotten that it is the individual who is of supreme importance in the framing of the Constitution.  How can many be granted the liberty to govern themselves and still form a nation united?  That was a tricky business, which I think went well.  It was always accepted that its citizens must be responsible, informed and moral for it to keep working well.

Was it the gun that became the "fly in the ointment" or was it something else?  Is the gun just an easy target for those who WANT a different America now?  When I read the quotes of Leftists who would alter the Bill of Rights in many ways, I see the gun as just that; proceed down this path and then The People will be lambs to the slaughter and we will finally have our Communist America.

This is why for many of us we agree; "from my cold dead hands."

Are we any more extreme than others whose vision is for America in serfdom?  

Stop discussing who wants bans or partial bans or restrictions and laws and get to the heart of why we have a Bill of Rights, which includes a Second Amendment, a First Amendment, etc.

-Jeanne

Stop discussing rights while skipping the responsibility part, and even the 2nd has the word "regulated" in it, and regulations are what hold us to being responsible. 

You have a right to a car, you don't have a right to a 5 lane wide monster truck on a public highway. 

You have a right to drink beer, but not drink and drive. You have a right to drink beer, but not sell it to kids.

Bans on some things are not oppression. You have a right to buy Asprin, but without a medical degree you don't have a right to prescribe codine or morphine. 

Yes we have a First Amendment too, and part of that is my right to say we have a problem with how we view firearms as a society. 

Regulations are not oppressing anyone's rights, not regulating speech and not regulation of firearms.

We are well past discussing regulations with gun-fondlers who will not listen to reason, and now it is time to just take all their guns away from them to ensure a safer world.

The video I posted showed a handgun that had a cyclic rate of fire of >120 rounds a minute. Home defense spray-and-pray people should be very excited by that.

(May 10, 2017 at 8:48 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: The video I posted showed a handgun that had a cyclic rate of fire of >120 rounds a minute. Home defense spray-and-pray people should be very excited by that.

And this is the worst part right here, and again, not just on the issue of firearms but any subject.

I cant even point you YOU who owns firearms who admits some of this is getting way out of hand. 

Same BS argument the car companies pulled when Nadar said, "Um guys, your products could be safer"

Car companies, "ME ME ME RIGHTS RIGHT RIGHTS'

Economy, "I think the top 1% billionaires have too much power currently"

Ostriches " ME ME ME, RIGHTS RIGHTS RIGHTS"

Me, "Holy crap can people try, just for a second to try to understand it is not what you want but the way we are going about it currently?"

And to anyone reading this, you cant claim I made Gawdzilla's post, he did and he owns firearms. 

I think 36,000 firearm deaths is unacceptable. 98 firearm deaths per day. I would hope that all sides involved would want to reduce that number.

---

(May 10, 2017 at 8:24 am)Lutrinae Wrote: We are well past discussing regulations with gun-fondlers who will not listen to reason, and now it is time to just take all their guns away from them to ensure a safer world.

No, see that is what makes the worse. I only want to prevent the unreasonable, not the reasonable. Gawdzilla owns firearms too, but he is willing to admit we have a problem.

But they cant even see over in the Middle East it is far worse as far as blind worship, mixed with defending that worship with weapons. 

I cannot make this clear enough. It is a utopia to want to remove every single firearm. It is reasonable to keep them out of the hands of the mentally ill, the violent felon, the domestic abuser, and the religious nut. 

I am fine with extensive stress training, vetting so that list above doesn't get them. I am for hunting and home defense but again, within reason. 

The way we view firearms currently is unhealthy, it is like car companies and big oil paying lawyers to keep lead in gas, and shout "You are anti transportation" when all you are saying is, "No we simply need to be pragmatic and look for better and more clean fuel technology"