Do you support ANY gun-control laws?

[TravisB]

Justin,

I think you mentioned bullet points you wanted a response to. Doing my best to keep up. Any idea which page number that post is on?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Do you have a source on how many of the injured civilians were irresponsible lookie-loos?

If not, I'll assume you just made it up.

Sorry, I'm not the one that claimed that's why people got shot, I merely posted a well known fact that the shootout lasted 30 minutes and that crowds continued to stay and spectate. Someone else posted their belief that it caused them to get shot.

Here is what I posted, since you don't have a history of quoting things accurately:

The shootout lasted about a half an hour, on public streets, and yet citizens did not run and hide, they wanted to watch. Regardless of the firearm type used, it's pretty stupid to stand out on a sidewalk for half an hour watching the cops in a blazing gun battle.

I simply responded to a post that said the crowds did not have time to hide when in fact many of them did, almost 30 minutes.

Everything I said there is true. The news reports mention the crowds gathered to watch, the news reports clearly show the shootout lasted over 30 minutes.
I did not claim that they got shot by standing there, I simply said, as you can read above, that it's stupid not to hide but rather stand and watch a shootout.

Again, reading comprehension, you need more of it here.

And again of course you leave out the fact that ONLY 5 PEOPLE were shot in the Hollywood shootout that were not police. Earlier you claimed 7.

Again, citing sources, something you know nothing about:

CNN:

Two suspects were killed, and 15 people were injured, including 10 policemen. None of the injuries incurred during the hour-long shootout was "life threatening," Los Angeles Police Chief Willie Williams said.

That number is not any higher than other shootouts with innocent bystanders involved, certainly doesn't back up your claims that machine guns make it worse.
Many shootings with semi only guns have much higher bystander injuries.

The bad guys fired over 1000 rounds and they only hit 5 bystanders, none fatally.

THAT my uneducated friend is why machineguns are not used in crimes. They SUCK at being efficient killing machines.

But once again you leave out all the facts. This is getting tiresome.

If you have nothing to actually debate why don't you just move on. Everything you have said here has been debunked as incorrect or dishonest.

It was fun watching you bang your head against the monitor as post after post was torn apart for dishonesty and inaccuracy, but it's getting a bit old.

 

[HOME DEPOT GEORGE]

Travis I was using an extreme hypothetical situation but one fact I do know and it was on a news show a while back is that the average time between sentencing and death in capital cases is around 14 years. And there are many cases where civil rights violations have gotten criminals off the hook before. link for death row stat http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_amount_of_time_spent_on_death_row

 

[the iron horse]

I have voted Libertarian since the early 90s.

I do not support any restrictions on gun ownership(what kind...including full auto) or the right to carry except for convicted felons.

Anyone who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime should be lock away a long time or in the case of murder...capital punishment.


I believe the 2d Ammendment is our right to carry law.

 

[runrabbitrun]

I vote for cell phone restrictions.

Those things are nasty I tell you.
Studies show that many people are killed
or injured while using these terrible devices stuffed in their ears while driving.

STOP the madness already.

Hell lets go a little further.
Cell phone FREE zones at collage campuses and any government buildings.
Can't have those things going off during lectures or disturbing the peace
in court, or at the food stamp office.
Besides they cause cancer too,
so maybe we should just out and out ban them altogether.

Even further.
Kids don't need those devises.
There needs to be an age appropriate for responsible use.
Can't have all those children sexting and texting all day.

Yep we need cell phone registration and proper training.
Make it a felony offense for those found driving
with a cell phone in their ear too.

If we save just one life... it's worth it. Right?

(end sarcasm)


This is so sad people. I'm surprised you guys are still trying to engage.

The scary part is that politicos seem to listen to this nonsense and then
opt to try and enact laws that have ZERO common sense at all.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

KB in the SLC: "Other weapons make sense to be restricted for military use only... like cruise missiles, field artillery, ICBM's, etc."

I own a rocket launcher, a grenade launcher, field artillery, and have dabbled in vertical-launch rocketry (though not intercontinental, orbital or supra-orbital rocketry). Rocketry is fun.

I see no particular reason to restrict these items to military use only. Can you name one?

 

[Duke of Doubt]

the iron horse: "I do not support any restrictions on gun ownership(what kind...including full auto) or the right to carry except for convicted felons."

How about adjudicated mental defectives not legally responsible for their actions?

"Anyone who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime should be lock away a long time or in the case of murder...capital punishment."

Every robbery, every rape, then becomes a murder to eliminate witnesses in the capital case. You don't get deader than dead, under the Constitution. Execution by cruel or unusual punishment was taken off the table in 1789. When you start punishing other crimes the same as murder, you get more murders to beat the rap.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

I see no particular reason to restrict these items to military use only. Can you name one?

Yeah. With a nuke, one mistake means a whole city destroyed.

If one radical group gets a few nukes, they can overthrow the government of the people by the people and for the people and be the next great tyrant

 

[BhmBill]

KB in the SLC: "Other weapons make sense to be restricted for military use only... like cruise missiles, field artillery, ICBM's, etc."

I own a rocket launcher, a grenade launcher, field artillery, and have dabbled in vertical-launch rocketry (though not intercontinental, orbital or supra-orbital rocketry). Rocketry is fun.

I see no particular reason to restrict these items to military use only. Can you name one?

Duke, is that you on the next street over who's always shooting off those dang RPG's at 2am? YOU COULD POKE AN EYE OUT WITH THOSE THINGS.

 

[TravisB]

Here is what I posted, since you don't have a history of quoting things accurately:

Quote:
The shootout lasted about a half an hour, on public streets, and yet citizens did not run and hide, they wanted to watch. Regardless of the firearm type used, it's pretty stupid to stand out on a sidewalk for half an hour watching the cops in a blazing gun battle.

Hilarious, considering that's exactly what I quoted. (Proof!)

I have to ask -- did you actually cut and paste that excerpt from my post while you were accusing me of failing to quote you accurately?

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Jimbo: "Yeah. With a nuke, one mistake means a whole city destroyed."

I didn't say I had a nuke. Though ironically, I used to live in the same apartment Enrico Fermi stayed when he built the first sustained nuclear chain reaction under Stagg Field. Why do people keep bringing up nukes? We were discussing rocketry.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Your quote specifically mentioned ICBMs.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

BhmBil: "Duke, is that you on the next street over who's always shooting off those dang RPG's at 2am? YOU COULD POKE AN EYE OUT WITH THOSE THINGS."

Nope; no RPGs here. Belgian Blindicide, ex-Israeli 83mm shoulder-fired rocket launcher (GENTLY "demilled") and Yugoslav grenade launcher on the end of my M59/66.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Yeah. With a nuke, one mistake means a whole city destroyed.

He didn't say nukes, he said:

I own a rocket launcher, a grenade launcher, field artillery, and have dabbled in vertical-launch rocketry (though not intercontinental, orbital or supra-orbital rocketry). Rocketry is fun.

I see no particular reason to restrict these items to military use only. Can you name one?

Yet you go straight to nukes, a topic not mentioned.

Why is that? We see the repeated use of the "no nukes for felons" argument, yet it's never really been the topic.

The Second Amendment writers and many other legal scholars have been consistent in the description of "arms" as "in common use".

Nukes are not in common use.

Why do you keep throwing out the "no nukes for felons" argument?

I'll tell you why, because you can't argue the point without it.

If we take nukes off the table you no longer have an argument that arms should not be regulated.

You desperately need nukes to be included to make your argument stand, but nukes don't meet most of the commonly accepted definitions of "arms" to "keep and bear".

Seriously, if you have to resort to that kind of thing to make your argument stand you owe it to yourself to stop and consider that maybe your argument is simply wrong.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Jimbo: "Your quote specifically mentioned ICBMs."

The quote I quoted did include ICBMs (inter-continental ballistic missiles). Not all ICBMs contain nuclear weapons.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I have to ask -- did you actually cut and paste that excerpt from my post while you were accusing me of failing to quote you accurately?

Let me get this straight. You are unhappy because I posted what I said a second time, to make sure readers got it right?

As for claiming you have a history of posting incorrect information, I'll let those reading decide that one for themselves.

Wow.

You're done huh. You really are out of things to say now if that's what's left for you to get twisted about.

You've tried every argument you could think of, you made up facts along the way, you never offered once to dispute any facts that I've presented.

You alluded more than once to having "evidence" but you refused to post it, saying "well you wouldn't accept it anyway".

You even made some bizarre twisted personal threat against me about how I would need to defend myself against you on an airplane.

You have done this as far as you possibly can and you will not have the honestly and decency to admit that you may have been even the slightest bit wrong about your understanding of how all of this works, the legal history, the history and statistics around crime and gun ownership in this country.

That's sad.

 

[TravisB]

Yeah. With a nuke, one mistake means a whole city destroyed.

Slippery slope! Once you start sympathizing entire populations of cities, you may start sympathizing with smaller portions of those populations.

Pretty soon you'll notice how many innocent people get mowed down in crossfire in places like Los Angeles and Chicago. You may actually label it a problem society should be concerned about.

And we must not acknowledge that guns are ever involved with any problems society should be concerned about.

You may think you're being responsible, even conservative, by pointing out that people make mistakes and society has an obligation to reasonably limit the potential damage from those mistakes. But you're not.

If people die in an accidental nuke explosion, it was their fault. They shouldn't have been standing so close.

Same thing goes for these glass sarin gas canisters I'm learning how to juggle with right now...oh, crap.

Gotta go.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Yet you go straight to nukes, a topic not mentioned.

He mentioned ICMBs

Not all ICBMs contain nuclear weapons.

Yes, however, I believe that is their main military use. What else is devastatimg enough to still be dangerous after traveling so far? Nothing other than a nuke or perhaps a very high power bomb

 

[TexasRifleman]

Yes, however, I believe that is their main military use. What else is devastatimg enough to still be dangerous after traveling so far? Nothing other than a nuke or perhaps a very high power bomb

Well since Hitler designed and deployed the first ICBMs it's hard to say they were intended for nuclear warheads.

The V2 rocket program was the first ICBM, sort of.

Then there was the German A9 and A10 rocket programs intended to hit New York from Berlin. No nukes there either.

Yes, it's debating technicalities, I get that, but still, the leap straight to "no nukes for felons" simply isn't a fair way to debate this stuff.

 

[Eric F]

I see texasrifleman is still going strong, I will have to catch up tomorrow and add to the conversation tomorrow from work, Too busy cleaning guns right now, Give em hell texasrifleman!

 

[TexasRifleman]

Give em hell texasrifleman!

They are about done, I'm going to enjoy the weekend.

They will be here going on about "nukes for felons" and "selling machineguns to toddlers in Wal Mart" on Monday.

But they have not yet posted any real honest debates from the other viewpoint.

I don't get it.

 

[aerod1]

Yes, the law that prohibits convicted felons from gun ownership.

 

[sm]

I'm scared <expletive>-less ! - Stephen Stills.

Still's words when asked how he felt seeing all those people at Woodstock expresses how I feel looking at the poll results.

I am also sad, and angry. Where is the Republic I was born in?

THR and TFL have both had this thread topic, with a poll. I did not look them up, still the results differ.
More folks today, are willing to give up some liberties, for some safety, or freedom, or whatever term Tyranny has brainwashed them into believing.

Gun Control is not just about Guns , instead, Control Period!

You can do a search for previous threads.

I will provide the link to a THR thread that began on June 18, 2003:
I Am An Anti With Questions..

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=332597#post332597




Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. - Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi


In our country, the lie has become
not just a moral category
but a pillar of the State. - Alexander Solzhenitsyn


If the opposition (citizen) disarms, well and good.
If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves. -Josef Stalin

 

[sernv99]

Didn't that guy in the clock tower in Texas kill 17 people using a bolt action rifle, while two goons with full auto AK's and drum mags only managed to wound around the same number in three times the time?

didn't that guy in the clock tower serve in the USMC and was a rilfeman as his MOS ? Hmm, that could explain why he was able to pick off over a dozen people. Never served in the military huh? Go look up his scores for his rifle qualification, you will see why he was able to get that many people...

those two other goons, who knows,...given the amount of firepower they had, they didn't spend much time at the range. Shows how spray and pray really works.

sorry, those two examples is like comparing apples to bricks

 

[JImbothefiveth]

I thought those 2 other people had military training. And armor. Of course, it's not a fair comparison because they were fighting cops.

They will be here going on about "nukes for felons" and "selling machineguns to toddlers in Wal Mart" on Monday.

Well, that has actually been advocated in past threads.