RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission

RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thishereboi -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/7/2014 5:29:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether How about you let me know, when YOU HAVE SOMETHING SUBSTANTIVE TO POST that addresses to what I said. Your the one that replied to what I posted, dumbass! If you think my response to your question was unsubstantive, then we have identified the problem. But there is no solution at hand, unless you are able to grow another brain cell and become twice as smart. Your over sixty years old and behave like a little child. All the time. Your ideas sucks. Your arguments without evidence or fact. Your attention to detail lacking. And you smell bad! You never have anything worth contributing to a discussion on....any...topic. Its just post after post of childish comments. Is that all you amount to in life? Anymore colorful and useless bullshit from you? I can see why people put you on ignore..... ' Wow, I hope you wiped up all the spit after you typed that. But one a positive note, thanks for the laugh. All that was missing was the video of you kicking your feet and crying like a little boy. And the funny part is you probably think this makes him look bad and you look good. Good luck with that [8D]

joether -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/7/2014 7:37:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether How about you let me know, when YOU HAVE SOMETHING SUBSTANTIVE TO POST that addresses to what I said. Your the one that replied to what I posted, dumbass! If you think my response to your question was unsubstantive, then we have identified the problem. But there is no solution at hand, unless you are able to grow another brain cell and become twice as smart. Your over sixty years old and behave like a little child. All the time. Your ideas sucks. Your arguments without evidence or fact. Your attention to detail lacking. And you smell bad! You never have anything worth contributing to a discussion on....any...topic. Its just post after post of childish comments. Is that all you amount to in life? Anymore colorful and useless bullshit from you? I can see why people put you on ignore..... Wow, I hope you wiped up all the spit after you typed that. But one a positive note, thanks for the laugh. All that was missing was the video of you kicking your feet and crying like a little boy. And the funny part is you probably think this makes him look bad and you look good. Good luck with that [8D] Pretty far from the truth there. As far as how I think Kirata looks? I told him in an email that his picture resembles the actor, Dean Stockwell. I wont loose sleep over how you or him think of me. [:D]

joether -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/7/2014 8:04:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: joether And what is the 'criminal advantage'? Oh that's right, they just call 1-800-Need-Gun, and the customer service operate sells them everything they need. Back to reality.... I have explained this repeatedly but I will try again for the learning challenged. Don't strain yourself.... [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Set aside the fact that after banning firearms you would have a period of from a few to several years when only the criminals had gun. Your assumption that when such a ban goes into effect, all the guns in civilian hands go 'poof'; sounds like a fairy tale, because it IS a fairy tale. Its not based on reality or psychology. Actually, law enforcement would have firearms. And we have to keep tabs on that group at all levels to make sure things are not fucked around (just as we do right now). In addition, not all persons would turn in their firearms immediately. There are PLENTY of firearms that no one knows of, except for the owner, of said firearm. Proving that the crime rate increased, solely, due to the ban would be a tough argument. There are numerous factors to weigh in, any of them could easily be argued as the better reason. To have good government, we would look at things objectively. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I mean they are criminals they won't turn theirs in. And there are criminals that have a stockpile of meth. For when they need some fast cash. Yes, criminals break laws. How many identity thieves do you know routinely break the laws of the road? Just because they have broken one or more laws, doesn't mean they break ALL the laws. Because when they do that, it makes catching them...much...easier. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD But that isn't what I was talking about. Your fantasy world doesn't seem to admit that criminals don't need guns to commit crimes, particularly when you have disarmed their victims. A punk with a knife has the edge on me, the same punk when both of us have guns doesn't. With the knife even if I can take him I will have to prove it. With the guns there is no percentage in it for him, even if all I do is wound him he is still caught, has still failed, and has not gotten his fix. People who run off when I touch my gun wouldn't do so if I pulled my bowie knife on them. Fantasy world? After that line in which you try to style everything within a vary narrow space of viewpoint? I call bullshit. You assume your attacker is numbered as just '1'. How about five of them? You assume your skill level is better than his? And that's based on...WHAT...in reality? And could that guy have a homemade bomb or grenade? Doesn't take much chemistry knowledge to put something together. You also assume you'll get the first shot off. Unfortunately, when they attack, its when your not ready. That is what is called surprise. Remember that guy running from a tree while you were out walking your dog? You didn't see him until he was right on top of you. Where was your gun? Not in your hand nor pointed at him. Could he have just unloaded shots on you? Yes. You wouldn't have known until it was too late to resist. You assume a huge amount of bullshit without any reality; then complain when people give you the reality check.

Kirata -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/7/2014 8:14:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata If you think my response to your question was unsubstantive, then we have identified the problem. But there is no solution at hand, unless you are able to grow another brain cell and become twice as smart. Your over sixty years old and behave like a little child. All the time. Your ideas sucks. Your arguments without evidence or fact. Your attention to detail lacking. And you smell bad! You never have anything worth contributing to a discussion on....any...topic. Its just post after post of childish comments. Is that all you amount to in life? Anymore colorful and useless bullshit from you? I can see why people put you on ignore..... It really wasn't necessary to illustrate my point, but thank you. K.

BamaD -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/7/2014 8:23:39 AM)
You also assume you'll get the first shot off. Unfortunately, when they attack, its when your not ready. That is what is called surprise. Remember that guy running from a tree while you were out walking your dog? You didn't see him until he was right on top of you. Where was your gun? Not in your hand nor pointed at him. Could he have just unloaded shots on you? Yes. You wouldn't have known until it was too late to resist. You assume a huge amount of bullshit without any reality; then complain when people give you the reality check. The problem with this and each scene you put together falls apart on one point. If I am only allowed to fight hand to hand I am even worse off. If there are five with guns I am in trouble. Why would I think I am better than they are? I have seen them handle guns, they learned from the movies, I learned from cops and the military. If there are five and I have nothing how am I better off. We have had a case of six to one very near here. They had baseball bats. I think that even you would have to admit that against bats I would be better off with a gun than with my bare hands. It is not my fantasy that guns would disappear from society, just listen to the rantings of your allies. They seem to think that even the bad guys would instantly be disarmed. No it would automatically give the bad guys the edge for several years. And it would subject those honest citizens to arrest just for possessing a firearm. What do you thing the purpose of illegal databases like the one pointed out in this thread are for. When you get your dream of a ban they know where everyone who bought legally is, the only people who they won't hit right off are the criminal element because they didn't get them through channels. Duh of course the cops will still have guns, so what.

BamaD -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/7/2014 12:44:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: joether And what is the 'criminal advantage'? Oh that's right, they just call 1-800-Need-Gun, and the customer service operate sells them everything they need. Back to reality.... I have explained this repeatedly but I will try again for the learning challenged. Don't strain yourself.... [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Set aside the fact that after banning firearms you would have a period of from a few to several years when only the criminals had gun. Your assumption that when such a ban goes into effect, all the guns in civilian hands go 'poof'; sounds like a fairy tale, because it IS a fairy tale. Its not based on reality or psychology. Actually, law enforcement would have firearms. And we have to keep tabs on that group at all levels to make sure things are not fucked around (just as we do right now). In addition, not all persons would turn in their firearms immediately. There are PLENTY of firearms that no one knows of, except for the owner, of said firearm. Proving that the crime rate increased, solely, due to the ban would be a tough argument. There are numerous factors to weigh in, any of them could easily be argued as the better reason. To have good government, we would look at things objectively. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I mean they are criminals they won't turn theirs in. And there are criminals that have a stockpile of meth. For when they need some fast cash. Yes, criminals break laws. How many identity thieves do you know routinely break the laws of the road? Just because they have broken one or more laws, doesn't mean they break ALL the laws. Because when they do that, it makes catching them...much...easier. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD But that isn't what I was talking about. Your fantasy world doesn't seem to admit that criminals don't need guns to commit crimes, particularly when you have disarmed their victims. A punk with a knife has the edge on me, the same punk when both of us have guns doesn't. With the knife even if I can take him I will have to prove it. With the guns there is no percentage in it for him, even if all I do is wound him he is still caught, has still failed, and has not gotten his fix. People who run off when I touch my gun wouldn't do so if I pulled my bowie knife on them. Fantasy world? After that line in which you try to style everything within a vary narrow space of viewpoint? I call bullshit. You assume your attacker is numbered as just '1'. How about five of them? You assume your skill level is better than his? And that's based on...WHAT...in reality? And could that guy have a homemade bomb or grenade? Doesn't take much chemistry knowledge to put something together. You also assume you'll get the first shot off. Unfortunately, when they attack, its when your not ready. That is what is called surprise. Remember that guy running from a tree while you were out walking your dog? You didn't see him until he was right on top of you. Where was your gun? Not in your hand nor pointed at him. Could he have just unloaded shots on you? Yes. You wouldn't have known until it was too late to resist. You assume a huge amount of bullshit without any reality; then complain when people give you the reality check. Now that I have eaten I will give you a better answer. You are still not a mind reader none of your assumptions about what I think are right. I know what surprise is. What you are saying, in effect is I should give up a situation where I might not win for one where I can't. It is like saying that since Boston College might not beat UConn they should play the Patriots instead.

BamaD -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/7/2014 5:37:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: joether And what is the 'criminal advantage'? Oh that's right, they just call 1-800-Need-Gun, and the customer service operate sells them everything they need. Back to reality.... I have explained this repeatedly but I will try again for the learning challenged. Don't strain yourself.... [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Set aside the fact that after banning firearms you would have a period of from a few to several years when only the criminals had gun. Your assumption that when such a ban goes into effect, all the guns in civilian hands go 'poof'; sounds like a fairy tale, because it IS a fairy tale. Its not based on reality or psychology. Actually, law enforcement would have firearms. And we have to keep tabs on that group at all levels to make sure things are not fucked around (just as we do right now). In addition, not all persons would turn in their firearms immediately. There are PLENTY of firearms that no one knows of, except for the owner, of said firearm. Proving that the crime rate increased, solely, due to the ban would be a tough argument. There are numerous factors to weigh in, any of them could easily be argued as the better reason. To have good government, we would look at things objectively. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I mean they are criminals they won't turn theirs in. And there are criminals that have a stockpile of meth. For when they need some fast cash. Yes, criminals break laws. How many identity thieves do you know routinely break the laws of the road? Just because they have broken one or more laws, doesn't mean they break ALL the laws. Because when they do that, it makes catching them...much...easier. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD But that isn't what I was talking about. Your fantasy world doesn't seem to admit that criminals don't need guns to commit crimes, particularly when you have disarmed their victims. A punk with a knife has the edge on me, the same punk when both of us have guns doesn't. With the knife even if I can take him I will have to prove it. With the guns there is no percentage in it for him, even if all I do is wound him he is still caught, has still failed, and has not gotten his fix. People who run off when I touch my gun wouldn't do so if I pulled my bowie knife on them. Fantasy world? After that line in which you try to style everything within a vary narrow space of viewpoint? I call bullshit. You assume your attacker is numbered as just '1'. How about five of them? You assume your skill level is better than his? And that's based on...WHAT...in reality? And could that guy have a homemade bomb or grenade? Doesn't take much chemistry knowledge to put something together. You also assume you'll get the first shot off. Unfortunately, when they attack, its when your not ready. That is what is called surprise. Remember that guy running from a tree while you were out walking your dog? You didn't see him until he was right on top of you. Where was your gun? Not in your hand nor pointed at him. Could he have just unloaded shots on you? Yes. You wouldn't have known until it was too late to resist. You assume a huge amount of bullshit without any reality; then complain when people give you the reality check. If the 5th SS Panzer division attacks my house I'm up the creek but let's stay with rational possibilities.

joether -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/8/2014 12:12:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata If you think my response to your question was unsubstantive, then we have identified the problem. But there is no solution at hand, unless you are able to grow another brain cell and become twice as smart. Your over sixty years old and behave like a little child. All the time. Your ideas sucks. Your arguments without evidence or fact. Your attention to detail lacking. And you smell bad! You never have anything worth contributing to a discussion on....any...topic. Its just post after post of childish comments. Is that all you amount to in life? Anymore colorful and useless bullshit from you? I can see why people put you on ignore..... It really wasn't necessary to illustrate my point, but thank you. Point? You don't make points on anything. That's the whole point, Kirata!

joether -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/8/2014 12:21:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD If the 5th SS Panzer division attacks my house I'm up the creek but let's stay with rational possibilities. Did I mention tank divisions? No, I mentioned a small crew, working together, to achieve something. That you hold a belief that your some sort of 'Rambo' with a gun, is a bit....silly. I asked you several questions. Not one of them answered. All of them skipped over. Either you don't have a real answer to them, or the facts and reality establish your arguments as 'full of shit'.

RottenJohnny -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/8/2014 1:32:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether And there are criminals that have a stockpile of meth. For when they need some fast cash. You obviously don't know much about the illegal drug trade.

BamaD -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/8/2014 7:54:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD If the 5th SS Panzer division attacks my house I'm up the creek but let's stay with rational possibilities. Did I mention tank divisions? No, I mentioned a small crew, working together, to achieve something. That you hold a belief that your some sort of 'Rambo' with a gun, is a bit....silly. I asked you several questions. Not one of them answered. All of them skipped over. Either you don't have a real answer to them, or the facts and reality establish your arguments as 'full of shit'. Yes I did with all the seriousness they deserved. First off I had started with a statement of setting aside the fact that they wouldn't all go away with a ban and then you respond by saying I think they will. A familiarity with English would have told you this was a gross distortion of my position. My reference to the Panzer division was to highlight the fact that anybody can fabricate a scene, it doesn't have to be based in reality. You forgot to mention that in your gun free utopia the same five guys with knives would have an even bigger edge. There would be no reason for a "small crew" to come after me, I don't have enough to make it worth their time after dividing it. So if we deal with real possibilities every actual confrontation (except at the wedding where someone else was the target) had occurred when I was on my porch. Depending on where they enter my property I have a 25 to 30 yard cushion , this makes surprise very difficult. At 20 yards your typical thug will do good to hit my house with his first two or three shots, since I practice at 50 to 100 I won't have that problem. I have a better chance in a gunfight against 2 thugs than I do in a knife fight against one. Five to one becomes impossible odds regardless of weapons so you haven't even come close to indicating (let alone proving) that I am better off. I fact I actually have one chance against the five in a gunfight. Gutshoot the leader and it may panic them, no such chance in a knife fight.

BamaD -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/8/2014 8:18:11 AM)
FR For those who have forgotten, this thread is about a California law which requires that law enforcement access a database, the existence of which is prohibited by law. How are we supposed to trust people who can't even follow their own laws?

joether -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/8/2014 8:56:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD For those who have forgotten, this thread is about a California law which requires that law enforcement access a database, the existence of which is prohibited by law. How are we supposed to trust people who can't even follow their own laws? Funny, I ask that of all the conservative drivers speeding over the limit on the nation's freeways everyday..... Or of blaming the President on stuff the guy has no grounds to be accountable or responsible on. And its not illegal to have a database that can be used by law enforcement. And of one that lists whom has firearms. The 2nd and 4th do not protect you, the citizen, from that.

BamaD -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/8/2014 9:04:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD For those who have forgotten, this thread is about a California law which requires that law enforcement access a database, the existence of which is prohibited by law. How are we supposed to trust people who can't even follow their own laws? Funny, I ask that of all the conservative drivers speeding over the limit on the nation's freeways everyday..... Or of blaming the President on stuff the guy has no grounds to be accountable or responsible on. And its not illegal to have a database that can be used by law enforcement. And of one that lists whom has firearms. The 2nd and 4th do not protect you, the citizen, from that. The law establishing background checks prohibited maintaining a database on gun owners citizen.

BamaD -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/8/2014 9:10:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD For those who have forgotten, this thread is about a California law which requires that law enforcement access a database, the existence of which is prohibited by law. How are we supposed to trust people who can't even follow their own laws? Funny, I ask that of all the conservative drivers speeding over the limit on the nation's freeways everyday..... Or of blaming the President on stuff the guy has no grounds to be accountable or responsible on. And its not illegal to have a database that can be used by law enforcement. And of one that lists whom has firearms. The 2nd and 4th do not protect you, the citizen, from that. Has it occurred to you that libs speed as often as conservatives? So by your reasoning they shouldn't be trusted either. And has it occurred to you that there is a quantum difference between violating a speed limit and violating a law you are responsible for enforcing. The closest you could come to any validity in your comparison would be if the guy who set the speed limit got caught exceeding it.

quizzicalkitten -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/8/2014 9:14:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD For those who have forgotten, this thread is about a California law which requires that law enforcement access a database, the existence of which is prohibited by law. How are we supposed to trust people who can't even follow their own laws? Funny, I ask that of all the conservative drivers speeding over the limit on the nation's freeways everyday..... Or of blaming the President on stuff the guy has no grounds to be accountable or responsible on. And its not illegal to have a database that can be used by law enforcement. And of one that lists whom has firearms. The 2nd and 4th do not protect you, the citizen, from that. But if they use the database then execute a search warrent on it thats when it becomes a problem because being depressed or seeing a shrink isnt probable cause to take someones gun. A family member called the cops and lied for a "wellness" check on me when i cut them out of my life. They used the cops to go around my wishes of no contact with them. Will there be a distinction between an actal worried party and those who are using them as a way of keeping tabs when tou dont want that person in your life? Then theres the classification of whats considered mentally ill. Is it anyone whos ever seen a shrink? Anyone whos googled drepression? What makes a someone with did more dangerious then someone with bi polar? What about misdiagnosis? Whos going to make the law on what is or isnt dangerous? Is someone who admits they have a problem more dangerous then those who hide it? If not those who hide it will still will be able to hold on to their weapons and cause problems....

stef -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/8/2014 10:17:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny You obviously don't know much about the illegal drug trade. It's pretty clear he doesn't know much about most of the topics he drones on about. Why would this be any different?

Aylee -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/8/2014 1:00:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD For those who have forgotten, this thread is about a California law which requires that law enforcement access a database, the existence of which is prohibited by law. How are we supposed to trust people who can't even follow their own laws? Funny, I ask that of all the conservative drivers speeding over the limit on the nation's freeways everyday..... Or of blaming the President on stuff the guy has no grounds to be accountable or responsible on. And its not illegal to have a database that can be used by law enforcement. And of one that lists whom has firearms. The 2nd and 4th do not protect you, the citizen, from that. But if they use the database then execute a search warrent on it thats when it becomes a problem because being depressed or seeing a shrink isnt probable cause to take someones gun. A family member called the cops and lied for a "wellness" check on me when i cut them out of my life. They used the cops to go around my wishes of no contact with them. Will there be a distinction between an actal worried party and those who are using them as a way of keeping tabs when tou dont want that person in your life? Then theres the classification of whats considered mentally ill. Is it anyone whos ever seen a shrink? Anyone whos googled drepression? What makes a someone with did more dangerious then someone with bi polar? What about misdiagnosis? Whos going to make the law on what is or isnt dangerous? Is someone who admits they have a problem more dangerous then those who hide it? If not those who hide it will still will be able to hold on to their weapons and cause problems.... Or people who drink more than four cups of coffee a day.

Kirata -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/8/2014 1:17:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee Or people who drink more than four cups of coffee a day. [image]http://www.sportco.com/store/pc/catalog/gcstk4_1244_general.jpg[/image] K.

RottenJohnny -> RE: California's newest gun law comes with an admission (10/8/2014 1:18:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stef It's pretty clear he doesn't know much about most of the topics he drones on about. Why would this be any different? Well, it's pretty obvious that paranoia, conjecture, and confabulation are all part of his online schtick. Ignorance on that level has to be intentional.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625