quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
I still want to know where Kanasas is.

In a place you have not visited....

So rather than deal with the topic, its 'attack the poster' over petty shit. Seriously you have no redeeming value as a poster on these forums. Go crawl back under the rock to where hence you originated from!

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
I still want to know where Kanasas is.

In a place you have not visited....

So rather than deal with the topic, its 'attack the poster' over petty shit. Seriously you have no redeeming value as a poster on these forums. Go crawl back under the rock to where hence you originated from!

If you would read his posts with an open mind you would find he is one of the most knowledgeable and fair people on here.
You have fun at other peoples expense, don't dish it out if you can't take it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckyd0g
Hey Bama, have you seen me or anyone else say that joether has said, "he doesn't know what anarchy means"? He has demonstrated that he doesn't, multiple times. You would think he would bother to check with a dictionary for these words he uses, then he wouldn't seem quite as stupid.

Ever notice luckydog that I....DONT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOU? That everything you have inputted with your 37 posts has been more lame than Sanity's usual rants. An it is a tough thing to have rants more irrelevant of reality to beat out Sanity....

That you cant even stay on topic, shows what sort of person you are: waste of oxygen.....

Anarchy means the reduction of civilization and its laws to a form of governance that has no rules or 'checking of power'. That it is when a government has cease to function in any real capacity for itself or the people around it. That lands in anarchy breed individuals without compassion, consideration, thought, or a good heart.

Yes, not the dictionary level definition of the word 'Anarchy'. But it works well enough on its own. It conveys the meaning of the word well enough. Now, why dont you try with the word 'liberal'. No looking it up. Just 'off the top of your head'. Surely someone whom is bashing me over 'dictionary defining of words' can give a REALLY good and correct definition to the word 'liberal', right? Free of your own political viewpoint on the word, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckyd0g
And he seems to think that one, "answers to a discussion ". Do you think English is his 3rd language or that he is just dumb?

Actually people do answer to a discussion moron. Someone opens with a thread. People reply to the thread. That is the definition to 'answers to a discussion'. Except in this thread's topic, is one you and BamaD dont like. Since it calls out the bullshit that is 'conservative ideology' for what it really has become: a scam. You supposive 'defense' of the US Constitution, and give this character, Mr. Bruce a pass because he supports similar stuff on firearms to each of you. Which means you support his notion on anarchy. Which is sort of a declaration of being against the US Constitution. If your against the US Constitution, your against the United States of America. Your not a terrorist sympathizer, but a traitor!

So keep going with your 'petty' tirade. That you can not understand things shows the limit of your cranium and that which resides within. I've dealt with little people like you before. Like them, you have no ability to understand things beyond the tiny basics of reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
I still want to know where Kanasas is.

In a place you have not visited....

So rather than deal with the topic, its 'attack the poster' over petty shit. Seriously you have no redeeming value as a poster on these forums. Go crawl back under the rock to where hence you originated from!

If you would read his posts with an open mind you would find he is one of the most knowledgeable and fair people on here.
You have fun at other peoples expense, don't dish it out if you can't take it.

I do read his posts with an open mind. An in years past, he had some really good stuff. The sort of stuff that does provoke thought and consideration. The ideas that have challenged my thinking on a variety of topics. As time has progressed, those have become fewer and fewer unfortunately. At a time in the past, I had a rather positive viewpoint on his ideas and work within the forum. A conservative viewpoint on things, but none the less, one to respect.

Then more and more, for reasons unknown to me still, his material has gone to the toilet. That he seems more angry, hateful, and inconsiderate of those around him. I lost much in the way respecting his posts due to that; not the topics he entered onto. I have no problems with some of the more conservative minded individuals on here. Because sometimes they have challenged a notion of mine by giving another viewpoint on a matter.

Now, he attacks someone because of a miss spelling of a word. 'Oh, how the mighty have fallen', eh?

Truth...BamaD....we never get much of that anymore on this forum (the word 'truth', not the pettiness). I have not thrown the idea that Kirata is not a good person out the window. The hope as it were, that in the future, he might given more moments of insight to learn from. What is the point of a forum, if we, the people, can not learn from others on subject matters?

Yeah, my spelling and grammar suck. Let's just say the truth of why that is, is not a topic open for discussion. That when I have sat down and explain it to people, the response has generally been "ok, I understand now. That makes sense." Those people don't have a problem with it, since they understand the reality. Sometimes my 'thinking outside the box' is a good thing, and other times.....it's really.....annoying. Yes, would like to be able to explain it openly. But that is a reality that will never come about. I have my limitations the same as the next person.

You want to bash me for the bad spelling and grammar, go for it! I do try a second and third reading to clear up the spelling and grammar mistakes. I am not always successful. Good thing I'm not an editor of novels, eh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
In what fairy tale land do you live in, penguin?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Yes, we can leave the law on the books. Make it one more thing the responsible, law-abiding, tax-paying adult has to deal with and then, what? It will stop the criminal element from carrying firearms without a permit? It will make it harder for them to obtain a firearm?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
You want to bash me for the bad spelling and grammar, go for it

The word illiterate as I'm using it intends, "having or demonstrating very little or no education".

Just so ya know, yanno?

quote:

joether
Now, without the permit, how do we tell whom is the 'honest and law abiding' citizen with a concealable carry firearm. Verse the criminal whom is up to no good?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

My apologizes. I think I may have missed this one...

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
In what fairy tale land do you live in, penguin?

Given its snowed yesterday, will tomorrow, and again on Thursday. With cold temperatures, and a steep wind chill. Calling me a penguin may not be to far off the mark....

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Yes, we can leave the law on the books. Make it one more thing the responsible, law-abiding, tax-paying adult has to deal with and then, what? It will stop the criminal element from carrying firearms without a permit? It will make it harder for them to obtain a firearm?

Is it really a burden to carry a small and simple little note in the wallet? That people stated once that credit and debit cards would remove the need to carry money in the wallet. Yet, people have paper dollars right next to their credit and debit cards. So I ask in all honesty what the actual burden is?

The point is that the permit doesn't stop the criminals from getting firearms or using them. Society did this concept escaping your attention: people voted to make laws. Those laws define a country (for good or bad). Culture, the arts, education, and the marketplace figure into those laws. Yes, criminals by nature, will not follow the laws. But that is why we have a place for them to reside: prison. Prison, a place were their freedoms are even more narrow than the least of us whom are homeless and on the streets of America.

An when an individual is caught by law enforcement for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, they are charged. Why? Because that is the penalty factor on the law itself with regards to concealable carry. Now, without the permit, how do we tell whom is the 'honest and law abiding' citizen with a concealable carry firearm. Verse the criminal whom is up to no good? We can't. That we impede the citizen while sorting out details longer than it should; while giving the criminal a free pass to do bad things.

To answer your second question...

While we could just ban firearms, we'd have to wait as a nation about 15-20 years before the level of violence with firearms diminishes to notice the effect. I'm really not in favor of such a move. Yet firearms are pathetically easy to obtain right now; should we be at all surprised at the frequency they are used?

That one state places steep limits on firearms, while the one next to it is pretty lax. The criminal travels to the second state to obtain the firearm and travels back for the commission of the crime. Which state is at fault? Liberals will view the second state, conservatives the first. The answer: when the laws are not consistent, problems will erupt. With problems being as they are, its much easier for those wishing to 'game the system' to operate. Those are often the unscrupulous types that may directly or indirectly prey on others in our society.

What is the answer? Good question. By relaxing concealable carry permits allows criminals to operate more freely and in the open then they did before. Why would any of us 'honest and law abiding' citizens want that? Forming up the laws to be more consistent across the board would also help. But that I understand it comes with a cost. If we were able to keep criminals from easily obtaining firearms, carrying them, and more importantly, using them, without making it harder on citizens to do the same (in lawful purposes); would we do it? Of course we would! Conservatives and liberals would be totally on board with it. You know, like 'background checks'.....

There is a much bigger picture and level of details to the firearm debate in this nation. Your question (as I'm understand it) views concealable carry as the whole argument instead. Concealable carry is just one part of the whole. The sum of the various parts, make up the whole of the debate.

I for one, would not wish concealable carry to become to common for two reasons:

1 ) It allows the criminal to masquerade as the citizen to easily. I dont think any citizen on any of the sides of this debate want that (you thought there was only two sides, right?).

2 ) Allowing to many to have concealable firearms, means the criminal has to carry a gun, just to commit a crime. Not just any sort of firearm will do. One that has tremendous penetration, accuracy, ammo count, and ease to obtain. In other words, your little pistol is no match for his AK.

The flip side, to few concealable carry firearms, is ALSO, bad. It allows the criminal a degree of safety to operate, with the knowledge that encountering that one person with a firearm is more rare than an honest politician. What percentage of the population should we as a society allow to have access and carry concealable carry firearms? Say 40%? Not to many nor to few. From year to year, that percentage might adjust itself +/-3%.

Regardless if we are conservative, liberal, or moderate; wouldn't we want things to be hard on criminals in obtaining firearms? In carrying them? Concealing them? And most importantly, using them?

I've answered your questions. May not be to your liking. Can you answer mine?