RE: Nobody wants to take your guns.

RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (Full Version)

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

Message

joether -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/26/2015 11:46:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin I didn't find it in the article you linked to but even if I had, that figure of 100 billion is way too far out there in outerspace to be believable. Ya got any information from down here on earth ? If I had to take an educated guess without researching it, I think mnottertail is not correct. More likely range would be $70-110 million. It's tough to get an accurate picture now that SuperPACS can shuffle around resources on a whim an as often as stocks are traded by computers for a human to sort out the trail. Bloomberg is many thngs. At least he's honest to say where the money to fight for better controls on firearms originates. Can the gun nuts say the same right now? How do we know some of the money being used doesn't come from foreign nations?

BamaD -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/26/2015 11:51:07 AM)
We give you proof that your arguments are flawed or pure fantasy, and you dismiss it as the rantings of gun nuts. You want carefully crafted "scientific experiments" all of which have put the "armed citizen" at a greater disadvatage than reality. You lie about the results, they never give 100% failure on the part of the "armed citizen" in spite of stacking the odds. You ignore the fact that such studies are not needed since reality has show they do make a difference. My attitude, and that of everyone you dissmiss as gun nuts on here, is not "fuck it, I like guns, it is that your "solutions" are bad, your assumptions are ridiculous, and your attitude is arrogant and overbearing.

BamaD -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/26/2015 11:52:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin I didn't find it in the article you linked to but even if I had, that figure of 100 billion is way too far out there in outerspace to be believable. Ya got any information from down here on earth ? If I had to take an educated guess without researching it, I think mnottertail is not correct. More likely range would be $70-110 million. It's tough to get an accurate picture now that SuperPACS can shuffle around resources on a whim an as often as stocks are traded by computers for a human to sort out the trail. Bloomberg is many thngs. At least he's honest to say where the money to fight for better controls on firearms originates. Can the gun nuts say the same right now? How do we know some of the money being used doesn't come from foreign nations? Again you ignore oft published facts that don't fit into your fantasy world.

joether -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/26/2015 12:12:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Now if you don't want to be in a a militia, you do not have to be in a militia. But then, you do not get the protections afforded under the 2nd amendment. This has been repeatedly been demonstrated to be a false position. Once upon a time you even admitted that it was not the position taken by the people who wrote and approved it. But you insist on it because you are wiser than the founding fathers. In this 'once upon a time....' where did I say this? Did the founding fathers have muskets that could fire thirty musket balls within 3-4 seconds? Good accuracy at 300 yards? Reload times of less then 4-5 seconds? Penetration ability that can tear wide holes into humans? Have the founding fathers visited some of the ER rooms in 2015 to see, observe and discuss with medical doctors the effects of bullets on the human body? For you to have a leg to stand upon, the answer to all five questions has to be....YES. Because it is 'No', that implies the founding fathers had no idea how technology would soon turn a single shot, un-rifled firearm that takes 20-30 seconds to reload, accurate to about 250 feet and might penetrate a wooden barricade at 80 feet; into any of the firearms found today in gun stores. You want to make a bet that if they were alive today (by way of a Time-Traveling Delorean for example) they would side with you or me? I'm pretty damn confident, how about you? And.....I could handle their answer like an adult. Someone I dont think you could muster (oooh...pun!). Did the founding fathers have computors to write news stories on? For your argument to hold any water any right that employees technology that didn't exist then is invalid. No right to trial because at that time they didn't have fingerprinting, ballistics, or Dna lame, lame argument. I believe Kirata has saved a copy of that statement by you about your superior wisdom taking precidence over the writers and the numerous court rulings that say you are wrong.. He has postied it once when you deied it . Ok, this rant of ramblings is just silly. Let's go with Truth and Fact here BamaD: 1 ) If I can delete posts, what keeps me from simply deleting all those posts I disagree upon? 2 ) The founding fathers had education, knowledge, and a liberal view on government. But they do not have knowledge and wisdom for ages past their deaths. 3 ) The founding fathers did have a simple computer back then: The Abacus. Used by many merchants at the time. 4 ) In the late 18th century, as is time before then, the speed at which technology increased was very slow. In the last 150 years, this nation has done a number of things: go to the moon, travel across the nation in a few hours instead of weeks, learn about places far beyond our solar system, found cures, seen many things. Does Miley use the 8 track for her recordings or the Internet? This next one I have to specifically address: quote: No right to trial because at that time they didn't have fingerprinting, ballistics, or Dna lame, lame argument. All those things do not come about on their own. But by defense lawyers using scientific discoveries and developing ways to show their client was either not guilty or not as guilty. Scientists make many discoveries. Some times those discoveries simply stay in the realm of science and go no further (i.e. theoretical physics). Most of the time they are develop by people into products, services, and/or concepts. Scientists understood bullet physics at a basic level long before rifling came into existence (i.e. physics). You can not have rifling for barrels until you have the knowledge for doing it. Your argument is lame on the grounds that you have no clue what science is nor how it is used. Further lame because you do not know how laws are created, maintained, or removed as a result of newer technology. That has been shown many times on this board! Even our own local Climate Change denier, Kirata, has been shown to be full of shit on knowledge of science. Would the founding fathers have signed off on the 2nd amendment knowing how firearm technology would develop? How the culture surrounding it would be shaped? Back in their day, the thought was only the government behaving in a tyrannical manner. In 2015, its possible that very wealth individuals, international mega corporations, religious groups, and yes, even governments, could become tyrannical over the people. Learned though Sociology and Political Science.

joether -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/26/2015 12:17:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin I didn't find it in the article you linked to but even if I had, that figure of 100 billion is way too far out there in outerspace to be believable. Ya got any information from down here on earth ? If I had to take an educated guess without researching it, I think mnottertail is not correct. More likely range would be $70-110 million. It's tough to get an accurate picture now that SuperPACS can shuffle around resources on a whim an as often as stocks are traded by computers for a human to sort out the trail. Bloomberg is many thngs. At least he's honest to say where the money to fight for better controls on firearms originates. Can the gun nuts say the same right now? How do we know some of the money being used doesn't come from foreign nations? Again you ignore oft published facts that don't fit into your fantasy world. To get published facts moron, would imply violating federal law! Don't understand why? Let me explain... We'd have to invade all those private entities, searching through their databases and financial accounts, in order to accuse them of have having 'X' amount of dollars for the purpose of firearm debates. A FUCKING HUGE VIOLATION of the 4th amendment. But then, your 'cause' is 'OK' with violating the 8th amendment as seen on the history books! So....we make educated guesses based upon information known.

joether -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/26/2015 12:33:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD We give you proof that your arguments are flawed or pure fantasy, and you dismiss it as the rantings of gun nuts. You want carefully crafted "scientific experiments" all of which have put the "armed citizen" at a greater disadvatage than reality. You lie about the results, they never give 100% failure on the part of the "armed citizen" in spite of stacking the odds. You ignore the fact that such studies are not needed since reality has show they do make a difference. My attitude, and that of everyone you dissmiss as gun nuts on here, is not "fuck it, I like guns, it is that your "solutions" are bad, your assumptions are ridiculous, and your attitude is arrogant and overbearing. No, you give me conservative bullshit that I can find on conservative media with total ease. Meaning, the amount of thought process you performed on the action was equal to a hard disk recording information: no thought, just obey the process. I can look down the road and wonder where all this is going; you can not. In fact, your afraid to even wonder. Better to obey the NRA and the GOP, right? You can not handle science either, has previous demonstrated. Your afraid of having gun nut myths put up to a test in a science experiment. If your 'values' really are true, you should have no trouble in them being put to an actual test. Yet, you fight it every bit. That tells me your not to confident in your myths being true. Well, hate to tell you, but eventually, the American people are going to find out. Would you rather be honest about things now with some credibility? Or Dishonest when they have even less trust in you later? Do you even realize your post sounds like a child whom is four years old in the middle of a temper tantrum? Do we give young children firearms? Not if we are intelligent! So why should we trust an adult, whom behaves like a young child with a firearm? Why should be allow someone that is behaving irrational, a firearm? Do you even realize that any of this? No of course not. Not until I showed the evidence. Any causal observe can tell whom is the adult in this conversation. It is not you, if your still having trouble figuring that out. You do not do your 'cause' any good by behaving this way. I asked a question to which you are replying to: "Is it really hard for you to be a mature, responsible, reasonable, rational adult?" The answer is 'no'. So why should anyone trust you with a firearm? Here is my suggestion: Apologize. Liberals tend to be more forgiving then conservatives. We, BamaD, get passionate on this subject. Sometimes a little too passionate. When I felt I cross that line, did I apologize to you? in the forum and in private? Because the behavior was uncalled for. Your an adult! Behave like one. I was trying to throw you a bone with that question. The answer I was hoping for was, 'yes'. You are mature, responsible, reasonable, and rational. Right? Your not going to look weaker in my eyes by apologizing. Takes great strength of will and mind to admit fault.

BamaD -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/26/2015 12:51:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD We give you proof that your arguments are flawed or pure fantasy, and you dismiss it as the rantings of gun nuts. You want carefully crafted "scientific experiments" all of which have put the "armed citizen" at a greater disadvatage than reality. You lie about the results, they never give 100% failure on the part of the "armed citizen" in spite of stacking the odds. You ignore the fact that such studies are not needed since reality has show they do make a difference. My attitude, and that of everyone you dissmiss as gun nuts on here, is not "fuck it, I like guns, it is that your "solutions" are bad, your assumptions are ridiculous, and your attitude is arrogant and overbearing. No, you give me conservative bullshit that I can find on conservative media with total ease. Meaning, the amount of thought process you performed on the action was equal to a hard disk recording information: no thought, just obey the process. I can look down the road and wonder where all this is going; you can not. In fact, your afraid to even wonder. Better to obey the NRA and the GOP, right? You can not handle science either, has previous demonstrated. Your afraid of having gun nut myths put up to a test in a science experiment. If your 'values' really are true, you should have no trouble in them being put to an actual test. Yet, you fight it every bit. That tells me your not to confident in your myths being true. Well, hate to tell you, but eventually, the American people are going to find out. Would you rather be honest about things now with some credibility? Or Dishonest when they have even less trust in you later? Do you even realize your post sounds like a child whom is four years old in the middle of a temper tantrum? Do we give young children firearms? Not if we are intelligent! So why should we trust an adult, whom behaves like a young child with a firearm? Why should be allow someone that is behaving irrational, a firearm? Do you even realize that any of this? No of course not. Not until I showed the evidence. Any causal observe can tell whom is the adult in this conversation. It is not you, if your still having trouble figuring that out. You do not do your 'cause' any good by behaving this way. I asked a question to which you are replying to: "Is it really hard for you to be a mature, responsible, reasonable, rational adult?" The answer is 'no'. So why should anyone trust you with a firearm? Here is my suggestion: Apologize. Liberals tend to be more forgiving then conservatives. We, BamaD, get passionate on this subject. Sometimes a little too passionate. When I felt I cross that line, did I apologize to you? in the forum and in private? Because the behavior was uncalled for. Your an adult! Behave like one. I was trying to throw you a bone with that question. The answer I was hoping for was, 'yes'. You are mature, responsible, reasonable, and rational. Right? Your not going to look weaker in my eyes by apologizing. Takes great strength of will and mind to admit fault. You apologized in private, but you throw around terms like gun nut, low information, moron, and the like without seeing that you are being insulting. You accuse people of being close minded and incapable of thinking for themselves and think you are just stating the facts so we need to change to make you feel better about us. Bloomberg has bragged about spending 50 million on his anti gun crusade, the NRA has published their contributions to pro 2nd at 28 million. To say these figure are wrong either way is to assume that they are guilty without any proof, just because that is what you want to believe. You used to be reasonable but of late, maybe as long as a year you have been preaching to us low infomation moronic gun nuts. We think you are wrong, you seem to think we are stupid, selfish, deluded, and somehow responsible for every gun death. I didn't say you deleted things you didn't like I said you dismiss them. Your mistake is something you would expect of one of us low information morons. While you won't believe this I have to struggle in almost every post to not sink to the level that you have allowed yourself to. We thing you are wrong, you seem compeled to asscribe my positions some serious character flaw, combined with stupidity.

mnottertail -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/26/2015 1:00:55 PM)
12 pages, who has had guns taken away? How about the last 300 threads, who has had them taken away?

BamaD -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/26/2015 1:10:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail 12 pages, who has had guns taken away? How about the last 300 threads, who has had them taken away? New Yorkers, Californians, residents of New Orleans. And it was prompted by Hillary's statement that she favored "madatory buybacks". Don't you pay attention.

mnottertail -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/26/2015 1:27:57 PM)
I won't, since it did not happen as you say. New Orleans, they should have shot the cops, you know tryannical government and all. California? You don't mean the criminals who could once own guns, but had them confiscated because they were now felons or mental defectives? New York? What did they do there? Hillaries movie is no more responsible for those actions than it was for Benghazi. THink before you speak.

Kirata -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/26/2015 1:31:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Even our own local Climate Change denier, Kirata, has been shown to be full of shit on knowledge of science. Well let's see some links to these so-called "denials" where I've been shown to be "full of shit" on my knowledge of science. Ummkay? I acknowledge being skeptical about the soundness of the theory of anthropogenic global warming, and especially about its alarmist predictions, but there are defensible reasons for those views: Has the scientific problem of climate been solved in terms of basic physics and mathematics? No, but you will be forgiven if you thought otherwise. ~Christopher Essex, Ph.D., Chairman, Permanent Monitoring Panel on Climate, World Federation of Scientists In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. ~IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001), Section 14.2.2.2 You on the other hand are a delusional fuckwit who thinks calling people names constitutes sufficient evidence of his intellectual superiority and who finds responding to requests for links beneath his dignity. Of course, maybe you will make an exception this time, but anyone wishing to place a bet will be given good odds. K.

BamaD -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/26/2015 1:35:40 PM)
bquote]ORIGINAL: mnottertail I won't, since it did not happen as you say. New Orleans, they should have shot the cops, you know tryannical government and all. California? You don't mean the criminals who could once own guns, but had them confiscated because they were now felons or mental defectives? New York? What did they do there? Hillaries movie is no more responsible for those actions than it was for Benghazi. THink before you speak. [/quote] No, California. They demanded the "registration" of sks sporters, a semiautomatic with the promise that they were only trying to keep track to stop crime, a year later they confiscated them after a "mandatory buyback" at about half their value. In New York they made people register guns that looked like assault weapons, with the same promise and a year later confiscated them. As for New Orleans you asked where guns were taken away, it was illegal but they did it anyway. I didn't say Hillary had one thing to do with those incidents. I said she now favors mandatory "buybacks" which is just a nice term for confiscation.

mnottertail -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/26/2015 1:37:09 PM)
In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^also true of economics, flush Friedman, Smith et al.

mnottertail -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/26/2015 2:03:45 PM)
California, not what happened: https://www.reddit.com/r/progun/comments/1dapuz/ (States rights) New York, not what happened: http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=S02230&term=2013&Summary=Y&Text=Y (SAFE ACT) New Orleans: that was that. So far, none have been taken away illegally under 1968 law other than in the lawless nutsucker state. So other than New Orleans, heavily nutsucker, you got nothing. And the others? Yeah, no. Benghazi!Bengazi!Benghazi! Nothing at all to do with Hillary Clinton or Obama trying to take your guns away.

BamaD -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/26/2015 2:41:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail California, not what happened: https://www.reddit.com/r/progun/comments/1dapuz/ (States rights) New York, not what happened: http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=S02230&term=2013&Summary=Y&Text=Y (SAFE ACT) New Orleans: that was that. So far, none have been taken away illegally under 1968 law other than in the lawless nutsucker state. So other than New Orleans, heavily nutsucker, you got nothing. And the others? Yeah, no. Benghazi!Bengazi!Benghazi! Nothing at all to do with Hillary Clinton or Obama trying to take your guns away. You are the only one to mention Benghazi. That sums up the validity of your post. Are you pretending that since they banned the weapons before they collected them it doesn't count?

mnottertail -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/26/2015 2:44:33 PM)
You are the only liar in this exchange, just like the Benghazi lies perpetrated by the nutsuckers, that sums up the validity of any of your posts. You outright have lied.

BamaD -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/26/2015 2:52:18 PM)
California, not what happened No they used the old military trick of reinterpreting the regulation and making people retroactively in violation.

mnottertail -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/26/2015 2:53:21 PM)
Are you pretending that were they slaves, the state has no right to remove that contraband?

BamaD -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/26/2015 2:54:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail You are the only liar in this exchange, just like the Benghazi lies perpetrated by the nutsuckers, that sums up the validity of any of your posts. You outright have lied. Love talking to you, you are so smart and polite. And again you are the only one talking about Benghazi Also I didn't say you were a liar, just wrong.

mnottertail -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/26/2015 2:56:54 PM)
And again, you are the only one who lied, had nothing to do with hillary or a conspiracy to register to confiscate. I love talking to you, you derail when you are caught in a lie, and expect people to buy into your foolish dissembling and Benghazi style coverups. They can see what you post. Are you pretending that the cops who were killed shouldnt have been?

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875