My permanent reply to gun control

[EXTXOILMAN]

Originally Posted by ZedX79

There are plenty of scholarships available besides shooting young woman.

That's true, Zed, but she has obviously nurtured her talent into opportunities at those schools she mentions who have shooting teams and have scholarships available for those participants. Why should she be denied that chance?? Maybe she is hoping to parlay that into a berth on the U.S. Olympic team?? Are we going to take that away from her, and others like her, because of a few mutts who make the gun issue a political football??

[acp5762]

Originally Posted by CJ7

never bring a knife to a banned gunfight

Well not everyone will have that two shot derringer that the gun banners missed, lol.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

That's true, Zed, but she has obviously nurtured her talent into opportunities at those schools she mentions who have shooting teams and have scholarships available for those participants. Why should she be denied that chance?? Maybe she is hoping to parlay that into a berth on the U.S. Olympic team?? Are we going to take that away from her, and others like her, because of a few mutts who make the gun issue a political football??

Jesus! have her learn to shoot a bow and arrow.

That might be the craziest anti gun regulation argument I've ever heard.

You are fucking ridiculous!

[Randy4Candy]

LOL, you guys are really something else. But, your reasons not to implement an easy system to register guns amount to nothing.

1. No access to "the database:" The clerk enters in whatever the required information is and after it is checked the information comes back as either a "yes" or a "no." Very similar to the background check I went through in Fort Worth when I bought my firearm. No biggie, if it is a "no" then there should be a way for the potential owner to find out what the problem was. At that point, it will be out of the clerk's hands.

2. "Access" or operation of a firearm (or vehicle): The aim here is responsibility and liability. If the gun owner is liable, then they (especially if they are these wonderful people eveyone says they are) will be vewy, vewy responsible.

If all of these people whose alleged rights are supposedly going to be infringed upon are all that responsible and law abiding, then what's the problem?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

A person or company's right to ban guns on their premises has nothing to do with my right to have one, okay, Shithead?? In my post I stated that I support BOTH, because they're different rights!!

Now, let's review. Your first post (to me) said you wanted to ban all guns. Your second post (to LK) asked four questions regarding the right to ban guns in1) homes, 2) businesses, 3) colleges/universities, and 4) airlines (aka Public Transportation, moron). Who needs the right to ban guns on a premise when/if the right has been taken away?? Now who's 180 degrees apart on their position??

Good god it's exhausting talking to you libtards.

Do you not know how to read and comprehend asshole? My first post directly to you:

First, in case you don't know Kayla, she in the past has indicated that non-gun owners have very few rights. She has implied that ALL U.S. citizens should have the right to carry any weapon at any time in any place.

Your second paragraph just shows off your stupidity in assuming that just because an individual wants SOME gun control that he or she wants TOTAL gun control.

So please point out where I state that I want to ban all guns.

Your second statement is not understandable at all, as is usual with your posts. Yes, airplanes are public transportation and I do not want non-authorized people carrying guns there. Got me there. But somehow you take that position and extrapolate it to ALL public transportation. Didn't come close to saying that.

As I've said before, you Conservatards are all alike -- every statement that in the least bit hints at some form of gun control is taken to be a statement for total gun control.

[gary5912]

Originally Posted by WTF

She is no Randy Weaver. She'd give up her guns along with her beaver if they told her to. Let's not fall for her Heston impersonation!

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

She'd (forbidden topic) if the (forbidden topic) was (forbidden topic) enough!

Stupid Fucking Girl!

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Jesus! have her learn to shoot a bow and arrow.

That might be the craziest anti gun regulation argument I've ever heard.

You are fucking ridiculous!

two of the biggest dipshits on board

[EXTXOILMAN]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Do you not know how to read and comprehend asshole? My first post directly to you:

First, in case you don't know Kayla, she in the past has indicated that non-gun owners have very few rights. She has implied that ALL U.S. citizens should have the right to carry any weapon at any time in any place.

Your second paragraph just shows off your stupidity in assuming that just because an individual wants SOME gun control that he or she wants TOTAL gun control.

So please point out where I state that I want to ban all guns.

Your second statement is not understandable at all, as is usual with your posts. Yes, airplanes are public transportation and I do not want non-authorized people carrying guns there. Got me there. (Damn right!!) But somehow you take that position and extrapolate it to ALL public transportation. Didn't come close to saying that.

As I've said before, you Conservatards are all alike -- every statement that in the least bit hints at some form of gun control is taken to be a statement for total gun control.

You got me there, Speedy. Sorry, I got you mixed up with another of your libtard buddies, who said the following:

j_bravo123, 4/3/2013, 9:03am

"Ideally, I'd like to see all guns banned. Yes, I understand it's not going to happen and it's a Constitutional right to bear arms, but clearly at this point, our society is showing we can't handle the responsibility to have ready access to such dangerous stuff.

This is why we can't have nice things!"

Carry on.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

1. No access to "the database:" The clerk enters in whatever the required information is and after it is checked the information comes back as either a "yes" or a "no."

2. "Access" or operation of a firearm (or vehicle):

If all of these people whose alleged rights are supposedly going to be infringed upon are all that responsible and law abiding, then what's the problem?

You just made the point: #1 the Clerk doesn't have access to the data base and a "check" has to be done by someone else (keep in mind you were counting the "check" as a source of revenue for the gun store while processing the "paper work" ... what "paper work" ... you said the Clerk "enters" the information .... in what? Computer")...

then where did I say " "Access" or operation of a firearm (or vehicle)"?

Last, but not least, again you wouild have the "responsible and law abiding" citizens go through the screening process ... how are you going to make the "crooks" do it? What's your plan: Have them charged with "possession of an unauthorized weapon during the discharge of a firearm in the commission of a felony" ... "Count II" in their indictment.?????? [Psssst ... already a crime!].

It's one thing to sit there and dream up more process and regulations ... it's another to implement the process and regulations to create an intended and desired result of reducing, if not eliminating, gun violence and crimes committed with firearms. Registration, either more of it or enhanced, doesn't do it. Anybody who says it does, is operating in a dream world of fantasies. It's a band-aid on a boil.

[CJOHN]

Originally Posted by timpage

Round and round we go.....

got to that before i did ... did you see the future

[Randy4Candy]

Poor LexusBlather, trying to obfuscate something that is simple enough for even him to understand. No, I'm not suggesting that the clerk use a computer, I had in mind a hand-cranked abacus, of course. Your silly bullshit doesn't even deserve this short answer. Come back when you're sober. As far as to what you said, hell, sport, you wrote it, do I have to go back and read it for you? Also, believe it or not, you MAY not have been the sole object of my post. Other people post, you know. But, your self-absorbed state may have made it hard for you to realize it.

[jbravo_123]

Originally Posted by acp5762

Think about this realistically for a minute, all guns are banned. One night you are in your living room watching television. You hear some noises in a back room to your home. You go to investigate and two individuals are climbing in through a window. For the sake of arguement lets just say they aren't armed with a firearm but rather a knife. How do you think you would fair in this particular situation? Lets also assume that the right of a homeowner to use deadly force on an intruder into his home still exists, and you have two.

Presuming I don't myself have a knife or bat? I could much more easily just leave the premises or in the worst case scenario, physically defend myself from a knife much more easily than I could against a firearm.

There are many countries in the world that have total gun bans and of all the first world countries, we have by far the most gun deaths per capita. Clearly we are doing something wrong as a society to be in the lead (yes, I know he US loves to be #1) of such a terrible statistic.

Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

That's true, Zed, but she has obviously nurtured her talent into opportunities at those schools she mentions who have shooting teams and have scholarships available for those participants. Why should she be denied that chance?? Maybe she is hoping to parlay that into a berth on the U.S. Olympic team?? Are we going to take that away from her, and others like her, because of a few mutts who make the gun issue a political football??

To steal the title of Kayla's other thread, why does she think she has a right to that particular scholarship?

And yes, I'll still say that ideally, I would like to see all guns banned. Unlike other countries that allow firearms of some form, we have a much higher death by guns per capita than most other countries. Simply put, less guns means less gun violence.

As I also stated in my previous post, I also realize this will never come to pass in the US because the Constitution does grant us that right and the number of guns that are out there to effectively implement a total gun ban. I believe the original reason for the 2nd Amendment (to form a militia) is no longer necessary in the modern United States.

[EXTXOILMAN]

Originally Posted by jbravo_123

To steal the title of Kayla's other thread, why does she think she has a right to that particular scholarship?

I never said she had a RIGHT to a scholarship. I said she had worked to EARN a scholarship. It's understandable, of course, that you don't get that...being a typical libtard looking for handouts.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by jbravo_123

And yes, I'll still say that ideally, I would like to see all guns banned. Unlike other countries that allow firearms of some form, we have a much higher death by guns per capita than most other countries. Simply put, less guns means less gun violence.

As I also stated in my previous post, I also realize this will never come to pass in the US because the Constitution does grant us that right and the number of guns that are out there to effectively implement a total gun ban. I believe the original reason for the 2nd Amendment (to form a militia) is no longer necessary in the modern United States.

Excellent point in the first paragraph. Please explain that to the citizens in Australia.

Another excellent point in the second paragraph. Please let us know how your petition to repeal the 2nd Amendment is going.

[acp5762]

jbravo_123

Presuming I don't myself have a knife or bat? I could much more easily just leave the premises or in the worst case scenario, physically defend myself from a knife much more easily than I could against a firearm.

If you are ever confronted with this scenario and you are alone, leaving the house is not such a terrible option. But if you have a family thats not feasible. Even if you have a knife or even a bat you have a 50/50 chance of this turning in your favor and thats if you're somewhat trained. If you had no time to arm yourself with a household implement and you aren't well trained to defend yourself against a subject with a knife you have a 95% chance of being a statistic. The remaining 5% chance of your survival depends on if your intruder decides to leave because he wasn't counting on being discovered. But if you were armed it's all in your favor cause you have a right to protect yourself and your home and you have a right to use deadly force if an intruder enters your home armed or unarmed. That means you don't have to run out the backdoor, grab a bat or fumble for a kitchen knife.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by jbravo_123

Presuming I don't myself have a knife or bat? I could much more easily just leave the premises or in the worst case scenario, physically defend myself from a knife much more easily than I could against a firearm.

Quite possibly the dumbest statement on here, ever. And that is something previously thought impossible.