Even the most responsible ***-owners can snap...

[Mr. Daystar]

Once again, this is the guy who flew off on a rant about beating someone up every day and flushing their head in the toilet for asking a reasonable question. Also, you're making some pretty bold assumptions about how much dick anyone here has, based on circumstances that apply equally to you. I've said similar things as I've said in this thread to many faces and I'd say them to yours as well. Just because you think you're a badass doesn't make it so.

Once again dipshit...YOU poked your nose into someone else's argument. Shut up, and go back and read the posts from SEVERAL other threads, that make up our history....and I never said I was a badass...but you can always come and knock on my door, and we'll find out.

 

[BlkHawk]

........

There is another society that has more guns then we do, and less crime involving guns. Switzerland, has far more guns then we do per capita, and every able bodied man till the age of 35 spends three weeks a year training with the military.

Somalia guns + no regulation = chaos.
Swizerland guns + mandatory training = very peaceful and polite society. From what I have read they also have a health care system that is more effective at preventing people from falling through the cracks.

You see I don't want to take guns away, but I also don't believe giving a *** out to everyone who wants one is going to create a peaceful society. *** ownership is a responsibility that should be taken seriously. I believe training, and yes licensing, is a way to help enforce, indeed ingrain a sense of responsibility.

Do you think someone with late stage Alzheimer's should be allowed to keep his guns? Do you think his ******, or in absence of the ******, the state should take them away?

I am not trying to be smart ass with those questions, it is a situation that happens, how do you think we should deal with it?

Let's say you have an elderly loved one who has started having accidents while driving. They want to keep driving, but it is becoming clear they are a danger to themselves and others while driving. Do you intervene, or do you look the other way?

Shouldn't we have options to intervene in someone's 2nd amendment rights when it is becoming clear they are a threat to themselves and others?

 

[Mayhem]

There is another society that has more guns then we do, and less crime involving guns. Switzerland, has far more guns then we do per capita, and every able bodied man till the age of 35 spends three weeks a year training with the military.

Somalia guns + no regulation = chaos.
Swizerland guns + mandatory training = very peaceful and polite society. From what I have read they also have a health care system that is more effective at preventing people from falling through the cracks.

You see I don't want to take guns away, but I also don't believe giving a *** out to everyone who wants one is going to create a peaceful society. *** ownership is a responsibility that should be taken seriously. I believe training, and yes licensing, is a way to help enforce, indeed ingrain a sense of responsibility.

Do you think someone with late stage Alzheimer's should be allowed to keep his guns? Do you think his ******, or in absence of the ******, the state should take them away?

I am not trying to be smart ass with those questions, it is a situation that happens, how do you think we should deal with it?

Let's say you have an elderly loved one who has started having accidents while driving. They want to keep driving, but it is becoming clear they are a danger to themselves and others while driving. Do you intervene, or do you look the other way?

Shouldn't we have options to intervene in someone's 2nd amendment rights when it is becoming clear they are a threat to themselves and others?

Without going line by line, I agree with much of what you say. The problem is the very real problem that we (gunowners in general, NRA being a branch of that) have been burned too many times before. We give an inch, the other side wants a mile and is not bashful about saying so.

To put it another way, name an invading army/horde who pulled up to the gates of a city and declared, "We only want to pillage part of your town and **** some of your women." There is a very unfortunate siege mentality to 2nd Amendment politics that is completely justified. So no, the gates remain barred. I wish there was a better way, but there isn't.

 

[mongo18]

you can always come and knock on my door, and we'll find out.

Pfft, stop bravely flapping your snotty little arrogant mouth at an anonymous distance because you don't have the half inch of dick it takes to be a man and say it to my face.

 

[Philbert]

I should have been shot for not helping someone do something *******? Nice sentiment.

He gave you something to repair, and you decided to do something on your own he didn't tell you to, and you gave him back a non-working computer which you put off as your moral duty, so fuck you.

You fucked him, and wimped out of responsibility, which it was (yours).

Old saying...fuck with the bull, you get the horns.

 

[Philbert]

Pfft, stop bravely flapping your snotty little arrogant mouth at an anonymous distance because you don't have the half inch of dick it takes to be a man and say it to my face.

Another Internet Warrior shows off his lack of real ferociousness by pretending to be soooo fierce...really focused on Rev's penis . Still...weird.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Pfft, stop bravely flapping your snotty little arrogant mouth at an anonymous distance because you don't have the half inch of dick it takes to be a man and say it to my face.

Maple Hts Ohio fucktard. Close to Dunham Rd., and Libby Rd. I'm sure there's an internet cafe somewhere close by. You would fly into Hopkins intentional airport...when you're close, log on...I'll meet your kangaroo fucking ass half way.

There is another society that has more guns then we do, and less crime involving guns. Switzerland, has far more guns then we do per capita, and every able bodied man till the age of 35 spends three weeks a year training with the military.

I have to agree with Mayhem...in fact, I couldn't have said it better.

 

[mongo18]

Philbert, I know it's really tough for you to follow a simple conversation, but that was me using that idiot's words right back at him, so if there's any penis focus, it comes from your buddy revidffum, oops.

And yes, you win revidffum, you're the toughest guy on the internet because I'm not willing to buy a plane ticket to come to ohio and try to beat some sense into your worthless ass. Although I seriously doubt you'd meet me like a man if I did, I'm sure you'd hide behind your guns and mommy issues.

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

*** safety should be a mandatory class for every student in every school in America and the fact that it isn't is another indicator of how lazy and stupid we are becoming in the US.
You keep letting movies and video games teach your ******** *** etiquette and you are going to keep getting this kind of outcome.

Bahhhhh cried the sheep.

 

[Lacey Black]

No. What's sad, shameful, and pathetic, is someone negatively repping another, when they have little to no clue, of the history behind the 2 people involved. What's sad, is neg rep, because even though you are not in the argument, you feel a need to interject yourself, and come the rescue...a problem France has CLEARLY had for decades. I guess in your location..."slutville"....the only guns they have, shoot cum, but in the real world, criminals will ALWAYS have them, and they have no qualms about using them. The fact is, in a perfect world, EVERYONE would carry a *** on their hip, in plain site....an armed society, is a polite society. Criminals pray on the weak, and vulnerable. They are shitty little shitheads, that are scared shitless, and haven't got the balls to face an armed man...or woman. As far as me being cowardly...you're just clueless. My desire to beat the snot out of either of these 2 numbnuts, has absolutely NOTHING to do with their political views...that's the thing no one EVER gets about pro *** people. We could give a **** less if you don't want one...just keep your hands off of mine. It does however have EVERYTHING to do with their snotty little arrogant mouths, which they bravely flap at an anonymous distance, because they don't have the half an inch of dick it takes to be a man, and say it to a persons face. As far as the neg rep you gave me....it hardly makes a dent in the 2 positive reps I got from this thread.

You to take rep way too seriously. I wasn't only referring to you in my post. "In a perfect world everyone would have guns" :1orglaugh There would be no crime or war in a perfect world! So no guns would be necessary other than for hunting, which we don't even need them for that anymore. And I don't care what your "history" with the OP is, grow up and act like an adult. Don't even say for a second you were/are, you said you wanted to give someone a swirly.. a swirly.. seriously. Go outside and get some fresh air and you might realize that nothing said on here really matters, have your own opinions and calm down.

 

[BlkHawk]

Without going line by line, I agree with much of what you say. The problem is the very real problem that we (gunowners in general, NRA being a branch of that) have been burned too many times before. We give an inch, the other side wants a mile and is not bashful about saying so.

To put it another way, name an invading army/horde who pulled up to the gates of a city and declared, "We only want to pillage part of your town and **** some of your women." There is a very unfortunate siege mentality to 2nd Amendment politics that is completely justified. So no, the gates remain barred. I wish there was a better way, but there isn't.

But there is a better way. We work with anti *** people on the parts we agree on, but we remain vigilante and steadfast to insure we don't infringe on the rights of responsible *** owners.

Maybe I am misreading your response, but it sounds like your saying it is to difficult, so let's not even try.

 

[Mayhem]

But there is a better way. We work with anti *** people on the parts we agree on, but we remain vigilante and steadfast to insure we don't infringe on the rights of responsible *** owners.

Maybe I am misreading your response, but it sounds like your saying it is to difficult, so let's not even try.

No, I'm saying that it has been tried and failed because it's impossible. Getting pro-gunners and anti-gunners to agree on anything is completely analogous to trying to get pro-lifers to agree with pro-choicers.

HuffPost is one of 3 major news sources I click. Go there right now and check the comments section of any shooting related story. THAT'S how impossible it is to bring both sides together in any meaningful way.

 

[blakey]

Jeez,

Have been away from freeones talk for months
Sadly it seems there still cant be civilised discussions on controversial topics like this

my :2 cents: I believe that for many anti-*** control people it wouldn't matter if (and I know this is impossible)
some wonderful laws could be introduced which would reduce *** deaths in the whole usa to less than 10 per year
they still would not want this if it meant any *** control legislation put in place

they don't care if 10,000 ******** die - they don't want anyone to "infringe on Their *** ownership rights"



anyway just how I see it

oh and rev,
that's classy in the post above - wishing for the genocide of the entire somalian people - is it coz they're black or muslim -
or do you like a two for one,

real classy you know

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Jeez,

Have been away from freeones talk for months
Sadly it seems there still cant be civilised discussions on controversial topics like this

my :2 cents: I believe that for many anti-*** control people it wouldn't matter if (and I know this is impossible)
some wonderful laws could be introduced which would reduce *** deaths in the whole usa to less than 10 per year
they still would not want this if it meant any *** control legislation put in place

they don't care if 10,000 ******** die - they don't want anyone to "infringe on Their *** ownership rights"

anyway just how I see it

oh and rev,
that's classy in the post above - wishing for the genocide of the entire somalian people - is it coz they're black or muslim -
or do you like a two for one,

real classy you know

It's because they slaughtered a couple of our soldiers, and ****** a corpse....dragging it through the streets and enjoying EVERY FUCKING SECOND of it. In case you haven't noticed...I'm not wearing a tuxedo, and sipping a martini. Class is THE LAST thing I care about having, or projecting, when it comes to the actions of those fucking *******, and what they did. If it makes you feel better, I think we should be doing the same to Yemen....because of the USS Cole...so I guess you can at least eliminate the accusations of wanting death for blacks....which by the way, they ARE NOT. They ARE, AFRICAN.

And we do care if ******** die, we're just smart enough to know, more laws, and restrictions won't do a damn thing, except effect the people that do abide by the law, and follow the rules.

 

[Rey C.]

Granted school shootings do not make up a high percentage of the victims of violent crime involving guns, but they are the ones to grab our attention and get us talking. The violent felons with guns is exactly my point, people who shouldn't have guns. People who right now cannot legally own firearms, are still able to purchase them from legal vendors. This is a dangerous oversight, and I am confused as to why it is so difficult to correct.

Not meaning to sound cruel, but in order to address the (overall) problem of *** ********, it would be better to put the high profile, media frenzy/shark ****** stories aside - or at the very least, deal with them separately. Statistically, they are outliers. Even if you completely eliminated school shootings, you wouldn't make a dent in the firearms related ****** rate in the U.S.

To the best of my knowledge, a licensed FFL holder cannot (legally) sell/transfer a firearm to anyone without using the NICS background check system. From what I've read, violent felons tend to secure their firearms through black market sources - not through licensed dealers or legal vendors. And I would be fully in favor of cracking down on those black market sources.

A *** licensing program would need more checks and balances then a drivers license, though my situation may be different. I used to fall under the pickup/trailer.

http://www.iowadot.gov/mvd/ods/MCRforCDLfaq2.html

Iowa farmer or helper – Interstate Commerce – within 150 airmiles of home ****:

Pickup / no trailer - No medical certificate required
Pickup / trailer - Medical certificate required if over 10,000 GCWR
Straight truck / no trailer - No medical certificate required
Straight truck / trailer - Medical certificate required
Truck-tractor / semitrailer - Medical certificate required

As a diabetic my ****** also falls under certification, though I see now it is also because he is over 70.

http://www.dmv.com/ia/iowa/senior-drivers

MEDICAL EXAMINATION
Older drivers with medical conditions such as diabetes, seizures, heart disease, or other conditions should provide a medical report indicating their ability to drive safely. Night vision might be a problem and you might chose to limit your night driving. Drivers with a history of seizures should have been seizure-free for at least 6 months before resuming driving. Furthermore, if you are on medications which can affect your alertness, extra caution is required.

His last renewal process required a medical certification, that is what got me thinking if we require this for driving, why can't we require it for *** ownership.

This would be an interesting approach. But the key difference that I see is that with drivers licenses, they're conducting medical checks looking for potentially unsafe physical conditions. But it's mental conditions that we need to be concerned about. You can have schizophrenia or manic depression and still get a license. Especially if these conditions aren't being treated, it scares me to think that these people can drive cars. And yeah, I agree with you: that they can (often) legally buy guns scares the absolute hell out of me. As long as they've managed to avoid the court/legal system, they'll probably pass the NICS check. I don't know enough about mental conditions to know what the proper, effective test would be to prevent unhinged people from being able to buy or own firearms. You do pose an interesting idea though.