Sphinx Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 Greg_W said: RuMR said: I don't care how that bill of rights is worded...i still maintain that owning a gun in today's civilized world is a PRIVILEGE and can be monitored/regulated/ and control...it is completely beyond me, how any person, w/o any SERIOUS background checks, no proper education or training, can walk into a walmart and buy a 9mm semiauto pistol and all the ammunition he/she can put in a backpack...its completely fucking assinine... so i'm not talking out of my ass... Rudy, you are talking out of your ass when you say "I don't care how the Bill of Rights is worded..." Plus, you have no fucking clue: NO PERSON can walk into WalMart and buy a pistol without a background check. First off, I think WalMart stopped selling handguns. Second, any buyer has to go through a 7 day waiting period AND background check; even CWP holders have to submit to the NICS check at time of purchase. The fact that you think you know what you are talking about and you come up with this is assinine. It's clueless fucking people like you that lead to stupid laws that punish law-abiding people. You make me fucking sick. Greg_W Yer gonna get banned! Quote
Greg_W Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 RuMR said: licensed and restricted Your ideas of freedom warm my heart. Quote
Greg_W Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 scrambler said: Existence with conviction is superior to existence alone. Existence exists. Period. No qualifier necessary. Quote
Dru Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 didn't wal mart stop selling bullets cause of michael moore??! Quote
incubus Posted September 24, 2003 Author Posted September 24, 2003 Jim said: incubus said: Marylou, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm not attacking you here, but I believe you're quite naive and living in some dream world...is it Oz? I'm ecstatic that you're not armed - people like you scare the hell out of me. Please continue to go about your business as usual and don't bitch if you're ever attacked with no means of defense other than your rabid mouth. Who are all these phantom attackers you're talking about? Where - in Seattle, eastside? WTF are you so scared of that you need a gun? Jim, a couple of years ago while working the boat show, I heard the sirens running to 2 seperate murders in Seattle, both down towards the Space Needle (Belltown?). 2 murders in a 10 day period. That's one example, want more? Quote
RuMR Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 Greg...i said a SERIOUS background check...one week...bfd...I don't believe that the background checks are sufficient... Why am i talking out of my ass regarding the bill of rights? I DON'T CARE WHAT IT SAYS, i think gun ownership should not be a right, period... Why don't you 'splain to me where i said something that is factually wrong???????? Go ahead, quote me... and chill the fuck out greg..."You make me fucking sick"???? I'm trying to have a rational talk about something and it makes you sick??? Get a grip...i never said no gun ownership... Quote
Greg_W Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 marylou said: I've been burglarized a couple of times and the like, and it's really nothing more than an inconvenicence, Seattle is such a nice place, with such compliant victims. You make me sick. Quote
minx Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 i still would like someone to define arms.... Quote
erik Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 greg, non of those instances you describe include home invasion. all are drug and alcohol related. i dont think any firearms were required at wto. and you cite jb's stats to be trumped up and bullshit. which ones are the right ones? i would like to know. also while you are busy researching feel free to help me out by letting me know how the libs are removing my rights in an equivilant manner to patriot act 1 and 2. thanks! Quote
incubus Posted September 24, 2003 Author Posted September 24, 2003 minx said: i still would like someone to define arms.... "arms" short for: fire·arm (fīr'ärm') n. A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant. Quote
RuMR Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 "also while you are busy researching feel free to help me out by letting me know how the libs are removing my rights in an equivilant manner to patriot act 1 and 2." Quote
minx Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 RuMR said: "also while you are busy researching feel free to help me out by letting me know how the libs are removing my rights in an equivilant manner to patriot act 1 and 2." welll? that's a good question...come on, step up greg_w? incubus? Quote
Greg_W Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 RuMR said: Greg...i said a SERIOUS background check...one week...bfd...I don't believe that the background checks are sufficient... Why am i talking out of my ass regarding the bill of rights? I DON'T CARE WHAT IT SAYS, i think gun ownership should not be a right, period... Why don't you 'splain to me where i said something that is factually wrong???????? Go ahead, quote me... and chill the fuck out greg..."You make me fucking sick"???? I'm trying to have a rational talk about something and it makes you sick??? Get a grip...i never said no gun ownership... Rudy. From experience, the background check is a good one. Under current law, that means checking your criminal record. What would you like? Home visits? Interviews with co-workers? Interviews with family members? Psychological review? Where does it stop, Rudy? When you say you don't care what the Bill of Rights says, you nullify it's existence and validity. By which, you are stating that the basis for law in this country is null and void. Is that what you think? You THINK that gun ownership shouldn't be a right. So, this makes this YOUR opinion. However, just because you think something doesn't make it correct or good for everyone, or whatever. You may notice that I haven't said everyone should go buy a gun; however, you have said that I should be restricted in my ability to go buy a gun. Your whole premise is restriction and denial...if you restrict something it no longer becomes a right, but a privelege. Excessive government has already done this in large degrees to gun ownership, speech, etc. Rudy, you are far from rational. You have not used reason at all, just your emotional decision that gun ownership shouldn't be a right, despite what the documentation upon which this country is founded clearly states. Your position will lead to no gun ownership, because that is the true heart of what organizations like the Brady Campaign, Americans For Gun Safety, Million Mom March, etc., want. Greg_W Quote
sk Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 (edited) minx said: RuMR said: "also while you are busy researching feel free to help me out by letting me know how the libs are removing my rights in an equivilant manner to patriot act 1 and 2." welll? that's a good question...come on, step up greg_w? incubus? liberals take our rights away in smaller doses. Seat belt law. helmet Law and the such... they are the 'Great Mommy State' and tell us it is for our own good. It is not the same... but over time as the # of laws add up... the effect is the same. There should realy only be three laws Edited September 24, 2003 by Muffy_The_Wanker_Sprayer Quote
sk Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 minx said: maybe it is? I firmly believe that if I want to die with my brains splatted all over I-5 I aught to be able to. It is my choice. Would you want some one to tell you that you can't climb because it isn't safe??? Quote
erik Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 Muffy_The_Wanker_Sprayer said: welll? that's a good question...come on, step up greg_w? incubus? liberals take our rights away in smaller doses. Seat belt law. helmet Law and the such... they are the 'Great Mommy State' and tell us it is for our own good. It is not the same... but over time as the # of laws add up... the effect is the same. There should realy only be three laws ummm not quite equivilant now is it? personally being in the insurance industry am i glad there are seat belt laws, helmet laws. my favorite part is denying claims to people who have been killed in auto accidents, silly things like wearing their seat belt or speeding would have saved them. but then again what does the 'mommy state' know? or when you see a 19 yr old girl now retarded from head injuries....oops no seat belt. you think making you wear your seat belt takes away from your life? hardly. i think the fed govenment being able to tap my phone, read my bank statments, read my email all seem a bit more over the top then not wearing my seat belt. Quote
minx Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 i didn't say they were right i did quit climbing b/c it wasn't safe, then i broke my elbow walking across a floor. Quote
Sphinx Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 Muffy_The_Wanker_Sprayer said: minx said: maybe it is? I firmly believe that if I want to die with my brains splatted all over I-5 I aught to be able to. It is my choice. Would you want some one to tell you that you can't climb because it isn't safe??? Don't be suicidal Muffy, cc.com would never recover. Quote
Greg_W Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 erik said: greg, non of those instances you describe include home invasion. all are drug and alcohol related. i dont think any firearms were required at wto. and you cite jb's stats to be trumped up and bullshit. which ones are the right ones? i would like to know. also while you are busy researching feel free to help me out by letting me know how the libs are removing my rights in an equivilant manner to patriot act 1 and 2. thanks! Wow, you actually spelled some shit right. Being out of pot must be helping. Doesn't matter what crime was what. Home invasion, being attacked by black kids on the streets of Seattle (plenty of those around), whatever. Why should it matter? I should be able to defend myself however I choose. Second, the idea of stats for this side and stats for that side IS somewhat troubling. I can only cite statistics supporting my position from sources that I believe are credible. I cannot force you or others to believe their validity. We have had this discussion before. What I can say is that I believe the statistic that approximately 2 million crimes are averted per year due to citizens being armed with handguns. I cannot honestly comment on the Patriot Acts because I haven't read all the fine print. What I can comment on is what I see in the gun control lobby and the legislation that individuals like Diane Feinstein, HIllary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and others, put on the floor. Quote
sk Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 Personaly, I think both sides are wrong. They are of the same ilk... two sides of the same coin. They call it by a diffrent name but it is the same beast. if people worried less about what everyone else did and concentrated on living life how they personaly believe (and followed 3 easy laws) the world would be a better place for it.IMHO Quote
scrambler Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 Greg_W said: scrambler said: Existence with conviction is superior to existence alone. Existence exists. Period. No qualifier necessary. More along the lines of Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am). Existence without thinking (reasoning) is a lowly existence, subhuman, no better than livestock. Nietzsche, anyone? Quote
Greg_W Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 erik said: Muffy_The_Wanker_Sprayer said: welll? that's a good question...come on, step up greg_w? incubus? liberals take our rights away in smaller doses. Seat belt law. helmet Law and the such... they are the 'Great Mommy State' and tell us it is for our own good. It is not the same... but over time as the # of laws add up... the effect is the same. There should realy only be three laws ummm not quite equivilant now is it? personally being in the insurance industry am i glad there are seat belt laws, helmet laws. my favorite part is denying claims to people who have been killed in auto accidents, silly things like wearing their seat belt or speeding would have saved them. but then again what does the 'mommy state' know? or when you see a 19 yr old girl now retarded from head injuries....oops no seat belt. you think making you wear your seat belt takes away from your life? hardly. i think the fed govenment being able to tap my phone, read my bank statments, read my email all seem a bit more over the top then not wearing my seat belt. It IS equivalent in that you are allowing the Government a say in how you live your life. Plain and simple. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.