Guns should not be kept in houses where children are present

[beevul]

123. Its been mildly entertaining, watching you prattle ignorantly...

"i say 14 states have no gun laws, which is correct, and you accuse me of weaseling."

No, I would characterize it more as being ignorant of the truth of the matter, and therefore completely disconnected from reality, and using weaslewording as a means of attempting to distract in the hopes that nobody notices.

Those 14 states, that you mention - are not completely devoid of gun laws. No state is. Everyone know this except you. Thats where part of the mild entertainment factor comes from.

"in, reality, AZ says 18 year old can buy any sniper rifle they want, with no reg. or license. 21 for handguns"

I thought you said AZ had no gun laws. Let me scroll back...Ah yes, here we go ""i say 14 states have no gun laws, which is correct". But now you're saying AZ says people have to be 18 to buy a rifle and 21 to buy a handgun. So now they DO have gun laws? Make up your mind already.

"so you are really just ignoring my correct statement that 14 states have crap for gun laws."

No, your statement was "...14 states have no gun laws...". not "crap for gun laws, but "no" gun laws.

Goalpost move, and a poorly executed attempt at it no less. How quaint. Expected, to be sure, but quaint none the less.


"It just means that the federal government cannot require that records be kept by a state - I'm not sure it bears explanation in the article, it's in the plain meaning of the statute: "No such rule or regulation... may require that records... be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof." It refers to federal rules and regulations, not state statutes"

You have your opinion, and the author you quoted has his, and I have mine. Whats not opinion, is that your "registration" does not apply to criminals. Settled case law. Something about the 5th amendment, and self incrimination.



"We believe that if neither the criminal nor the political class is limited by magazine capacity, we shouldn’t be limited in our capacity either.
We believe in our country. We believe in our Bill of Rights. And we believe in our Second Amendment, all of our Second Amendment.
Because we believe in the freedom and safety that it, and it alone, guarantees absolutely.
Mister President, you might think that calling us “absolutists” is a clever way of “name-calling” without using names. But if that is “absolutist,” then we are as “absolutist” as the Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution … and we’re proud of it!"

Except that does not substantiate your statement that "The nra opposes all gun laws".

Whats the matter, can't find a cite?

"honestly, it sounds, from my end, like you are prejudiced against commonsense gun regulations."

From my end, I can't see you making paragraphs that can be characterized as coherent even by the loosest definition of the word, so i rather doubt your grasp at "common sense" gun laws would hurdle a bar set any higher.

"beyond narrow minded, more of a militant."

Yeah, people who are highly principled get that alot. Your loss.

"Anti-gun lobby: "Ok gun owners, were going for an assault weapon ban, magazine ban, We'll be back for more next legislative session, and you get nothing in return, go suck an egg."

That was an explanation of the definition of compromise as it has played out historically with the anti-gun crowd, and while I see you engaging in mockery, I don't see you saying its untrue. Hmm...


"steaming crock of BS, there. more like conscience vs. immorality"

Thats only true, if one measures conscience ONLY by willingness to capitulate, as you do.

"yuk it up, laughing boy..."

Uh, a Kalashnikov rifle is not an ar-15. Yuk yuk yuk.

"then WHY do you spout standard gun lobby doo doo at a semi-automatic rate?"

And there it is. Anyone that disagrees with you is saying "gun lobby talking points". At least you're consistant.

"i think it is weird how you think you are valiant defender of the 2nd amendment, even though you don't want mor gunz OR understand laws."

I'm sure. Principled people are often seen that way by people who aren't. I'll get over it...last year.

"like the way you completely ignored the common use thing and the 1939 thing and posted a big hunk of nothing."

Its only a big "hunk of nothing", because you neither understood that which you posted, nor that which I responded to you with. Not uncommon for people on the anti-gun side of the agument.

"got it, i'm an armchair lawyer, but your experience in the machine shop and with fuzzy animals makes your expert opinion hold more weight than actual facts that i post."

I haven't seen you post many actual facts. When you are old enough and/or experienced enough, you'll learn to tell the difference between things you believe are facts, and things that actually are.

"the majority of semi-auto owners are ex-military who think the guns are more comfortable."

Heres a good example of something that is asserted as a fact, without one shred of substantiation, by you. Oh, yes, I'm sure you believe its a fact, but it really isn't. It is, in fact, the most laughable thing I have ever seen you post. In fact, if theres a bright center of the universe where factualness resides, that post is the point that it is farthest from.

"the 'average' gun owner obviously would say the semi-auto military fetishists are not average."

You wouldn't know the "average" gun owner if he bit your ankle. Keep the pejoratives coming though. I like them. Their presence is indicative of a losing argument on your end.

"some testosteone-addled gun 'expert' saying an ak-47 is better for self defense doesn't really fly with soccer moms and old ladies who want a gun in their purse. get it?"

Sez you, with no substantiation. Just like everything else you try to claim as fact. How unsurprising.

(I'm going to condense your next words into an actual paragraph, because word salad takes up space)

"THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF MY RESPONSE: that whole huge block of crap you posted was lifted from an ar-15 chat board, which kinda proves that you are a gun lobby shill. are you also this guy? or did you just paste his crap?Originally Posted By ghostwalker: I have been and the result is the following. get it? that whole block of crap? was it yours or not? and why post it? you proved that you are a 'save our gunz' sycophant really well there, thanks!"

That entire list, was created by me. I researched them. I checked them for validity. Whoever posted them at arfcom stole them from me. Thats the fact of the matter, and proof of it can be found in the original posting of those names in that order in the guns forum here on DU. I guarantee you that anywhere else you find that list posted exactly as it is here in the guns forum, was posted AFTER it was here. So I guess you're wrong again. A+ for being consistent though.


"just give up. it is responsible gun ownership and regulation that is 'under attack', not the misguided needs of some semi-auto fetishists."

Ahh yes more pejoratives. Good. Very good.

"you are standing up for the hysterical notion that 'they are coming to take our gunz' without even knowing what is proposed or citing any real facts or statistics."

I haven't cited any facts or statistics, true, but you're really not interested in any, are you? You're more interested in demonizing and destroying anyone that disagrees with you as a means of getting your way. You anti-gun types always are. As fas as "knowing whats proposed"...please...Its always the same thing with you anti-gun types. Its not like theres really anything new for you to invent. I knew what the anti-gun types wanted well before sandy hook. Or the CO shooting. Or before 2008. Or before 2000. The song remains the same. Has remained the same. Nothing has changed.

You want the end of all private firearm sales.

You want federal licensing and registration.

You want a ban, ranging somewhere between a ban on semi-automatic weapons, and a "assault weapons ban".

You want a ban on standard capacity magazines, and things limited to an artificially low numeric magazine capacity.

Do you really think anyone hasn't been paying attention? really?

""No weapons will be taken from anyone," she emphasized. "The purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time."

Time-release confiscation. Can't leave them to a family member in your will, and they must be destroyed or turned over to the authorities at that point, if I understand the legislation correctly. Not that that really matters, that bill doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of passing anyway. too many pro-gun Democrats in the senate will prevent it most likely, not to mention the repubs that would never let it through the house.

" so stop wasting your time crying about a false pretense. i've posted a few links with real statistics. you are off in some alternate reality of NRA induced panic."

Its not waste of time arguing with you. I rather enjoy it, as I rather enjoy arguing with people that automatically think because they post a link, that makes them right - as you seem to.


"i find it a bit amusing, which is the only reason i'm wasting time replying to you."

That makes two of us.

"the parts of your previous post, for instance, that i ignored- i don't see how they are even worth a response..."

Yes. I can see that.

Me, If I had to argue against a principled person...the kind of person who is principled enough to fight for women to have independent control of their own uteruses, in spite of not having one himself...The kind of principled person who would, like the aclu, fight for some of the most vile forms of free speech to remain lawful, in spite of having no intentions to speak such vileness himself...the kind of principled person that believes in the 4th amendment in spite of the criminals it very clearly protects, and in spite of having no criminal intent himself...the sort of principled person who fights to maintain the legality of firearms and magazines he has no intention of owning...


Then yeah, I'd ignore it too.

I got nothing on that.