VIRGINIA FAILS TO CLOSE GUN_SALES LOOPHOLE

O S G

Quote:

That 's like the Farmer saying
that if its popular to regulate Jews,
then that 's OK.

I wonder how the populace of the 3rd Reich felt about regulating Jews.

ACcording to the rules of internet debate, youve just lost. Youve demonstrated Godwins LAw. Laughing

Quote:

Quote:
As Tuchnet says
"perhaps a national GOP figure might take a stand against the NRA-not against gun rights, but against the trivial policies pushed by the NRA each year...as gun rights DEM Brian SChweitzer put it after Va TEch--it does no good for the GOP--or for the country--for their party to be seen as in the hip pocket of the nRA..."

Read that as being in the POCKET OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS,
or in the pocket of FREEDOM.
America is the Land of the Free and the HOme of the Brave.

and you slight me for being unresponsive to your position > I am turning that back on you ole fella. PErhaps you oughta bere inspecting your core beliefs. Its not about curtailing rights, its about protection of our citizens.

"The sign of intelligence is being able to hold two disparate concepts at the same time" WHy dont you give us a better , more thoughtful analysis of how we can enhance the protection of our citizens. (Please, dont bore me with your earlier mind farts about recidivists and banishment)

0 Replies

Why'd ya start this here thread, FM? You get bored and decide to do a little chain-jerkin'?

0 Replies

.
Busted!! Very Happy

.

I like to pet badgers. ESpecially crotchety old ones.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

O S G
Quote:
That 's like the Farmer saying
that if its popular to regulate Jews,
then that 's OK.

I wonder how the populace of the 3rd Reich felt about regulating Jews.

ACcording to the rules of internet debate, youve just lost. Youve demonstrated Godwins LAw.

I 've heard about that law;
I spurn its authority.
Spurn, spurn <he says, spurnfully>

Quote:

Quote:
As Tuchnet says
"perhaps a national GOP figure might take a stand against the NRA-not against gun rights, but against the trivial policies pushed by the NRA each year...as gun rights DEM Brian SChweitzer put it after Va TEch--it does no good for the GOP--or for the country--for their party to be seen as in the hip pocket of the nRA..."

Read that as being in the POCKET OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS,
or in the pocket of FREEDOM.
America is the Land of the Free and the HOme of the Brave.

Quote:

and you slight me for being unresponsive to your position >
I am turning that back on you ole fella. PErhaps you oughta bere inspecting your core beliefs.
Its not about curtailing rights, its about protection of our citizens.

Yeah:
the way the way John Dillinger protected banks from their cash.

I am a natural born American citizen.
I REJECT your protection.

Quote:

"The sign of intelligence is being able to hold two disparate concepts at the same time"

Bulloney !!!

Quote:

WHy dont you give us a better , more thoughtful analysis
of how we can enhance the protection of our citizens.

Well, we can re-instate the old Colonial laws requiring the citizens
to be armed.
It was illegal for citizens to go to Church or to work, in an unarmed condition.
( Thay must have been losing too many Christians on the way to Church;
an antecedent of the principle of modern seatbelt laws. )

Quote:

(Please, dont bore me with your earlier mind farts about recidivists and banishment)

If u don 't like it, that 's TOO BAD.
I will not stifle.

Here is my program for a safer citizenry:
1. Repeal all gun laws, as the State of Alaska did a few years ago,
except possibly laws REQUIRING all citizens to be armed,
and to take courses in proficiency and safety with guns.

2. BANISH all feloniously violent recidivists from this continent,
with sneaking back in prohibited on pain of death.

3. Repeal all anti-drug laws, leaving it to the citizens to decide
what thay will ingest.

4. Repeal all taxes except sales taxes.

0 Replies

interesting thought... banishing repeat criminals from this continent.

just where will you send them, david? or would, in utopic world, since in the real one it's unrealistic and illegal.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

interesting thought... banishing repeat criminals from this continent.

Thank u.

Quote:

just where will you send them, david?

There r many options.
The first step is to choose to rid ourselves of them.
America owns islands in the Aleutian chain
that r closer to Japan than to California.

We shud take their pictures, their fingerprints,
their retinal scans and their DNA for future id. in case
thay sneak back in.

Note that I do not necessarily suggest that thay be CONFINED
where we send them, as long as thay do not sneak back.

Quote:

or would, in utopic world,
since in the real one it's unrealistic and illegal.

Sadly, I don 't believe that this will happen.
No one except me is discussing it, so far as I know.

This thread is about changing the law.

I propose changing the law to provide concurrent jd
in both federal n state governments to banish feloniously violent recidivists.

In my opinion,
failure to even CONSIDER this
( being satisfied with the futile nonsense of preventing criminals
from getting guns the same way that we have stopped them from getting marijuana )
is an offense against the decent people.

David

0 Replies

David, how have you been? We hardly ever talk any more.

0 Replies

gustavratzenhofer wrote:

David, how have you been? We hardly ever talk any more.

Fine, thank u, Gus.

We'll have to talk more.

0 Replies

I agree with not allowing mental patients to buy guns.

What I don't agree with is the lack of ability for people to challenge their mental list status or to even see if they are on these lists.

What if somebody had a breakdown 20 years ago, should they be denied their right to buy a gun if they've lived the last 20 years w/o incident?

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

I agree with not allowing mental patients to buy guns.

The same way that thay r not allowed to buy marijuana ?

Quote:

What I don't agree with is the lack of ability for people to challenge their mental list status or to even see if they are on these lists.

What if somebody had a breakdown 20 years ago, should they be denied their right to buy a gun if they've lived the last 20 years w/o incident?

Thay shud not,
but if thay perpetrate criminal acts,
thay shud pay for it the same as anyone else.

I have never accepted the principle of the M' Naghten Rule.

David

0 Replies

random acts of kindness , according to Om seems to be
" resettlement of recidivist criminals to the Aleutians, but NOT locking them up" How randomly kind is that Laughing

.

maporsche, under the proposed Va law re: mentally ill provisions would have identified CHO.David doesnt weigh safety wrt his gun licking fetish.

There are all kinds of problems with making such a system work, but lets get real,
if we turn the Aleutians into a Criminal and mental facility , it would be like "Escape from NY" .

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

maporsche, under the proposed Va law re: mentally ill provisions would have identified CHO.....

There are all kinds of problems with making such a system work, but lets get real....

I understand that aspect of the VA law. I don't disagree with identifying these individuals, and not allowing them to purchase guns. What I disagree with is that no one has any right to challenge their standing or their placement on this list.

Let's not beat around the bush here either.

The only way gun violence will significantly reduce is a complete ban of ALL firearms nationwide. These little half-measures have no real lasting impact.

I am not in favor of a complete ban, and I would use every firearm I own to fight it.

0 Replies

Then , with that attitude opf complete hopelessness, I predict very interesting and dangerous times ahead. Hopefully the lives lost will ultimately promote some independent thinking and get our legislators to adopt some of these "little advances". We, as a societry, will be drug kicking and screaming into a more rational gun control era eventually, I wish it would be sooner.

Your attitude actually casts anyone whose unarmed as a perp to their own murders.

How do you folks see the possession and use of explosives? simple question, has a lot of consequence in this debate.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

random acts of kindness , according to Om seems to be
" resettlement of recidivist criminals to the Aleutians, but NOT locking them up" How randomly kind is that .

I did not say be randomly kind ALL the time;
just when u FEEL like it; like a hobby.
U don 't have to make it an obsession.

ANYWAY:
YES: It IS kind to the VICTIMS of the criminal predators,
and to those folks who will never BECOME their victims,
and to their families who will not have to visit hospitals or morgues.

Quote:

maporsche, under the proposed Va law re: mentally ill provisions would have identified CHO.

I can 't comment, for lack of information.
As dear old Professor Ellegard used to say:
" The first step in statutory interpretation is: read the statute. "

Quote:

David doesnt weigh safety wrt his gun licking [ ?? ] fetish.

There is no need to;
government simply has NO JURISDICTION
to engage in this, the same as it has no jurisdiction to make u go to Church.

Quote:

There are all kinds of problems with making such a system work, but lets get real,
if we turn the Aleutians into a Criminal and mental facility , it would be like "Escape from NY" .

I did not see that movie.

I do not recommend confining them there; just dump them there.
I don 't care what thay do, nor where thay go,
but sneaking back here shud be subject to the death penalty.

If we actually DO this,
the crime rate will PLUNGE pretty damned fast.
The bad guys will have NO ACCESS to the decent people any more.

There will be mass unemployment among the police.

I freely and openly ADMIT
that non-recidivists ( possibly including Cho )
wud not be gone before thay cud commit their first crime.

Hence,
every citizen will need to be mindful of taking care of himself or herself,
and shud be trained to do so as early in life as possible.

U can no more prevent criminals from arming themselves
than u can make gold out of water,
but u CAN get rid of recidivistic criminals, and u shud.

After the doctor filters out the dirt
by kidney dialysis, he does NOT put it back into his patient 's blood again.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Then , with that attitude opf complete hopelessness,
I predict very interesting and dangerous times ahead.

NOT if the USSC simply abolishes all gun control,
and restores the status quo ante.
Then each citizen will be able to defend himself
when it becomes necessary; a lot of criminal predators will not long survive this.
Criminals are VERY AFRAID
of armed victims and thay are NOT shy about admitting it.
Thay have repeatedly said so during interviews in prison.

Quote:

Hopefully the lives lost will ultimately promote some independent thinking
and get our legislators to adopt some of these "little advances".

This is the Farmer 's idea of overthrowing the Constitution,
after betraying the voters who elected them.

Quote:

We, as a societry, will be drug kicking and screaming into a more rational gun control era eventually,

I wish it would be sooner.

YOU and the criminals; gun control is O.S.H.A. for violent criminals,
offering them on-the-job protection from the defenses of their victims.

Quote:

Your attitude actually casts anyone whose unarmed as a perp
to their own murders.

Yes.
That was the vu
of the Colonial legislatures who enacted mandatory gun possession laws;
that every person must take a gun with him, while on the way to Church,
or to work,
to wit:
that it was IRRESPONSIBLE ( almost suicidal ) for a person to be defenseless.
Gun possession was mandated, in the same spirit
as modern seatbelt use laws.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Then , with that attitude opf complete hopelessness, I predict very interesting and dangerous times ahead. Hopefully the lives lost will ultimately promote some independent thinking and get our legislators to adopt some of these "little advances". We, as a societry, will be drug kicking and screaming into a more rational gun control era eventually, I wish it would be sooner.

Your attitude actually casts anyone whose unarmed as a perp to their own murders.

How do you folks see the possession and use of explosives? simple question, has a lot of consequence in this debate.

I didn't say that it was hopeless.

But let's face the facts.

Anti-gun nuts are quick to point out that there are 45,000 deaths with a firearm each year. How many of these deaths would be prevented by improvements in the mental health gun law? 25? 50? 100 per year?.

Do you see 44,900 deaths vs 45,000 as a huge change?

These laws, while they make us feel good, have little impact on gun deaths.

0 Replies

And farmerman, I know why you're bringing up explosives but I disagree that it is relevant.

How do you feel about speeding (which is responsible for more deaths than firearms are)?

How do you feel about legislating obesity?

0 Replies

Its my thread maporsche. Please dont make irrelevant comparisons to cars and fatness. Explosives are in the exact same vein as are firearms. I would insist on your opinion re: explosives, not some silly comparison with an individuals behavior (unless youre saying that militantly obese are considered carrying a weapon)

OSD says that,

Gun criminals are not "criminals", they are defenseless victims themselves whove not been stopped by the unarmed.

What data and evidence does OSD draw upon to state that unlimited gun ownership will drop the death rate? I see just the opposite. Criminals will be alert to the fact that they MUST kill everyone in sight to
1eliminate witnesses

2reduce retaliation

3silence possible interveners

Quote:

NOT if the USSC simply abolishes all gun control,
and restores the status quo ante.
Then each citizen will be able to defend himself
when it becomes necessary; a lot of criminal predators will not long survive this.
Criminals are VERY AFRAID
of armed victims and thay are NOT shy about admitting it.
Thay have repeatedly said so during interviews in prison.

The USSC can also modify the 2nd amendment as easily. PS where does your data come from that says that an armed liquor store attendent scares a gun toting robber? APparently you need to go get your buggy wheels tuned. Try living in the 21st century.
Do you wish a SOmalia or Darfur on the lower 48?.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Its my thread maporsche. Please dont make irrelevant comparisons to cars and fatness.

You started the thread, but in a free forum it can go off wherever posters choose to take it. I wasn't attempting to take it to speeding and obesity, but was merely pointing out their equal irrelevance as explosives in THIS discussion. After all, you titled it "VIRGINIA FAILS TO CLOSE GUN_SALES LOOPHOLE". My posts have been directly relevant to your stated topic.

Now if you'd like to get back to the VA law. Let's talk about how this law in general will have little to no impact on gun related deaths. That being said, I still think the law would be a good idea, provided some standards are in place to allow people to challenge their placement on these types of lists.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

farmerman wrote:
Then , with that attitude opf complete hopelessness, I predict very interesting and dangerous times ahead. Hopefully the lives lost will ultimately promote some independent thinking and get our legislators to adopt some of these "little advances". We, as a societry, will be drug kicking and screaming into a more rational gun control era eventually, I wish it would be sooner.

Your attitude actually casts anyone whose unarmed as a perp to their own murders.

How do you folks see the possession and use of explosives? simple question, has a lot of consequence in this debate.

I didn't say that it was hopeless.

But let's face the facts.

Anti-gun nuts are quick to point out that there are 45,000 deaths with a firearm each year. How many of these deaths would be prevented by improvements in the mental health gun law? 25? 50? 100 per year?.

Do you see 44,900 deaths vs 45,000 as a huge change?

These laws, while they make us feel good, have little impact on gun deaths.

For the sake of argument,
let us assume, for the moment that this statistic is accurate.
How many of those gun deaths resulted from SUICIDE ?
It is my understanding that the annual suicide rate
is double the homicide rate.
Every citizen has an absolute right to end his life,
if such be his choice. No one has a duty to live, against his will.

Was there no robbery, nor homicide, nor suicide before guns were invented ???????

0 Replies

VIRGINIA FAILS TO CLOSE GUN_SALES LOOPHOLE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know