Fight the U.N. Gun Ban

No war zone is as weird as the reality that seems to inform OSD's posts.
It's more like one of those ultra-violent video games...

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Do either of u believe that some purpose
is served by references to geese or st. jackets ?

Yes. The purpose is that I think you may need some sort of psychiatric help.
I take it that you are a psychiatrist,
and that u have prepared a diagnosis,
without interviewing me ?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Is it that u think I will change my understanding of history,
or of sound reasoning because of such references ?

Not in the slightest. If anything, your posts have demonstrated an utter lack of "sound reasoning." I dispute that you believe that,
based upon your failure to point out any flaw in my reasoning,
choosing to substitute ad hominem invective against me.

It's pretty clear that you have absolutely no desire to look at any argument (no matter how valid) that is less than 100% against restricting gun use. How did that become " pretty clear " ?
What have I said on that subject ?
I have never refused to look at anything.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Maybe u think it has entertainment value.

Oh yes... I find it quite entertaining.
U r easily amused.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I take it that neither of u can effectively address my pro-freedom posts, but that your innate antagonism to personal freedom moves u to blindly strike out against it, since that is the most that u can do; ( i.e., your anti-freedom point of vu is not supportable ).

Is that what you call your comments? "Pro freedom posts"? YES.No dice. Y NOT ? Your comments demonstrate a very selective reading of constitutional caselaw and a very selective understanding of the constitution. I challenge your sincerity,
on the grounds that u have not pointed out any error on my part
beyond vague vituperations against me personally.


I'm just taking a stab in the dark here, but it seems like you frequent gun sites Rather seldom and get your supreme court cases and talking points from them, NO: I just read the whole case.
Its not hard. without the benefit of understanding them in context, or general concepts of constitutional law. Then Y did u not point out my errors, instead of satisfying yourself to sling mud at ME, personally ?

Then you go into "replay" mode and just regurgitate it wherever possible.
I replay the meat of the case, as any lawyer wud.

It makes sense, though.
If I throw enough crap on the wall, some of it is sure to stick. You choose to express yourself most crudely and foully;
not much to be proud of. By the words that u select to represent u,
u define yourself.

That you continually refer to anyone who thinks contrary to as "anti-freedom" further shows what I'm talking about. The purpose of the gun control laws is explicitly to curtail and reduce freedom to bear arms, in self-defense.
If that is not true, then point out my error.

That's exactly how i see the gun nuts. They have a fantasy world inside their heads in which they get to be the hero of their very own first-person shooter game--with the scarey truth being that they secretly long to go out onto the real streets of the real world to shoot it out with the criminals and the government--between whom they are either unable or unwilling to make a distinction.

They just wanna shoot somebody . . .

The onion (www.theonion.com) is always good for a few laughts when it comes to people completely obsessed with guns...



Click here for rest of article, lol

Another favorite...

Sex and guns - equally dangerous?

nimh wrote:

Sex and guns - equally dangerous?

Given a little more thought, sex is definitely more dangerous.

cjhsa wrote:

nimh wrote:

Sex and guns - equally dangerous?

Given a little more thought, sex is definitely more dangerous.

Then you must not be doing it right...

It isn't hard to see the results of AIDS in undeveloped countries. I'm surprised at your silly response BS.

The concept of " gun control " is deeply, profoundly, repugnant
to the foundation of Americanism.

It alleges that government was invested
with authority to discriminate as to who can effectively defend his life n property,
and who is supposed to just let predatory criminals, or animals,
kill him, at their option, and within their discretion.

In 1954, the USSC held that the Constitution cannot tolerate
discrimination even for a bad seat on a bus, for a few minutes.
How much more important is it
to be able to rescue your mother or your child
from felonious violence, relative to a few minutes of bad seating on a bus ?

Definitely agree with that last post.

Firearms education should be in school just like sex-ed.

Equally dangerous.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

The concept of " gun control " is deeply, profoundly, repugnant
to the foundation of Americanism.

It alleges that government was invested
with authority to discriminate as to who can effectively defend his life n property,
and who is supposed to just let predatory criminals, or animals,
kill him, at their option, and within their discretion.

There is the example of lack of logic OSD.
Gun control does not equate to letting predatory criminals or animals kill at their option. If I were a violent felon, or a cougar,
I 'd desire my victim to be as helpless as possible, for my personal safety from his, or her, defenses.
Gun control is helpful in protecting the predator from his victim
during the robbery or murder, etc.

Gun control does not equate to eliminating the police or the justice system. True; I did not deny this.

Gun control doesn't even equate to elimination of all guns. True; criminals keep theirs.

We already have gun control in the US. Yes; discriminatory licensure of the right to defend your life.
The police pick n choose ( except in CCW states ).


You argue the extreme in spite of facts to the contrary. I like u too.

Nor does gun control equate to discrimination. See above: The police pick n choose ( except in CCW states ).
There is no discrimination if everyone has the same rules.
If one man has government granted freedom of access
to emergency equipment that he can effectively use
to defend his life n property,
while someone else is threatened with incarceration
and loss of all professional licensure if he acquires the same
emergency equipment, that is discrimination. Check the dictionary.

Your comparison is absurd.
Thank u for that information; nothing subjective about THAT !

Quote:

In 1954, the USSC held that the Constitution cannot tolerate
discrimination even for a bad seat on a bus, for a few minutes.
How much more important is it
to be able to rescue your mother or your child
from felonious violence, relative to a few minutes of bad seating on a bus ?

I can only guess you mean Brown vs Board of Education from 1954 which stated that seperate but equal schooling was discriminatory. How you can possibly make your comparison is beyond me. There is no constitutional comparison between the two.
You assume several things that are not in evidence to try to support you illogical argument.

1. You assume a gun is the only way No, but the BEST way,
the easiest way and the safest way to rescue someone from felonious violence. The facts presented in the FBI crime statistics prove that to be false. BALONEY ! Anyway, government has no authority to try
to control this area of human life, and each citizen must decide for himself how to defend himself. It is a PERSONAL DECISION.


There are a large number of attempted assaults that are attempted but stopped without a gun. What 's your point ?
If the predator gets a heart attack, does that change the rights of his victim ? I don 't think so.

2. You use the 1954 ruling then talk about seating on the bus.
I was probably rong as to the year; Rosa Parks bus case.

The 1954 ruling had nothing to do with buses or where people sat on them. The 1956 ruling in Browder v Gayle dealt with discrimination on buses. If anything your argument about gun control advocates wanting to take away all guns completely I did not bring that up,
altho it is true. As of now, they are concealing their future intentions for strategic reasons. undercuts your discrimination argument since there is no discrimination according to you.
If there were a prohibition of guns, people wud make their own guns ( like bathtub gin in the 1930s ),
or buy from blackmarket gunsmiths, if too lazy to make them personally.[/[/b]quote]

parados wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

The concept of " gun control " is deeply, profoundly, repugnant
to the foundation of Americanism.

It alleges that government was invested
with authority to discriminate as to who can effectively defend his life n property,
and who is supposed to just let predatory criminals, or animals,
kill him, at their option, and within their discretion.

There is the example of lack of logic OSD.
Gun control does not equate to letting predatory criminals or animals kill at their option. If I were a violent felon, or a cougar,
I 'd desire my victim to be as helpless as possible, for my personal safety from his, or her, defenses.
Gun control is helpful in protecting the predator from his victim
during the robbery or murder, etc.

Gun control does not equate to eliminating the police or the justice system. True; I did not deny this.

Gun control doesn't even equate to elimination of all guns. True; criminals keep theirs.

We already have gun control in the US. Yes; discriminatory licensure of the right to defend your life.
The police pick n choose ( except in CCW states ).

You argue the extreme in spite of facts to the contrary. I like u too.

Nor does gun control equate to discrimination. See above: The police pick n choose ( except in CCW states ).
There is no discrimination if everyone has the same rules.
If one man has government granted freedom of access
to emergency equipment that he can effectively use
to defend his life n property,
while someone else is threatened with incarceration
and loss of all professional licensure if he acquires the same
emergency equipment, that is discrimination. Check the dictionary.

Your comparison is absurd.
Thank u for that information; nothing subjective about THAT !

Quote:

In 1954, the USSC held that the Constitution cannot tolerate
discrimination even for a bad seat on a bus, for a few minutes.
How much more important is it
to be able to rescue your mother or your child
from felonious violence, relative to a few minutes of bad seating on a bus ?

I can only guess you mean Brown vs Board of Education from 1954 which stated that seperate but equal schooling was discriminatory. How you can possibly make your comparison is beyond me. There is no constitutional comparison between the two.
You assume several things that are not in evidence to try to support you illogical argument.

1. You assume a gun is the only way No, but the BEST way,

the easiest way and the safest way[/b][/color] to rescue someone from felonious violence. The facts presented in the FBI crime statistics prove that to be false. BALONEY ! Anyway, government has no authority to try
to control this area of human life, and each citizen must decide for himself how to defend himself. It is a PERSONAL DECISION.

There are a large number of attempted assaults that are attempted but stopped without a gun. What 's your point ?
If the predator gets a heart attack, does that change the rights of his victim ? I don 't think so.

2. You use the 1954 ruling then talk about seating on the bus.
I was probably rong as to the year; Rosa Parks bus case.

The 1954 ruling had nothing to do with buses or where people sat on them. The 1956 ruling in Browder v Gayle dealt with discrimination on buses. If anything your argument about gun control advocates wanting to take away all guns completely I did not bring that up,

altho it is true. As of now, they are concealing their future intentions for strategic reasons.[/b][/color]

undercuts your discrimination argument since there is no discrimination according to you.
If there were a prohibition of guns, people wud make their own guns ( like bathtub gin in the 1930s ),
or buy from blackmarket gunsmiths, if too lazy to make them personally.[/[/b]quote]

There is no such thing as discriminatory licensure. The law doesn't discriminate. It sets standards that must be met without any discrimination based on race, color, creed, or sexual preference. Absurd argument on your part. It also fails to address the issue of gun control as it presently exists in the US.

Now,if there was no "discriminatory licensure",then every state would follow the same guidelines and have the same standards.

They dont.Some states discriminate by not allowing anyone to have a CCW,some states only allow a few people to have a CCW,and some states give them to anyone that qualifies for one,without discriminating.

There you go with your absurd arguments againt OSD..
You fail to address any of the points I raised. You claim the FBI stats are baloney. You repeat your absurd discriminatory argument. Perhaps you need to look up the word. It is not discrimination to make something a crime if the law applies to everyone. To claim it does shows your complete lack of logic thinking.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

parados wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

The concept of " gun control " is deeply, profoundly, repugnant
to the foundation of Americanism.

It alleges that government was invested
with authority to discriminate as to who can effectively defend his life n property,
and who is supposed to just let predatory criminals, or animals,
kill him, at their option, and within their discretion.

There is the example of lack of logic OSD.
Gun control does not equate to letting predatory criminals or animals kill at their option. If I were a violent felon, or a cougar,
I 'd desire my victim to be as helpless as possible, for my personal safety from his, or her, defenses.
Gun control is helpful in protecting the predator from his victim
during the robbery or murder, etc.

No facts show this to be true. It is a made up statement that you can't support with any evidence. In fact murder and robbery has gone down in Australia as was discussed earlier on this thread which points to the direct opposite of your contention.

Quote:

Gun control does not equate to eliminating the police or the justice system. True; I did not deny this.

By agreeing with this you complete negate your prior argument.

Quote:

Gun control doesn't even equate to elimination of all guns. True; criminals keep theirs.

That violates your argument about it being discrimination since you are now arguing that no one but criminals would have guns.

Quote:

We already have gun control in the US. Yes; discriminatory licensure of the right to defend your life.
The police pick n choose ( except in CCW states ).

There is no such thing as discriminatory licensure. The law doesn't discriminate. It sets standards that must be met without any discrimination based on race, color, creed, or sexual preference. Absurd argument on your part. It also fails to address the issue of gun control as it presently exists in the US.

Quote:

You argue the extreme in spite of facts to the contrary. I like u too.

Lack of an argument on your part?

Quote:

Nor does gun control equate to discrimination. See above: The police pick n choose ( except in CCW states ).
There is no discrimination if everyone has the same rules.
If one man has government granted freedom of access
to emergency equipment that he can effectively use
to defend his life n property,
while someone else is threatened with incarceration
and loss of all professional licensure if he acquires the same
emergency equipment, that is discrimination. Check the dictionary.

Your example is not realistic. Give me a concrete example of someone discriminated against. You are arguing that you don't like the law. You are not arguing that it is discrimination. The definition since you seem to be having a problem.
"Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners. "

Quote:

Your comparison is absurd.
Thank u for that information; nothing subjective about THAT !

I explained why.

Quote:

Quote:

In 1954, the USSC held that the Constitution cannot tolerate
discrimination even for a bad seat on a bus, for a few minutes.
How much more important is it
to be able to rescue your mother or your child
from felonious violence, relative to a few minutes of bad seating on a bus ?

I can only guess you mean Brown vs Board of Education from 1954 which stated that seperate but equal schooling was discriminatory. How you can possibly make your comparison is beyond me. There is no constitutional comparison between the two.
You assume several things that are not in evidence to try to support you illogical argument.

1. You assume a gun is the only way No, but the BEST way,

Really? based on what evidence?

Quote:

the easiest way and the safest way[/b][/color] to rescue someone from felonious violence. The facts presented in the FBI crime statistics prove that to be false. BALONEY ! Anyway, government has no authority to try
to control this area of human life, and each citizen must decide for himself how to defend himself. It is a PERSONAL DECISION.

First you call the facts baloney, then you pretend they have no bearing on the argument. Failure in logical thinking there OSD.

Quote:

There are a large number of attempted assaults that are attempted but stopped without a gun. What 's your point ?
If the predator gets a heart attack, does that change the rights of his victim ? I don 't think so.

The point is that a gun isn't needed to stop an assault nor is a gun the best way to stop an assault as you alleged

Quote:

2. You use the 1954 ruling then talk about seating on the bus.
I was probably rong as to the year; Rosa Parks bus case.

Sloppy research on your part. More faulty since you built your case on a fact that wasn't true.

Quote:

The 1954 ruling had nothing to do with buses or where people sat on them. The 1956 ruling in Browder v Gayle dealt with discrimination on buses. If anything your argument about gun control advocates wanting to take away all guns completely I did not bring that up,

Now you are denying facts in evidence. More lack of logic on your part.

Quote:

altho it is true. As of now, they are concealing their future intentions for strategic reasons.[/b][/color]

You just supported what you denied. More lack of logic

Quote:

undercuts your discrimination argument since there is no discrimination according to you.
If there were a prohibition of guns, people wud make their own guns ( like bathtub gin in the 1930s ),
or buy from blackmarket gunsmiths, if too lazy to make them personally.[/[/b]quote]

You wanted to know where you failed in logic OSD. I have pointed out instance after instance. If you don't want to know where you do it then why did you ask? Your statements and your arguments are not logical.

One thing that might help you OSD is if you learned how to spell simple words in the English language. Your repeated misspellings points to a lack of intelligence and makes it hard for anyone to take you seriously.