Print

[ducksoup]

I never said it didn't happen.  Stupid people occasionally do stupid things, like having accidental discharges with their guns.  And accidentally causing car accidents.  And thousands of other things that go wrong in life.

But my point was that the thousands of people assembled in state capitals around the country were safe, law abiding citizens.  No crapping on cars, no union thugs pulling down tents, and threatening bystanders, and NO INJURIES.  They were PEACEFUL demonstrations, which doesn't surprise me one bit.

Law abiding gun owners are typically more law abiding than non gun owners.  Period.

I'm sorry you (and others) have such a hard time with that fact.  But get over it.

Care to prove your false allegations?  "Lots of shootings"??  You are a liar.

Where was anyone hurt at one of the Gun Appreciation Day gatherings at the state capitals?

That's right.  There WEREN'T ANY INJURIES at these gatherings!!!


Some moron brings a loaded shotgun to a gun show, and it goes off.  Yippee.  Where's the "news" in that?  Morons get injured every day.  They don't need a gun for that!

[Monroe Native]

A few isolated incidents of voter fraud, we should ignore that - it is unreasonable to ask people to give a photo ID to vote just to stop voter fraud.

A few isolated shooting incidents, we should take away second amendment rights.  If we can save ONE life we should take away the rights of millions of law abiding citizens - even if it wouldn't have stopped any of the incidents that happened.

I have a hard time understanding Liberal Logic.  It makes no sense unless you filter all actions through their magic agenda decoder glasses.

[livewire]

Ok, so you quoted me twice.

What's your point, Duck?

Are you THAT upset that gun owners assembled across the country, and no one got hurt?  No one got shot?  No tents were torn down?  No hot dog carts were destroyed by union thugs, or gun thugs?

Does it bother you THAT much?

[Brian Beneteau]

[ducksoup]

A few isolated incidents of voter fraud, we should ignore that - it is unreasonable to ask people to give a photo ID to vote just to stop voter fraud.

Here you seem to advocate voter restrictions for "a few isolated"

A few isolated shooting incidents, we should take away second amendment rights.  If we can save ONE life we should take away the rights of millions of law abiding citizens - even if it wouldn't have stopped any of the incidents that happened.

And here you seem to advocate no restrictions for "a few isolated" 

I have a hard time understanding Liberal Logic.  It makes no sense unless you filter all actions through their magic agenda decoder glasses.

Yep, logic is certainly YOUR strong point.

[ducksoup]

Ok, so you quoted me twice.

What's your point, Duck?

Are you THAT upset that gun owners assembled across the country, and no one got hurt?  No one got shot?  No tents were torn down?  No hot dog carts were destroyed by union thugs, or gun thugs?

Does it bother you THAT much?

Yep, ya got me, you proved me wrong.  I said all of that just because I am stupid as you demand I be.

Hey, stupid old me can't get how FF was wrong for what he posted.  You called him a liar for not posting what you did.  Your claim that his post, said to be at gun shows, was not at the state capital.  For that he is a liar, twice.  and apparently by questioning it then I said a lot of other things that i didn't, but you are always right.

[Monroe Native]

Here you seem to advocate voter restrictions for "a few isolated"

And here you seem to advocate no restrictions for "a few isolated" 

Yep, logic is certainly YOUR strong point.

Duck,

I think asking for a photo government ID to vote is totally reasonable.

I think the existing process of purchasing guns is reasonable, and I have no issue if steps are taken to strengthen the system further so people with mental illness or convictions can't get guns - which by the way is the law today.

What is wrong with my logic? 

I see voting as a right with responsibilities on the part of the citizen.  I see gun ownership as a right with responsibilities on the part of the citizen.

My logic is clear and consistent.

I am truly afraid for you.  You are not the Duck I used to enjoy reading.  You have changed.

[ducksoup]

Duck,

I think asking for a photo government ID to vote is totally reasonable.

I think the existing process of purchasing guns is reasonable, and I have no issue if steps are taken to strengthen the system further so people with mental illness or convictions can't get guns - which by the way is the law today.

What is wrong with my logic? 

I see voting as a right with responsibilities on the part of the citizen.  I see gun ownership as a right with responsibilities on the part of the citizen.

My logic is clear and consistent.

I am truly afraid for you.  You are not the Duck I used to enjoy reading.  You have changed.

Ummm, yeah, right...

So one it is good to do something for a few isolated instances, and the other it is right to do nothing for a few isolated instances and they are the same.  Okay.  You got me, I am stupid for not seeing that they are the same.

And thanks for caring that you think I am not mentally stable or whatever it is you insinuated.  It makes me feel good that you agree with yourself.

[Monroe Native]

So one it is good to do something for a few isolated instances, and the other it is right to do nothing for a few isolated instances and they are the same.  Okay.  You got me, I am stupid for not seeing that they are the same.

Wow.  Are you even reading posts before you take off ranting?

Where did I say "do nothing" for guns?  Is that what we do today?  Categorically it is not.

Sorry if I am trying to find a logical reason you went from reasonable and coherent to ranting.

[ducksoup]

Wow.  Are you even reading posts before you take off ranting?

Where did I say "do nothing" for guns?  Is that what we do today?  Categorically it is not.

Sorry if I am trying to find a logical reason you went from reasonable and coherent to ranting.

I think the existing process of purchasing guns is reasonable

The qualifier changes your statement somewhat by saying you think that some people should be restricted after having said that everything is hunky dorey as it is.  So, there you go, you win again.  You talked out of both sides of your mouth and proved me stupid.  do you feel all happy?

And again i am very glad you agree with yourself in your assessment of my mental state. 

[livewire]

Wow.

I just walked the dogs, and I checked... it's not a full moon tonight.

But it sure seems there's something in the air... whew!
Anyway, I'm going back to bed. Busy day coming up.

I hope you get a good nights sleep, duck. Seriously.

[Professor H]

A few isolated incidents of voter fraud, we should ignore that - it is unreasonable to ask people to give a photo ID to vote just to stop voter fraud.

A few isolated shooting incidents, we should take away second amendment rights.  If we can save ONE life we should take away the rights of millions of law abiding citizens - even if it wouldn't have stopped any of the incidents that happened.

I have a hard time understanding Liberal Logic.  It makes no sense unless you filter all actions through their magic agenda decoder glasses.

That's too logical to follow...
Just like the enforcement of the executive orders.
Do the States do it - and risk being sued for
infringing on Federal Authority?

[livewire]

Obama has set his sights on gun control, but has he forgotten about mental health?

President Barack Obama’s gun control measures miss the entire issue underlying the tragedies in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo., and the shooting of former Rep. Gabby Giffords in Tucson, Ariz. 

The deaths in those cities can’t be attributed to assault weapons.  They were due to untreated, under-treated or poorly treated mental illness.

Adam Lanza, James Holmes and Jared Lee Loughner had at least three things in common:  They were male (as are most perpetrators of mass killings), they suffered with severe mental illnesses (as do almost all perpetrators of mass killings, other than terrorists) and they used powerful, high-capacity weapons to destroy others. 

Of those three factors, two were beyond the control of the killers (gender and psychiatric disorders).  The third—their weapons of choice—were chosen to inflict maximal carnage.  To suggest that these mentally ill men would not have chosen other equally devastating means to inflict violence on others would seem so naïve as to suggest it is disingenuous.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/01/17/obama-has-set-his-sights-on-gun-control-but-has-forgotten-about-mental-health/#ixzz2IcTQwJ00

[blue2]

Most people today probably aren't aware that years ago almost every city at least the size of Toledo had specific mental hospitals that eventually were phased out.  Probably a feel good thing and/or the result of cost savings.  It's pretty obvious there are a significant number of people today that require some kind of treatment and even a stay in a facility such as one of these until they are stabilized.  A lot of details are missing on all of these mass murders by unstable people but it seems as though their parents could have made sure weapons were beyond their reach because they knew their kids were messed up.

[SidecarFlip]

Ummm, yeah, right...

So one it is good to do something for a few isolated instances, and the other it is right to do nothing for a few isolated instances and they are the same.  Okay.  You got me, I am stupid for not seeing that they are the same.

And thanks for caring that you think I am not mentally stable or whatever it is you insinuated.  It makes me feel good that you agree with yourself.

He said you changed and never stated in his opnion, how.  So are you mentally unstable as you imply???