OGTEleven Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 The proliferation of high firepower arms is becoming a problem. So you have defined that there is a problem and decided there should be a stigma? Others may say that gay marriage is causing a morality problem, or food stamp recipients are buying twinkies and causing a nutrition problem or people with high incomes aren't paying enough in taxes and causing our fiscal problems. Why can't they get access to all government records on all citizens so they can post the trouble making gays/poor/rich/black/white/SUV driving/student loan deadbeat/parent with special needs children's names and addresses on line? Should they run it by you first to see if there is enough of a problem to make a personal transaction public information? Everything you or I do via an application or license granted by government could be seen by another person as wrong and hurtful to society. Are you really saying they should be entitled to all government legally issued licenses, permits, applications and similar documents? In my opinion your answer has to be yes to everything or no to everything. You can't say it is ok to publish a list of all gun licenses but not ok to publish a list of all people making over $100k. I'd prefer a society based upon that answer being no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted December 29, 2012 Author Share Posted December 29, 2012 Ethical and philisophical arguments are in no way bolstered by sourced artiticles or encyclopidia entries. In many cases, yes, they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 I love when you do this and then a person posts back with an actual definition or a linked article to back up their position and you come back with "no, you have to do it in your own words". Examples? You know, since I've obviously done that so many times that there's a pattern. You ought to be able to show us at least two. You made a statement along the lines of "assault weapons should be illegal". Someone asked you to define "assault weapon". You came back with a wikipedia definition of guns that are essentially already illegal and almost never used to commit crime in this country. That pretty much proves you either don't know what you're talking about or you're pandering, just like the rest of the ignorant politicians. Somehow, I don't see that being MY problem. You know, if this were a scientific paper I would say your lack of confidence in his statements due to commas in the wrong place is well warranted. But we're on a message board. Save the proper spelling and grammar stuff for the scientific journals. You know, if I gave a flying crap about your opinion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted December 29, 2012 Author Share Posted December 29, 2012 Examples? You know, since I've obviously done that so many times that there's a pattern. You ought to be able to show us at least two. You made a statement along the lines of "assault weapons should be illegal". Someone asked you to define "assault weapon". You came back with a wikipedia definition of guns that are essentially already illegal and almost never used to commit crime in this country. That pretty much proves you either don't know what you're talking about or you're pandering, just like the rest of the ignorant politicians. Somehow, I don't see that being MY problem. You know, if I gave a flying crap about your opinion... You don't give a flying crap about my opinion. Yet you want me to write it out in my own words... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 In many cases, yes, they are. No, because generally those queries must be backed by logic, and referencing the stances of other men as authoritative generally involves logical fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Let's change gears here. Wouldn't the map be great say if somebody was looking for a person to do business w/? They could check the map and see if the person is a paranoid gun toting loon. One weapon fine, arsenal... Oh, okay... If they are packing, nope, cross them off the list of potentially doing business with. Or, circle them on because this may work vice-a-versa, say somebody wants to do business with legal gun owners. Heck, a person isn't on the list/map and somehow another person knows they are packing, they can avoid them @ all costs or even report them to get things investigated. Yeah, this is pretty extreme... Yet, it may be bound to happen... The possibilities are limitless. Now, of course, people w/guns are just gonna avoid the list... BUT, if somebody sees the weapon(s)... Self-report. Adam Lanza supposedly got in a spat w/the school a day before... Yeah, his mother was the legal gun owner... BUT, he lived w/her. Couldn't the school officials have checked the map to see if guns were nearby? Couldn't they have been on guard? Next time somebody gets into w/somebody else, maybe it would be interesting to see what the capabilities are of the parties involved. Again... What's the problem? What could go wrong? (Half sarcastic) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Let's change gears here. Wouldn't the map be great say if somebody was looking for a person to do business w/? They could check the map and see if the person is a paranoid gun toting loon. One weapon fine, arsenal... Oh, okay... If they are packing, nope, cross them off the list of potentially doing business with. Or, circle them on because this may work vice-a-versa, say somebody wants to do business with legal gun owners. Heck, a person isn't on the list/map and somehow another person knows they are packing, they can avoid them @ all costs or even report them to get things investigated. Yeah, this is pretty extreme... Yet, it may be bound to happen... The possibilities are limitless. Now, of course, people w/guns are just gonna avoid the list... BUT, if somebody sees the weapon(s)... Self-report. Adam Lanza supposedly got in a spat w/the school a day before... Yeah, his mother was the legal gun owner... BUT, he lived w/her. Couldn't the school officials have checked the map to see if guns were nearby? Couldn't they have been on guard? Next time somebody gets into w/somebody else, maybe it would be interesting to see what the capabilities are of the parties involved. Again... What's the problem? What could go wrong? (Half sarcastic) I feel dumber for having read that. Please, tell me you haven't fathered any children. While I'm posting in your direction, this is a gentle reminder that you never responded to my Swiss Army Knife post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 (edited) I feel dumber for having read that. Please, tell me you haven't fathered any children. While I'm posting in your direction, this is a gentle reminder that you never responded to my Swiss Army Knife post. I never read it... So there is no need to respond to it whatever stupid dreck you posted. The bottom line is: Get use to stuff like this (map and registry)... As long as we as a society are having massacres @ the hands of easily accessible firepower, tactics to stigmatize gun ownership and get ordinary citizens involved will go on. Sorry Charlie. End of discussion. Go cry somewhere else that your privacy is being infringed on... Oh, and thank that low-life, dirt ball Adam Lanza and his half-wit paranoid gun toting mama for turning the tide among tens of millions of people... Capiche? Edited December 29, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 I never read it... So there is no need to respond to it whatever stupid dreck you posted. The bottom line is: Get use to stuff like this (map and registry)... As long as we as a society are having massacres @ the hands of easily accessible firepower, tactics to stigmatize gun ownership and get ordinary citizens involved will go on. Sorry Charlie. End of discussion. Go cry somewhere else that your privacy is being infringed on... Oh, and thank that low-life, dirt ball Adam Lanza and his half-wit paranoid gun toting mama for turning the tide among tens of millions of people... Capiche? You never fail to amaze me with your narrow mindness and dull thought process. End of discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 I never read it... So there is no need to respond to it whatever stupid dreck you posted. The bottom line is: Get use to stuff like this (map and registry)... As long as we as a society are having massacres @ the hands of easily accessible firepower, tactics to stigmatize gun ownership and get ordinary citizens involved will go on. Sorry Charlie. End of discussion. Go cry somewhere else that your privacy is being infringed on... Oh, and thank that low-life, dirt ball Adam Lanza and his half-wit paranoid gun toting mama for turning the tide among tens of millions of people... Capiche? Actually, at the absolute end of the rope, after you've refused to honor my absolute right to privacy and ownership, and push really comes to shove, I'm perfectly content to say to you: "Good for you, !@#$. Pass your law. I don't acknowledge your authority. Now, come enforce it. I'm more than willing to demonstrate for you how every right a man might justly claim is made possibe by the philosophy embodied by the second." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 You never fail to amaze me with your narrow mindness and dull thought process. End of discussion. To each his own. Be prepared to see a lot more of that dull thought process. Actually, at the absolute end of the rope, after you've refused to honor my absolute right to privacy and ownership, and push really comes to shove, I'm perfectly content to say to you: "Good for you, !@#$. Pass your law. I don't acknowledge your authority. Now, come enforce it. I'm more than willing to demonstrate for you how every right a man might justly claim is made possibe by the philosophy embodied by the second." Fair enough Ayn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 I never read it... So there is no need to respond to it whatever stupid dreck you posted. The bottom line is: Get use to stuff like this (map and registry)... As long as we as a society are having massacres @ the hands of easily accessible firepower, tactics to stigmatize gun ownership and get ordinary citizens involved will go on. Sorry Charlie. End of discussion. Go cry somewhere else that your privacy is being infringed on... Oh, and thank that low-life, dirt ball Adam Lanza and his half-wit paranoid gun toting mama for turning the tide among tens of millions of people... Capiche? You've missed the major question here though. Did you father/mother any children? The minor question is why didn't you bother to go back and read the other posts before responding? Then again, if you don't care about posts you haven't read, then what is your purpose here? Are you just here to crusade or are you here for intelligent discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Fair enough Ayn. ... That's... That's what you're bringing??? /golfclap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 (edited) You've missed the major question here though. Did you father/mother any children? The minor question is why didn't you bother to go back and read the other posts before responding? Then again, if you don't care about posts you haven't read, then what is your purpose here? Are you just here to crusade or are you here for intelligent discussion? Quid pro quo Hannibal... A little something about you first... There is enough on this board that I gave which will enable you to figure out personal information. After figuring it out, you can then fall back on your usual personal attacks. Again quid pro quo... Now it is your turn. ... That's... That's what you're bringing??? /golfclap Why what are you bringing? Besides the same tired adolescent Ayn Rand BS. I brought a lot. You have brought nothing but attacks on my position. Let's get back to the OP topic. I've explained how your privacy will be infringed on as a gun owner. I have explained why your gun ownership will be infringed on. I have commented on how it will hold up under the USC. If you disagree, then you disagree. Fair enough. Your legally registered gun ownership (should you ever move to NYS) will carry a public liability, not an unlimited asset far from the public's prying eyes. Edited December 29, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Quid pro quo Hannibal... A little something about you first... There is enough on this board that I gave which will enable you to figure out personal information. After figuring it out, you can then fall back on your usual personal attacks. Again quid pro quo... Now it is your turn. Why what are you bringing? Besides the same tired adolescent Ayn Rand BS. I brought a lot. You have brought nothing but attacks on my position. Let's get back to the OP topic. I've explained how your privacy will be infringed on as a gun owner. I have explained why your gun ownership will be infringed on. I have commented on how it will hold up under the USC. If you disagree, then you disagree. Fair enough. Your legally registered gun ownership (should you ever move to NYS) will carry a public liability, not an unlimited asset far from the public's prying eyes. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Wait... So your critique is that I've attacked your position??? That's !@#$ing priceless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Wait... So your critique is that I've attacked your position??? That's !@#$ing priceless. Very weakly attacked with same tired adolescent Rand BS. Carry on. I guess if we are gonna get all Orwellian... At least track down the straws within the databases: http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/1796797 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Quid pro quo Hannibal... A little something about you first... There is enough on this board that I gave which will enable you to figure out personal information. After figuring it out, you can then fall back on your usual personal attacks. Again quid pro quo... Now it is your turn. Why what are you bringing? Besides the same tired adolescent Ayn Rand BS. I brought a lot. You have brought nothing but attacks on my position. Let's get back to the OP topic. I've explained how your privacy will be infringed on as a gun owner. I have explained why your gun ownership will be infringed on. I have commented on how it will hold up under the USC. If you disagree, then you disagree. Fair enough. Your legally registered gun ownership (should you ever move to NYS) will carry a public liability, not an unlimited asset far from the public's prying eyes. What does me giving out personal information have to do with the OP? Why would I give out personal information here? Do you really think I'm as stupid as you to do so? What makes you think you have brought alot to this conversation? Is it just because you've found a dozen different ways to say that gun ownership is bad, and the state should "out" gun owners to somehow stigmatize them? Again, can my Swiss Army Knife be classified as a WMD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Again, can my Swiss Army Knife be classified as a WMD? You still babbling about your Swiss Army Knife... LoL... Don't be a chump, get a life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Very weakly attacked with same tired adolescent Rand BS. Carry on. I guess if we are gonna get all Orwellian... At least track down the straws within the databases: http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/1796797 The fact that you've assessed my position as Randian only leads to one possible conclusion: You've never read Ayn Rand. And even if what I was saying was in any way Randian (it's actually Jeffersonian) I'd be much more comfortable espousing her philosophies than those of Adolph Hitler, as you are. /Godwins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts