With swords, silly.
God damm, I feel like I’m dealing with a bunch of 2 year olds who haven’t yet learned to read. Refer to post #231 for your answer.
The reason why the present laws don’t work as well as they should to address the problems that use of guns cause is because they all get watered down so that they become “acceptable” to the general populace. I say stop doing this and the problem will be partially reduced. It will be entirely solved when we remove guns from all of your “cold, dead hands”. Don’t like the sound of that? well, that’s just toooooo baddddddd…
Y’all sound like really tough guys with you small arsenal of hand guns and rifles. We don’t have to go in and get you or your guns. If you refuse to turn in your guns, you will be arrested. If you resist arrest, perhpas by shooting at the people who come to arrest you, then we’ll send over a few big weapons and some troops to convince you that if you wanted to stay alive, then it would be in your best interests to follow the orders that you have been given. Maybe we’ll send in a C-130 to do a Waco on your you, your house and everything/everyone in it. :smack:
I hope this satisfactorily answers all variations of this dumb question.
No, I really do believe that virtually everything you post is contributes nothing to the discussion and is pure rant. Go ahead and continue to post all you want, but this will be the last reply I’ll make to any more of your rants.
So, in other words, to get what is now a perfectly legal firearm, you are willing to destroy property and/or kill to do it? To take the sort of actions that get entire nations condemned by the international community? You do realize that this has now lost any possible credibility your idea might have had.
C’mon. He lost all credibility back on page one.
I read your post #231. It’s not a plan for confiscating guns. It’s a plan (and a particularly repugnant one) for penalizing people who haven’t williingly turned in their guns when you catch them with 'em. We’ve been asking you how you intend to take away our guns if prove unwilling to surrender them. You’re just gonna wait 'til you catch us with 'em? That ain’t a plan and it ain’t gonna make a significant number of the guns go away for a long, long while.
I see. The laws governing a democracy shouldn’t be acceptable to the majority . . . when the majority opinion conflicts with your own. I gotta tell ya, the United States of Iamme sounds like a pretty shitty place to live. The people are subject to your irrational whims. You are right tho’; I don’t like the sound of what you propose. I really hope you keep trying though, and not just here at the SDMB, but in the outside world too. Your ideas are simply so brutal, illogical, unworkable and downright loony, that you’re guaranteed to make more converts away from your camp than my, and many others’, rational, substantiated arguments ever could.
This makes no sense at all. You don’t have to come and get my guns if I refuse to turn them in, you just have to come and arrest me. Okay. How ya gonna do that? None of my guns are registered - that not being required here in Sylvania, Ohio. The authorities simply do not know that I own guns. And they are currently prohibited by law from keeping a permanent registry.
There’s an excellent idea. What about the other folks who live in my apartment building? You just gonna write them off? You are one scary goddamned dude, Pol Pot.
Not even close. You haven’t really begun. And that’s because you seem simply incapable of comprehending the true scope of the issue. 250 million guns in private hands.
And I’m still waiting for substantiation of your claim that gun crime is increasing in proportion to the increase in the number of guns in the U.S. Cough it up, or retract your lie.
So your answer is that you will first turn me into a criminal by changing the law, and then you are willing to use the very tool you despise - your guns - to take away mine. You are willing to kill me over your ideals.
And you still think that me, the peaceful gun owner with no desire to kill anyone, is the one whose sanity should be questioned?
I have no designs to kill anyone. What I will tell you is that I am not about to see the Constitution and the personal liberties of all Americans destroyed by a bunch of hoplophobes. If that means I have to fight to the death, that is what I will do.
What States require registration? I know there are lots that now have background checks, but is that an automatic registration? Or do we know.
None of my, my Brothers or my Fathers guns are ‘registered’. As far as I know, same goes for my friends and the people I work with.
All of my guns are 10-30 years old and where gifts. None are registered. Don’t need to be.
iamme99 - You stated earlier that you had hoped that perhaps a lurker, that is on the fence may have had an opinion changed. I have been lurking and some of the things that you have said has changed my opinion. At least about the gun-control crowd.
If you are in any way representative of the gun-control folks, I would have to say that they must know nothing about -
- Guns
- Self defence (be it guns or martial arts)
- Gun owners
- Law
- What the word ‘debate’ means
Well, yeah, but I can’t say what I really think because the mods would smack me down.
( * Coined term used without permission.)
Not only does that not qualify as a sentence, it makes no sense. Either go back to school or hurry up and finish fifth grade. No wonder you don’t know about the U.S. being invaded in 2001.
Oh, I will, and you ***will ** * reply to my postings eventually; every other time you said you were through with a subject or person you quickly came right back to it. It’s your style.
And, you are entitled to your flawed opinions, but you are wrong. You don’t answer because you know I’m right, and you don’t have a leg to stand on (gotta look THAT one up in the archive…). That, too, is a part of your style; you ignore those posts that prove you wrong. :wally
How about it gang??? Anyone else thing I’m ranting?
Anyone think that Agent 99 is the one that’s ranting?
Anyone think that either one of us is lying? Post your votes! (But be careful, only one to a person, I think Mimi likes torture…)
Reading, reading, reading, sigh… The premise of the OP and all the exposition that follows is that ownership of guns would be ILLEGAL. That takes care of your first sentence.
As to condemned by the international community - our current leadership doesn’t seem to care much about this issue right now, so why should I? And anyway, all we would be doing is enforcing a new law. It’s a countries choice as to how they want to enforce a law and what penalties they choose to apply.
I don’t have any desire to kill anyone either. But if the law was changed and you choose not to follow the law, then you will have to face the consequences. If you choose to use your guns and stores of ammunition to defend you “ideals”, with no regard for the law, what else would you expect? A pat on the back and an exception for all of you who don’t like the law? I don’t see why accepting full responsibility for your choices and actions is such a tough concept to understand?
C’mon children. Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me. And as to whatever credibility I have in your eyes, I don’t really care.
Watch your language, you rude ‘it.’ And what do you mean by “damm?” Is that an excusable typing or spelling error? Or is it another indication of a single digit IQ?
Now, to work…
Post # 231:
So your answer is… you’ll correct his spelling? You’ll wait until he kills someone and gets caught?
NO, ONCE AGAIN YOU BLEW IT! YOU DID NOT ANSWER HIS QUESTION IN POST # 231. IT LOOKS LIKE YOU DIDN’T EVEN READ HIS QUESTION!
Everyone other than Agent 99, please forgive my shouts, it seems like we are dealing with someone who is deaf, dumb or blind (or perhaps all three). I’m sure shouting wont help, since it ignores any rational responses to its rants, but it was worth a try.
See, it’s NOT all about you, meemee(x49.5).
We? What, you and Hillary? Or maybe you prefer Rosie?
Well you proved one of your points. Give any “we” a bigger weapon and it will inflate their egos and make them dangerous.
You girls be careful with that C-130 now.
To repeat ad infinitum - If you don’t willingly turn in your guns, then you become, under the proposed law a criminal. As such, what actions are necessary to relieve you of your guns are acceptable. If you don’t use ever get caught using them, then you can perhaps hold on to them for a long time. Although I don’t know what value they are if you can’t use them. Maybe you can sleep with them. 
If the proposed law was passed, then by definition, the majority chose to do so.
See first response above.
First, hopefully someone else in your building will squeal on you. Second, I guess we’ll just have to use a swat team in your case if you refuse to peacefully turn in your weapons. Or maybe starve you out.
Whoa, cowboy. If you’re going to quote me, at least get the quote straight. I said nothing about “proportions” anywhere! That’s your addition. What I said was the number of murders, injuries, accidents and thefts caused by or related to guns keeps increasing. Most people can see this in their newspapers every day. I also provided a cite which makes the case that gun/weapon statistics are not valid since many incidents are not reported or are not classified as having been caused by a weapon. I have nothing to retract and you may as well stop asking, because I will retract nothing!
Excuse me? EXCUSE ME???
**YOU ** are the one that first proposed killing people for owning guns on this thread!
IMNSHO, you are totally OUT OF TOUCH with REALITY!!!
I know they have lots of psychiatrists in california, I recommend you avail yourself of the services thereof, before you hurt someone.
OK, I get your logic now.
Statistics prove your point.
Statistics are unreliable.
Therefore, your rantings are unreliable.
Even though you are shown you are wrong, you won’t admit it.