Because I don't want tougher restrictions which is the topic of discussion, it does not mean I want absolutely no restrictions. I want no new restrictions.
You want and will support new restrictions. I never said you were in favor of sweeping new laws.
I said you stated clearly you want tougher laws. And now you post clearly again that you do.
I feel comfortable with the laws regarding guns before the safe act, which I absolutely do not support.
You dreamed the part where I support lawlessness for gun sales and ownership.
I would possibly support a law that could be proven to save lives, but does not take away guns from law abiding citizens.
It would depend on the exact wording and what gets tied in collectively.
Respect for liberty is all that I am asking for, from the over reaching socialist engineers.
As I have said, the government needs to teach by example, not inflict deadly force on the people.
Disarming cops(guns) would save the lives of hundreds of innocents that die at the hands of cops each year. Police weapons are the number one killer of cops as well.
Military weapons are the number one killer of soldiers on active duty who kill themselves more often than the enemy does.
And then you have ex military veterans who use guns to kill themselves more often than they are killed by the entire population of the country. Banning guns from ex military would save a life every 66 minutes.
Those would not be infringement of those people's liberty. It would be a necessary result of dangerous employment that teaches them to kill with guns. A voluntary act.
These are issues that you know full well will save lives.
The majority of police deaths, the majority of active duty deaths, the majority of ex-military deaths and the people who are executed during arrest.(Innocent until proven guilty)
Now, if you want to discuss how to enforce laws without killing the enforcers as well as the accused, or settling military disputes without killing the innocent on both sides as well as the self inflicted deaths of participants likely from both sides, I would be willing to discuss options.
I'd bet money that suicide is an issue on both sides of military conflicts.
I'd also bet money that suicides are likely on both sides of law enforcement too.
We have all heard of suicide by cop. These suicides are enforcement related.
All of these total over 10,000 per year. Probably all are preventable without restricting the law abiding members of society from owning guns.
Because I don't want tougher restrictions which is the topic of discussion, it does not mean I want absolutely no restrictions. I want no new restrictions. SO YOU WANT REFORM, JUST LIKE ME!
You want and will support new restrictions. I never said you were in favor of sweeping new laws. NO, I WANT REFORM, THAT MEANS TAKING LAWS AND REFORMING THEM TO ADJUST TO THE CHANGES IN THE WORLD...IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN "NEW" LAWS, BUT UNFORTUNATELY SOME NEW LAWS MAY NEED TO BE CREATED TO APPLY REFORM.
I said you stated clearly you want tougher laws. And now you post clearly again that you do. YOU HAVE TO READ THE COMPLETE SENTENCE AND NOT ONLY THAT PART YOU WANT TO, AND YOU HAVE TO APPLY LOGIC...NEW LAWS MAY BE NEEDED TO ENACT REFORM!
I feel comfortable with the laws regarding guns before the safe act, which I absolutely do not support. THEY DON'T SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESS THE MENTAL ABILITIES OF INDIVIDUALS. SAFE ACT DOESN'T EITHER.
You dreamed the part where I support lawlessness for gun sales and ownership. IF YOU DON'T AGREE WE NEED REFORM, THEN YOU ARE THE POLAR OPPOSITE AND WANT TO ALLOW COMPLETE FREEDOM.
I would possibly support a law that could be proven to save lives, but does not take away guns from law abiding citizens. ISN'T THAT WHAT IT IS ALL REALLY SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT ANYWAY? BUT DEFINITIONS OF LAW ABIDIING AND MENTALIY CAPABLE NEED TO BE CREATED WITH SUPPORTABLE EVIDENCE AND LOGIC.
It would depend on the exact wording and what gets tied in collectively.
Respect for liberty is all that I am asking for, from the over reaching socialist engineers.
As I have said, the government needs to teach by example, not inflict deadly force on the people.
Disarming cops(guns) would save the lives of hundreds of innocents that die at the hands of cops each year. Police weapons are the number one killer of cops as well. PROPOSING, SUPPORTING OR CONDONING A WEAPONLESS POLICE IS ABSURD. SAYING CIVILIANS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE SAME WEAPONS AS POLICE IS ABUSRD. THAT MENTALITY MEANS YOU MUST BE EQUALLY EQUIPPED IN ORDER TO COMBAT THE POLICE, AND I WIL NOT EVEN HONOR DISCUSSING THAT INCOMPETEANT WAY OF THOUGHT. WE LIVE IN A REAL WORLD, NOT SOME MOVIELAND FABRICATION....
Military weapons are the number one killer of soldiers on active duty who kill themselves more often than the enemy does. A SOLDIER HAVING A WEAPON IS NOT THE CAUSE OF THEIR SUICIDE. THE CAUSE IS OTHER MEDICAL, SOCIOLOGICAL AND PHYSCILOGICAL. WITHOUT A GUN, THEY WOULD STIL COMMIT SUICIDE BY OTHER MEANS. HAVING A GUN DOES NOT EMPOWER THE CAUSE.
And then you have ex military veterans who use guns to kill themselves more often than they are killed by the entire population of the country. Banning guns from ex military would save a life every 66 minutes. SEE COMMENT ABOVE. YOU ARE MAKING A GENERALITY THAT IS NOT VALID. ANYONE, MILITARY OR CIVILIAN, INTENT ON SUICIDE, WILL COMMIT SUICIDE WITH OR WITHOUT A GUN. YOUR BIAS OF MILITARY DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT SIMPLE FACT.
Those would not be infringement of those people's liberty. It would be a necessary result of dangerous employment that teaches them to kill with guns. A voluntary act.BS
These are issues that you know full well will save lives. MY VIEWS OF WHAT WOULD SAVE LIVES HAS BEEN WELL STATED OVER AND OVER.... SORRY IT JUST DOESN'T SUPPORT YOUR NARROW FOCUS, BUT I AM NOT YOUR PUPPET... I HAVE A MIND OF MY OWN THAT IS OPEN TO ALL WAYS OF THINKINIG, ALLOWING ME TO MAKE MY OWN DECISIONS....AND I AM NOT TRYING TO IMPOSE MY WAY ON YOU OR ANYONE ELSE.
SPENT ALL THE TIME I HAVE TO ANSWER YOU AT THIS TIME...GOING TO MEETINGS THEN ONTO PLANE FOR NEXT PART OF TRIP. HAVE A NICE TIME (WIHOUT JOEBXR TO REPLY) UNTIL I RETURN TO THE GOOD OLE USA, WHERE FREEDOME IS RAMPANT AND INDIVIDUAL CHOICE IS A WAY OF LIFE!!! I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE FOR ANY AND ALL TYPOS!! SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO STUPIDILY USE THAT AGAINST ME THEN HAVE FUN! The majority of police deaths, the majority of active duty deaths, the majority of ex-military deaths and the people who are executed during arrest.(Innocent until proven guilty)
Now, if you want to discuss how to enforce laws without killing the enforcers as well as the accused, or settling military disputes without killing the innocent on both sides as well as the self inflicted deaths of participants likely from both sides, I would be willing to discuss options.
I'd bet money that suicide is an issue on both sides of military conflicts.
I'd also bet money that suicides are likely on both sides of law enforcement too.
We have all heard of suicide by cop. These suicides are enforcement related.
All of these total over 10,000 per year. Probably all are preventable without restricting the law abiding members of society from owning guns.
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Because I don't want tougher restrictions which is the topic of discussion, it does not mean I want absolutely no restrictions. I want no new restrictions. SO YOU WANT REFORM, JUST LIKE ME!
A person could not be any less capable of reading comprehension than you.
I say I want no new restrictions and you say "SO YOU WANT REFORM, JUST LIKE ME!"
I wrote: You want and will support new restrictions. I never said you were in favor of sweeping new laws.
Genius Joebxr then shouted:
NO, I WANT REFORM, THAT MEANS TAKING LAWS AND REFORMING THEM TO ADJUST TO THE CHANGES IN THE WORLD...IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN "NEW" LAWS, BUT UNFORTUNATELY SOME NEW LAWS MAY NEED TO BE CREATED TO APPLY REFORM. =====================================================================
I wrote: I said you stated clearly you want tougher laws. And now you post clearly again that you do.
Genius Joebxr then shouted:YOU HAVE TO READ THE COMPLETE SENTENCE AND NOT ONLY THAT PART YOU WANT TO, AND YOU HAVE TO APPLY LOGIC...NEW LAWS MAY BE NEEDED TO ENACT REFORM!
I now reply: You again confirm my statement that you want and will support new restrictions.
I wrote: I feel comfortable with the laws regarding guns before the safe act, which I absolutely do not support.
Genius Joebxr then shouted:THEY DON'T SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESS THE MENTAL ABILITIES OF INDIVIDUALS. SAFE ACT DOESN'T EITHER.
I now reply: You again confirm my statement that you want and will support new restrictions. ======================================================================
I wrote: You dreamed the part where I support lawlessness for gun sales and ownership.
Genius Joebxr then shouted:IF YOU DON'T AGREE WE NEED REFORM, THEN YOU ARE THE POLAR OPPOSITE AND WANT TO ALLOW COMPLETE FREEDOM.
I now reply: The only polar opposite here are the 2 hemispheres of your faulty brain. Please stop trying to force reality into your extremist only views. I said the current laws were fine. You then shout that I want no laws!
I now reply: You again confirm my statement that you want and will support new restrictions.
I now also reply: You again confirm my statement that you have absolutely no reading comprehension. =======================================================================
I wrote: I would possibly support a law that could be proven to save lives, but does not take away guns from law abiding citizens.
Genius Joebxr then shouted:ISN'T THAT WHAT IT IS ALL REALLY SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT ANYWAY? BUT DEFINITIONS OF LAW ABIDIING AND MENTALIY CAPABLE NEED TO BE CREATED WITH SUPPORTABLE EVIDENCE AND LOGIC.
I now reply: No. You are incapable of understanding a simple statement. I said I would possibly support a new law that:
1. Does not take away guns from any law abiding citizen.
2. That the law presents proof that it will save lives.
Your suggestion of redefining mental ability does neither. Plus you are against the banning of weapons from ex-soldiers, who are known to kill over 8,000 a year. ================================================================
I wrote: Respect for liberty is all that I am asking for, from the over reaching socialist engineers.
As I have said, the government needs to teach by example, not inflict deadly force on the people.
Disarming cops(guns) would save the lives of hundreds of innocents that die at the hands of cops each year. Police weapons are the number one killer of cops as well.
Genius Joebxr then shouted:PROPOSING, SUPPORTING OR CONDONING A WEAPONLESS POLICE IS ABSURD.
I now reply: Only a brain dead retard would say no guns equals weaponless. ================================================================
Genius Joebxr then shouted: SAYING CIVILIANS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE SAME WEAPONS AS POLICE IS ABUSRD.
I now reply: You have no idea how to construct a logical thought. Saying that police should not have more rights than citizens is called a self evident truth. ================================================================
Genius Joebxr then shouted: THAT MENTALITY MEANS YOU MUST BE EQUALLY EQUIPPED IN ORDER TO COMBAT THE POLICE,
I now reply: Only a brain dead retard would say those as a logical outcome to your faulty logic. ================================================================
Genius Joebxr then shouted: AND I WIL NOT EVEN HONOR DISCUSSING THAT INCOMPETEANT WAY OF THOUGHT. WE LIVE IN A REAL WORLD, NOT SOME MOVIELAND FABRICATION....
I now reply: Only a brain dead retard would say such a statement. You are totally unable to discuss the subject because your fear and paranoia are overwhelming you. ================================================================
I wrote: Military weapons are the number one killer of soldiers on active duty who kill themselves more often than the enemy does.
Genius Joebxr then shouted: A SOLDIER HAVING A WEAPON IS NOT THE CAUSE OF THEIR SUICIDE. THE CAUSE IS OTHER MEDICAL, SOCIOLOGICAL AND PHYSCILOGICAL. WITHOUT A GUN, THEY WOULD STIL COMMIT SUICIDE BY OTHER MEANS. HAVING A GUN DOES NOT EMPOWER THE CAUSE.
I now reply: So you agree with Cicero that box is a retard for suggesting that he read a report that proved the availability of the weapon caused the suicides. I'm glad you took the right side of that argument. That is the answer I have been trying to force you to realize with my statements about soldiers and ex-soldiers and their guns. I knew if I said it enough times you would crack and defend the ex-soldiers. Now you must allow the same rights to all persons, or you will be proposing inequality pf treatment under the law. ================================================================
I wrote: And then you have ex military veterans who use guns to kill themselves more often thanthey are killed by the entire population of the country. Banning guns from ex military would save a life every 66 minutes.
Genius Joebxr then shouted: SEE COMMENT ABOVE. YOU ARE MAKING A GENERALITY THAT IS NOT VALID. ANYONE, MILITARY OR CIVILIAN, INTENT ON SUICIDE, WILL COMMIT SUICIDE WITH OR WITHOUT A GUN. YOUR BIAS OF MILITARY DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT SIMPLE FACT.
I now reply: Thank you again for agreeing with Cicero by stating that box is full of crap. ================================================================
I wrote: These are issues that you know full well will save lives.
Genius Joebxr then shouted: MY VIEWS OF WHAT WOULD SAVE LIVES HAS BEEN WELL STATED OVER AND OVER....SORRY IT JUST DOESN'T SUPPORT YOUR NARROW FOCUS, BUT I AM NOT YOUR PUPPET... I HAVE A MIND OF MY OWN THAT IS OPEN TO ALL WAYS OF THINKINIG, ALLOWING ME TO MAKE MY OWN DECISIONS....AND I AM NOT TRYING TO IMPOSE MY WAY ON YOU OR ANYONE ELSE.
I now reply: Oh but you are, in fact, trying to impose your thinking, regarding new restrictions on all gun owners. ===========================================================================
Genius Joebxr then shouted: SPENT ALL THE TIME I HAVE TO ANSWER YOU AT THIS TIME... GOING TO MEETINGS THEN ONTO PLANE FOR NEXT PART OF TRIP. HAVE A NICE TIME (WIHOUT JOEBXR TO REPLY) UNTIL I RETURN TO THE GOOD OLE USA, WHERE FREEDOME IS RAMPANT AND INDIVIDUAL CHOICE IS A WAY OF LIFE!!!
I now reply: Freedom that you want to impose further restrictions on. ============================================================
Genius Joebxr then shouted: I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE FOR ANY AND ALL TYPOS!! SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO MY STUPIDITY AGAINST!
I now reply: Not guilty plea by reason of stupidity accepted.
Well I simply cannot deal with each of your ignorant attacks in this thread. I will say just a few things.....first, do not play me against Box in support of ur butt buddy's statement. Unless I specifically say it and direct it as such, then it's a falsehood created by your sick imagination. Example: if someone were to infer that I am calling you a intelligent open minded individual, that would be a falsehood unless I specifically wrote those words. We know I wouldn't write those words because it would be a bold faced lie.
You continually use bold face double spacing for garnering attention and it is acceptable. I used caps/bold to differentiate my words from yours in threads so you accuse me of shouting. Considering I am trying to join conversations from 3 different devices while overseas and having limited ability restricted by the devices and connectivity I found it the most convenient method. If I shout I'll do it in a way you will understand.
You continue to show your insensitive ignorance simply by the use of the less than acceptable words u use. I assume your parents, classmates, and few friends/coworkers call you those names, to your face and for sure behind your back. So that validates your use as acceptable.
I especially enjoy the fact you have admitted that with your postings your intent is "...to force..." people into agreeing with you. Exactly what I have said is your agenda.
Lastly, yes, compared to you, I do appear to be a genius, so thanks for recognizing that. With that said, I still don't hate you.....I simply feel sorry for those around you. Once again enjoy any typos....Blackberry is not the most friendly device for postings.
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
And you did state clearly that boxes premise was wrong.
Guns don't contribute to suicides. Mental health issues do.
Don't try back pedalling now. Your words are out for all to read.
My words stand for what they really are and not your twisted reinterpretations. Washing???? Your repeating yourself....cut down on the meds before you bust a blood vessel. And a friendly suggestion.....trying washing, we'd appreciate it
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Logged
