Guns don't kill people, gun owners kill people.

[Doer]

The truth is, I apologize sincerely to anyone offended by me calling you something you don't like....it was not my intention. When I ask a question, it comes from curiousity. Do not assume that it implies antagonism. It is just a question. Let us rewind. I was curious if particular groups are withheld gun ownership like the mentally ill or violent felons or any other such group is acceptable to you? Does it violate their rights?

No. More PA-PC. I won't let it slide. Another horse shit idea. You said it was divisive, yourself. Stop labeling groups and hiding behind PA-PC. It fools no one.

 

[burgertime2010]

Well, words matter. That is the Law. We are a group of American Citizens under the 2nd A. If I own a gun or not is none of your damn business.

THAT is the main point.

I agree words matter. Actually the point is to exchange info or opinions. Actually as an American, it is my business. For all that talk and still no answer.....you are tactically evasive and over sensitive.

 

[cannabineer]

The truth is, I apologize sincerely to anyone offended by me calling you something you don't like....it was not my intention. When I ask a question, it comes from curiousity. Do not assume that it implies antagonism. It is just a question. Let us rewind. I was curious if particular groups are withheld gun ownership like the mentally ill or violent felons or any other such group is acceptable to you? Does it violate their rights?

"Groups" are not withheld rights. Individuals are. That is my main point.

So I will not answer your questions until they've been cleared of deceptive reposturing.

This isn't about my being offended; i am not. It is about rational hygiene ... addressing valid arguments and not those that contain a concealed semantic or philosophical stink bomb.

I am an individual who likes the idea of civilian gun ownership. I refuse to be placed into, and then summarily, uniformly treated with the rest of, any group.

Example: I once tried to buy a Lexus without the optional sunroof. ALL Lexuses at the time were fitted with it at the factory. When i inquired with Lexus' regional manager why i was having difficulties opting out, he explained to me that the customer wanted them.

I was a potential customer and could NOT exercise what the catalog, the dealership and the corporation listed as Optional.
The deep lie was that there was no option at all, because decisions were being made not on individual likes/dislikes but because of the preponderant choice of (wait for it) a composite customer. An unreal, statistical fabrication used as the fulcrum for real decision. I find that to be a dishonest way to do business, and I resist any efforts by the stewards of both our media and our government to serve a Composite Customer.

So when I see you not only embracing but championing groupthink, I react to that and request andor require that that element of dishonesty be removed before we can have any sort of productive dialog. My opinion.

 

[burgertime2010]

No. More PA-PC. I won't let it slide. Another horse shit idea. You said it was divisive, yourself. Stop labeling groups and hiding behind PA-PC. It fools no one.

I am asking what is not offensive to you? That itself is offensive? Boo fucking hoo. I am not scheming turbo, I am asking basic questions on a subject in which you are informed about. You again attempt what? Answer the question even if it is divisive....who cares. You aren't fooling me. In, fact what are you doing? What is driving you so crazy?

 

[justanotherbozo]

Let us rewind. I was curious if particular groups are withheld gun ownership like the mentally ill or violent felons or any other such group is acceptable to you? Does it violate their rights?

...this is just passive/aggressive bullshit meant to obfuscate, ...hell, even a dim witted liberal ought to be able to recognize that ALL reasonable people believe those who have demonstrated themselves to be dangerous to the community should have their rights to bear arms limited, violent felons and the mentally ill included.

...which is why most SANE and reasonable people believe it would be a danger to the world if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, ...this is an example of a group who's right to bear arms should be limited, by ANY means necessary.

...btw, can you show me any statistic's on violent crime perpetrated by legal gun owners? ...anything at all that demonstrates that legal gun owners are a danger to anyone other than those who attack them?

bozo

 

[Doer]

I agree words matter. Actually the point is to exchange info or opinions. Actually as an American, it is my business. For all that talk and still no answer.....you are tactically evasive and over sensitive.

And you continue with personal attacks when your ideas are challenged. And your ideas of these accusations are Horse shit. You can't upset me. These are just photons. And as you said, I don't care.

But you seem to love thinking you are being upsetting and divisive. What about all the questions I asked you about digging up this thread and being admittedly divisive?

Do you not see the mirror of yourself?

 

[Doer]

I am asking what is not offensive to you? That itself is offensive? Boo fucking hoo. I am not scheming turbo, I am asking basic questions on a subject in which you are informed about. You again attempt what? Answer the question even if it is divisive....who cares. You aren't fooling me. In, fact what are you doing? What is driving you so crazy?

Nothing is offensive to me. Those words you chose are attempting to run up an argument. Transparent. You asked divisive questions, yet again, the same thing. Seemed curious to me.

Nothing is driving me crazy today. I am waiting for a glue-up to dry. So what?

I am asking you about divisiveness and Asked and Answered.

You dodged all that. I said I had no line, that the 2nd A says it is none of your business and you dodged all that. I stated positions that you ignore. Trolling.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I am asking what is not offensive to you? That itself is offensive? Boo fucking hoo. I am not scheming turbo, I am asking basic questions on a subject in which you are informed about. You again attempt what? Answer the question even if it is divisive....who cares. You aren't fooling me. In, fact what are you doing? What is driving you so crazy?

your "Questions" are loaded, fraught with hyper-emotional baggage, and lack a substantive grounds for support or dismissal.

a "felony" is any crime punishable by more than one year in prison.

thats the legal definition, thus an individual who fucks up on his taxes is a "felon", as is an individual who fails to achieve a positive defense of "self defense" in a fistfight where no-one was seriously injured.

if you get into a dust-up with your brother at the age of 14 and some nervous nelly calls the cops, you can and will become a "felon" even if neither party presses charges.

these sorts of crimes should NOT be a bar to owning firearms, that should be reserved for those who engage in SERIOUS crimes, like robbery, murder, rape, assault with intent to kill, etc... not a kid with 2 doobies in his pocket at a Phish concert.

you gloss over the facts in favour of a blanket prohibition for everyone with even the mildest criminal record, while ignoring the reality which is, more potheads are felons than any other class of person.

further, when one has finished the process prescribed for their felony, and have their civil rights restored they SHOULD once again exercise their rights as free upstanding citizens to own firearms.



Guns dont kill people, Gun Grabbers get people killed.

 

[burgertime2010]

"Groups" are not withheld rights. Individuals are. That is my main point.

So I will not answer your questions until they've been cleared of deceptive reposturing.

This isn't about my being offended; i am not. It is about rational hygiene ... addressing valid arguments and not those that contain a concealed semantic or philosophical stink bomb.

I am an individual who likes the idea of civilian gun ownership. I refuse to be placed into, and then summarily, uniformly treated with the rest of, any group.

Example: I once tried to buy a Lexus without the optional sunroof. ALL Lexuses at the time were fitted with it at the factory. When i inquired with Lexus' regional manager why i was having difficulties opting out, he explained to me that the customer wanted them.

I was a potential customer and could NOT exercise what the catalog, the dealership and the corporation listed as Optional.
The deep lie was that there was no option at all, because decisions were being made not on individual likes/dislikes but because of the preponderant choice of (wait for it) a composite customer. An unreal, statistical fabrication used as the fulcrum for real decision. I find that to be a dishonest way to do business, and I resist any efforts by the stewards of both our media and our government to serve a Composite Customer.

So when I see you not only embracing but championing groupthink, I react to that and request andor require that that element of dishonesty be removed before we can have any sort of productive dialog. My opinion.

These groups are legally defined and are prohibited from gun ownership for a period of time determined by the law at present. I embrace reality and have not lied. So far, it is my opinion that you are intentionally avoiding my question. You are not honest, I have done all that you ask and all you do is reject the semantics. Mentally ill and guns? Yes or No?

 

[cannabineer]

These groups are legally defined and are prohibited from gun ownership for a period of time determined by the law at present. I embrace reality and have not lied. So far, it is my opinion that you are intentionally avoiding my question. You are not honest, I have done all that you ask and all you do is reject the semantics. Mentally ill and guns? Yes or No?

Perhaps you'll remember what I asked you in a previous post regarding definition of terms. But probably not; it does not feed your agenda.

 

[burgertime2010]

Nothing is offensive to me. Those words you chose are attempting to run up an argument. Transparent. You asked divisive questions, yet again, the same thing. Seemed curious to me.

Nothing is driving me crazy today. I am waiting for a glue-up to dry. So what?

I am asking you about divisiveness and Asked and Answered.

You dodged all that. I said I had no line, that the 2nd A says it is none of your business and you dodged all that. I stated positions that you ignore. Trolling.

You are just lying, I responded to you accusing me of taking talking points from Martha Stewart.

 

[Doer]

These groups are legally defined and are prohibited from gun ownership for a period of time determined by the law at present. I embrace reality and have not lied. So far, it is my opinion that you are intentionally avoiding my question. You are not honest, I have done all that you ask and all you do is reject the semantics. Mentally ill and guns? Yes or No?

You want to come up with a definition of Mental Ill? That is the problem. It is like Sex Offender. A horse shit, PC-PA, idea. A label of scorn to stoop to.

Do you know about HIPA? Medical Privacy? Do you know about not saying Yes, OR No? Did you know that you are certainly Mentally Ill as am I?

We can both get well, but never get a yes or no from the authority...in this case BATF. Doesn't matter about guns for you. But, think of something you might want, that the label of Mental Ill would stop.

Owning a car
having kids
free to travel
any other GD restriction that can be cooked up by the black heart of man.
What job you can have....Brave New World.

You are being selfish because you are probably not mentally fit, by definition, and so you should not be allowed.....what....Leather Shoes? Could be a weapon.

Do you really want me defining mental fitness for you?

 

[Doer]

You are just lying, I responded to you accusing me of taking talking points from Martha Stewart.

Lying when you still didn't adress the points I underlined. I never said Martha Stewart, you did Sigmund.

I suggested you don't know what you are talking about. I stand by that.

FIRE PANTS, 4 years old. Lying about Martha...the shame.

 

[burgertime2010]

Don't even go there. You are WAY off....I have wasted enough with this incestuous gun club. None of you answered anything.......it is amazing actually.

 

[Doer]

Martha Stewart lied about you the other day.

 

[cannabineer]

Don't even go there. You are WAY off....I have wasted enough with this incestuous gun club. None of you answered anything.......it is amazing actually.

And there you go again. Gun Club. The Enemy isn't people, it's a Group.

I'll tell you what my beef is with conventional definitions of the mentally ill.
Much mental illness (consult the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) is simply being away from the Gaussian belly of the snake, being not-Average. Not Normal.
So to define the outliers as automatically, inherently Sick is the worst sort of tyranny. it has very little to do with actual pathology and everything to do with being politically, culturally, philosophically, even medically Correct.

So to answer your question from my perspective: No. It isn't and shouldn't be automatic. Because the newest blind for tyranny is the definition of mental health.

Because we're the declared enemy of the Normal, and the Normals will wage a total war of extermination on us Individuals from behind the armor of grouping us as THEM, we outliers have the greatest moral imperative to arm ourselves, to defend the human future's last best hope. A society that embraces the tyranny of the Bell Curve will kill itself in time.

And that scares the piss out of that tiny cohort of Normals who'll bother to stare the contradiction in the face. Scared Normals in herd are dangerous.

 

[burgertime2010]

Martha Stewart lied about you the other day.

She is a cunt. I want lines showing where the legislation is necessary or infringing. "Agenda rag" you accused me of ripping off sorry, focus on just your rudeness. Look, don't be the scholar one day and the scumbag the next.....

 

[Doer]

I'll be what ever your label happens to be on which day, I guess. You said Felon and I said even that is something you don't understand and did not come up with for yourself. It is part of the driven insane that are afraid of guns, agenda.

I say they are just a tool. I said the Numb Nuts created the Gun Nuts. But the Gun Nuts are a fringe, that is the loud Anti-Con's backlash for playing with fire. I said all that, before.

You ignored all that and went SMALL.

 

[Doer]

And there you go again. Gun Club. The Enemy isn't people, it's a Group.

I'll tell you what my beef is with conventional definitions of the mentally ill.
Much mental illness (consult the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) is simply being away from the Gaussian belly of the snake, being not-Average. Not Normal.
So to define the outliers as automatically, inherently Sick is the worst sort of tyranny. it has very little to do with actual pathology and everything to do with being politically, culturally, philosophically, even medically Correct.

So to answer your question from my perspective: No. It isn't and shouldn't be automatic. Because the newest blind for tyranny is the definition of mental health.

Because we're the declared enemy of the Normal, and the Normals will wage a total war of extermination on us Individuals from behind the armor of grouping us as THEM, we outliers have the greatest moral imperative to arm ourselves, to defend the human future's last best hope. A society that embraces the tyranny of the Bell Curve will kill itself in time.

And that scares the piss out of that tiny cohort of Normals who'll bother to stare the contradiction in the face. Scared Normals in herd are dangerous.

What about incestuous? I hope he meant that virtually.

 

[burgertime2010]

And there you go again. Gun Club. The Enemy isn't people, it's a Group.

I'll tell you what my beef is with conventional definitions of the mentally ill.
Much mental illness (consult the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) is simply being away from the Gaussian belly of the snake, being not-Average. Not Normal.
So to define the outliers as automatically, inherently Sick is the worst sort of tyranny. it has very little to do with actual pathology and everything to do with being politically, culturally, philosophically, even medically Correct.

So to answer your question from my perspective: No. It isn't and shouldn't be automatic. Because the newest blind for tyranny is the definition of mental health.

Because we're the declared enemy of the Normal, and the Normals will wage a total war of extermination on us Individuals from behind the armor of grouping us as THEM, we outliers have the greatest moral imperative to arm ourselves, to defend the human future's last best hope. A society that embraces the tyranny of the Bell Curve will kill itself in time.

And that scares the piss out of that tiny cohort of Normals who'll bother to stare the contradiction in the face. Scared Normals in herd are dangerous.

I just wanted a stance. It is to see if regulation is ever necessary on this issue. It is not about scary people and guns. It is about the point you see fit to deny someone their 2nd amendment right.