Political Crossfire Forums

[Blinky]

leftneckredwing wrote: I have been to Asia, even tried to go to Aus, but the 4th was not allowed.



So you haven't been to Europe and therefore have no idea. Glad that's settled.

4th what exactly?



leftneckredwing wrote: The steering by yourself and others is at least equal .

I can't recall steering it as much as you do. You're the one always drawing comparisons between guns and swimming pools for heaven's sake!

leftneckredwing wrote: We're touchy and downright bitchy about our rights.

I have noticed. But if you were interested in what was best for your country you would at least entertain thoughts about change. You won't even do that because "its in the constitution" and therefore, in your mind, cemented in stone and for the good of everyone, irrespective of trends suggesting otherwise.


leftneckredwing wrote: So my guess is you like to guess. But aren't that good at it.

What on Earth are you banging on about?

[leftneckredwing]

Blinky wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: I have been to Asia, even tried to go to Aus, but the 4th was not allowed.



So you haven't been to Europe and therefore have no idea. Glad that's settled.

4th what exactly?



leftneckredwing wrote: The steering by yourself and others is at least equal .

I can't recall steering it as much as you do. You're the one always drawing comparisons between guns and swimming pools for heaven's sake!

leftneckredwing wrote: We're touchy and downright bitchy about our rights.

I have noticed. But if you were interested in what was best for your country you would at least entertain thoughts about change. You won't even do that because "its in the constitution" and therefore, in your mind, cemented in stone and for the good of everyone.


leftneckredwing wrote: So my guess is you like to guess. But aren't that good at it.

What on Earth are you banging on about?

The 4th Infantry.

Once you said I did not answer a post of yours for a week and then I showed that my answer was time stamped the same day, within an hour I believe.

I have never compared weapons to swimming pools.

I'm bangin on about the imagination you shared with us when you imagined I had never been outside the CONUS.

So now I hope we have that out of the way, as I did respond to the original post in the thread.

And how do you propose to know what is best for my country? You don't. And If you care so much why don't you show up here and change it for us. After all you must know best. I read it on the internet.

[Onevote]

leftneckredwing wrote: whatnotwho wrote: Do you think the 2nd amendment would be written differently if created today? The weapons available at the time were crude one shot black powder flintlocks.

There were cannons. Single shot yes, but most cannons are.

There's far too many what ifs in that scenario to contemplate with hope of coming to the conclusion of whether it would be or not.

Since we are talking about the 2nd, are we also allowed to include in the scenario, the same men with the same intellect or the simpletons of washington today that have not the courage to engage in what the men of yesterday did. That is to say put their own asses on the line. Because I am 100% positive they would not.

When the War of Independence was fought, Staten Island had the highest standard of living in the world. Much of the rest of America was similar. And the English thought they were responsible for that. Why would men of such wealth choose to go to war when all they had including their very lives, was put at risk?

I dare say if what passes in washington today for statesmen wrote the Constitution, it would not include any rights whatsoever. It would be a series of non sequitirs that would read like bylaws against any kind of Freedom. It would more likely be a vague and nondescript passage defining government and especially presidential powers as whatever might be called for in the next five minutes to be decided at that time.

Free speech would be confined to free speech zones. The only right one would have is the right to say something one sees on a bumper sticker. Vague homilies with little or no meaning that would be in favor of perpetual war. Weapons for those engaged and none for those not engaged.

This is not a government that sees freedom as a necessity but as a burden for them to bear.

I'm not sure they could even string that many sentences together without the aid of a ghost writer or an English major. :tu: It couldn't be put better. And is the best evidence of why the framers wrote the 2ND the way they did. Because they knew, those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it. And we are!

[leftneckredwing]

Onevote wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: whatnotwho wrote: Do you think the 2nd amendment would be written differently if created today? The weapons available at the time were crude one shot black powder flintlocks.

There were cannons. Single shot yes, but most cannons are.

There's far too many what ifs in that scenario to contemplate with hope of coming to the conclusion of whether it would be or not.

Since we are talking about the 2nd, are we also allowed to include in the scenario, the same men with the same intellect or the simpletons of washington today that have not the courage to engage in what the men of yesterday did. That is to say put their own asses on the line. Because I am 100% positive they would not.

When the War of Independence was fought, Staten Island had the highest standard of living in the world. Much of the rest of America was similar. And the English thought they were responsible for that. Why would men of such wealth choose to go to war when all they had including their very lives, was put at risk?

I dare say if what passes in washington today for statesmen wrote the Constitution, it would not include any rights whatsoever. It would be a series of non sequitirs that would read like bylaws against any kind of Freedom. It would more likely be a vague and nondescript passage defining government and especially presidential powers as whatever might be called for in the next five minutes to be decided at that time.

Free speech would be confined to free speech zones. The only right one would have is the right to say something one sees on a bumper sticker. Vague homilies with little or no meaning that would be in favor of perpetual war. Weapons for those engaged and none for those not engaged.

This is not a government that sees freedom as a necessity but as a burden for them to bear.

I'm not sure they could even string that many sentences together without the aid of a ghost writer or an English major. :tu: It couldn't be put better. And is the best evidence of why the framers wrote the 2ND the way they did. Because they knew, those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it. And we are!

Thank you most kindly OneVote.

The only change I would make is to put the 2nd at the top and clearly specify that those rights do include military weapons.

As the first post said, weapons were pretty much the same from one to the next in terms of small arms, with the exception being cannons.

We have something very special, and the proof is the efforts by many to strip it from us.

[Lucky Luke]

Onevote wrote:

One that knows what reality is and isn't.

I don't take advice from drug users who called themselves law abiding citizens. Do you buy your stuff with your gun in hand Onevote?

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

Rhoades wrote:
Cameras on every street corner, trackers in your cars. Sounds like real freedom right there! So your basically saying that because (you would like to believe) the government isn't, or won't repress you, guns are never needed? Are you ignorant of history? Just think what would have happened if people were allowed to own guns in Nazi Germany. How much more convinient would it be for a Dictator to take over a country in which the citizens are not allowed to own guns?

Ignoring history would be to claim that the Nazi party introduced stricter gun control laws upon the German people when the contrary happened:

Quote: The Nazis actually liberalized the gun laws of the Weimar Republic with the Reichswaffengesetz in 1938, but prohibited possession of weapons by Jews shortly thereafter.
http://www.answers.com/topic/gun-politics

Gun control laws are tools to stop dictators getting to power a gun in hand. Most dictators in fact took power backed by an armed militia.

:-D
:-D

[Blinky]

leftneckredwing wrote: Blinky wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: I have been to Asia, even tried to go to Aus, but the 4th was not allowed.



So you haven't been to Europe and therefore have no idea. Glad that's settled.

4th what exactly?



leftneckredwing wrote: The steering by yourself and others is at least equal .

I can't recall steering it as much as you do. You're the one always drawing comparisons between guns and swimming pools for heaven's sake!

leftneckredwing wrote: We're touchy and downright bitchy about our rights.

I have noticed. But if you were interested in what was best for your country you would at least entertain thoughts about change. You won't even do that because "its in the constitution" and therefore, in your mind, cemented in stone and for the good of everyone.


leftneckredwing wrote: So my guess is you like to guess. But aren't that good at it.

What on Earth are you banging on about?

The 4th Infantry.

Once you said I did not answer a post of yours for a week and then I showed that my answer was time stamped the same day, within an hour I believe.

I have never compared weapons to swimming pools.

I'm bangin on about the imagination you shared with us when you imagined I had never been outside the CONUS.

So now I hope we have that out of the way, as I did respond to the original post in the thread.

And how do you propose to know what is best for my country? You don't. And If you care so much why don't you show up here and change it for us. After all you must know best. I read it on the internet.

LNRW, for your own sake and credibility don't start with that thing about not responding for a week and then proving me wrong. I made the last post in that thread between the two of us demonstrating undeniably that you did not answer the question I posed to you. I then left two follow up posts asking if you intended to answer them or not and got no reply.
So if I were you, I would brush that one back under the carpet, as you did the first time.

[Onevote]

Lucky Luke wrote: Onevote wrote:

One that knows what reality is and isn't.

I don't take advice from drug users who called themselves law abiding citizens. Do you buy your stuff with your gun in hand Onevote?

:-D
:-D Reading comprehension my friend. Go back and reread the posts. Then you can decide if you want to ask such a dumb question again! In this Country I can go right now and buy, pot,coke,meth,steroids Etc. in a less that an hour. It takes three days to get a gun here.

Just because I could get the stuff doesn't mean I do.

[TNBiologist]

Lucky Luke wrote: TNBiologist wrote: ATrow wrote: Rhoades wrote: britboy wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: You may mever have to save a life either, but should that prevent you from learning CPR?

It's fact that a certain percentage of people will require the use of someone who has been trained for CPR, within our nation. That is the difference.
What makes you think its different with Guns? If Guns were outlawed, criminals would have guns anyway, because they're criminals, leaving the law abiding citizens defenseless. Thats real good logic right there!

It's the difference between a total ban and having them available at home. In England the knives aren't banned, they are just not allowed on the streets. you can still get your hands on them. If guns were outlawed, it would be very hard to get your hands on them.

Do a little research on that. Compair it to drugs, cocaine is outlawed in the US, not easy to make at home but if I want some I can find it.

What kind of law abiding citizen would make such a comment?

:-D
:-D

One that watches the news, is making a point and has some friends get involved in the stuff. Don't use it personally but it can still be found even though outlawed.

[leftneckredwing]

Blinky wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: Blinky wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: I have been to Asia, even tried to go to Aus, but the 4th was not allowed.



So you haven't been to Europe and therefore have no idea. Glad that's settled.

4th what exactly?



leftneckredwing wrote: The steering by yourself and others is at least equal .

I can't recall steering it as much as you do. You're the one always drawing comparisons between guns and swimming pools for heaven's sake!

leftneckredwing wrote: We're touchy and downright bitchy about our rights.

I have noticed. But if you were interested in what was best for your country you would at least entertain thoughts about change. You won't even do that because "its in the constitution" and therefore, in your mind, cemented in stone and for the good of everyone.


leftneckredwing wrote: So my guess is you like to guess. But aren't that good at it.

What on Earth are you banging on about?

The 4th Infantry.

Once you said I did not answer a post of yours for a week and then I showed that my answer was time stamped the same day, within an hour I believe.

I have never compared weapons to swimming pools.

I'm bangin on about the imagination you shared with us when you imagined I had never been outside the CONUS.

So now I hope we have that out of the way, as I did respond to the original post in the thread.

And how do you propose to know what is best for my country? You don't. And If you care so much why don't you show up here and change it for us. After all you must know best. I read it on the internet.

LNRW, for your own sake and credibility don't start with that thing about not responding for a week and then proving me wrong. I made the last post in that thread between the two of us demonstrating undeniably that you did not answer the question I posed to you. I then left two follow up posts asking if you intended to answer them or not and got no reply.
So if I were you, I would brush that one back under the carpet, as you did the first time.

I wouldn't be too fast with accusations about carpet brushing techniques:

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=56674&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40

I have done the homework you should have done if you are offering some sort of lesson. There's the post in which I copied the timestamp to and if you have a case, then I will await your proof that I never did answer. it's the 5th post from the bottom. And the page will also provide you with further proof.

So put up or shut up. Provide the links and if you can prove I never answered, then it won't be hard to prove. We can go over the thread post by post and if it's missing it's not much detective work to prove or disprove. And you won't have to prove a neagtive. It is either there or it's not. Just link the thread and we'll drag it all out again. Or take your own medicine like a man, as you suggested that I do.

I did deal directly with the original post in this thread and yet you are still 'banging on' about a subject you were disproven on long ago.

So do you still wish to toss more dirt from your new hole or will you do as you directed me not to?

I have responded to the thread topic and I have provided proof your old claim is also incorrect.

[TNBiologist]

ATrow wrote: TNBiologist wrote: ATrow wrote: Rhoades wrote: britboy wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: You may mever have to save a life either, but should that prevent you from learning CPR?

It's fact that a certain percentage of people will require the use of someone who has been trained for CPR, within our nation. That is the difference.
What makes you think its different with Guns? If Guns were outlawed, criminals would have guns anyway, because they're criminals, leaving the law abiding citizens defenseless. Thats real good logic right there!

It's the difference between a total ban and having them available at home. In England the knives aren't banned, they are just not allowed on the streets. you can still get your hands on them. If guns were outlawed, it would be very hard to get your hands on them.

Do a little research on that. Compair it to drugs, cocaine is outlawed in the US, not easy to make at home but if I want some I can find it.

Ah yes. But it is a little harder to smuggle this:

than this:

Except that cocaine (like most illegal drugs) is smuggled in to the country in large quanities not a few onces at a time.

Also look at the the people smuggling that takes place on teh southern border. A person is a lot larger than a gun yet truckloads of them are smuggled in. Those people then make it to all parts of the country.

[ATrow]

TNBiologist wrote: Except that cocaine (like most illegal drugs) is smuggled in to the country in large quanities not a few ounces at a time.

Also look at the the people smuggling that takes place on teh southern border. A person is a lot larger than a gun yet truckloads of them are smuggled in. Those people then make it to all parts of the country.

Right you are. There is however a difference between smuggling it into the country and selling it. Try and sell a rifle on the street clandestinely. It's pretty hard!

It probably won't be too long before people start questioning why certain baguettes in your shop cost $250.

[TNBiologist]

ATrow wrote: TNBiologist wrote: Except that cocaine (like most illegal drugs) is smuggled in to the country in large quanities not a few ounces at a time.

Also look at the the people smuggling that takes place on teh southern border. A person is a lot larger than a gun yet truckloads of them are smuggled in. Those people then make it to all parts of the country.

Right you are. There is however a difference between smuggling it into the country and selling it. Try and sell a rifle on the street clandestinely. It's pretty hard!

It probably won't be too long before people start questioning why certain baguettes in your shop cost $250.

And you don't think people sell rifles or shotguns on the street now? That is just naive. It would be the same as selling large quantities of drugs out of your house. Would you get caught? Probably but then someone else just opens up shop. America has outlawed alcohol beofre and it was still transported/sold in large quantities. America has outlawed drugs and they are still transported/sold in large quantities.

[ATrow]

TNBiologist wrote: ATrow wrote: TNBiologist wrote: Except that cocaine (like most illegal drugs) is smuggled in to the country in large quanities not a few ounces at a time.

Also look at the the people smuggling that takes place on teh southern border. A person is a lot larger than a gun yet truckloads of them are smuggled in. Those people then make it to all parts of the country.

Right you are. There is however a difference between smuggling it into the country and selling it. Try and sell a rifle on the street clandestinely. It's pretty hard!

It probably won't be too long before people start questioning why certain baguettes in your shop cost $250.

And you don't think people sell rifles or shotguns on the street now? That is just naive. It would be the same as selling large quantities of drugs out of your house. Would you get caught? Probably but then someone else just opens up shop. America has outlawed alcohol beofre and it was still transported/sold in large quantities. America has outlawed drugs and they are still transported/sold in large quantities.

No. I know sale of illegal weapons occurs. But it would be much harder to do than in it is today. Prices of guns would rise which would make them less accessible to those who wanted to obtain them.

Alcohol is completely different than guns. Alcohol has been in use for thousands of years, and is consumed by more than half the US population on a regular basis. Of course it failed! Guns on the other hand are used for recreation by a smaller (if still large) portion of Americans. Also there are substitutes for guns in most purposes.

[Blinky]

leftneckredwing wrote: Blinky wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: Blinky wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: I have been to Asia, even tried to go to Aus, but the 4th was not allowed.



So you haven't been to Europe and therefore have no idea. Glad that's settled.

4th what exactly?



leftneckredwing wrote: The steering by yourself and others is at least equal .

I can't recall steering it as much as you do. You're the one always drawing comparisons between guns and swimming pools for heaven's sake!

leftneckredwing wrote: We're touchy and downright bitchy about our rights.

I have noticed. But if you were interested in what was best for your country you would at least entertain thoughts about change. You won't even do that because "its in the constitution" and therefore, in your mind, cemented in stone and for the good of everyone.


leftneckredwing wrote: So my guess is you like to guess. But aren't that good at it.

What on Earth are you banging on about?

The 4th Infantry.

Once you said I did not answer a post of yours for a week and then I showed that my answer was time stamped the same day, within an hour I believe.

I have never compared weapons to swimming pools.

I'm bangin on about the imagination you shared with us when you imagined I had never been outside the CONUS.

So now I hope we have that out of the way, as I did respond to the original post in the thread.

And how do you propose to know what is best for my country? You don't. And If you care so much why don't you show up here and change it for us. After all you must know best. I read it on the internet.

LNRW, for your own sake and credibility don't start with that thing about not responding for a week and then proving me wrong. I made the last post in that thread between the two of us demonstrating undeniably that you did not answer the question I posed to you. I then left two follow up posts asking if you intended to answer them or not and got no reply.
So if I were you, I would brush that one back under the carpet, as you did the first time.

I wouldn't be too fast with accusations about carpet brushing techniques:

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=56674&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40

I have done the homework you should have done if you are offering some sort of lesson. There's the post in which I copied the timestamp to and if you have a case, then I will await your proof that I never did answer. it's the 5th post from the bottom. And the page will also provide you with further proof.

So put up or shut up. Provide the links and if you can prove I never answered, then it won't be hard to prove. We can go over the thread post by post and if it's missing it's not much detective work to prove or disprove. And you won't have to prove a neagtive. It is either there or it's not. Just link the thread and we'll drag it all out again. Or take your own medicine like a man, as you suggested that I do.

I did deal directly with the original post in this thread and yet you are still 'banging on' about a subject you were disproven on long ago.

So do you still wish to toss more dirt from your new hole or will you do as you directed me not to?

I have responded to the thread topic and I have provided proof your old claim is also incorrect.



Well done, sherlock - you provided a link to the wrong thread! :rotf:

Here is a blow by blow account of what we each said - unedited and in full:

Thread: "ADVICE WANTED"

May 28th
blinky wrote: I'll address this post once you reply to the one I made that was intended for you :

Quote: You misunderstand. I am not set to benefit in terms of gaining "power" (a term you never defined), but I believe fewer guns in the civilian population will create a safer society. I aim to bring my children up in such a society. And provided I remain in Australia, I will.
Are you going to argue that all laws are not backed up by guns, or will I consider your reluctance to mean that you agree?


May 28th
LNRW wrote: I already did.

May 28th
blinky wrote: Where?


May 30th
blinky wrote: Still waiting, leftneckredwing. Surely 2 days is long enough for you to review 1 page of posts and highlight where you answered a question.

June 4th
blinky wrote: Still waiting...
6 days now.


June 5th
LNRW wrote: LNRW wrote: It was a lie, yes.

The banning of weapons did nothing to eliminate murders and sucides.


For the same period, despite the declines related to firearms, overall suicide and homicide rates in Victoria did not show a similar decline.


So banning guns did what to overall suicide and homicide? Nothing you say?
Read the damn thread.

June 5th
blinky wrote: How about you read it.
You didn't answer the question I was referring to.
You know what, I'll make it real easy for ya sport:

I'll address this post once you reply to the one I made that was intended for you :

Quote: You misunderstand. I am not set to benefit in terms of gaining "power" (a term you never defined), but I believe fewer guns in the civilian population will create a safer society. I aim to bring my children up in such a society. And provided I remain in Australia, I will.
Are you going to argue that all laws are not backed up by guns, or will I consider your reluctance to mean that you agree?

You said that you did answer.

At which point I asked "Where?"

And you didn't say boo for SEVEN days. How come LNRW?

June 5th: You send me a link which leads to this post:
LNRW wrote: blinky wrote: I see you've opted to go down the "witty observations" path. That's cool.
I provide reasons why I'm not set to personally benefit, and how it would be impossible for me to do so, then I preface a question with an undeniable fact, and you STILL walked right into it...unbelievable.

I walked into it? Tell me all about it, Ellsworth. Altruists always use that line:

Quote: I'm not set to personally benefit


Which begs the question, Why then?

I don't benefit from the laws you would force on me, so why are you so opposed to me being able to arm myself? If you gain nothing, what is your purpose?

It is power.

What is unbelievable is how altruists always say 'It's not for me'. But it is to come from us and go to others.

Always the same tripe and always the same result. You gain power and we lose Freedom.



At this point the "debate" continued on another thread, because you had to bring it up. Here's how it went down:


Thread: "THE TROUBLE WITH GUN CONTROL"


June 23rd - you come in defending another struggling gun-nut from my questions - I hadn't even been talking to you:
LNRW wrote: You're just trying to pull the same crap you always do. You make a false claim that you were not responded to, like you did with me when you claimed I didn't answer your post for 7 days. Then I showed you the link where I answered you within 1 day or less, but for some reason you couldn't find it.

June 23rd
blinky wrote: I was prepared to let it slide, but if You really want to go into this LNRW, I will. The question you were asked was :
"You misunderstand. I am not set to benefit in terms of gaining "power" (a term you never defined), but I believe fewer guns in the civilian population will create a safer society. I aim to bring my children up in such a society. And provided I remain in Australia, I will.
Are you going to argue that all laws are not backed up by guns, or will I consider your reluctance to mean that you agree?"

You didn't say anything for 7 days - look at the dates on the thread. It is not a number I pulled out of thin air LNRW - you refused to show me where you had answered the above question for seven days. When you finally did post a response this is what you cut and paste:


LNRW wrote: It was a lie, yes.

The banning of weapons did nothing to eliminate murders and sucides.


For the same period, despite the declines related to firearms, overall suicide and homicide rates in Victoria did not show a similar decline.



So banning guns did what to overall suicide and homicide? Nothing you say?



Read the damn thread



To which I replied:



blinky wrote: How about you read it.
You didn't answer the question I was referring to.
You know what, I'll make it real easy for ya sport:

I'll address this post once you reply to the one I made that was intended for you :

You misunderstand. I am not set to benefit in terms of gaining "power" (a term you never defined), but I believe fewer guns in the civilian population will create a safer society. I aim to bring my children up in such a society. And provided I remain in Australia, I will.
Are you going to argue that all laws are not backed up by guns, or will I consider your reluctance to mean that you agree?

You said that you did answer.

At which point I asked "Where?"

And you didn't say boo for SEVEN days. How come LNRW?



So I had asked you the question a further two times by this point.

You then posted a link to a post you made BEFORE I even asked the above question!!!!!!!!!!!

(http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1380375&highl i ght=ellsworth#1380375)



Are you really honestly trying to claim that I tried to pull crap LNRW? You are either chronically confused or completely illiterate. Take your pick.



June 24th
blinky wrote: LNRW, Let's not have a repeat of last time where you took a full week to post a reply

June 26th
blinky wrote: This is ridiculous LNRW.
Why don't you just deny that a mistake was made on your part (and show how) or admit you were hasty with your aggressive reply?
I just want some closure... :cry:




Well, thats the story LNRW. Notice how you have still to this day not elected either the "chronically confused" or "Completely Illiterate" options available to you in my third last post. Is that because it is both?
This has taken me a considerable time to put together, so I hope you appreciate the effort. I hope also you have indeed learned your lesson.

Accepting your apology in advance,
Blinky.

[Lucky Luke]

Onevote wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Onevote wrote:

One that knows what reality is and isn't.

I don't take advice from drug users who called themselves law abiding citizens. Do you buy your stuff with your gun in hand Onevote?

:-D
:-D Reading comprehension my friend. Go back and reread the posts. Then you can decide if you want to ask such a dumb question again! In this Country I can go right now and buy, pot,coke,meth,steroids Etc. in a less that an hour. It takes three days to get a gun here.

Just because I could get the stuff doesn't mean I do.

I went back and read your post:

Onevote wrote: Kinda like drugs! Hard to get.

There is only one way to find out if one likes drugs.

Do you buy this stuff you like with your gun in hand Onevote?
:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

TNBiologist wrote:

And you don't think people sell rifles or shotguns on the street now? That is just naive. It would be the same as selling large quantities of drugs out of your house. Would you get caught? Probably but then someone else just opens up shop. America has outlawed alcohol beofre and it was still transported/sold in large quantities. America has outlawed drugs and they are still transported/sold in large quantities.

Drugs and alcohol are not only consumable but also highly addictive, rifles and shotguns are neither making your point at best silly.

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

Blinky wrote:

Well, thats the story LNRW. Notice how you have still to this day not elected either the "chronically confused" or "Completely Illiterate" options available to you in my third last post. Is that because it is both?
This has taken me a considerable time to put together, so I hope you appreciate the effort. I hope also you have indeed learned your lesson.

Accepting your apology in advance,
Blinky.

I wish you good luck it took me a week to get a simple answer from him and I had to open a thread just to get it, never mind it was worthwhile:



http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=49717&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

:-D
:-D

[perdidochas]

ATrow wrote: TNBiologist wrote: Except that cocaine (like most illegal drugs) is smuggled in to the country in large quanities not a few ounces at a time.

Also look at the the people smuggling that takes place on teh southern border. A person is a lot larger than a gun yet truckloads of them are smuggled in. Those people then make it to all parts of the country.

Right you are. There is however a difference between smuggling it into the country and selling it. Try and sell a rifle on the street clandestinely. It's pretty hard!

It's not too hard to sell a handgun on the streets. I've never done it, but I can't imagine it would be all that hard. Stolen TVs and stereos get sold all the time.

Also, in terms of guns, it is comparatively simple to make a crude gun, and not that hard to make a submachine gun/assault rifle. Anybody with access to a machine shop should be able to make one in a matter of hours. I've read that in Pakistan, village blacksmiths can produce AK-47 imitations fairly easily.

[Onevote]

Lucky Luke wrote: Onevote wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Onevote wrote:

One that knows what reality is and isn't.

I don't take advice from drug users who called themselves law abiding citizens. Do you buy your stuff with your gun in hand Onevote?

:-D
:-D Reading comprehension my friend. Go back and reread the posts. Then you can decide if you want to ask such a dumb question again! In this Country I can go right now and buy, pot,coke,meth,steroids Etc. in a less that an hour. It takes three days to get a gun here.

Just because I could get the stuff doesn't mean I do.

I went back and read your post:

Onevote wrote: Kinda like drugs! Hard to get.

There is only one way to find out if one likes drugs.

Do you buy this stuff you like with your gun in hand Onevote?
:-D
:-D :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: You reread it , and still can't conprehend what you read! Good lord! what do they teach in school over there?

Let me make this as simple as I can for you. My comment was that a ban on guns ( since that was the topic) would make them " hard to get , like drugs" Meaning that drugs are very easy to get even though We have a total prohibition on things like Pot ,cocaine, heroine, steroids, Etc.

This in no way implies that I have a need to buy or consume any illegal drug to know that they are very easy to get.

What drugs are you taking that causes you to not comprehend a single sentence you read?