DescentBB

callmeslick wrote: no, but you can infer that the majority gun owners will no longer exist to aid in victimizing the population as a whole......

Infer...what a useless word as you use it. As to victimizing people, both Will and I have posted enough data that shows quite the opposite is true. The real problem slick is people like you using the rhetoric you do to inhibit people from wanting to protect themselves.

and you need, or could even prove the examples of, high-capactity, military style weapons to protect yourself? Puhlease, quit spreading that manure, it's thick enough already.

And you can explain the need to own multiple homes, expensive gas guzzling cars and eating junk food?

I'm not trying to defend any of those.....

Then stop saying how people need high cap. mag. They buy them because they want them...just like the things you own.

Woody, would you mind fixing your quote…

Done

callmeslick wrote:...

no, but you can infer that the majority gun owners will no longer exist to aid in victimizing the population as a whole......

How is it you can justify saying the 'majority of gun owners are victimizing the population as a whole'?!? That is probably the biggest pile of crap you have dumped here ever!

In the context of assault weapons the population as a whole dies from someone punching and kicking them to death more often than from the use of ALL rifles, assault or otherwise! High cap magazine or otherwise!
And those few that do die from rifles are the victims of NOT the majority of gun owners but of an infinitesimal fraction of the majority of gun owners.

There is a problem with crazy people getting guns, in the case in Newtown the guns were provided by the crazy persons mother even though she knew he was both crazy and obsessed with body counts of mass murderers!!
We gun owners at large are NOT that crazy kids mother!! We are nothing like her!!

Gun owners at large use guns legally well over 100,000 times per year to fight off crazy and otherwise murderous criminals. THAT is what the majority of gun owners do! We shoot and kill criminals legally and justifiably at a 2:3 ratio compared to the police! That is what the majority of gun owners do!

You are a wealthy man. Occasionally wealthy men hire murderers to kill their wives, business partners, competitors, etc. or do it themselves. Probably about as often as people are killed with assault rifles.
Perhaps you should be relieved of your fortune so you can't find it necessary to kill your wife.... We need to be protected from victimization by you wealthy murderous bastards!


You are a despicable person for disparaging all of us in order to fabricate a scenario that supports your otherwise twisted rhetoric.

sorry, Will, if you don't like it, but anyone blindly fighting commonsense stuff such as: background checks on ALL purchases, reasonable limits on magazine size and incorporating mental health into background checks is purposely setting ALL of their fellow citizens up for violence. No ifs, ands or buts. Further, the deeper you folks get into stuff like 'of course gun owners will lie on surveys' and some of the goofy stuff you wrote, Will, about the incidence of people paying for murdering their spouses(thought never crossed my mind, but thanks for the gratuitious insult), the more I tend to wonder how many gun owners really ARE responsible, adult citizens. And, if I am wondering, I'll bet I'm not alone, and once Bloomberg's group starts pumping money to challenge the NRA nationwide, it will be just fascinating to see how fast the population as a whole turns on the whole matter of gun 'rights', as they've been assumed of late. I bet we might just return, as a nation, to the concept of 'right to bear arms' that was in place up until the 1980's.....

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-1 ... -macs.html

kind blows that inconvenience argument, huh? Best line in the article? The part about how the NRA opposes efforts to retrieve guns from the possession of felons or mentally ill people who have them at present. Really? And, you all wonder why some of us are really starting to wonder about the NRA position and those of you who blindly support them?

callmeslick wrote:sorry, Will, if you don't like it, but anyone blindly fighting commonsense stuff such as: background checks on ALL purchases, reasonable limits on magazine size and incorporating mental health into background checks is purposely setting ALL of their fellow citizens up for violence.

Anyone who supports the recently proposed weapons legislation was supporting far more intrusive infringements on gun owners rights than the things you listed. So maybe you should look at your own disingenuous rhetoric and that of your ideological partner/representatives. Focus on their dishonest attempts to sneak through legislation that goes too far, doesn't specify the details and instead creates a carte blanche form that can be used to effectively fill-in-the-blank and-ban ANY weapon they decide to after the fact! An end result goal that they often articulate at their fund raisers and political pep rallies.

I think those are the ones who have set up reasonable legislation for failure.
You can't be trusted slick. You and people like you are setting us up according to your logic.

callmeslick wrote:Will, about the incidence of people paying for murdering their spouses(thought never crossed my mind, but thanks for the gratuitious insult), the more I tend to wonder how many gun owners really ARE responsible, adult citizens.

So you can dish out the outrageous accusations and ridiculous hyperbole but you are insulted when it is applied back at you? Too bad slick.

callmeslick wrote:And, if I am wondering, I'll bet I'm not alone, and once Bloomberg's group starts pumping money to challenge the NRA nationwide, it will be just fascinating to see how fast the population as a whole turns on the whole matter of gun 'rights', as they've been assumed of late. I bet we might just return, as a nation, to the concept of 'right to bear arms' that was in place up until the 1980's.....

Go for it, send them lots of money and keep on turning that heat up....higher the better.

Will Robinson wrote: Go for it, send them lots of money and keep on turning that heat up....higher the better

Will do, whenever asked. Lots of it. This isn't like an election with a limit per candidate, this is a PAC!

callmeslick wrote:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-1 ... -macs.html

kind blows that inconvenience argument, huh? Best line in the article? The part about how the NRA opposes efforts to retrieve guns from the possession of felons or mentally ill people who have them at present. Really? And, you all wonder why some of us are really starting to wonder about the NRA position and those of you who blindly support them?

Too bad you didn't read all of your link:

"NRA supports background checks on retail sales to ensure criminals and the mentally ill with violent tendencies do not have access to firearms. The Thompson-Speier bill, which would fund programs such as California's Armed Prohibited Persons System, does not do this," the group wrote Tuesday in an email. "That program depends on the existence of a state gun registration scheme that most states have wisely chosen not to copy."

So you see Camelsdick, the NRA opposition is really one of preventing a database of all gun owners, not opposing the prevention of the mentally ill from buying firearms. As to felons owning firearms:

"An Orleans Parish judge has ruled that the state law banning felons from owning firearms is unconstitutional, based on a state constitutional amendment ensuring an absolute right to bear arms in Louisiana"

And now lets take a look at your inconvenience argument. Funny when we were in the voting cycle a big deal was made by your side how "inconvenient" it was to go down to the local DMV and get a picture ID. Nice try though.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: Go for it, send them lots of money and keep on turning that heat up....higher the better

Will do, whenever asked. Lots of it. This isn't like an election with a limit per candidate, this is a PAC!

And the NRA has said it will match what Bloomburg pays out. Nov. 2014 ought to be a interesting time.

sure will, especially given NRA's failure rate of over 90% in the last three election cycles. Oh, and I note that NRA support for mental health checks on 'retail' sales....conveniently leaving gun shows and private sales as open avenues. Sorry, but this crap ain't cutting it anymore. As I said above, the demographics are changing. I can see BIG changes coming, and some of you all aren't going to like it. It might well be that you look back upon the deal offered as a common-sense set of proposals in 2012/2013 as something you should have latched onto......

callmeslick wrote:sure will, especially given NRA's failure rate of over 90% in the last three election cycles. .....

So the NRA is 90% ineffective but Bloomburg is going to spend millions of dollars to try and counter their ineffectiveness ...ok....

Now go write him that big check, certainly a man of your wealth won't be stopping at 4 figures since you were so gleeful that PACs don't have the same limits as candidates or Party....

right you are....in fact my dad and I discussed this yesterday, and we are not going to stop at 4 figures...

/me wonders if slick is cutting the same type of checks to the government above and beyond his taxes to help pay down the debt

callmeslick wrote:right you are....in fact my dad and I discussed this yesterday, and we are not going to stop at 4 figures...

Good! I wouldn't want you to feel guilty of mentioning it just as way to brag and not really write the check.

You should call your dad and ask him how he feels about hitting 6 figures! After all you aren't really giving of yourself unless you feel it!

CUDA wrote:/me wonders if slick is cutting the same type of checks to the government above and beyond his taxes to help pay down the debt

no, I'm not.....why should I pay down the debt single-handedly? At any rate, if you and your fellow Luddites ever got out of the way, and let Obama put together a long-term growth plan, the debt would go down organically.
Anyhow, we give to causes that we deem deserve our money, including political as well as environmental. Most of the money goes to fund Chesapeake Bay cleanup, food banks and health charities, but political cash this year is being split between gun control PACs and separation of Church and State efforts.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:right you are....in fact my dad and I discussed this yesterday, and we are not going to stop at 4 figures...

Good! I wouldn't want you to feel guilty of mentioning it just as way to brag and not really write the check.

actually, you're the nitwit who asked for specifics......

You should call your dad and ask him how he feels about hitting 6 figures! After all you aren't really giving of yourself unless you feel it!

if you think 6 figures would really be 'felt', you don't know me.....which, of course, is obvious.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:right you are....in fact my dad and I discussed this yesterday, and we are not going to stop at 4 figures...

Good! I wouldn't want you to feel guilty of mentioning it just as way to brag and not really write the check.

actually, you're the nitwit who asked for specifics......

You should call your dad and ask him how he feels about hitting 6 figures! After all you aren't really giving of yourself unless you feel it!

if you think 6 figures would really be 'felt', you don't know me.....which, of course, is obvious.

Well then you need to put your money where your mouth is don't you?! Let us read all about your multi million dollar donation in the newspaper!

And I didn't 'ask for specifics' but apparently I hit a nerve!

I didn't say we planned a 7 figure donation, now did I.......nor, did I ever suggest that our trust publicizes much of anything, although I suppose a thorough search of donors and board memberships might shed a bit of light. You were the one however who mentioned '4 figures' and other numbers. I merely stated that I planned to support the effort financially, which, could have meant sending them a twenty or something......seems like I'm not the one with a nerve struck.

callmeslick wrote:I didn't say we planned a 7 figure donation, now did I.......nor, did I ever suggest that our trust publicizes much of anything, although I suppose a thorough search of donors and board memberships might shed a bit of light. You were the one however who mentioned '4 figures' and other numbers. I merely stated that I planned to support the effort financially, which, could have meant sending them a twenty or something......seems like I'm not the one with a nerve struck.

No, you didn't merely mention support. You made a point to bring up the topic and imply a large monetary donation by informing us that the PAC allows donations above the usual campaign donation limits which means mid 4 figures at least!
You don't seem to need anyone to ask a question about your wealth to get you crowing about it. You are a predictably proud strutting rooster for sure.

I'd suggest getting back on topic, if you guys can remember what it was...

Foil wrote:I'd suggest getting back on topic, if you guys can remember what it was...

refresh my memory....

callmeslick wrote:...refresh my memory....

Before you guys started going posturing about political donations, there was some interesting talk about the NRA, specifically how much power it has, and its recent positions on mental-health checks.

ah, yes, and THAT was a divergence from the predictable chest thumping over a Senate parlimentary ruling.....at any rate, I will return to my point, then. The NRA has been failing of late, because, as the data on that survey that Woodchip denigrated showed, gun ownership is quite largely the provenence of white males, an electoral bloc in steady decline. Thus, I am pretty confident that the gun totin' status quo, over the next decade or two, is going to change as surely as the anti-gay-marriage status quo changed, to cite one similar example.......

Failing if late? With the Assault weapon ban being defeated even bore it got voted on and especially with the aftermath of Sandy Hook, The NRA hardly looks like it failed. What really failed was from Obama on down blatantly using a tragedy to promote a political agenda. Feinstein purpose kept assault weapons ban bill just sitting in her drawer for the right crisis to come along shows how really uncaring she and the rest of you loon liberals really are.

And while the subject matter was brought up slick, I will just add this. I've been posting here since the mid ninety's. In all that time I can't remember one poster who went on about how rich and well connected they were. You OTOH slick, seem to revel in it. Are we supposed to be impressed and thus weigh your comments with extra credence? When I went off on bird shooting trips to Uruguay, Argentina, Nicaragua and Mexico I didn't make a post about it like somehow I was important by doing so. Nor do I interject into posts the multimillionaires I know (which is more than a few). I like to think, as do the bulk of the posters here, that status in R/L is not important when we post, rather the content (or lack of ) is what counts.

more data to chew on, this time around background checks.....
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-ce ... aseID=1871

I'm a poor Georgia boy, but it is my understanding that to talk about ones assets and finances is considered uncouth and crude among the very rich. Maybe Slick didn't learn no manners :p.

love how the focus shifts to me when the subject matter at hand can't be argued.....

more self defense with assault weapons....
http://blog.thenewstribune.com/crime/20 ... esidences/

isn't this heartening!

callmeslick wrote:more self defense with assault weapons....
http://blog.thenewstribune.com/crime/20 ... esidences/

isn't this heartening!

For one thing, where is the self defense component to the story? Sounds like a crazy person to me.

The second thing, I'll bet if the cops went in there and took away his assault rifle and any thing greater than ten round magazines and then left him there it wouldn't make his neighbors feel any safer.
If Diane Feinstein had her bill passed last year and this guy had long ago turned in the assault rifle and magazines over ten rounds his neighbors wouldn't be any safer either.

So what exactly are you really trying to imply?

It seems to me for law enforcement, or legislation, to effect a positive change on the problem you are presenting they need to deal with the person, not his hardware choice!
Now, if on the other hand, all you seek is to create some rhetorical fodder for the dumbmasses....well then I guess you keep should just keep on shoveling there and-that's-why-they-call-you-slick

Will Robinson wrote:For one thing, where is the self defense component to the story? Sounds like a crazy person to me.

there wasn't....I was being sarcastic.

The second thing, I'll bet if the cops went in there and took away his assault rifle and any thing greater than ten round magazines and then left him there it wouldn't make his neighbors feel any safer.

I'd disagree.....he might be annoying, but a bit less deadly.

If Diane Feinstein had her bill passed last year and this guy had long ago turned in the assault rifle and magazines over ten rounds his neighbors wouldn't be any safer either.

if things were done properly, this clown wouldn't have ever GOTTEN weapons in the first place. But, it shows the downside of the attitude that everyone should be able to buy weapons without that nasty, intrusive government looking into backgrounds and other details.

So what exactly are you really trying to imply?

that we've allowed ourselves to be a society that tolerates loons loose with guns all for the feeble excuse that high-powered gun possession is some sort of sacred right that shouldn't be regulated or questioned.

Slick are you really that unable to read and process the content of the link you posted and understand that

a) he had other weapons that are not covered by an assault weapon ban and

b) there is nothing in that link to indicate he wouldn't have been able to buy those other weapons when he did even with your proposed legislation in place?

Or is this another case of you ignoring reality and demanding we accept your false premise?

I don’t know…that story sounds more like one of the very reasons people should be armed.

Here slick, let me give a link to the opposite side:

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

good example.....both citizens involved were able to fend off intruders without an assault rifle present or necessary. Thank you, woodchip, for illustrating one of my core points!!

callmeslick wrote:good example.....both citizens involved were able to fend off intruders without an assault rifle present or necessary. Thank you, woodchip, for illustrating one of my core points!!

I remember telling you there are examples of people using assault rifles to stop armed attackers.
You said they didn't exist.
I proved that they do exist.
You dodged the response.

So, yes, you have a 'core point'. But it is useless since it is built on a disingenuous foundation.
Once again you ignore reality and make assertions that are not true.
Why do you want to be so wrong?