Originally Posted by JB3

If he were my son, id have to seriously rethink my choices in life. Id have to ask myself how my progeny got to retirement age without learning how to critically think.

as for the rest of your post, I couldn't have said it better myself. I guess statistical data showing some interesting facts is definitely a challenge to a belief system, but it sure isn't mine.

You have already posted you would like to run everyone though a brain scan and isolate all the undesirables. That strikes you as a reasonable idea? You don't see anything wrong with that complete assault on individual freedom?

Of the two of us, im the conservative. I think individual rights should be protected a little better than that.

Originally Posted by JB3

The irony here is that we all agree that seatbelts make sense, and its law everywhere in this country that they must be worn in automobiles. The further irony is that no one wants to grab all the guns apart from a few zealots, the more pragmatical of us would be happier with greater training, safeguards, storage, intelligent use and understanding, and better tracking of weapon sales and ownership.

Originally Posted by Air&Road

To begin with, I read and understood EVERY WORD of what you wrote. I did NOT dispute it. I simply asked you a question TWICE.

Just so you know, when you blatantly and directly call someone single minded, you are attacking, insulting, or whatever you want to call it.

If I understand your response correctly, you ARE INDEED willing to DENY U.S. citizens the right to protect themselves while in their own home. Correct?

Originally Posted by JB3

.....the more pragmatical of us would be happier with greater training, safeguards, storage, intelligent use and understanding, and better tracking of weapon sales and ownership.

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

It's not the guns, it is the lunatics who snap and decide to kill a bunch of innocent people. Whatever their weapon of choice, they up and SNAP. Functional MRIs of the Brain have progressed light years to the point where a radiologist can easily see if the subject is a psychopath. That means they are much more prone to snapping off and causing some problems ranging from minor to major.

Awhile back, I was speaking with a friend who is a veterinarian. He told me a customer had dropped off a Pit Bull for surgery. After he performed the surgery and after the Pit Bull dog came to, the dog wouldn't allow anyone near it's cage without lunging violently at either the vet or his assistants. Multiple attempts were made to calm the dog; no joy. So, he made the decision to euthanize the Pit Bull. The vet then called the dog's owner and informed him that the dog was put down "because the dog was deemed to be a danger to public safety".

I say same thing for people, the ones that show whacko psychotic tendencies during the brain scan need to be shipped off to Alcatraz island never to be heard from again. Wouldn't it be nice to go shopping, to school, to wherever and not have to worry about running into a psychopath killer? Dirty Harry could retire........

Originally Posted by JB3

ok, after we've suspended facets of common law and the rights of the individual with our preemptive shipping off of people who meet this miraculous brain scan, whats next?

what other liberties should we suspend? after all, we've already decided that individuals have no rights to the presumption of innocence before being labeled guilty, so now its really a matter of who points a finger first, and over what issue.

You don't see the slippery slope such an idea represents?

Originally Posted by JB3

ok, after we've suspended facets of common law and the rights of the individual with our preemptive shipping off of people who meet this miraculous brain scan, whats next?

what other liberties should we suspend? after all, we've already decided that individuals have no rights to the presumption of innocence before being labeled guilty, so now its really a matter of who points a finger first, and over what issue.

You don't see the slippery slope such an idea represents?

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

At least I could walk down the street without worrying about a pit bull attack (two or four legged).

Today's fMRI brain scans are not your father's MRI. Medical science has progressed to unbelievable levels of accuracy in determining what, exactly is right and what, exactly is wrong with the patient including the ability to accurately diagnose a psychopath. Perhaps we could pump them full of Prozac or something to "calm the savage beast" or, my idea, ship them to another planet. Either way, a required fMRI is a proactive concept and would identify the nut jobs BEFORE they go postal. Why not?

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Are you proposing this as a prerequisite to gun ownership?


Pitbull is actually a very nice guy....
Pitbull - Don't Stop the Party / Feel This Moment (Live 2012 American Music Awards) - YouTube

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

I'm proposing this as a prerequisite to existing. If four legged animals are removed due to being "a threat to public safety" why not two legged animals?

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

I'm proposing this as a prerequisite to existing. If four legged animals are removed due to being "a threat to public safety" why not two legged animals?

Originally Posted by JB3

wimp words? did we really devolve to tough guy talk? Listen Larry, I may only be 4 feet tall and 800 lbs, but they don't call me bowling ball butt for nothing! you better watch your kneecaps, I bite those off first!

Taking your personality into account, and based on your endless emotional reaction to any discussion, I deem you personally unworthy of ownership of firearms, as too unbalanced to be able to think through your use of them before you blow away your wife or kid because they didn't give you your blueberry waffles with the correct syrup.
That reaction above is more likely than you defending your home. As usual, look at the links and read the article, then come back and lets discuss it.

Im willing to see some public safety laws put into effect, yes definitely. I want to see greater control of firearm sales, better restrictions on who buys them, ect ect.
Id like to see better training, better certification, ect, better storage. Ive said this all many times.

The numbers show just how useless a home defense weapon is to the nation overall. Numbers wise, if we took away all guns used in the home defense role, more people would live.
Lets try and change that, why don't we? If you desperately think you need a weapon, lets make sure you are trained properly and required to recertify repeatedly with the weapon, or you lose the right to it.
If less idiots owned guns, we wouldn't have this huge statistical imbalance of nearly 3 times as many accidental murders and other stupid nonsense.

Since you probably didn't read any of that, Ill make this paragraph short, no, I don't want to deny you the right to defend your family, I want to increase the chances that you actually do that instead of shooting yourself or me in the a$$, which is more likely by a factor of nearly 3.

Originally Posted by JB3

Personality comes across pretty clear on the internet. If your intention is to appear upset about something nearly all the time, you've done an excellent job. If that does not reflect who you really are, then maybe you should reconsider your internet image.



so whats your problem with the idea of recertification to own weapons? You are really telling me that you would have a problem going to a shooting range and demonstrating to the satisfaction of authorities that you know what you are doing? Sounds like this is exactly what you did in the military, im not sure how such ideas offend you so badly.

so where did this enter our discussion and who said I had a problem with It?Just another chance to talk down to me and prove Husky correct?

right, so because it didn't happen to you, means its not a credible problem.
My house hasn't burned down, but that doesn't make me blind to the dangers of fire.
since it hasn't not happened to me it shows the competence of this household to properly handle firearms.


see previous response, as usual, if you haven't had something happen to you, it doesn't exist.

You really try to make it look as iF I have said things that I did not say. Yes it is possible that what you suggest could happen and I might kill myself in the act of trying to defend myself. If it did I am sure that would please you very much. The difference between you and I is that I want to have the chance to defend myself while you apparently do not have the guts to give it a try if the time ever comes. I wish you the best of luck in the event you have to be in a gun fight with nothing but a twinkly in your hand. For me, however, I want my fighting chance thank you very much.

maybe. of course, nothing happened yet huh? in all those years you haven't needed that weapon for home defense.



since when has there ever been a one size fits all approach to gun control stated by me?

Since the very beginning of your implication that all people are incapable of taking care of themselves. this is the typical liberal belief that the govt must take care of the people rather than them taking personal responsibility. you seem to be the perfect example of someone afraid to take personal responsibility and has to look to the govt.

black powder is my experience, though I sold those weapons a few years ago. Ive said this before in other threads. Ive never needed or felt the need for any other weapons, despite all the ****ty areas ive lived in. Whats fear, deciding you need a weapon on you at all times to protect yourself? or not having one because you never had even the slightest need for one?

i do not carry a weapon anywhere away from my place these days, but unlike you I have no fear of taking care of myself if need be. Apparently you are afraid to deal with modern firearms and that's fine as long as you leave everyone else the right to take care of themselves.

capable of defending yourself, but statistically more likely to shoot your family.

secondly, isnt it you who constantly goes on about suspending other peoples rights, namely the rights of your fellow american citizens who happen to be gay?

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

I'm proposing this as a prerequisite to existing. If four legged animals are removed due to being "a threat to public safety" why not two legged animals?

Originally Posted by Air&Road

I have never suggested that any law abiding citizen should lose any rights. I have, however voiced disapproval and disgust regarding some people's behavior. Are you ALSO suggesting that my right to do this should ALSO be suspended along with my right to defend myself as I choose?


you think that you know all about me and you do not know $hit about me. All you know is how to regurgitate the liberal $hit that you hear and read. You should try doing a little thinking on your own.