Better communications by police could have reduced gun-sales di...

Judged:

2

2

2

ZigmunnDroid wrote:

<quoted text>
You really need to dig up some valid references.
I found several in just a few minutes.
Just because I disagree with High on this one in no way adds credibility to your insane anti 2nd Amendment claims.
Just like no one can be right about everything, no one can be wrong about everything. But man you come close.

Judged:

1

1

1

sofa_king_cool wrote:

<quoted text>I did. Post 17925. A WHO link. It was loaded with information. It had enough information to blow his crap out of the water.
I am in no way anti 2nd amendment. I support it fully. I only believe that much of the legislation that bans the sale of guns to nuts, felons and children does not violate the 2nd Amendment. So I agree with the Supreme Court on this one. Justice Antonin Scalia on this one. Would you consider him an Anti 2nd Amendment justice? I own guns, not an arsenal, but more than enough for any one guy.

sofa_king_cool wrote:

<quoted text>I did. Post 17925. A WHO link. It was loaded with information. It had enough information to blow his crap out of the water.
I am in no way anti 2nd amendment. I support it fully. I only believe that much of the legislation that bans the sale of guns to nuts, felons and children does not violate the 2nd Amendment. So I agree with the Supreme Court on this one. Justice Antonin Scalia on this one. Would you consider him an Anti 2nd Amendment justice? I own guns, not an arsenal, but more than enough for any one guy.

Judged:

4

4

4

ZigmunnDroid wrote:

<quoted text>
Slippery slope. If you allow the Gov to label certain "people" as unworthy of exercising their rights, then you allow them to also label you.
As for criminals with guns, the only people I worry about with guns are the ones that try and point them at me. And I don't worry about that to long.
As for Scalia, just because he got his "decision" right in no way
adds credibility to his "opinion" what what is regualtion vs violation.
You know as well as I that in the past, many decisons were made and opinions held that were anathema to our Bill of Rights.
It always takes a later court to right the wrongs.
As for children, I agree that they shoulod not handle firearms without adult supervision until they get to a certain maturity.

Judged:

1

1

sofa_king_cool wrote:

<quoted text>Those labeled people got their day in court. I too could be labeled. But first I'd need to be convicted of a felony, or do something nutty enough to require court interaction thus getting myself adjudicated mentally defective. Felon and mentally defective are not exactly 'labels' that are given willy nilly.

Judged:

1

1

1

sofa_king_cool wrote:

<quoted text>I've provided post numbers that include digits. I've spelled out numbers. I've provided phone numbers and addresses at least twice. Which is at least 2 more times than your little butt buddy. You know it, I know it, everyone here knows it. You're a liar just like your girlfriend.

Judged:

1

1

1

sofa_king_cool wrote:

<quoted text>Those labeled people got their day in court. I too could be labeled. But first I'd need to be convicted of a felony, or do something nutty enough to require court interaction thus getting myself adjudicated mentally defective. Felon and mentally defective are not exactly 'labels' that are given willy nilly.

Judged:

1

1

1

Antonin Scalia wrote:

<quoted text>
Since you're nuts you have to turn in your guns. Drop them off in Phoenix. You know the address.

Judged:

1

1

1

sofa_king_cool wrote:

<quoted text>I did. Post 17925. A WHO link. It was loaded with information. It had enough information to blow his crap out of the water.
I am in no way anti 2nd amendment. I support it fully. I only believe that much of the legislation that bans the sale of guns to nuts, felons and children does not violate the 2nd Amendment. So I agree with the Supreme Court on this one. Justice Antonin Scalia on this one. Would you consider him an Anti 2nd Amendment justice? I own guns, not an arsenal, but more than enough for any one guy.

Judged:

2

2

2

ZigmunnDroid wrote:

<quoted text>
Here's your slippery slope.
"APD charges 5 for gang related graffiti
ASHEVILLE – Police have charged 4 adults and one juvenile for spray painting gang graffiti on eight cars in various residential neighborhoods in South Asheville and south Buncombe County on Sept. 6.
Each offender faces nine counts of Damage to Property and one count of Conspiracy to Commit a Misdemeanor. Charged were:
&#61607; Arthur Jay Wilcox, birth date 8/26/1993, of Arden. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Statute G.S. 14-50.18, Wilcox was also charged with one count of Felony Solicit, Cause, Encourage a Minor into Criminal Gang Activity.
&#61607; Nicholas Albert Hoover, birth date 11/18/1991, of Fletcher
&#61607; Travis Leon Erik Gray, birth date 8/12/1992, of Asheville
&#61607; Stephen Antonio Byrd, birth date 9/7/1992, of Arden
&#61607; One juvenile, issued a Juvenile Petition
“The charge of Felony Solicit, Cause, Encourage a Minor into Criminal Gang Activity is especially significant,” Capt. Tim Splain said,“because this is the first time APD has used this charge to hold a validated adult gang member responsible for introducing young individuals into gang crime.”
During each vandalism incident, all five offenders were doing something to further the commission of the crimes by driving, spray painting or acting as a look out for police and witnesses.
Gang graffiti is used to mark territory, to disrespect rival gangs, create fear of the gang in the community, to issue threats, and is used as a task for prospective gang members to compete for membership".
Thank God we have gang "related" activity that allows the Gov to come up with "more" felonies.
I await your otherwordly defense of the Gov charging a 16 year old kid with a felony because he talked 17 year olds into spraying graffiti.
"and when they came for me, there was no one left to protest".

Judged:

2

2

2

GunShow wrote:

<quoted text>
You have done NOTHING of the sort, you cowardly and lying ignorant p.o.s.

Judged:

2

2

2

GunShow wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah, but you ARE labeled, you cowardly and ignorant treasonous p.o.s. And, your own words CONVICT you of the accusations leveled.

Judged:

2

2

2

GunShow wrote:

<quoted text>
Cap guns and water pistols don't count, you cowardly and ignorant lying treasonous p.o.s.

sofa_king_cool wrote:

<quoted text>I don't see the problem. How many people are killed in gang violence every year. An adult introducing and encouraging youth to join gangs and get them involved in gang activity should be charged with a felony. Good for them. Want to keep your gun, don't commit a felony. Don't get kids involved in gangs. Seems pretty easy for most of us. Are you afraid you'll be labeled a felon for getting youth involved in a gang? I doubt it.

Judged:

3

3

3

ZigmunnDroid wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow! You did justify the Gov adding another felony to the list.
And graffiti is a form of free speech.
PLus, you thundering moron. The 16 year old was charged with the felony.
NOT THE ADULTS.
Now, how long will you ignore that little point.
You have a consistent habit of ignoring your own hypocrisy.
I await your other worldly explanation why it is OK to charge a 16 year old with a felony when he enticed 17 year olds to spray paint.

Judged:

2

1

1

sofa_king_cool wrote:

<quoted text>I don't see the problem. How many people are killed in gang violence every year. An adult introducing and encouraging youth to join gangs and get them involved in gang activity should be charged with a felony. Good for them. Want to keep your gun, don't commit a felony. Don't get kids involved in gangs. Seems pretty easy for most of us. Are you afraid you'll be labeled a felon for getting youth involved in a gang? I doubt it.

Judged:

1

sofa_king_cool wrote:

<quoted text>Thundering moron? Wow, how quickly a civil discussion gets turned into childish name calling again.
Obviously if this was simple graffiti it would not have warranted a felony charge. But recruiting the youth of our nation to join violent gangs certainly should. I don't care if it was a 16 year old recruiting a 17 year old. He recruited them to join a gang. Gangs typically are involved in violent acts.
Too bad for him. He shouldn't have done the crime. He had a lawyer. He gets his day in court. If the jury his peers convicts him of this felony then I believe there was evidence to prove this. I will not shed a tear for a gang member. And if you had enough common sense, neither would you. There is no slippery slope. Felon is not a label given to anyone without cause.

Judged:

1

1

1

sofa_king_cool wrote:

<quoted text>A couple of .22's, a .45, a .38 and a 12 gauge count don't they liar?

Judged:

1

1

1

sofa_king_cool wrote:

<quoted text>You were labeled a liar. When you lied about posting your phone number and address which never appeared on this thread liar.

Judged:

1

1

1

sofa_king_cool wrote:

<quoted text>The post you replied to in itself has digits. Nice try.