78 replies to this topic

[questionmark]

aztek, on 31 January 2013 - 09:12 PM, said:

there is answer, in a form of question, just like you do.what makes you think procedure changed? have you gone thru it personaly??

No, but in view that you seemed to know about it I bothered to Skype a friend in Manhattan who works for the city police. So I do know the answer. Now lets see if you are smart enough to call somebody in New York City... ooops too late.

[aztek]

lol, sure you did. your imaginary friend has as much credabuiltiy as you are.

if you had that friend you would know guns were not forbiden in nyc. not in 80s not in 70s.

Edited by aztek, 31 January 2013 - 09:19 PM.

[questionmark]

aztek, on 31 January 2013 - 09:17 PM, said:

lol, sure you did.

Try me, give us the answer. Or better, in view that it is amply demonstrated that you don't know what you are talking about, lets forget the whole chapter.

[aztek]

you still trying to save your lying face, lol, good luck

[questionmark]

aztek, on 31 January 2013 - 09:17 PM, said:

lol, sure you did. your imaginary friend has as much credabuiltiy as you are.

if you had that friend you would know guns were not forbiden in nyc. not in 80s not in 70s.

The forbidden in New York is something you seem to interpret, restricted is what I said, or in plain English, out of 10 applications maybe 4 got a permit, hence the Jersey trick. But keep on changing the theme. Or better yet, if you can't answer something you should know according to your own bragging we might as well ignore you "esteemed opinion" in the future.

[AsteroidX]

Quote

It is not irrelevant if the guy calling you a liar evidently does not know the first thing about the theme and all he can come up with is a link to the New York City Firearms Dept.

touche good sir. Im only pointing out that things that are in our history do remain relevant. Thats all. Not trying to jump into your argument with az.

[questionmark]

AsteroidX, on 31 January 2013 - 09:23 PM, said:

touche good sir. Im only pointing out that things that are in our history do remain relevant. Thats all. Not trying to jump into your argument with az.

The argument is over, we all seem to know what to take his opinion for by now. And I don't seem to recall saying that the Constitution was irrelevant because it happened a long time ago...but maybe I was drunk at the time...

[aztek]

questionmark, on 31 January 2013 - 09:22 PM, said:

The forbidden in New York is something you seem to interpret, restricted is what I said, or in plain English, out of 10 applications maybe 4 got a permit, hence the Jersey trick. But keep on changing the theme. Or better yet, if you can't answer something you should know according to your own bragging we might as well ignore you "esteemed opinion" in the future.

lol trying to get out of lie with another lie?? lol, you just a pathological lier. you should throw some truth in the mix sometimes, it might help, but not with me.

you said forbiden, read your post on page one. if you said restricted i would not object to it.

ok, it is a deal, ignore me, and i'll do the same for you, might as well start now.

Edited by aztek, 31 January 2013 - 09:36 PM.

[AsteroidX]

Quote

The argument is over, we all seem to know what to take his opinion for by now. And I don't seem to recall saying that the Constitution was irrelevant because it happened a long time ago...but maybe I was drunk at the time...

Like I said I wasnt sure either. My bad. But Im looking for that poster because that particular argument isnt over

[Gummug]

questionmark, on 31 January 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

when in New York handguns were forbidden one used to take the ferry from Manhattan to Jersey and within a block of the landing there used to be a gun store (maybe is still there), you bought your gun and took the ferry back home.

As for banning guns everywhere, also leads nowhere. We need gun control.

Yep. Looks like the word "forbidden" to me.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

OK OK everyone... lets relax a bit. Questionmark is by no means a liar. Abrasive at times .... well I suppose he is to some. I have disagreed with him many times and have never once had the type of conversation I have seen the last few pages. As for aztek I cannot really make a comment on personally as I haven't had much contact that I recall with. I will say that I have almost forgotten the while point of this discussion due to the last few pages and over something as asinine as symantics and who needs to price themselves.
BTW I have been known myself to participate in asinine trails of discussions myself so I'm not berating anyone here.
so guys gals single celled organisms whichever is more revelant can we get back on topic. Please. I think this conversation has merit and could be worthwhile continuing less the prattle.

If gun restrictions do not offer any real effect on gun crime. Then its safe to say these decisions are made with instant gratification in mind. Ie.guns were involved must remove guns. Solved!.... unfortunately we need a more cause and effect decision if we are to gain any semblance of progress. Ie. Education with handling and safe use of firearms. Some sort of evaluation period which would be deemed temporary to which a gun may not be possessed after major psychological events. With the assurance of a pathway back to ownership with counseling until issue is resolved without fear of never retaining those rights again otherwise those who have momentary issues will not seek the help they need. Mild depression should not be considered in this evaluation.
Limitations on clips is a instant gratification type of regulation and would not serve any real benefit. Same with banning what's been labeled assault weapons. A .223 is essentially a glorified .22 round with more powder behind it which is the platform for most ar style rifles. Come to think of it I can get an after market stock to a Ruger 10/22 that makes it look scary also. Same with shotguns which are not on the list for banning yet I can get a neat polymer stock that makes it look scary. It equivalent to buying a boring car and putting a coat of paint new rims and a sport kit on it to make it seem more appealing. The engine is still the same and so is the driver so nothing has really changed except for perception.
I enjoy responsible firearms use whether it be hunting or target or trap. I was raised responsible. That is why I was ingrained with certain ideals suck as a gun is always loaded no matter how many times you checked the chamber. Never point a gun at anyone because as above it is always loaded. Even some trivial ones that actually made a difference in my youth the responsibility that if I ever shot anything I WAS going to eat it. That took cats dogs and people off the list immediately.  And through education and a responsible environment growing up I know what a tool like a firearm does, is capable of, and what its uses are.
If your a city folk I know a gunshot is terrible to hear but remember there was a person pulling that trigger who was never taught how to treat a firearm properly. Maybe each one of you can learn and teach your children what's proper and responsible and who knows maybe the next time your kids friend pulls out a gun your kid will say hey be careful with that its not a toy. Which just may teach that next kid what responsibility in action is.
I apologize if I babbled. Ill try to keep it shorter next time I post. For now this should be good for some conversation.

[aztek]

Aus Der Box Skeptisch, on 01 February 2013 - 05:05 AM, said:

Some sort of evaluation period which would be deemed temporary to which a gun may not be possessed after major psychological events. With the assurance of a pathway back to ownership with counseling until issue is resolved without fear of never retaining those rights again otherwise those who have momentary issues will not seek the help they need. Mild depression should not be considered in this evaluation.

lol so if someone got robbed, assaulted, divorced, lost a lawsuit  etc... suffered a major psychological events, his\her guns are removed, until counseling decided he\she is fit to get them back??

wow,  that is the most retarded thing I ever heard.  ppl never seize to amaze me.

why don't you just put them in jail for a while, until you see them fit to come out, after such event, cuz you know they just might go nuts with cars,  or other means.

Edited by aztek, 01 February 2013 - 06:22 AM.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

aztek, on 01 February 2013 - 06:19 AM, said:

lol so if someone got robbed, assaulted, divorced, lost a lawsuit  etc... suffered a major psychological events, his\her guns are removed, until counseling decided he\she is fit to get them back??

wow,  that is the most retarded thing I ever heard.  ppl never seize to amaze me.

why don't you just put them in jail for a while, until you see them fit to come out, after such event, cuz you know they just might go nuts with cars,  or other means.

OK now that I have had some interaction with you I can safely say your pretty much useless in a conversation.
I'm talking nervous breakdowns man. I'm talking about people unstable whom have no clue what they are going to do next that need to seek serious medical help but would be deterred by losing their firearms permanantly otherwise. I'm saying that people who are temporarily mentally unstable should be able to feel free to seek help knowing that after they become stable again they will not be restricted from firearms. I also said mild depression would not be included. What is your game buddy? Do you suffer some superiority complex that prevents you from asking questions and having adult conversations or debates? Besides this is just a platform for starting discussion nothing is absolute hence the numerous references to cause and effect decisions versus instant gratification decisions. If I thought my first idea is absolutely correct black and white... well then why would I want to discuss anything?  What is your issue with people other than those you find in a mirror? For gods sake man I want discussion and it appears your incapable of anything resembling such.

Edited by Aus Der Box Skeptisch, 01 February 2013 - 06:46 AM.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

And aztek its cease.... people never CEASE to amaze me. I don't usually correct grammer but in this case I have no qualms.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

To better clarify what I'm talking about ill say one more thing. With Obama's executive order initiatives concerning mental health and firearm ownership there is concern people simply will not seek help thinking they will lose their firearm rights forever. I was looking for a discussion on a way to prevent people from not seeking the help they need while reassuring them try will not lose their rights permanently. It wasn't even the major part of my post. Responsibility and education was my main focus. And asinine regulations preventing law abiding citizens from owning a firearm that is deemed scary when in reality it is just perception and how clip size is irrelevant.