ALERT: WA Ceasefire to push O.C. ban in 2012 !!!!!

[FMCDH]

But of course. LA, DC, Chicago, NYC all have those laws. And are known for being wonderful safe places. Common sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

O yes, California, Illinois and especially DC are all wonderful examples of how well these types of laws have worked. (sigh)

I have no doubt our new "esteemed" governor will agree with them. I seriously fear for our state under his leadership.

 

[Lotto00]

Banning OC or any carry is plain wrong

O yes, California, Illinois and especially DC are all wonderful examples of how well these types of laws have worked. (sigh)

I have no doubt our new "esteemed" governor will agree with them. I seriously fear for our state under his leadership.

Banning guns or the right to carry openly or concealed is against our rights.


"Banning guns because crazy people use them to kill others, makes about as much sense as banning airplanes because crazy people use them to kill others."
Paul Marney

 

[badkarma]

They are having another ralley 1/13/2013

 

[Metalhead47]

"Banning guns because crazy people use them to kill others, makes about as much sense as banning airplanes because crazy people use them to kill others."
Paul Marney

Bit of a poor analogy there. For the most part they don't *actually* want to ban *all* guns, they just want to make them as difficult to access as, well, airplanes. To use even a small low-powered airplane takes many hours of training from federally-rubberstamped instructors, background checks, AND they're so expensive only those with means can afford them. Want to use a high-powered "dangerous assault airplane?" Well, THAT pretty much requires a career choice with a federally approved flight agency... or be one of the wealthy connected elite.

Now, there are little single-passenger "toy" airplanes that anyone can own without any gov't interference, but they're about as practical for doing "airplane things" as a blackpowder muzzleloader is for doing "gun things" (which basically means useless for anything other than occasional fun on the weekends).

So let's not give hem any ideas, eh?

 

[LkWd_Don]

Bit of a poor analogy there. For the most part they don't *actually* want to ban *all* guns, they just want to make them as difficult to access as, well, airplanes. To use even a small low-powered airplane takes many hours of training from federally-rubberstamped instructors, background checks, AND they're so expensive only those with means can afford them. Want to use a high-powered "dangerous assault airplane?" Well, THAT pretty much requires a career choice with a federally approved flight agency... or be one of the wealthy connected elite.

Now, there are little single-passenger "toy" airplanes that anyone can own without any gov't interference, but they're about as practical for doing "airplane things" as a blackpowder muzzleloader is for doing "gun things" (which basically means useless for anything other than occasional fun on the weekends).

So let's not give hem any ideas, eh?

Oh really? Though the barefoot bandit did a poor job landing the small Cessna and Beech-craft airplanes that he stole after teaching himself to fly by playing MS Flight-Simulator on his personal computer, he did not take professional lessons to learn to fly. Those were actual aircraft and not toys.

A terrorist could teach himself the same thing and is generally not worried about landing them, especially if they are going to use them as flying weapons of destruction.

 

[Metalhead47]

Oh really? Though the barefoot bandit did a poor job landing the small Cessna and Beech-craft airplanes that he stole after teaching himself to fly by playing MS Flight-Simulator on his personal computer, he did not take professional lessons to learn to fly. Those were actual aircraft and not toys.

A terrorist could teach himself the same thing and is generally not worried about landing them, especially if they are going to use them as flying weapons of destruction.

As usual for you, you COMPLETELY missed the point of what I said. Go back & read it a few times, maybe it will sink in.

 

[LkWd_Don]

As usual for you, you COMPLETELY missed the point of what I said. Go back & read it a few times, maybe it will sink in.

It looks like I was editing to highlight what I was referring to as you were writing that.

 

[Metalhead47]

It looks like I was editing to highlight what I was referring to as you were writing that.

And you still completely missed the point (for the record, all of the aircraft you mentioned were STOLEN! As in NOT LEGALLY USED!).

Once again, degenerate matter-level density. <facepalm>

 

[LkWd_Don]

As usual for you, you COMPLETELY missed the point of what I said. Go back & read it a few times, maybe it will sink in.

Rather than edit the other post to add a comment, I will ask you to explain where my pointing out that the barefoot bandit was able to fly planes without doing what you so emphatically state, missed any mark.

To use even a small low-powered airplane takes many hours of training from federally-rubberstamped instructors, background checks, AND they're so expensive only those with means can afford them.

My point being that you completly missed is. If you are going to use an anology, make sure it cannot be poked so full of holes that it will not float, fly, or whatever.

 

[LkWd_Don]

And you still completely missed the point (for the record, all of the aircraft you mentioned were STOLEN! As in NOT LEGALLY USED!).

Once again, degenerate matter-level density. <facepalm>

What part of "Use" requires that it not be stolen or used illegally? Most of the criminals that are causing us LAC the most grief could give a flip about what is legal.

You brought up people needing expensive flight training by federally ruberstamped officials to use an aircraft! I gave a recent example of how you are wrong!

So, maybe you would care to explain your point rationally and with an educated viewpoint.

 

[Metalhead47]

...still not getting it...

Y'know, I even dragged my wife in to read my original post just in case. She grasped what I was saying right away.

Just like an airplane, this one has gone right over your head. I'm really trying hard not to laugh at this point.

Shakespeare: "parting is such sweet sorrow"

LkWd_Don: "Sorrow doesn't have flavor!!!"

Rammstein: "and the shark has tears, and they fall from his face..."

LkWd_Don: "sharks don't have tear ducts!!!"

blue drops: "I can hear my heart bell...."

LkWd_Don: "hearts don't have bells!!!"

Terry Pratchett: "the world is a flat disc held up by four huge elephants riding on the back of a giant space turtle..."

LkWd_Don: <sounds of head exploding>


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[1245A Defender]

Really!!!

As usual for you, you COMPLETELY missed the point of what I said. Go back & read it a few times, maybe it will sink in.

What, Really is the point, that he missed?
an untrained pilot, in a stollen light plane cant wreak death and destruction?

a jerk in a cesna crashed on the white house lawn,,, he was not shot down!

 

[LkWd_Don]

What, Really is the point, that he missed?
an untrained pilot, in a stollen light plane cant wreak death and destruction?

a jerk in a cesna crashed on the white house lawn,,, he was not shot down!

Thank you.

He was trying to tell Lotto00 that the quote he used.

"Banning guns because crazy people use them to kill others, makes about as much sense as banning airplanes because crazy people use them to kill others."
Paul Marney

Was a poor analogy, but he mistakenly was trying to make a point with

To use even a small low-powered airplane takes many hours of training from federally-rubberstamped instructors, background checks, AND they're so expensive only those with means can afford them.

For someone who lives here in Washington to not consider the barefoot bandit before making the statement he did is simply asinine.

I was pointing something out that He clearly won't figure out on his own.

If you are going to misconstrue facts the way the Anti-Gunners do incessantly, then you should give-up while you are ahead, remain silent, and allow those who can get a point across without resorting to inaccuracies, untruths, or statements that can be poked so full of holes that all credibility could be lost, handle the conversation or argument.

 

[Metalhead47]

Thank you.

He was trying to tell Lotto00 that the quote he used.

Was a poor analogy, but he mistakenly was trying to make a point with For someone who lives here in Washington to not consider the barefoot bandit before making the statement he did is simply asinine.

I was pointing something out that He clearly won't figure out on his own.

If you are going to misconstrue facts the way the Anti-Gunners do incessantly, then you should give-up while you are ahead, remain silent, and allow those who can get a point across without resorting to inaccuracies, untruths, or statements that can be poked so full of holes that all credibility could be lost, handle the conversation or argument.

Sigh.... you should try reading something other than legal documents once in a while. You seem to have great difficulty inferring or comprehending anything that isn't explicitly explained to you.
Let's go back to what I ACTUALLY said, shall we?

For the most part they [anti-gun liberals] don't *actually* want to ban *all* guns, they just want to make them as difficult to access as, well, airplanes. To use even a small low-powered airplane takes many hours of training from federally-rubberstamped instructors, background checks, AND they're so expensive only those with means can afford them. Want to use a high-powered "dangerous assault airplane?" Well, THAT pretty much requires a career choice with a federally approved flight agency... or be one of the wealthy connected elite.

It's pretty obvious here that I am comparing the LAWFUL use of, and/or access to, airplanes & guns. Mentioned bans and making them "difficult to access." See what I did there yet?

If someone has STOLEN an airplane or gun, it shouldn't need to be said that...








wait for it....






THAT'S NOT A LAWFUL USE AND THEREFORE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO WHAT I SAID!


I can't believe I had to spell that out for you.

Now...

Are you with me or do you need me to draw it in crayon like usual?

 

[LkWd_Don]

Sigh.... you should try reading something other than legal documents once in a while. You seem to have great difficulty inferring or comprehending anything that isn't explicitly explained to you.
Let's go back to what I ACTUALLY said, shall we?



It's pretty obvious here that I am comparing the LAWFUL use of, and/or access to, airplanes & guns. Mentioned bans and making them "difficult to access." See what I did there yet?

If someone has STOLEN an airplane or gun, it shouldn't need to be said that...







wait for it....






THAT'S NOT A LAWFUL USE AND THEREFORE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO WHAT I SAID!


I can't believe I had to spell that out for you.

Now...

You should break yourself out of your denial and go back and look at what you were responding to!

"Banning guns because crazy people use them to kill others, makes about as much sense as banning airplanes because crazy people use them to kill others." Paul Marney

If what you are saying is correct, that you were ONLY referring to the Lawful use, then that was ONLY in your Mind! Look at what I emphasized from Lotto00's quote above! Then look at the comment I was referring to from your response.

To use even a small low-powered airplane takes many hours of training from federally-rubberstamped instructors

You clearly can not understand plain english (American form) or you would not still be trying to convince me/others that you were only speaking about Law-Abiding use, when you were specifically responding to a comment about what crazy people do.

You have finally made it clear to me, that to hold a conversation with you at even an 8th grade education level, is useless.

I guess I will need to break out the crayons and draw you a picture, or you will be incapable of comprehension.

 

[Metalhead47]

...still doesn't get it....

Nevermind, this has gone far enough off topic. My wife is right. You just can't argue with stupid. Go back to your conspiracy theories, old man. It is YOU who cannot comprehend what you're reading, YOU who need everything explained to you, and YOU who are reading at (actually below) an 8th grade level. Everyone else seems to get it but you. You must have a learning disability or something. Not an insult, mind you, just an observation. You're like a computer, great at recalling data, doesn't actually *understand* any of it. You're also now on ignore, so don't bother replying. I've seen some pretty out-there retorts around here, but a basic lack of comprehension has never been part of them. Until you.

 

[gogodawgs]

Nevermind, this has gone far enough off topic. My wife is right. You just can't argue with stupid. Go back to your conspiracy theories, old man. It is YOU who cannot comprehend what you're reading, YOU who need everything explained to you, and YOU who are reading at (actually below) an 8th grade level. Everyone else seems to get it but you. You must have a learning disability or something. Not an insult, mind you, just an observation. You're like a computer, great at recalling data, doesn't actually *understand* any of it. You're also now on ignore, so don't bother replying. I've seen some pretty out-there retorts around here, but a basic lack of comprehension has never been part of them. Until you.

+1

 

[LkWd_Don]

Nevermind, this has gone far enough off topic. My wife is right. You just can't argue with stupid. Go back to your conspiracy theories, old man. It is YOU who cannot comprehend what you're reading, YOU who need everything explained to you, and YOU who are reading at (actually below) an 8th grade level. Everyone else seems to get it but you. You must have a learning disability or something. Not an insult, mind you, just an observation. You're like a computer, great at recalling data, doesn't actually *understand* any of it. You're also now on ignore, so don't bother replying. I've seen some pretty out-there retorts around here, but a basic lack of comprehension has never been part of them. Until you.

You will be added to ignore as well for your rationalizations and avoidance of reality.

 

[FMJ 911]

*Emerges from bunker*

Where is the rally going to be held? I'd be interested in going along.

 

[TechnoWeenie]

*Emerges from bunker*

Where is the rally going to be held? I'd be interested in going along.

Upcoming Events :
Sunday January 13th at 1:30pm : Join us for a march from Westlake Plaza to the Seattle Center. Together with our partners Washington CeaseFire invites you to join us for StandUp Washington : Turning Anger in to Action. More details to follow.


Someone PLEASE make me a sign that says 'Spoons made me fat, I want common sense restrictions on utensils!' or something like that, and I will hoist it high, while OC'ing.. whilst walking with the ceasefire crowd.