Reality check for Gunners

[Cancel 2016.2]

But you 'live' the caricature. You swagger around demanding the right to carry devices designed solely to kill your fellow man. You respect no one. Violence runs through the veins of almost every American. You are prepared to kill and maim to impose Americana.
Which 'privileges' that are possessed by you are denied in other countries? And do you have the right to invade them and kill them so they become more like you?
I fear that, all to often, the cap fits extremely well.

You don't know me twit. My guess is you don't know many Americans at all. I don't swagger around demanding the right to carry a gun. That right is already afforded to me by the 2nd Amendment.

'violence runs through the veins of almost every American'??? This is what I am talking about. You have this caricature in your head and you refuse to let it go. You are a moron when it comes to understanding people in this country. You cling to your idiotic fantasy of what you imagine Americans to be like and then pretend your fantasy must be true.

Like I said long ago... you hate the US and Americans.... we get it. We can see it every time you post your ignorant crap about what YOU think we are like.

Tell us again about all the freedoms the average Chinese person has. (and yes, I know Hong Kong is vastly different, so do pay attention to the fact that I stated the average CHINESE person, rather than the average Chinese person in Hong Kong)

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Tell me about your 'rights'. Tell me about your 'freedoms'. Teach me.

Why should he or anyone else bother trying to teach you? Your mind is made up. You continue to spew forth your ignorance and seem to take pride in it. Every time someone trys to explain something to you, you go back to your idiotic caricature of what you imagine the US and its citizens to be like.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Why should he or anyone else bother trying to teach you? Your mind is made up. You continue to spew forth your ignorance and seem to take pride in it. Every time someone trys to explain something to you, you go back to your idiotic caricature of what you imagine the US and its citizens to be like.

Exactly why I ceased to discuss.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Exactly why I ceased to discuss.

I think I will follow your example and quit wasting my time on that moron.

 

[Lowaicue]

You don't know me twit. My guess is you don't know many Americans at all. I don't swagger around demanding the right to carry a gun. That right is already afforded to me by the 2nd Amendment.

'violence runs through the veins of almost every American'??? This is what I am talking about. You have this caricature in your head and you refuse to let it go. You are a moron when it comes to understanding people in this country. You cling to your idiotic fantasy of what you imagine Americans to be like and then pretend your fantasy must be true.

Like I said long ago... you hate the US and Americans.... we get it. We can see it every time you post your ignorant crap about what YOU think we are like.

Tell us again about all the freedoms the average Chinese person has. (and yes, I know Hong Kong is vastly different, so do pay attention to the fact that I stated the average CHINESE person, rather than the average Chinese person in Hong Kong)

If my impression of the US is incorrect you should look to yourselves. Your media spew American propaganda, your tourists behave, very often, as complete dicks, you fellow countrymen here and elsewhere show themselves as slightly less than charitable when it comes to the rest of the world. Your president, bush, lost you the lead and made you a laughing stock.
If what I say offends you then look to what you tell us. If it bores you then do the same. If you can't handle it go kill someone. I dont care.
But dont blame me for the image that YOU and yours portray.
BTW the PRC is as much a foreign country to me as it is to you. Its just closer, thats all.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You seem to be stalking me, little man. 'Bout time you came out of the closet, huh? You stupid little pouf.
Go get your boyfriend - you don't have the wit to give a sensible response on your own.

ouch
He plays the gay card and makes himself appear to be projecting.
They say no British man ever forgets his first head master.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Uhhh I'm pretty sure there's no 'reasonable certainty' in most of those buyers statements, so your point is still invalid.

Sorry, but no matter how clever both parties in the videos were trying to be verbally, the end result was shown true.....they were BS'ing around the law, and got caught breaking it.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Your "link" had nothing to do with the SALE of guns; but instead had to do with FUNDING for the venue.

No, read both links....one has to do with what the owners of the show are responsible for regarding security. And there is another link under that which is separate. If you can't access it, let me know.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

No, read both links....one has to do with what the owners of the show are responsible for regarding security. And there is another link under that which is separate. If you can't access it, let me know.

I found no such link that talked about liability.
All I saw was a lot of back and forth regarding if the gun show could be held.

 

[Taichiliberal]

I found no such link that talked about liability.
All I saw was a lot of back and forth regarding if the gun show could be held.

Here's the original post:

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Actually, it depends on what State you're in to buy a car without driver's license. But you are partly right on that point, and I am partly wrong.

As for gun shows being liable, neither you or I have a lock on that one. Case in point: Pavlides v. Niles Gun Show, Inc., No. CA 9443, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 759 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb.14,1994)
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-20335.html

The first is a reference to a court case regarding liability. The second is a link that unfortunately is to one of those cheapo sites that try to rook you into signing up to read the full article. My error. However you should note what was given in the excerpt:

A federal appeals court has ruled that a gun show promoter and an exhibitor have no standing to challenge a Montgomery County law that denies funding to facilities that display and sell firearms.

The decision Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit reverses a lower court's ruling in favor of the promoter, Frank Krasner Enterprises Ltd., and the exhibitor, RSM Inc.

Until the law was passed, Krasner, of Frederick, leased space for gun shows twice a year from the Montgomery County Agricultural Center in Gaithersburg, a privately owned, nonprofit organization that received about....

Here's the full article....sorry for the delay:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30368-2005Mar12.html

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Here's the original post:




The first is a reference to a court case regarding liability. The second is a link that unfortunately is to one of those cheapo sites that try to rook you into signing up to read the full article. My error. However you should note what was given in the excerpt:

A federal appeals court has ruled that a gun show promoter and an exhibitor have no standing to challenge a Montgomery County law that denies funding to facilities that display and sell firearms.

The decision Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit reverses a lower court's ruling in favor of the promoter, Frank Krasner Enterprises Ltd., and the exhibitor, RSM Inc.

Until the law was passed, Krasner, of Frederick, leased space for gun shows twice a year from the Montgomery County Agricultural Center in Gaithersburg, a privately owned, nonprofit organization that received about....

Here's the full article....sorry for the delay:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30368-2005Mar12.html

This now returns to my original statement.
This has nothing to do with a gun show being liable.

 

[Taichiliberal]

This now returns to my original statement.
This has nothing to do with a gun show being liable.

Pavlides v. Niles Gun Show, Inc.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/pavlides_v_niles.txt

A federal appeals court has ruled that a gun show promoter and an exhibitor have no standing to challenge a Montgomery County law that denies funding to facilities that display and sell firearms.

The decision Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit reverses a lower court's ruling in favor of the promoter, Frank Krasner Enterprises Ltd., and the exhibitor, RSM Inc.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Mar12.html

Both links directly deals with a gun show being liable for injury or crimes that result from inadequate security or enforcement of rules/regulations for the sellers and patrons.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Pavlides v. Niles Gun Show, Inc.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/pavlides_v_niles.txt

A federal appeals court has ruled that a gun show promoter and an exhibitor have no standing to challenge a Montgomery County law that denies funding to facilities that display and sell firearms.

The decision Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit reverses a lower court's ruling in favor of the promoter, Frank Krasner Enterprises Ltd., and the exhibitor, RSM Inc.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Mar12.html

Both links directly deals with a gun show being liable for injury or crimes that result from inadequate security or enforcement of rules/regulations for the sellers and patrons.

So you're saying that a ruling over a stolen gun, proves liability for all gun shows.
Your second link was unavailable.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Pavlides v. Niles Gun Show, Inc.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/pavlides_v_niles.txt

A federal appeals court has ruled that a gun show promoter and an exhibitor have no standing to challenge a Montgomery County law that denies funding to facilities that display and sell firearms.

The decision Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit reverses a lower court's ruling in favor of the promoter, Frank Krasner Enterprises Ltd., and the exhibitor, RSM Inc.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Mar12.html

Both links directly deals with a gun show being liable for injury or crimes that result from inadequate security or enforcement of rules/regulations for the sellers and patrons.

um, no. they don't. the lawsuit is about the county not providing funds to a facility because they display and sell firearms. no word in there about liability.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Pavlides v. Niles Gun Show, Inc.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wba...es_v_niles.txt

A federal appeals court has ruled that a gun show promoter and an exhibitor have no standing to challenge a Montgomery County law that denies funding to facilities that display and sell firearms.

The decision Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit reverses a lower court's ruling in favor of the promoter, Frank Krasner Enterprises Ltd., and the exhibitor, RSM Inc.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Mar12.html

Both links directly deals with a gun show being liable for injury or crimes that result from inadequate security or enforcement of rules/regulations for the sellers and patrons.

So you're saying that a ruling over a stolen gun, proves liability for all gun shows. No, the courts said so for that particular case and it's circumstances, and they were very specific as to the who, what, where's and why. This plus the second link shows that gun shows can be and are liable for crimes committed by folk they permit to sell on their temporary premise, and for security that prevents theft and subsequent crimes by the merchandise there.

Your second link was unavailable.

The second link has shifted to the website dump of "sign-up" (pain in the ass cheap bastards). Try this http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/4th/041030p.pdf

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The second link has shifted to the website dump of "sign-up" (pain in the ass cheap bastards). Try this http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/4th/041030p.pdf

Sorry; but I'm not going to try to ride this dead horse anymore.

You have taken 1 single incident and have tried to tie it into the entire situation.

Until you can show me where gun show promoters have been prosecuted for a crime that was committed for a gun that was legally sold at the said gun show, you're just wishing upon a star.

 

[christiefan915]

There is a huge problem with this point of view. Nobody in this country (that I am aware of) thinks that we have our rights because we're Americans. We have our rights because we're live human beings, as do you. The difference is that we actively fight against our government to prevent them from denying us those rights. You seem to have accepted the denial of most of yours.

I think you'd find this to be true of many other countries.

 

[christiefan915]

Well there we have it. The reason (well A reason anyways) as to why you and I are so opposed to each other, your view of the world is that people are not born with rights, which is the polar opposite of the majority of Americans. I'm sorry friend, but most discussions regarding politics from you will do little good. It'd be the equivalent of trying to explain quantum science to a dog. He has no care and no understanding of such things.

Untrue. Everybody here wasn't born with the same rights. Many rights evolved over time here, just the same as they did in other countries. One example is the right to vote.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Untrue. Everybody here wasn't born with the same rights. Many rights evolved over time here, just the same as they did in other countries. One example is the right to vote.

No everyone is born with the right to exercise their vote. While the ENUMERATION of the right has taken its time, all were still born with it.

 

[Lowaicue]

No everyone is born with the right to exercise their vote. While the ENUMERATION of the right has taken its time, all were still born with it.

Perhaps it would be useful to define what we mean by rights.
I mean those inalienable freedoms than man has because he is man. You appear to mean rights that your forbears have wrested from those intent on denying those freedoms. I would maintain that rights of that type must, by their very nature, be transient, since they were won in a world far different from the one which we now inhabit.
We might ask what rights are natural to a lion or an Orang Utan. In fact they have the rights to an unhindered existence for as long as we, who control more, choose to allow those rights. We are destroying those rights by destroying their habitat... but then, those are our 'rights' ....aren't they.
The whole subject of rights is a bit of a nonsense and I hate to say this but to dwell on such falsities allows the strong, who govern us, to exercise ever more control over us. (History shows that that is not always a bad thing since many people would rather take than give instructions.)
Its those 'trigger' words again. Those words that have been hard wired into us by the real owners of our lives. Freedom. Rights. Democracy. Peace. Its the planned polarisation of views, the nurturing of the concept of us and them, whoever 'us' happens to be at the time.
You do, however, have the right to ignore what I say.