Surprised this hasn't been posted yet....

Do they or do they not support a lot more gun control? We can argue how much but what they have supported so far in their careers shouts that they would like to ban guns.

Still does not matter. You were WRONG when they said they wanted a total ban on handguns.

Read it again without the blinders. He did indeed pick the once that advertised that it was a gun free zone. I didn't say it was the only reason but it was the one he picked and it was the one that said it was gun free. You're just wrong.

Still does not matter. You said, plain and clear, he picked the theater he did because it was a gun free zone. You can't prove that the theater being a gun free zone came into play AT ALL. Once again you are WRONG.

You can talk a lot (and I didn't even have to read it) but it is obvious that you support more gun control laws (not crime laws). You are just smart enough to not directly say it. Ask anyone who has read your stuff where they think you lie on the topic.

Are you REALLY that dumb? Hard to believe. You simply can't stop trying to read between the lines and believe what you want to. Since you are accusing me of something, I'm sure you can back up your loud mouth with facts. What additional gun control laws would I like to see on the books? We've already been down this path before and you admitted you were WRONG. Now are you going to tell us you were WRONG when you admitted you were WRONG? Wouldn't surprise me at all.

Not in Missouri or Kansas. You need to get out of the state of denial and Texas some more.

You really are that dumb. I never said anything about any state other than Texas. Didn't have to in order to prove you WRONG when you made your statement. A sign CAN legally ban handguns. Wouldn't matter if the 49 states other than Texas are like Missouri and Kansas. You are WRONG.

It is obvious that Old-T is correct.
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Okay, lets be more proactive. Tell me, on the pain of death and dismemberment that they DO NOT want to ban guns. Are you 100% sure of that and I'm not talking about cops or their private security. I'm talking about us, the citizen/taxpayer. Are you willing to say that?

Same thing, can you tell me (and us) with 100% accuracy that he chose that theater for some other reason. It wasn't the closest, he didn't work there at one time, he didn't go there on a regular basis. Why do you think he chose it? Remember, you have to be 100% certain.

I only admitted that you did not directly opine that guns should be banned. Nothing more. I still, and did, think that you want a gun ban of some sort but while you're trying to mislead you just don't have the guts to come out and say it. So get off your high horse and admit what you really think. If you want to ban only a single type of weapon, you're guilty. So how do you feel about real assault weapons?

You have a very parochial attitude. The whole world is reading this. So you made a mistake. Just admit it and in the future be more precise.

Shooting range is closed.

JD Barleycorn;1055747695]Okay, lets be more proactive. Tell me, on the pain of death and dismemberment that they DO NOT want to ban guns. Are you 100% sure of that and I'm not talking about cops or their private security. I'm talking about us, the citizen/taxpayer. Are you willing to say that?

I have no idea. Neither do you. None of them have ever said anything close to that. I am simply responding to your statement:

"Also there is that delusion of him having corrected me "several" times."

This is simply one of those many times you have been wrong.

Same thing, can you tell me (and us) with 100% accuracy that he chose that theater for some other reason. It wasn't the closest, he didn't work there at one time, he didn't go there on a regular basis. Why do you think he chose it? Remember, you have to be 100% certain.

In this case, no, I am NOT 100% certain. Maybe 99.9% certain. He chose the movie he did for reasons already stated. 100% certain of that. Why did he choose the movie theater that he did? The Cinemark Century 16 was the 3rd closest theater to James Holmes home. The closest was a theater that caters to the Hispanic population. The second closest theater was a "dinner theater".
The Cinemark was a mere .25 miles further than the dinner theater, and just 8 minutes from his home. This theater was the closest Megaplex to his home.
It is a theater where Holmes had previously been. Not at all surprising that this was the theater that Holmes chose. Now the question is did he know it was a gun free zone? Hopefully he will be asked that question and answer honestly. My favorite movie theater happens to be a Cinemark. I now have to assume it is a gun free movie theater, as all Cinemarks are supposed to be. I have NEVER seen a sign banning guns in the theater complex just as I had never seen such a sign in my local mall -- until I looked for it. I'm sure that you believe Holmes knew the theater was a gun free zone and that is why he chose that location to do his killing. I sincerely doubt he knew it, but hopefully time will tell.

I only admitted that you did not directly opine that guns should be banned. Nothing more. I still, and did, think that you want a gun ban of some sort but while you're trying to mislead you just don't have the guts to come out and say it. So get off your high horse and admit what you really think. If you want to ban only a single type of weapon, you're guilty. So how do you feel about real assault weapons?

I have no idea what assault weapons are currently totally banned. I have no idea what assault weapons were in the proposed ban. I am content in saying that I don't know what is or is not an assault weapon. Now I can understand some simple-minded folks mistakenly misinterpreting some of my statements as possibly promoting more gun control, but I have NEVER stated any desire to have any gun or other such weapon banned. So if you want me to admit to that, you're going to have to show some proof that I've come anywhere CLOSE to making such a statement. Otherwise, I'll just chalk up another WRONG statement in your column.

You have a very parochial attitude. The whole world is reading this. So you made a mistake. Just admit it and in the future be more precise.

Exactly what mistake did I make?

JDIdiot needs to be threatened with death and dismemberment to "know" that "THEY want to ban guns."

JDIdiot, reading your asinine posts are enough to make me KNOW THEY should ban you.

JDIdiot needs to be threatened with death and dismemberment to "know" that "THEY want to ban guns."

JDIdiot, reading your asinine posts are enough to make me KNOW THEY should ban you. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I have to admit that I believe that any time anyone states that they want any form of gun control, certain individuals immediately conclude that you want to ban all guns.

Seems to be the case around here.

I have to admit that I believe that any time anyone states that they want any form of gun control, certain individuals immediately conclude that you want to ban all guns. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

If there was to be a total ban on guns how do you suppose the government would go about achieving that goal?

Jim

whose suggesting that? other than the dick measurers on here?

Snick!

whose suggesting that? other than the dick measurers on here?

Snick!

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Well there is a lot of talk about gun bans. I simply raised the question how it would take place.


Jim

I have said this before and I will say this again, no one has ever approached me to take away any of my guns.

I have said this before and I will say this again, no one has ever approached me to take away any of my guns. Originally Posted by bigtex

So does that means it could never happen?


Jim

So does that means it could never happen? Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

No! By the same token, it does not mean that it will either.

Either way, I've got much better things to do with my time than worrying about the 'gubment' coming to take my guns.

Speaking of which, I'm really worried about the 'gubment' trying to take my (fishin') rods & reels.

Now that would really, really, really make me mad!

So if I can find a case where the government "came along and took" someone's guns on piss poor grounds will you shut up and not bring it up again?


As for Speedie, you did admit one truth, you don't know much about guns or gun laws. So I think it has become pointless to toss it about with you. Go to a gun show or range and come back when you know something.

will you shut up and not bring it up again? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I tell you what JDIdiot, I will make a special deal, custom made for you.

I promise to shut up and never bring it up again. But only if you will shut up and never post in the Eccie political forum again.

Until then, I will continue to say that the 'gubment' has never come to take my guns.

Why would I say that? Because it's the truth.

Live with it! Idiot!!!!!

I have said this before and I will say this again, no one has ever approached me to take away any of my guns. Originally Posted by bigtex

Feinstein's most recent attempt to **redefine** assault weapons would have made owning one of my weapons illegal -- a weapon that is now currently not illegal to own. Confiscation is the second step, BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat. Check out Connecticut, BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat:

Branford Police Department's Officer Joseph Peterson "told several gun owners, some of whom he engaged were not from Connecticut - 'I give my left nut to bang down your door and come for your gun…'”