Better watch out then. YOU MIGHT BE NEXT! *ominous music plays*

Let us assume that not everyone in society are the women in the two examples...

A guy has an M4 "pistol" tucked into his underwear because "constitutional carry"; not even a holster is needed because it's "infringing" on his right to carry. He sits down in Ala Moana food court. A 3 round burst goes off in his He Man underwear because a key from his keyring managed to get inside the trigger guard, killing 6 people, including himself.

For every woman in your specific scenario, I have created one of these men (1.2% of firearms related deaths). Tell me why there can't possibly be anything in between?


Edit: I think I'm good for a while. Now people are assuming I have to be Kit N Gun or "Darren", who I assume is related to Kit N Gun, because I'm disagreeing with their posts. For the record, I don't think I've met either of those people, and if I did, it was complete happenstance. My posts here are nothing but my own thoughts and they are not in "support" of any other entity. I shouldn't be surprised by this behavior really, especially since some of the earlier posts appears to be making fun of Kit's accent. Hilarious, disappointing, and juvenile to say the least.

Your scenario is neither a training issue nor a constitutional carry issue. It is a competence issue.

Like
I hardly ever steal
I hardly ever cheat on my wife
I hardly ever kill
I hardly ever blaspheme
I hardly ever dishonor my mother and father
etc . . ?

and "I hardly ever know much about every single topic, but that hardly ever stops me from posting an opposing viewpoint."

Better watch out then. YOU MIGHT BE NEXT! *ominous music plays*

Let us assume that not everyone in society are the women in the two examples...

A guy has an M4 "pistol" tucked into his underwear because "constitutional carry"; not even a holster is needed because it's "infringing" on his right to carry. He sits down in Ala Moana food court. A 3 round burst goes off in his He Man underwear because a key from his keyring managed to get inside the trigger guard, killing 6 people, including himself.

For every woman in your specific scenario, I have created one of these men (1.2% of firearms related deaths). Tell me why there can't possibly be anything in between?


Edit: I think I'm good for a while. Now people are assuming I have to be Kit N Gun or "Darren", who I assume is related to Kit N Gun, because I'm disagreeing with their posts. For the record, I don't think I've met either of those people, and if I did, it was complete happenstance. My posts here are nothing but my own thoughts and they are not in "support" of any other entity. I shouldn't be surprised by this behavior really, especially since some of the earlier posts appears to be making fun of Kit's accent. Hilarious, disappointing, and juvenile to say the least.

The woman I used in my example is real. Not a fictional character. 

In your scenario, the person is breaking the machine gun federal and state law. We can discuss later how unconstituional these are as well. But to have a handgun carried mexian style go off (plausable) and then kill 6 people is not plausible. IF you're going to make up an example, make it more believe able.

Think of it this way, all the anti gunners who testified agree with you that a class is needed. So how pro 2A is one really if anti gunners and you believe in the same laws.

Better watch out then. YOU MIGHT BE NEXT! *ominous music plays*

Let us assume that not everyone in society are the women in the two examples...

A guy has an M4 "pistol" tucked into his underwear because "constitutional carry"; not even a holster is needed because it's "infringing" on his right to carry. He sits down in Ala Moana food court. A 3 round burst goes off in his He Man underwear because a key from his keyring managed to get inside the trigger guard, killing 6 people, including himself.

For every woman in your specific scenario, I have created one of these men (1.2% of firearms related deaths). Tell me why there can't possibly be anything in between?


Edit: I think I'm good for a while. Now people are assuming I have to be Kit N Gun or "Darren", who I assume is related to Kit N Gun, because I'm disagreeing with their posts. For the record, I don't think I've met either of those people, and if I did, it was complete happenstance. My posts here are nothing but my own thoughts and they are not in "support" of any other entity. I shouldn't be surprised by this behavior really, especially since some of the earlier posts appears to be making fun of Kit's accent. Hilarious, disappointing, and juvenile to say the least.

Okay, I'll play along ...

What kind of training must I take in order for that other guy who:

"has an M4 "pistol" tucked into his underwear because "constitutional carry";
not even a holster is needed because it's "infringing" on his right to carry.
He sits down in Ala Moana food court. A 3 round burst goes off in his He Man
underwear because a key from his keyring managed to get inside the trigger
guard, killing 6 people, including himself. "

to change his ways?

What you are describing can happen regardless of mandated training requirements, testing and mental evals.  That type of person will buy a firearm -- legally after jumping through all the hoops, or illegally -- and still have the same level of respect for firearms you "created."

Training is not a solution for poor judgement or immature attitudes.  In the scope of this discussion, training is a panacea for the anti-gun crowd and the government, so they don't have to admit their former unconstitutional laws and rules have actually done nothing for public safety.

Think about it.  if I sell you a plastic bracelet with the promise that as long as you wear it, nothing bad will befall you.  Then one day you forget to wear it, and nothing bad happens to you.  One week later, however, you're the victim of a home invasion -- beaten, robbed and your wife raped.  Then you realize you were wearing your lucky bracelet.  How could such a bad thing have happened to you?  and, why didn't this happen when you weren't wearing it?

That's when you realize the promises were all BS, that I didn't have the power to protect you, and you were a fool to part with your money believing the BS I fed you.

That's exactly how government approaches gun control.  Every single new hurdle to gun ownership, use, and carrying is always, without fail, pronounced a new and better way to make the people, our children, schools, communities, state, homes, families, etc., etc. safer. 

If you actually take time to read the bills/laws, look at the problems they say they address in them, and logically work out how that law solves anything close to those problems, you'll be just as pissed off after realizing you've been placing your faith and safety in a plastic bracelet.

For every law you THINK makes us safer, you should research how many other places don't have that law -- and whether all those places have more or fewer gun-related deaths, murders, muggings, rapes and/or other crimes of violence.  You'll soon learn the truth.  There's no solution for any of that.  There are ways to reduce crime, but none of it will be "solved."

If HI adopts an assault weapons ban, as some other states have done, look at the rate of crime in all other cities as they relate to criminals using assault weapons.  What you'll find is there really isn't a problem with that specific weapon.  The anti-gunners simply target it because it's (1) in common use -- most owned semi-auto rifle in the US, and (2) most people who know nothing about guns are easily scared when lied to about them being "weapons of war," "high powered" and "are a bad choice for self-/home-defense."

If they can ban the one firearm most people own, they can mark it down as a huge victory for gun control.  No different than the 1970s and 1980s when they were calling to ban all semi-auto handguns ("nobody but criminals have a need for those").

Funny how you said you agreed with Kit, but then Kit changed from his testimony and now magically believes the training SHOULD NOT BE MANDATED BY THE STATE.

So, is that still the answer you're going with?  What Kit said in testimony, or have you also changed your mind and now agree with his interview?

IF you're going to make up an example, make it more believe able.

ok, how about he drops the gun down a flight of stairs, killing 72 orphaned children that were on a school trip including himself(hes also an orphaned child). There you have it, scientific proof that the consitution is wrong!

 

ok, how about he drops the gun down a flight of stairs, killing 72 orphaned children that were on a school trip including himself(hes also an orphaned child). There you have it, scientific proof that the consitution is wrong!

All depends if one "gets to da choppah" after.

so dumb.  M4s are regulated and and M4 pistol is even MOAR regulated and its existence is like looking for a wallabee on Oahu

Okay, I'll play along ...

What kind of training must I take in order for that other guy who:

"has an M4 "pistol" tucked into his underwear because "constitutional carry";
not even a holster is needed because it's "infringing" on his right to carry.
He sits down in Ala Moana food court. A 3 round burst goes off in his He Man
underwear because a key from his keyring managed to get inside the trigger
guard, killing 6 people, including himself. "

to change his ways?

What you are describing can happen regardless of mandated training requirements, testing and mental evals.  That type of person will buy a firearm -- legally after jumping through all the hoops, or illegally -- and still have the same level of respect for firearms you "created."

Training is not a solution for poor judgement or immature attitudes.  In the scope of this discussion, training is a panacea for the anti-gun crowd and the government, so they don't have to admit their former unconstitutional laws and rules have actually done nothing for public safety.

Think about it.  if I sell you a plastic bracelet with the promise that as long as you wear it, nothing bad will befall you.  Then one day you forget to wear it, and nothing bad happens to you.  One week later, however, you're the victim of a home invasion -- beaten, robbed and your wife raped.  Then you realize you were wearing your lucky bracelet.  How could such a bad thing have happened to you?  and, why didn't this happen when you weren't wearing it?

That's when you realize the promises were all BS, that I didn't have the power to protect you, and you were a fool to part with your money believing the BS I fed you.

That's exactly how government approaches gun control.  Every single new hurdle to gun ownership, use, and carrying is always, without fail, pronounced a new and better way to make the people, our children, schools, communities, state, homes, families, etc., etc. safer. 

If you actually take time to read the bills/laws, look at the problems they say they address in them, and logically work out how that law solves anything close to those problems, you'll be just as pissed off after realizing you've been placing your faith and safety in a plastic bracelet.

For every law you THINK makes us safer, you should research how many other places don't have that law -- and whether all those places have more or fewer gun-related deaths, murders, muggings, rapes and/or other crimes of violence.  You'll soon learn the truth.  There's no solution for any of that.  There are ways to reduce crime, but none of it will be "solved."

If HI adopts an assault weapons ban, as some other states have done, look at the rate of crime in all other cities as they relate to criminals using assault weapons.  What you'll find is there really isn't a problem with that specific weapon.  The anti-gunners simply target it because it's (1) in common use -- most owned semi-auto rifle in the US, and (2) most people who know nothing about guns are easily scared when lied to about them being "weapons of war," "high powered" and "are a bad choice for self-/home-defense."

If they can ban the one firearm most people own, they can mark it down as a huge victory for gun control.  No different than the 1970s and 1980s when they were calling to ban all semi-auto handguns ("nobody but criminals have a need for those").

I tried to explain what was on my mind but failed miserably.  You explained it perfectly.

I tried to explain what was on my mind but failed miserably.  You explained it perfectly.

That's somewhat disturbing ....  that I can read your mind.

 

That's somewhat disturbing ....  that I can read your mind.

 

 

When there is a complete breakdown in lawlessness and emergence of disorder (as in the RK Riots), feel free to interpret the 2A in the literal sense. I'm pretty sure society as a whole would endorse this, and in that sense, that's probably why none of them were indicted.

What we did not see... were people of unknown origin, marching down a public street, with illegal weapons, firing rounds into masses of people, citing "constitutional carry", when law and order is being maintained, "because one day it[i/] could happen".

As I said before: In Israel, a country surrounded by hostile entities, under constant attack, that regularly has citizens open carrying machine guns, still requires medical clearance, police clearance, and examinations before private citizens may carry firearms in public.

So you want to pick and choose how you interpret the 2A from person to person
That's just plain stupid. That is a stupid arguement based on stupid reasoning
Can't reason with stupid. So I won't
The best thing you could do now is not comment any more. But you will probably keep coming back bc you are not smart

Despite the Japanese having some "curious" sub/microcultures, I think the Japanese macroculture as a whole would probably lead to less crime than rates seen in America assuming they owned the same amount of guns as we do.

I suspect that would be the case. I love our independent, freedom loving, don't tell me what to do American attitude but it also brings its own social problems.

He spelled his name.

Instead of goal post moving, now denying something happened.

Oh so if he spelled his name then I am not allowed to forget? Do you not understand what "don't recall" means?

Yes, because this shows you're wrong again.

Wrong about what? By all means, point to any statement I made here that is factually incorrect.

LOL!  Now we need a decoder to know when it's "hardly ever".

Maybe you can add a numeric value at the end of your sentences, something like 1 to 10, just to give us a degree of confidence in the honesty of your post?

That would be great!

1 = a complete lie
10 = absolutely true

Or, just leave it up to us to know when you're lying. 

"Hardly ever" only applies because you don't count false statements you believed to be true.

Wrong.
I say hardly ever lie because there are rare occasions where I do not tell the truth. For example if I bought my wife a present at a store and she sees the credit charge and asks me what I bought I tell her I bought something different than I actually bought. I also told my children Santa Clause is real.

If I said I never lie that would be a lie because right there are two instances I did in fact lie. Thus I try to be more accurate by saying I hardly ever lie.

Anything else you want to troll me about?

like i said before, having poor memory or recall is not a good trait in a cop...

Oh so if he spelled his name then I am not allowed to forget? Do you not understand what "don't recall" means?

like i said before, having poor memory or recall is not a good trait in a cop...

Shucks, i guess i'll never make it in the academy 

Oh so if he spelled his name then I am not allowed to forget? Do you not understand what "don't recall" means?

The source material is still available to watch. We've ALL come here and watched it before commenting. So far, noone else has been unnable to identify the individual in question, or remember other facts or details about his testimony and response video. Theres are a few possible explanations for your inability to accurately comment on this subject. Some of the more plausible explanations could be considered offensive, so lets pick the kindest one: You're just here for attention.