Florida firm offers free AK-47s to new customers

[Little-Acorn]

Gotta love this.

So many people have been conned into fearing any gun, any where under any circumstances, that a campaign like this is solid intrinsic value beyone the direct benefit to the recipient.

It should do a pretty good job of identifying people who start screaming hysterical things when any mention of people owning guns (especially AK-47s) comes up.

"Those who shock easily, should be shocked regularly and often."

----------------------------------------

http://www.foxbusiness.com/2011/09/16/florida-firm-offers-free-ak-47s-to-new-customers/print

Florida Firm Offers Free AK-47s To New Customers

Published September 16, 2011 | MarketWatch Pulse

CHICAGO -- Retail merchant account provider MerchantService.com will give a voucher good for a free AK-47 assault rifle to new customers, depending on the amount of business they do. The company, which provides credit-card-processing services to businesses, announced the promotion as part of its ""No Merchant Victims" campaign that is designed to "encourage merchants to stand their ground and protect themselves," MerchantService.com said. The voucher, worth up to $750 "can be used at any reputable gun shop where [the user] must go through the proper background checks and waiting period that the law requires," said Gino Kauzlarich, president of Sarasota, Fla.-based MerchantService.com, on the company's website.

[fj1200]

I'd hate to be their insurance company.

[Little-Acorn]

I'd hate to be their insurance company.

Shame about your poor judgement problem. My sympathies.

[fj1200]

My judgement is fine, I'm not encouraging untrained merchants to go get a gun and "stand their ground."

[Little-Acorn]

My judgement is fine, I'm not encouraging untrained merchants to go get a gun and "stand their ground."

Yep, here come the strawman agruments, right on schedule. ;)

[Noir]

OMG guys you have to go to the website just to hear the song xD

[logroller]

This is a publicity stunt; a very effective one I'd guess.

Didn't it say the company campaign originated in florida, while the article comes from chicago. How stereotypical.

Noir, I didn't find the song you were speaking of-- was it this one.

"I keep a stiff upper lip
And I shoot
And I shoot
And i shoot shoot shoot
Shoot from the hip"


http://youtu.be/mW-O_quy8_g

[ConHog]

My mom and her two sisters were in Branson, MO Friday night, and my Aunt was mugged. My mom is getting a gun. Something small, probably a .22 maybe a .38, but damn when a person gets mugged in Branson, MO there is problems.

[Noir]

This is a publicity stunt; a very effective one I'd guess.

Didn't it say the company campaign originated in florida, while the article comes from chicago. How stereotypical.

Noir, I didn't find the song you were speaking of-- was it this one.

"I keep a stiff upper lip
And I shoot
And I shoot
And i shoot shoot shoot
Shoot from the hip"


http://youtu.be/mW-O_quy8_g

Nay, go to THIS PAGE (http://www.nomerchantvictims.com/) (the one with the promotion) pure random genius xD

[fj1200]

Yep, here come the strawman agruments, right on schedule. ;)

What strawman? You don't see a liability issue with encouraging likely untrained citizens to get a gun and stand their ground? You have little judgement if so as gun ownership doesn't magically confer ability.

[fj1200]

My mom and her two sisters were in Branson, MO Friday night, and my Aunt was mugged. My mom is getting a gun. Something small, probably a .22 maybe a .38, but damn when a person gets mugged in Branson, MO there is problems.

That's a good idea, gun ownership automatically means gun competence.

[Little-Acorn]

What strawman?

encouraging likely untrained citizens to get a gun and stand their ground

Bingo.

[fj1200]

Bingo.

Right, because there is ZERO chance that some of those they've encouraged to get a gun and arm themselves don't have the necessary skills. Statistics much?

[Little-Acorn]

some of those they've encouraged to get a gun and arm themselves

And the strawman args just keep coming, and coming........

[ConHog]

That's a good idea, gun ownership automatically means gun competence.

I'm retired National Guard. 22 years service, Ranger qualified, fought in two wars. Do you suppose it is likely that I would arm my mother and not train her in the proper use of said firearm?

[ConHog]

And the strawman args just keep coming, and coming........

It's not really a strawman, because you KNOW that if one of those weapons ends up being used for nefarious purposes someone will sue this company. It seems like that's all FJ was commenting on. I didn't read it as any sort of comment on whether people had the right to own such a weapon or anything similar.

[Little-Acorn]

It's not really a strawman, because you KNOW that if one of those weapons ends up being used for nefarious purposes someone will sue this company.

Followed by the usual assertion at high volume that I *KNOW* the strawman is somehow true.

[ConHog]

Followed by the usual assertion at high volume that I *KNOW* the strawman is somehow true.

How come so few are willing to engage in adult conversations here? The reality is people are going to sue this company if the weapons they are giving away are used for wrong. That isn't saying they are right to do so, or that the company would deserve to be sued. It's just facing a reality.

[Little-Acorn]

How come so few are willing to engage in adult conversations here?

Damned if I know. Nothing but people citing "problems" that don't exist, "fact" I'm supposed to "KNOW" but that actually aren't true, and laserlike concentration upon same to the exclusion of any adult conversations.

My guess is, they know there's nothing illegal or hazardous in what that company is doing, but they hate it anyway, so they throw up all this flak and BS in hopes that somebody believes it somewhere, despite its being wrong.

[J.T]

I'd hate to be their insurance company.

And why is that?


That's a good idea, gun ownership automatically means gun competence.

Makes as much sense as assuming gun ownership means gun incompetence and that these persons will not be encouraged to receive training and practice and.or take the initiative to do so of their own accord.

Right, because there is ZERO chance that some of those they've encouraged to get a gun and arm themselves don't have the necessary skills. Statistics much?

If I offer free lollipops, am I encouraging people to gorge on sweets and get diabetes? You don't have to go get the gun if you don't want to and there's nothing to prevent you from simply reselling it if you don't want it. Nor do you have to ever use it if you don't wish to. Jeeze, if they raffled off a new car, you'd scream about drunk drivers :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

I'm retired National Guard. 22 years service, Ranger qualified, fought in two wars. Do you suppose it is likely that I would arm my mother and not train her in the proper use of said firearm?

Nope, I have no doubt that you would properly arm and train your mother in the use of firearms. I was only using the acorn logic that bestows automatic competence upon acquisition of said artillery.

[fj1200]

And the strawman args just keep coming, and coming........

You decry those who post against j.t yet you use the same debating tactics he does? More acorn logic I suppose.

[ConHog]

Nope, I have no doubt that you would properly arm and train your mother in the use of firearms. I was only using the acorn logic that bestows automatic competence upon acquisition of said artillery.


I got ya.


I think it's pretty funny to try to act like only law abiding citizens who are trained in proper firearm usage will go get their free AK47 to lol

[fj1200]

It's not really a strawman, because you KNOW that if one of those weapons ends up being used for nefarious purposes someone will sue this company. It seems like that's all FJ was commenting on. I didn't read it as any sort of comment on whether people had the right to own such a weapon or anything similar.

Bingo.


Followed by the usual assertion at high volume that I *KNOW* the strawman is somehow true.

There's no strawman here. My comment was based solely on their idea being incredibly misguided and will result in a lawsuit of some sort because they gave away a deadly weapon and encouraged them to stand their ground under the assumption that because they now have a gun that they are competent and will always be in the right. They could either kill/harm an innocent person or could be killed/harmed themselves. Either way their insurance company will be forced to defend or pay; I don't want to be their insurance company. In fact they might want to up their umbrella policy.

[logroller]

Yep, here come the strawman agruments, right on schedule. ;)

FUD peddler!

[fj1200]

And why is that?

Liability.


Makes as much sense as assuming gun ownership means gun incompetence and that these persons will not be encouraged to receive training and practice and.or take the initiative to do so of their own accord.

Tell you what, go and give a gun to someone who is untrained, put them in a position to kill/be killed, and see if you get sued for negligence. You would, and rightly so.


If I offer free lollipops, am I encouraging people to gorge on sweets and get diabetes? You don't have to go get the gun if you don't want to and there's nothing to prevent you from simply reselling it if you don't want it. Nor do you have to ever use it if you don't wish to. Jeeze, if they raffled off a new car, you'd scream about drunk drivers :rolleyes:

More unconscionable stupidity from you I see; the ol' candy bars are cars are pogo-sticks are guns argument. Such silliness.

[fj1200]

I got ya.


I think it's pretty funny to try to act like only law abiding citizens who are trained in proper firearm usage will go get their free AK47 to lol

Yup, I think about getting a gun sometimes but it's been so long since I've fired one that I wouldn't know where to start. I think my shoulder still hurts from firing a 10 gauge 20 years ago and I completely sucked at skeet shooting. FML :laugh:

[Psychoblues]

I got strawmen sneaking up around me every day and night. Can I get me one of those free AK 47's? Will it be better than the one I already have? Are more or less rounds better? On reloads how many grains are best? I don't like the kicks of high loads. Would an AR 15 be better? I'm so scared now!

Psychoblues

[TheShadowKNows]

What strawman? You don't see a liability issue with encouraging likely untrained citizens to get a gun and stand their ground? You have little judgement if so as gun ownership doesn't magically confer ability.

And what exactly constitutes a "Trained Citizen" in your perfect world?

[fj1200]

And what exactly constitutes a "Trained Citizen" in your perfect world?

Someone who didn't get a gun in the mail... Are you trying to argue against something I didn't say?

[ConHog]

And what exactly constitutes a "Trained Citizen" in your perfect world?

If you don't know the difference between being trained to use a firearm and not being trained to use a firearm , I would just as soon you never picked one up.

[J.T]

Tell you what, go and give a gun to someone who is untrained, put them in a position to kill/be killed, and see if you get sued for negligence. You would, and rightly so.

So Wal-Mart can and should be sued for selling a knife to a woman who tries to use it to defend against a home invader and gets hurt?


You must be a Democrat.


Someone who didn't get a gun in the mail... Are you trying to argue against something I didn't say?
Clearly, you've no idea how the law works when it comes to mailing firearms :rolleyes:

[logroller]

Someone who didn't get a gun in the mail... Are you trying to argue against something I didn't say?

Obviously you hate the USPS-- that's what this all boils down to...you free-market junkie:laugh2:

[darin]

My judgement is fine, I'm not encouraging untrained merchants to go get a gun and "stand their ground."

Training doesn't have much to do with anything. It's not specifically your comment that bothers me, but it's very much like the Liberal dogma "Education empowers" - further, "Give kids the information to make GOOD choices!"

Training and education cannot create good judgment. Whether it's guns, cars, relationships, training programs, educational services, and the like will not save anyone from anything; or anyone determined to hurt themselves or others.

[fj1200]

So Wal-Mart can and should be sued for selling a knife to a woman who tries to use it to defend against a home invader and gets hurt?


You must be a Democrat.


Clearly, you've no idea how the law works when it comes to mailing firearms :rolleyes:

When you try to analogize you should at least attempt to follow the fact pattern. :rolleyes: And my Dem credentials are pretty solid aren't they?

Mailing. :laugh:


Obviously you hate the USPS-- that's what this all boils down to...you free-market junkie:laugh2:

You and j.t should get on the same page next time you get together, I'm a free-market hating Dem... :laugh:


Training doesn't have much to do with anything. It's not specifically your comment that bothers me, but it's very much like the Liberal dogma "Education empowers" - further, "Give kids the information to make GOOD choices!"

Training and education cannot create good judgment. Whether it's guns, cars, relationships, training programs, educational services, and the like will not save anyone from anything; or anyone determined to hurt themselves or others.

So you agree?.? We now have a private business that is not only encouraging something questionable, they are providing the means to cause harm/be harmed. A merchant could be impeccably trained and even make sound decisions while "standing their ground" but this firm has just put themselves in the middle of a potential lawsuit.

[darin]

So you agree?.? We now have a private business that is not only encouraging something questionable, they are providing the means to cause harm/be harmed. A merchant could be impeccably trained and even make sound decisions while "standing their ground" but this firm has just put themselves in the middle of a potential lawsuit.

I do not agree. Nothing is questionable about owning a firearm.

let me pose this - what if they were giving away a free CAR instead of a firearm...would that change how you feel?

[fj1200]

I do not agree. Nothing is questionable about owning a firearm.

let me pose this - what if they were giving away a free CAR instead of a firearm...would that change how you feel?

THIS IS NOT ABOUT OWNING A GUN!!!

GUNS ARE NOT CARS!!!

Did they give the car to an untrained 10 year old? At least match the facts people.

From the companies website (http://www.nomerchantvictims.com/?p=321):


The best solution now for our society, is to shoot back. Only a very small percentage of the population is responsible for the vast amount of “Victims”. Shoot back just like Raven Smith did at the masked robber Anthony Hauser, like Tampa police did at Carlos Laboy, and like Jerome Ersland did at Antwun Parker. Because by neutralizing the threat from even one criminal, you are stopping dozens or even hundreds of additional crimes from being committed, and you are reducing the financial burden placed on our society by our criminal justice system by many millions of dollars. Dollars that are much better spent on education and health care.

Ersland gets life; judge rejects request to suspend all of prison sentence (http://newsok.com/ersland-gets-life-judge-rejects-request-to-suspend-all-of-prison-sentence/article/3584664)



A jury in May chose the life term as punishment. Ersland was convicted of first-degree murder for fatally shooting an unarmed robber inside the Reliable Discount Pharmacy in south Oklahoma City (http://newsok.com/keysearch/?er=1&CANONICAL=Oklahoma+City&CATEGORY=CITY) two years ago.

Prosecutors said the fallen robber, Antwun “Speedy” Parker, 16, was unconscious from a shot to the head when Ersland got a second gun and shot him five more times. Prosecutors at trial called the final shots an execution. Ersland said he was defending himself and two female co-workers. He claimed the masked robber was getting back up.
A second robber, Jevontai Ingram (http://newsok.com/keysearch/?er=1&CANONICAL=Jevontai+Ingram&CATEGORY=PERSON), had fled already. Ingram, then 14, did have a gun.
...
He served in both the U.S. Army (http://newsok.com/keysearch/?er=1&CANONICAL=U.S.+Army&CATEGORY=ORGANIZATION) and U.S. Air Force (http://newsok.com/keysearch/?er=1&CANONICAL=U.S.+Air+Force&CATEGORY=ORGANIZATION) and had never been arrested before the robbery.

I don't want to be the company that provided him the means to the gun nor encouraged him to "stand his ground." And he was apparently even "trained."

[ConHog]

I do not agree. Nothing is questionable about owning a firearm.

let me pose this - what if they were giving away a free CAR instead of a firearm...would that change how you feel?

If they were giving cars to people who weren't properly trained to drive, damn right I'd be concerned.

[darin]

THIS IS NOT ABOUT OWNING A GUN!!!

GUNS ARE NOT CARS!!!

Did they give the car to an untrained 10 year old? At least match the facts people.

I asked you a question - if they were giving cars away to folks legally-able to own the car, would it bother you. The company is giving a VOUCHER for folks to take to a gun shop - only folks legally able to purchase and own a rifle can receive the rifle.

Your last comment is completely off topic - nobody is giving AK47s to 10 year old kids. At least match the facts, FJ ;)

So - again I ask you: If the company were giving away vouchers for a FREE CAR - where the recipient had to go to a car dealer and qualify for ownership; would that bother you? It's a related question - I'm changing the nouns to prove a point.

I'm going to speculate you would NOT have a problem with the policy.

So - my point is, statistically, cars kill - I'm guessing here - 4 to 5 times as many folks as guns, every year. I'm going to guess 50,000 people die in car accidents each year, compared to...maybe 10,000 from bullets.

If you don't like me changing the noun to 'car' - how about 'pack of cigarettes'?

You, and others it seems, see 'gun' and freak the hell out because it's easy to freak the hell out on things which, on the surface, to the hysterical, SEEM dangerous.

[Nukeman]

Someone who didn't get a gun in the mail... Are you trying to argue against something I didn't say?Uhh Gun dealers wont send through the mail unless your a "LICENSED" gun dealer... otherwise its illegal. No way of background checking and verifing information!!!!!

[fj1200]

I asked you a question - if they were giving cars away to folks legally-able to own the car, would it bother you. The company is giving a VOUCHER for folks to take to a gun shop - only folks legally able to purchase and own a rifle can receive the rifle.

Your last comment is completely off topic - nobody is giving AK47s to 10 year old kids. At least match the facts, FJ ;)

So - again I ask you: If the company were giving away vouchers for a FREE CAR - where the recipient had to go to a car dealer and qualify for ownership; would that bother you? It's a related question - I'm changing the nouns to prove a point.

I'm going to speculate you would NOT have a problem with the policy.

So - my point is, statistically, cars kill - I'm guessing here - 4 to 5 times as many folks as guns, every year. I'm going to guess 50,000 people die in car accidents each year, compared to...maybe 10,000 from bullets.

If you don't like me changing the noun to 'car' - how about 'pack of cigarettes'?

You, and others it seems, see 'gun' and freak the hell out because it's easy to freak the hell out on things which, on the surface, to the hysterical, SEEM dangerous.

My comment is dead on target, pun intended. There are complete fundamental differences between a car and a gun, why you can't get that I have no idea other than you conferring sainthood on legal gun ownership; Ersland legally owned a gun and he's going to jail and was convicted of first degree murder because he went to far (IMO). You also ignore that I said nothing about gun ownership as a right, if merchants want to legally armed themselves and (hopefully) get proper training I have no problem with it. But as a policy of this company to provide the means and encouragement is bad company policy.

Your non sequitur is correctly ignored.


Uhh Gun dealers wont send through the mail unless your a "LICENSED" gun dealer... otherwise its illegal. No way of background checking and verifing information!!!!!

It was a joke. The voucher may likely come through the mail.

[logroller]

I asked you a question - if they were giving cars away to folks legally-able to own the car, would it bother you. The company is giving a VOUCHER for folks to take to a gun shop - only folks legally able to purchase and own a rifle can receive the rifle.

Your last comment is completely off topic - nobody is giving AK47s to 10 year old kids. At least match the facts, FJ ;)

So - again I ask you: If the company were giving away vouchers for a FREE CAR - where the recipient had to go to a car dealer and qualify for ownership; would that bother you? It's a related question - I'm changing the nouns to prove a point.

I'm going to speculate you would NOT have a problem with the policy.

So - my point is, statistically, cars kill - I'm guessing here - 4 to 5 times as many folks as guns, every year. I'm going to guess 50,000 people die in car accidents each year, compared to...maybe 10,000 from bullets.

If you don't like me changing the noun to 'car' - how about 'pack of cigarettes'?

You, and others it seems, see 'gun' and freak the hell out because it's easy to freak the hell out on things which, on the surface, to the hysterical, SEEM dangerous.

Just being practical here, a handgun I could understand, a shotgun even, but what point-of-service merchant keeps an ak for defense? that's why I said early on this is just a marketing ploy, having very little to do with any encouraged behavior beyond visiting their website. I'm sure they got a lot of hits for what would probably amount to only a handful of actual persons who will qualify.

FJ's first comment (which I took more as a joke) just implied getting sued. I think it had less to do with a tort than it simply being a comment on our over-litigious society. Ooooo..yeah, cigarettes are a tough one to use there. Smokeless and Cigarette manufacturers have faced pretty daunting lawsuits over marketing techniques and lost to the tune of billion$. In all reality, I'm sure they have all kinds of stipulations to reduce liability; not to mention those when you actually buy the gun. Its not like they're putting 'em in wheaties boxes or that claw game at video arcade or even sending them a gun at all. They're offering a voucher (on advise from their legal dept, no doubt) , and I'm guessing you could opt out in lieu of cash or credit. Personally I'd take the cash, I've got a gun, and ammo's getting expensive!

[J.T]

Training and education cannot create good judgment

But it can provide good reflexes and instinct. THat's why our police and military drill with their weapons, no?


Mailing. :laugh:


Someone who didn't get a gun in the mail...
:rolleyes:


Did they give the car to an untrained 10 year old? At least match the facts people.

Did they give a gun to an untrained 10 year old?

From the OP:
The voucher, worth up to $750 "can be used at any reputable gun shop where [the user] must go through the proper background checks and waiting period that the law requires



You were saying something about facts?

Who let KRB have fj's login credentials?

[fj1200]

Mayhap I was a bit hasty.


I asked you a question - if they were giving cars away to folks legally-able to own the car, would it bother you.

Let's see:


With every new account receive a Ford Mustang Boss 302 Laguna Seca complete with 400+ HP and we'll even paint your name on the side so everyone knows who you are and the name of your company. Don't mind that you have zero experience with a high performance car you are legally able to own this car and if you happen to lose control and slam into another motorist; well, just pay no attention to the liability concerns you're legally able to own this car, it's practically constitutionally guaranteed.


Your last comment is completely off topic - nobody is giving AK47s to 10 year old kids. At least match the facts, FJ ;)

Just matching the facts. ;)


So - again I ask you: If the company were giving away vouchers for a FREE CAR - where the recipient had to go to a car dealer and qualify for ownership; would that bother you? It's a related question - I'm changing the nouns to prove a point.

I'm going to speculate you would NOT have a problem with the policy.

Given the facts well I'd have to go with my original comment.

I'd hate to be their insurance company.

It's not the nouns that matter, it's the liability of a dumb idea.


Did they give a gun to an untrained 10 year old?

From the OP:
The voucher, worth up to $750 "can be used at any reputable gun shop where [the user] must go through the proper background checks and waiting period that the law requires






You were saying something about facts?

Who let KRB have fj's login credentials?

Who said they did? Did I contradicts any facts? BTW, don't take any GED classes that require logic.

I notice no one is taking up Ersland's defense.

[J.T]

Who said they did?

:yawn:

Do you have anything intelligent to contribute to this discussion? You're the idiot pretending we're talking about giving anything to children

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?32674-Florida-firm-offers-free-AK-47s-to-new-customers/page3&p=494584#post494584

[fj1200]

:yawn:

Do you have anything intelligent to contribute to this discussion? You're the idiot pretending we're talking about giving anything to children

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?32674-Florida-firm-offers-free-AK-47s-to-new-customers/page3&p=494584#post494584

Newsflash GED, I AM the discussion. You can't even understand your own links.

[logroller]

Hey kids, buy a desert camo bag, get a...
2472


Oh, well its got a little orange flash suppressor. Phew. Thought I was gonna have to sue somebody.:laugh2:

[Little-Acorn]

Gotta love this.

So many people have been conned into fearing any gun, any where under any circumstances, that a campaign like this is solid intrinsic value beyone the direct benefit to the recipient.

It should do a pretty good job of identifying people who start screaming hysterical things when any mention of people owning guns (especially AK-47s) comes up.

"Those who shock easily, should be shocked regularly and often."


And it has succeeded magnificently... as this thread shows. :)

[Noir]

I don't see why 'training' became an issue in this topic. As far as i'm aware the 2nd mentions nothing about training.

If these people have the right to buy an AK, what does it matter if they buy it (or some other weapon) purely with their money or with the help of vouchers?

[fj1200]

And it has succeeded magnificently... as this thread shows. :)

Yup it clearly shows much of the gun crowd that will only plug their ears and grunt, "guns good," in classic cave-man fashion with no ability to debate the nuance. And you led the pack; are you proud? Will you debate the "solid intrinsic value" that Ersland received?

[ConHog]

I don't see why 'training' became an issue in this topic. As far as i'm aware the 2nd mentions nothing about training.

If these people have the right to buy an AK, what does it matter if they buy it (or some other weapon) purely with their money or with the help of vouchers?



A well regulated militia in fact meant a well trained militia, argument refuted.

[TheShadowKNows]

Someone who didn't get a gun in the mail... Are you trying to argue against something I didn't say?
You no doubt view your answer as a very clever "sound byte". But you not only avoided the question, but clumisly tried to disavow the reality of what you stated. Either you've come to rely on a convenient short memory when "cornered", or seek to baselessly try to attach the blame on me, or both.
I'll ask you once more, "What, in your world, constitutes a "trained citizen" in the use of firearms"?
Please try to stay with the question in point. Focusing on objective practicality, with specific details.


If you don't know the difference between being trained to use a firearm and not being trained to use a firearm , I would just as soon you never picked one up.
Thanx for sharing. I will no doubt become a better person with the help of your expert tutelage.
Of course I will have to go on blind faith, while ignoring the fact that you completely missed the point of my question. But then again who could possibly have seen such an obvious facetious inference as in, "where does the intent to create a perfect world end, and the agenda driven obsessions to incrementally erode the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" begin"? Better known as GUN CONTROL!
PS: When you decide that I should no longer be in possession of my firearms, you are welcome to come and get them.
HAVE A NICE DAY

[ConHog]

Thanx for sharing. I will no doubt become a better person with the help of your expert tutelage.
Of course I will have to go on blind faith, while ignoring the fact that you completely missed the point of my question. But then again who could possibly have seen such an obvious facetious inference as in, "where does the intent to create a perfect world end, and the agenda driven obsessions to incrementally erode the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" begin"? Better known as GUN CONTROL!
PS: When you decide that I should no longer be in possession of my firearms, you are welcome to come and get them.
HAVE A NICE DAY

The day the government shows up to take your firearms, you give me a call and I'll come help you fight them off. That has NOTHING to do with recognizing that a person should be trained in the proper safety and use of firearms if they are going to be using them.

[logroller]

I'll ask you once more, "What, in your world, constitutes a "trained citizen" in the use of firearms"?

Oooh Oooh, I know...the opposite of this:




1) don't possess a weapon unless you intend to kill randomly
2) get the cheapest and most scary-looking gun available (the bigger and blacker the better)
3) never carry more ammunition than you will need
4) always have a bullet for yourself (see rule 3)

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?32505-Gun-nut-opens-fire-in-Carson-City-Nevada&p=492664#post492664


Seriously though, I don't know what being a citizen has to do with it, but a responsible gun owner understands and practices (or trains, whatever) these four basic rules of gun safety.

1) Treat EVERY firearm as loaded
2) NEVER point a firearm at something you're not willing to kill or destroy
3) Know your target and beyond
4) Keep you finger off the trigger until you intend to fire.

Concealed or open carry have additional training required, which vary by locale-- usually there is something about avoiding/diffusing a confrontation, weapon retention, non-lethal techniques etc. Hope that helps:thumb:

[fj1200]

You no doubt view your answer as a very clever "sound byte". But you not only avoided the question, but clumisly tried to disavow the reality of what you stated. Either you've come to rely on a convenient short memory when "cornered", or seek to baselessly try to attach the blame on me, or both.
I'll ask you once more, "What, in your world, constitutes a "trained citizen" in the use of firearms"?
Please try to stay with the question in point. Focusing on objective practicality, with specific details.

Your pointless contribution to the thread is barely deserving of even a sound byte. I didn't avoid the question I flat ignored it because it added no value. And you corner someone? :laugh:

[TheShadowKNows]

Oooh Oooh, I know...the opposite of this:



Seriously though, I don't know what being a citizen has to do with it, but a responsible gun owner understands and practices (or trains, whatever) these four basic rules of gun safety.

1) Treat EVERY firearm as loaded
2) NEVER point a firearm at something you're not willing to kill or destroy
3) Know your target and beyond
4) Keep you finger off the trigger until you intend to fire.

Concealed or open carry have additional training required, which vary by locale-- usually there is something about avoiding/diffusing a confrontation, weapon retention, non-lethal techniques etc. Hope that helps:thumb:

Your entire objection to anyone receiving a firearm through a marketing promotion is based on the eroneous position that "they" will act irresponsibility. That assumption is proof of your short-sightedness, and ostensibly has holes in it bigger than the ones in your head.
While not only baselessly annointing yourself as the purveyor of doom, you have also unwittingly opened the door to any left wing zealot looking for an excuse to further the cause of gun confiscation.
Get back to me when your ego takes a break, and your emotional maturity level warrants the ability to admit when you have made a mistake.

[J.T]

A well regulated militia in fact meant a well trained militia, argument refuted.
'
Fail. It doesn't say 'the right of a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms..'. It says 'the right of the people'- for the people must have to the right to keep and bear arms before the militia can even exist.

[logroller]

Your entire objection to anyone receiving a firearm through a marketing promotion is based on the eroneous position that "they" will act irresponsibility. That assumption is proof of your short-sightedness, and ostensibly has holes in it bigger than the ones in your head.
While not only baselessly annointing yourself as the purveyor of doom, you have also unwittingly opened the door to any left wing zealot looking for an excuse to further the cause of gun confiscation.

Golly gee, you really set me up for an earful. You asked a simple question, I gave you a simple answer. As these debates often become heated, I tried to diffuse it by being playful, (failing at such, obviously) but I don't think that makes me vain, immature or stupid (with big holes in my head). I simply answered your question as to what constitutes being "trained" in the use/handling of firearms. Perhaps you interpreted my answer as the question: What is uncouth behavior?-- I accept your answer.

And speaking of those holes in one's head, try those little ones on top, before the big one on bottom-- it was FJ who brought up lawsuits. As I've said, repeatedly, that it was just a publicity stunt, most likely very few guns would even me rewarded, and no cause for possible legal concern.



Get back to me when your ego takes a break, and your emotional maturity level warrants the ability to admit when you have made a mistake.

Ditto.

[fj1200]

And speaking of those holes in one's head, try those little ones on top, before the big one on bottom-- it was FJ who brought up lawsuits. As I've said, repeatedly, that it was just a publicity stunt, most likely very few guns would even me rewarded, and no cause for possible legal concern.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't know which way is up anymore, he's too busy trying to use big words and sound intelligent. FWIW, I think the merchant is pretty hard core on the subject; did you take a look at his website? I truly think he wants people to arm up and defend themselves damn the consequences.

[ConHog]

'
Fail. It doesn't say 'the right of a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms..'. It says 'the right of the people'- for the people must have to the right to keep and bear arms before the militia can even exist.

Damn you dumb, if the milita is well trained then obviously the members of the militia are well trained as well.

[logroller]

I'm pretty sure he doesn't know which way is up anymore, he's too busy trying to use big words and sound intelligent. FWIW, I think the merchant is pretty hard core on the subject; did you take a look at his website? I truly think he wants people to arm up and defend themselves damn the consequences.

How big is his business, how long in operation? These are the questions that need be answered. Not some pretense of free gun with qualified purchase. I said earlier, this is from Florida, right? They have some of the loosest laws governing business; all kinds of shady businesses spring up in that state. The fact FLs quite gun friendly too, makes it all the more suspect.

[TheShadowKNows]

I'm pretty sure he doesn't know which way is up anymore, he's too busy trying to use big words and sound intelligent. FWIW, I think the merchant is pretty hard core on the subject; did you take a look at his website? I truly think he wants people to arm up and defend themselves damn the consequences.

MY rhetoric too far out of your league? Lets start with r-e-f-r-i-g-e-r-a-t-o-r, I'll get back to you for lesson #2. No wonder you have built a skyscraper in a sand box by premising yourself in a paranoid mindset, as you have little else to work with. Where-when-who-how-why is going to abuse the Ak's just because they are "gifts"? For all you know those recepients may have been involved with firearms most of their lives. While even if they weren't, they have the option of "training" for a degree of expertise. While whatever they choose to do, has a better chance for a positive outcome than you are capable of giving them credit for. Simply because their emotional maturity level is something that you can only aspire to.
But no your muscle bound brain, that has been overworked from jumping to too many conclusions, ASSUMES that nothing but abject carnage could possibly be the result of the transactions.
But alas as someone who who has to look up to see the curb, you can only be expected to believe that the street sweeper is GOD.

[J.T]

Damn you dumb

:rolleyes:

True or false: the second amendment, as ratified by the states, reads thusly: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Nowhere does it say that the right to keep and bear arms is dependent upon membership in a well-regulated militia.

[LuvRPgrl]

YAWN ZZZZZZZZZZ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


You no doubt view your answer as a very clever "sound byte". But you not only avoided the question, but clumisly tried to disavow the reality of what you stated. Either you've come to rely on a convenient short memory when "cornered", or seek to baselessly try to attach the blame on me, or both.
I'll ask you once more, "What, in your world, constitutes a "trained citizen" in the use of firearms"?
Please try to stay with the question in point. Focusing on objective practicality, with specific details.


Thanx for sharing. I will no doubt become a better person with the help of your expert tutelage.
Of course I will have to go on blind faith, while ignoring the fact that you completely missed the point of my question. But then again who could possibly have seen such an obvious facetious inference as in, "where does the intent to create a perfect world end, and the agenda driven obsessions to incrementally erode the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" begin"? Better known as GUN CONTROL!
PS: When you decide that I should no longer be in possession of my firearms, you are welcome to come and get them.
HAVE A NICE DAY


I'm pretty sure he doesn't know which way is up anymore, he's too busy trying to use big words and sound intelligent. FWIW, I think the merchant is pretty hard core on the subject; did you take a look at his website? I truly think he wants people to arm up and defend themselves damn the consequences.

If I recall correctly, that DORK makes up words, I caught him on that, with a word he used that didnt even exist.

[logroller]

RE:
Cheap shots won't win this one.

Apparently, neither will answering your questions. That's what I did, and was promptly attacked for no rational reason. Why not just go start a thread titled, "theshadowknows : a collection of rhetorical postings" I'm sure admin will be willing to close the thread at your request. That way, we know you just need to blow steam, and need not bother responding; as you clearly don't have any interest in debating with any spirit of mutual participation or respect. Still waiting for you to respond to post 58 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?32674-Florida-firm-offers-free-AK-47s-to-new-customers&p=494804#post494804); I understand, of course, it may be a while before you can
Get back to me when your ego takes a break, and your emotional maturity level warrants the ability to admit when you have made a mistake.

[fj1200]

How big is his business, how long in operation? These are the questions that need be answered. Not some pretense of free gun with qualified purchase. I said earlier, this is from Florida, right? They have some of the loosest laws governing business; all kinds of shady businesses spring up in that state. The fact FLs quite gun friendly too, makes it all the more suspect.

All valid questions but doesn't make my initial comment of not wanting to be his insurance company any less relevant. I think it puts him and his business in a potentially bad place, if he's concerned about the safety of his clients then there are other ways to help ensure their safety than to promote arming up.

[ConHog]

All valid questions but doesn't make my initial comment of not wanting to be his insurance company any less relevant. I think it puts him and his business in a potentially bad place, if he's concerned about the safety of his clients then there are other ways to help ensure their safety than to promote arming up.

I'll never understand some people's need to blow a statement on a message board completely out of proportion in order to make some sort of point. Take this for example, how hard is it really to understand that this guy's insurance company is probably pretty damn nervous if he's handing out guns?

[fj1200]

MY rhetoric too far out of your league? ... For all you know those recepients may have been involved with firearms most of their lives. While even if they weren't, they have the option of "training" for a degree of expertise. While whatever they choose to do, has a better chance for a positive outcome than you are capable of giving them credit for.

You're obviously confused; the definition of rhetoric is NOT being enamored with the clicky-clacky sound of your own typing.

I feel I must apologize for me being miles above your brand of debate; I am clearly incapable of arguing down to your level. That being said, I see that you, along with exactly zero others here, have not chosen to take up the defense of Mr. Ersland and his plight as the website in question has raised him to a certain level by praising his actions. Actions by which he is in jail and is the subject of a civil suit by the mother of the criminal that he has been convicted in causing the death of.

Dead robber's mother files wrongful death suit against pharmacist (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20110518_14_0_OKLAHO163629)

Which is exactly my point. Now imagine that the gun was received by Ersland as some sort of promotion to get a free gun and encouraged to "stand his ground." Do you think that Merchant Services would also be a defendant in that suit? It's not a hard stretch to say yes.

So if you still think I'm talking about gun control or training then I can't really help you. Please try and extend yourself to arguing about what I DID say not about what you THINK I said.


I'll never understand some people's need to blow a statement on a message board completely out of proportion in order to make some sort of point. Take this for example, how hard is it really to understand that this guy's insurance company is probably pretty damn nervous if he's handing out guns?

Especially when I've already said this:

You also ignore that I said nothing about gun ownership as a right, if merchants want to legally armed themselves and (hopefully) get proper training I have no problem with it.

[logroller]

All valid questions but doesn't make my initial comment of not wanting to be his insurance company any less relevant. I think it puts him and his business in a potentially bad place, if he's concerned about the safety of his clients then there are other ways to help ensure their safety than to promote arming up.

The answers to these questions speak to rather he's in that good of place to begin with. This reeks of desperation. If he had a bunch of clients, why would he offer an incentive via his website-- just send 'em the info.

[J.T]

I'll never understand some people's need to blow a statement on a message board completely out of proportion in order to make some sort of point. Take this for example, how hard is it really to understand that this guy's insurance company is probably pretty damn nervous if he's handing out guns?

He's not. He's handing out vouchers. The gun stores are tasked with performing required background checks, deciding whether to honour the voucher and whether or not to go through with the transaction in any given case, and providing the weapon.

Why aren't you lambasting gun stores? They're the ones who'll be giving guns to people. Why the idiotic attacks against the guy handing out what amount to coupons?

[ConHog]

He's not. He's handing out vouchers. The gun stores are tasked with performing required background checks, deciding whether to honour the voucher and whether or not to go through with the transaction in any given case, and providing the weapon.

Why aren't you lambasting gun stores? They're the ones who'll be giving guns to people. Why the idiotic attacks against the guy handing out what amount to coupons?

Speaking of idiotic, why are you continuing your idiocy of pretending that either FJ or I have attacked this guy? ALL we have suggested is that his insurance company is probably more than a little concerned given the fact that in this sue happy country of ours if a gun he provided a voucher for is used to commit a crime he will probably get sued. That's a reality JT , people love to sue and putting yourself in a position where you MIGHT be judged as liable if something goes wrong is usually not a good idea. now you can argue all you want that he wouldn't be liable, but again the reality is no one knows what the hell a jury would do if someone sued this guy, and his insurance company is undoubtedly worried about that.

[LuvRPgrl]

Shame about your poor judgement problem. My sympathies.

Im pretty confident fj was joking kinda, and this got into a tit for tat over nothing.


I'll never understand some people's need to blow a statement on a message board completely out of proportion in order to make some sort of point. Take this for example, how hard is it really to understand that this guy's insurance company is probably pretty damn nervous if he's handing out guns?

LiL A might not have blown it out of proportion at all. I think we all have had times when we misread what a poster was trying to say and over reacted.

[logroller]

LiL A might not have blown it out of proportion at all. I think we all have had times when we misread what a poster was trying to say and over reacted.

So I'm always wrong and you're always right, you're such big jer......oh, I see your point.

[LuvRPgrl]

So I'm always wrong and you're always right, you're such big jer......oh, I see your point.

well, yu got the begging of your post right,,,,:laugh:

[fj1200]

Im pretty confident fj was joking kinda, and this got into a tit for tat over nothing.

I do think that those who support gun rights need to call out when other gun rights supporters do/say dumb things. Don't give... err, ammunition to the other side, when calling for stricter regulations.

[ConHog]

I do think that those who support gun rights need to call out when other gun rights supporters do/say dumb things. Don't give... err, ammunition to the other side, when calling for stricter regulations.

Is that kinda like saying that alleged moderate Muslims should speak out when those Muslims who are allegedly radical commit acts of terror?

[logroller]

Is that kinda like saying that alleged moderate Muslims should speak out when those Muslims who are allegedly radical commit acts of terror?

Is that kinda like an actual strawman, an alleged strawman, or some other form of alleged rhetoric? it gets so confusing... kinda...:coffee:

Just teasing ya CH, this thread's beyond reaching any consensus, whatsoever.

[LuvRPgrl]

Is that kinda like an actual strawman, an alleged strawman, or some other form of alleged rhetoric? it gets so confusing... kinda...:coffee:

Just teasing ya CH, this thread's beyond reaching any consensus, whatsoever.

now, shouldnt that be an alleged consensus/

[logroller]

now, shouldnt that be an alleged consensus/

Certainly now it is.

[fj1200]

... this thread's beyond reaching any consensus, whatsoever.

There's not even consensus on what this thread is about. Some actually think it's about guns et al.

[logroller]

There's not even consensus on what this thread is about. Some actually think it's about guns et al.

That about sums it up. Agreed? :cool:

[LuvRPgrl]

There's not even consensus on what this thread is about. Some actually think it's about guns et al.

There is too a consensus.!!

[Gaffer]

There is too a consensus.!!

Right, there's only a conhog.

[J.T]

Clearly there is a consenus: all agree there is no consensus and they do not agree.

[TheShadowKNows]

YAWN ZZZZZZZZZZ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Would you care to tell me why your mouth is still open? The RED LIGHT went out hours ago.


There's not even consensus on what this thread is about. Some actually think it's about guns et al.

No it's certaintly is not about guns. Neither is is about "Insurance Companies" as you would have us believe. It's about the right to private "Ownership" of weaponery, regardless of the circumstances. As neither you, nor me, nor anyone else should be allowed to demogog the legitimacy of transfer of ownership by any American citizen. Under the "ASSUMPTION" that "they" are unqualified, irresponsible, careless, inept, or unworthy.
You have unwittingly placed yourself in the position of supporting the gun control zealots of the "left" with an unecessary detremental statement by referring to the "gun giveaways" in the negative. While completely overlooking the fact that those recepients could obtain a weapon of choice on their own if they so desired ( they are only given a voucher of purchase, they still have to pass all state and federal guidelines for possession, which alleviates the liability of the giveway ). While also the AK's have to be permanently adjusted to semi-automatic, as opposed to full auto ( a small dynamic that you have conveniently eliminated in your condescending, arrogant, and misguided posts ) to qualify for private posession.
So the bottom line is simple. What differentiates these transfers from any of the thousands of other legitimate weapons purchases that occur everyday? BTW, you can bet your Sweet Bippy, that the Company giving away the promotional weapons has no Legal, moral, or financial responsibility regarding the transactions. You see they are not managed by macho red neck's with a questionable genetic lineage ( so you see, you are still looking up to the curb ).
Take your time, and get back to me after you have a conference with the other self-ascribed moral minions that permeate this thread. While collectively ranging in the area of about medicore to subpar in anything that resembles an in-depth rationale.

[fj1200]

No it's certaintly is not about guns. ... the Company giving away the promotional weapons has no Legal, moral, or financial responsibility regarding the transactions. You see they are not managed by macho red neck's with a questionable genetic lineage ( so you see, you are still looking up to the curb ).

I don't really like to call people idiots but... And I don't want to call you "special" either because that would be unfair to those who wait for the short bus to pick them up for delivery to the "home" for the day. But while you are waiting for the "bus" you might want to take up the cause of Mr. Ersland who, unfortunately, is the poster child for this misguided sales promotion. You remember him don't you? He's going to prison for the rest of his life because he "stood his ground."

And unfortunately they are definitely "managed" by rednecks, one look and listen to their website is confirmation enough. Now, if you can avoid attempting to denigrate those who don't buy into the pathetic worldview that you espouse and actually make a coherent argument for Mr. Ersland... we look forward to more "brilliance" to emanate from your special place.

[TheShadowKNows]

Bingo.



There's no strawman here. My comment was based solely on their idea being incredibly misguided and will result in a lawsuit of some sort because they gave away a deadly weapon and encouraged them to stand their ground under the assumption that because they now have a gun that they are competent and will always be in the right. They could either kill/harm an innocent person or could be killed/harmed themselves. Either way their insurance company will be forced to defend or pay; I don't want to be their insurance company. In fact they might want to up their umbrella policy.

It's really a shame, but you are so misguided that you'd better save that bus ticket to the Funny Farm for yourself. Why can't you get it through your head that the final decision for transfer of ownership are the laws in place for qualification, and not the giver or receiver. The same laws that all gun purchases/transfers are controlled by. Compounded by your adament and very short-sighted opinion that the recepients are irresponsible, and absolute carnage is the only ultimate outcome.
As your limited knowledge of the "system" is only outdistance by your unfamiliarity with weaponery in general. As in Automatic weaponery is Illegal, save for those who are qualified to own a federal "collectors" license. It is referred to as a "stamp", and at last inquiry was dispensed to the recepients for a $200.00 cost ( and a very thorough background check ). Thereby all "look alike" assualt rifles marketed to the general public are redesigned to fire in semi-autonatic mode only.
While encouraging responsible adults to "stand their ground" has never been a problem, unless maybe when the warped logic of this thread somehow gets national attention, and permeates the airways with Nazi style brainwashing.
As I mentioned before, liability as far as the Company is concerned is voided, as any firearm product of the free market system, that has ever been challenged in Court, has never been found guilty of wrongful negligence.
Bottom line with you appears to be a question I have asked others on this forum from time to time, "Does your nurse know that you are off the grounds"?:slap:

[LuvRPgrl]

It's really a shame, but you are so misguided that you'd better save that bus ticket to the Funny Farm for yourself. Why can't you get it through your head that the final decision for transfer of ownership are the laws in place for qualification, and not the giver or receiver. The same laws that all gun purchases/transfers are controlled by. Compounded by your adament and very short-sighted opinion that the recepients are irresponsible, and absolute carnage is the only ultimate outcome.
As your limited knowledge of the "system" is only outdistance by your unfamiliarity with weaponery in general. As in Automatic weaponery is Illegal, save for those who are qualified to own a federal "collectors" license. It is referred to as a "stamp", and at last inquiry was dispensed to the recepients for a $200.00 cost ( and a very thorough background check ). Thereby all "look alike" assualt rifles marketed to the general public are redesigned to fire in semi-autonatic mode only.
While encouraging responsible adults to "stand their ground" has never been a problem, unless maybe when the warped logic of this thread somehow gets national attention, and permeates the airways with Nazi style brainwashing.
As I mentioned before, liability as far as the Company is concerned is voided, as any firearm product of the free market system, that has ever been challenged in Court, has never been found guilty of wrongful negligence.
Bottom line with you appears to be a question I have asked others on this forum from time to time, "Does your nurse know that you are off the grounds"?:slap:

The only thing that exceedes your egotistical need to cover up your inferiority complex by using multi syllabic terms, is your idiocy for not realizing that law suits in the last 50 years have been won in spite of "laws being in place" that most of us would have thought would prevent the lawsuits. Tobacco anyone?


Clearly there is a consenus: all agree there is no consensus and they do not agree.

I completely disagree with that.


Would you care to tell me why your mouth is still open? The RED LIGHT went out hours ago.


??????????????????
I dont get it.

As a "self-ascribed moral minions that permeate this thread." I have to say, Fj's comment was tongue in cheek. I know you dont know what that is, cuz you are too busy having ConHogs or someother posters cock in your mouth, thats all your tongue does.

It was a whimsical remark, with a touch of humor, that was off topic a bit, but not much. Care to have any other elementry concepts explained to you.

I do know that your continual attempts at witty bashing is a sure sign of your feelings of inadequacy, lumped together with your brick for brains, it is a dangerous combination.


No it's certaintly is not about guns. Neither is is about "Insurance Companies" as you would have us believe. It's about the right to private "Ownership" of weaponery, regardless of the circumstances. As neither you, nor me, nor anyone else should be allowed to demogog the legitimacy of transfer of ownership by any American citizen. Under the "ASSUMPTION" that "they" are unqualified, irresponsible, careless, inept, or unworthy.
You have unwittingly placed yourself in the position of supporting the gun control zealots of the "left" with an unecessary detremental statement by referring to the "gun giveaways" in the negative. While completely overlooking the fact that those recepients could obtain a weapon of choice on their own if they so desired ( they are only given a voucher of purchase, they still have to pass all state and federal guidelines for possession, which alleviates the liability of the giveway ). While also the AK's have to be permanently adjusted to semi-automatic, as opposed to full auto ( a small dynamic that you have conveniently eliminated in your condescending, arrogant, and misguided posts ) to qualify for private posession.
So the bottom line is simple. What differentiates these transfers from any of the thousands of other legitimate weapons purchases that occur everyday? BTW, you can bet your Sweet Bippy, that the Company giving away the promotional weapons has no Legal, moral, or financial responsibility regarding the transactions. You see they are not managed by macho red neck's with a questionable genetic lineage ( so you see, you are still looking up to the curb ).
Take your time, and get back to me after you have a conference with the other self-ascribed moral minions that permeate this thread. While collectively ranging in the area of about medicore to subpar in anything that resembles an in-depth rationale.

[fj1200]

It's really a shame, I have no flipping clue what I'm talking about but I'm knee deep in it so here goes.

... As I mentioned before, liability as far as the Company is concerned is voided, as any firearm product of the free market system, that has ever been challenged in Court, has never been found guilty of wrongful negligence.

First part: Edited for truth

Second part: False, Negligent Entrustment (http://www.mmmpalaw.com/CM/Articles/articles17.asp):

With rights comes responsibility. Who will be "responsible" for the epidemic of gun violence unique to the United States? Should those who exercise their "right" to bear arms, from manufacturers to dealers to owners, pay for the consequences of their conduct? Or should we limit responsibility to the criminal who pulls the trigger? After all, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." While the shooter may be held criminally accountable, or even have a civil judgment rendered against him, he will seldom account financially for his actions. Instead, we the people will pay for the cost of his incarceration, the care of his victim, or both. But someone makes and sells and possesses the millions of guns in this country that people use to kill people. And it is certainly foreseeable that people kill people with guns-the National Rifle Association's trite slogan admits as much. Gun violence is no longer just foreseeable, it is now a fact of life, and death for all too many Americans. We live in a society that is rearming itself out of fear.

The merchant is laying into that last part pretty hard if you actually look into it. There are plenty of cases in the link that show gun dealer liability and I admit that it will be an even further stretch to include the merchant in that as well but the cost of litigation, even if they win, could be high. So I repeat, I'd hate to be their insurance company.

Third part: There is no third part because you avoided the example of Ersland.

[TheShadowKNows]

??????????????????
I dont get it.
Well I guess that pretty much sums it up.
BTW the next time that you decide to go into a rant, my advice is try to get a little closer to reality. A "ghost writer" may be your only alternative as you not only lack substance, coherency, content, structure, and authority, but your basic nature of being a friggen idiot comes through as an embarrassment. Not only to this thread ( although you have plenty of company on this forum ), but to the human race in general.
Ultimately your only choice is to go back to the "Red Light District", and ply your trade. As you know as well as anyone that that is your highest level of incompetence. :lol:
HAVE A NICE DAY

[LuvRPgrl]

Well I guess that pretty much sums it up.
BTW the next time that you decide to go into a rant, my advice is try to get a little closer to reality. A "ghost writer" may be your only alternative as you not only lack substance, coherency, content, structure, and authority, but your basic nature of being a friggen idiot comes through as an embarrassment. Not only to this thread ( although you have plenty of company on this forum ), but to the human race in general.
Ultimately your only choice is to go back to the "Red Light District", and ply your trade. As you know as well as anyone that that is your highest level of incompetence. :lol:
HAVE A NICE DAY

I still dont get it....???????????????


It's really a shame, but you are so misguided that you'd
As I mentioned before, liability as far as the Company is concerned is voided, as any firearm product of the free market system, that has ever been challenged in Court, has never been found guilty of wrongful negligence.
Bottom line with you appears to be a question I have asked others on this forum from time to time, "Does your nurse know that you are off the grounds"?:slap:

Ya ever get the feeling you are just pissing in the wind? Cuz for most of us here, our point of view shows thats all you ever do.
Do you really think your pompous lines are believed by anyone here?
Do you really think your pompous lines have any truth at all to them?
Do you really think you are superior to everyone here?
Do you really think anyone here takes you serious?
Do you really think that all your blabbering insults dont detract from what little of what you say that isnt insulting.?

[TheShadowKNows]

First part: Edited for truth

Second part: False, Negligent Entrustment (http://www.mmmpalaw.com/CM/Articles/articles17.asp):


The merchant is laying into that last part pretty hard if you actually look into it. There are plenty of cases in the link that show gun dealer liability and I admit that it will be an even further stretch to include the merchant in that as well but the cost of litigation, even if they win, could be high. So I repeat, I'd hate to be their insurance company.

Third part: There is no third part because you avoided the example of Ersland.

Could you really be that short sighted that you have bought into the spin of an Opportunistic Lawyers claims, that is obviously generated by trying to create business for his firm by maligning the cases he has stated ( BTW thats what lawyers do, ALL LAWYERS ). By using the same "bleeding heart" rhetoric that the left has been using all along.
Convoluted statistics, half truths, conjecture, assumptions, gross emotionalism, ETC.ETC.ETC.. Whats wrong if people get shot, as long as it's the right people. While the left has been conscentiously stock piling manufactured stats for the last 50 or so years, and using the liberal media as a threshold to legitimacy. They still haven't been able to convince the mass's that gun control is the answer to crime control. Ostensibly because people by and large are not stupid on a "gut" level, and only have to look around them to know that the overriding reason for crime in this Country is the abject leniency of the criminal justice system. Permeated by a mentality of activist judges, guilty jurists, over zealous liberal lawyers, and an overcrowded penal system. Combining to spawn a "revolving door" system of justice, that has ultimately made crime profitable.
If you care to know the real facts of the results of the private ownership of firearms. Go to the NRA website, and look up the findings of Professor Gary Kleck of Florida State University. After a prolonged and extremely extensive research effort, ( ironicly funded by gun control advocates ) he concluded that 2.5 million times per year a private citizen saves life, and or property with the use of a firearm. Usually depending only on the PRESENCE of the weapon involved.
Sorry gonzo, but your way off base with this one. Now go back to your friends for solace, and bash me once again. You may have yourself believing that you won the moment, but in the big picture you don't even have a clock.


Ya ever get the feeling you are just pissing in the wind? Cuz for most of us here, our point of view shows thats all you ever do.
Do you really think your pompous lines are believed by anyone here?
Do you really think your pompous lines have any truth at all to them?
Do you really think you are superior to everyone here?
Do you really think anyone here takes you serious?
Do you really think that all your blabbering insults dont detract from what little of what you say that isnt insulting.?

Somewhere, at some point in time, by someone, the garbled rhetoric above may be of sifnificance. But it's not here, it's not now, and it's not me.
Do yourself a favor, and get some new batteries for your "toy", it'll open up a whole new world for you.

[logroller]

...somebody, .... may be of sifnificance. But ... it's not me....

Edited for clarity. Still waiting for your response to post 58 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?32674-Florida-firm-offers-free-AK-47s-to-new-customers&p=494804#post494804).

[TheShadowKNows]

Golly gee, you really set me up for an earful. You asked a simple question, I gave you a simple answer. As these debates often become heated, I tried to diffuse it by being playful, (failing at such, obviously) but I don't think that makes me vain, immature or stupid (with big holes in my head). I simply answered your question as to what constitutes being "trained" in the use/handling of firearms. Perhaps you interpreted my answer as the question: What is uncouth behavior?-- I accept your answer.

And speaking of those holes in one's head, try those little ones on top, before the big one on bottom-- it was FJ who brought up lawsuits. As I've said, repeatedly, that it was just a publicity stunt, most likely very few guns would even me rewarded, and no cause for possible legal concern.



Ditto.
I'm not sure exactly what point it is that you want me to respond to, but first I'd like to apologize for mistakenly posting that rebuttal, which wasn't meant to be directed to you. As I looked back over the thread I assume that in my haste to respond ( I'm sure I'm not the first in Forum history ) I inadvertently tagged your post, while it was meant for fj1200.
Having focused on fj and a coupla' others I wasn't even sure where you stood on the issue, let alone post the abrasive opinion that I did. While I assure you that this isn't a cop out but the truth.
Lets break clean, and go to our neutral corners. But let me make this perfectly clear, that this does not apply to any of the others.

[fj1200]

Could you really be that short sighted that you have bought into the spin of an Opportunistic Lawyers claims, that is obviously generated by trying to create business for his firm by maligning the cases he has stated ( BTW thats what lawyers do, ALL LAWYERS ).

Whats wrong if people get shot, as long as it's the right people.

You may have yourself believing that you won the moment, but in the big picture you don't even have a clock.

The only reason that I think I "won the moment" is because you've completely avoided any of the actual issues, you just blather on in your ignorance hoping that something will stick. That website, of course by a law firm, seemed to have a fairly comprehensive listing of firearm legislation with examples of cases both won and lost by dealers, etc. I'm sure that you didn't actually look at any of the cases or if you did you immediately discounted any that went against your POV because you've automatically, and blindly, sainted anyone in the firearm industry regardless of negligence.

ALL LAWYERS? :laugh: You can't be so ignorant as to pigeonhole every person involved in a particular profession... oh wait, you can be so ignorant. You clearly don't know the essential job of a lawyer.


But let me make this perfectly clear, that this does not apply to any of the others.

Oh no, the gloves are coming off. Anyone nervous?

Didn't think so.

Oh, and Ersland awaits. He's in jail and, according to you likely, the right person got shot.

[LuvRPgrl]

The only reason that I think I "won the moment" is because you've completely avoided any of the actual issues, you just blather on in your ignorance hoping that something will stick. That website, of course by a law firm, seemed to have a fairly comprehensive listing of firearm legislation with examples of cases both won and lost by dealers, etc. I'm sure that you didn't actually look at any of the cases or if you did you immediately discounted any that went against your POV because you've automatically, and blindly, sainted anyone in the firearm industry regardless of negligence.

ALL LAWYERS? :laugh: You can't be so ignorant as to pigeonhole every person involved in a particular profession... oh wait, you can be so ignorant. You clearly don't know the essential job of a lawyer.



Oh no, the gloves are coming off. Anyone nervous?

Didn't think so.

Oh, and Ersland awaits. He's in jail and, according to you likely, the right person got shot.

Dont worry, after you kick his ass here, he will just claim he thought he was responding to someone else's post, like maybe LuvRPgrl?

Hasnt he bitched about how lame we all are cuz we cant multitask? HAHAHha, all he had to do was make sure he was responding to the right person, pathetically stupid.

[TheShadowKNows]

The only reason that I think I "won the moment" is because you've completely avoided any of the actual issues, you just blather on in your ignorance hoping that something will stick. That website, of course by a law firm, seemed to have a fairly comprehensive listing of firearm legislation with examples of cases both won and lost by dealers, etc. I'm sure that you didn't actually look at any of the cases or if you did you immediately discounted any that went against your POV because you've automatically, and blindly, sainted anyone in the firearm industry regardless of negligence.

ALL LAWYERS? :laugh: You can't be so ignorant as to pigeonhole every person involved in a particular profession... oh wait, you can be so ignorant. You clearly don't know the essential job of a lawyer.



Oh no, the gloves are coming off. Anyone nervous?

Didn't think so.

Oh, and Ersland awaits. He's in jail and, according to you likely, the right person got shot.

You're "whistling in the dark" cowboy. Besides how could you possibly get nervous, no sense no feeling. While you have a distinct habit of accusing me of just about everything that you have been guilty of since we began this little tate a' tate. The primary one being that, in spite of your promotions to Judge, Jury, and Executioner of anyone "giving" a firearm away, without knowing anything about the recepients abilities, intentions, or background. Solely because somewhere in your limited intellect you have determined that this is a BAD thing. Primarily by allowing your muscle bound brain to become erroneously influenced by what is probably a former ambulance chaser. Now graduating to what appears to be the more lucrative endeavor of chasing firearm accidents.
In spite of not being able to answer the most basic question that I have asked you. "Why is presenting a firearm to anyone, who has to adhere to fed. and state and local laws to obtain ownership of said weapon, assumed to be interpreteted as a prelude to a detremental act of irresponsible carnage"?
When you can answer the above get back to me. if not continue your circle jerk with the other mental midgets, who go to compromise your fraternity of paranoid meglomanics who can't see past their preconceived superficial conclusions.
PS: If you believe that being a lawyer is an honorable profession, just look at the preponderence of barristers in Congress that have gotten us into this current holocaust. I rest my case.


Dont worry, after you kick his ass here, he will just claim he thought he was responding to someone else's post, like maybe LuvRPgrl?

Hasnt he bitched about how lame we all are cuz we cant multitask? HAHAHha, all he had to do was make sure he was responding to the right person, pathetically stupid.
Is it true that your parents were related?

[LuvRPgrl]

Is it true that your parents were related?

YEP, married.

Is that really suppose to give me a rise ??? You have no clue whatsoever.
Talk about mental midgets, your question has been answered doo doo brain.

Tate a' Tate, ????? you into poetry or something ???

[fj1200]

In spite of not being able to answer the most basic question that I have asked you. "Why is presenting a firearm to anyone, who has to adhere to fed. and state and local laws to obtain ownership of said weapon, assumed to be interpreteted as a prelude to a detremental act of irresponsible carnage"?

My point was based in statistics and Ersland proves me right. You continue to avoid any attempt at rationalizing your blither. Or do you consider actuaries and lawyers to be of the same ilk?

[darin]

Guys.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31514-Let-s-conserve-we-can-do-our-part

Do that.

[TheShadowKNows]

YEP, married.

Is that really suppose to give me a rise ??? You have no clue whatsoever.
Talk about mental midgets, your question has been answered doo doo brain.

Tate a' Tate, ????? you into poetry or something ???

Roses are Red,
Violets are Blue,
You're an idiot,
So "F" You !
..........ShortShit :poke:

[LuvRPgrl]

Roses are Red,
Violets are Blue,
You're an idiot,
So "F" You !
..........ShortShit :poke:

wow, I never even read this response. Guess I got a bit under your skin, thin skin as it is.
short shit? Mommyyyyyyyyyyy shadow called me a ....hold on, Im 6 ft tall,,,,TRY AGAIN:laugh:

[ConHog]

YEP, married.

Is that really suppose to give me a rise ??? You have no clue whatsoever.
Talk about mental midgets, your question has been answered doo doo brain.

Tate a' Tate, ????? you into poetry or something ???

LOL for the funniest fucking response LUV could have given to such a stupid and childish attack. Everyone reading this thread should rep him for it.

[LuvRPgrl]

LOL for the funniest fucking response LUV could have given to such a stupid and childish attack. Everyone reading this thread should rep him for it.

I AGREE !!
And EVERYONE should read this thread ! :)