US firefighters shot dead at blaze

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It shall not be infringed.
If it shall not be infringed it shall not be infringed.
Do convicted felons no longer have freedom of reigion freedom of speech freedom of assembly, are they still allowed trial by jury can they have soldiers forced on them as lodgers do they lose the right to due process or become subject to cruel and unusual punishments?

It appears you want to infringe on peoples rights regarding the second amendment while trying to trumpet the second amendment as a holy script

What's with the repeat. What's with the repeat? What's with the repeat? What's with the repeat?What's with the repeat?What's with the repeat?

It is to my understanding that convicts may have all those things including a firearm if they have fulfilled their debt to society. Probation rules or additional measures by a judge not withstanding.

[Jimbuna]

Stop the repetition

[AVGWarhawk]

Congress passed the first blanket prohibition on felons carrying guns in the Gun Control Act of 1968, which made it illegal for felons to possess a gun any under circumstances. The Firearm Owners' Protection Act, passed in 1986, reinforced the ban on felons carrying guns, and also banned people who have been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment from possessing guns.

There are also states where you might be able to legally carry a gun, even though you have been convicted of a felony, if a certain amount of time has passed since you finished serving your term of probation or incarceration. Plus, in the vast majority of states that restrict the possession of guns by felons, juveniles who have been convicted of crimes that would have been felonies had they been adults at the time of conviction are also prohibited from carrying guns. Thus, there are many variations in the exact details of the laws that restrict felons from carrying guns from state to state, but, despite the nature of the state law at issue, the bottom line is that federal law always prohibits felons from possessing guns.

In some states, there are procedures by which a felon could attempt to regain eligibility for a gun permit and/or to legally carry a gun. Federal law states that if a felon has his or her civil rights restored by the state in which he or she was convicted of the felony, then a felon might become eligible to carry a gun, subject, of course, to any state law restrictions on felons possessing guns.

http://felonyguide.com/Felony-Gun-Laws.php

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

I was actually showing some support for the 2nd Amendment: In other words, supporting your argument!

I appreciate it, but "What if this, what if that?" doesn't support or help anything.

Then maybe you should stop doing that altogether. It puts you in the same category as the boy who cried "Wolf!"

Yoohoo, you are the one who made an assumption and ran with that assumption.
So that puts you in the category of someone who thought he heard wolf.

I would probably put it down to an unnecessary knee-jerk response. On the other hand he did have a point of sorts, which you did choose to ignore.

The point was nonsense, it was also not accurate, it was not ignored.
Plus the last bit was way off topic.

Since you didn't address the post you challenged, but rather side-stepped it, in this case you deserve no discussion.

So questions don't deserve an answer?

What's with the repeat. What's with the repeat? What's with the repeat? What's with the repeat?What's with the repeat?What's with the repeat?

Well Warhawk shall I repeat it again if you appear to have missed it.

It is to my understanding that convicts may have all those things including a firearm if they have fulfilled their debt to society.

You certainly missed it didn't you.
Which of all those things do they lose on conviction?

Probation rules or additional measures by a judge not withstanding.

Terms and conditions apply eh?

Terms and conditions apply to NYs AWB too don't they which comes nicely full circle.

[Sailor Steve]

No linkee, not talkie.

No linkee, not talkie.

yes dear
Can you link to what you are refering to with your "No linkee, not talkie." post as it is very hard to follow what your words refer to and I cannot put them in context without you posting what words you may be refering to plus another link which shows what those words were on about and another link to what words those refered words words were refering to, or in this case even who you are refering to.

Now I could assume that you are refering to the previous post which of course would refer to the earlier post which would go back to the initial post which you objected to that of course refered to someone elses post.
But after your display of getting assumptions badly wrong maybe I shouldn't assume like you did

[Sailor Steve]

No linkee, no talkee.

No linkee, no talkee.

To whom do you refer, you have no quote, I cannot be sure you are not just making it up.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I appreciate it, but "What if this, what if that?" doesn't support or help anything.

Well Steve, I had to go into 'what if' land, because I do not know any Americans who have tried to shoot someone by walking to their place, and if I looked up 'American man tries to shoot someone by walking to their place', I'd probably find nothing but conspiracy theories talking about Hitler being a Jew and causing 9/11, or bizarre Japanese porn

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

yes dear

Originally Posted by Tribesman

To whom do you refer, you have no quote, I cannot be sure you are not just making it up.

You know exactly what I'm talking about. Many months ago I asked you to start using the quote button. You said at that time that you didn't have one. Only a few days ago you showed that you did know exactly how to do it, then you stopped using it again. This means that you are either intentionally not using it, or you are using it but going back and removing the link manually. In either case doing it intentionally means that you are intentionally being a jerk.

The point of using it isn't so the addressee can verify what he said, but so he can see why he said it, i.e. what he was responding to. This helps him remember his intent and respond accordingly without having to go back through the thread and find it again.

So if you really can't figure out the quote function then you're stupid, and we already know you're not stupid. This means you must be doing on purpose, and as I said, if that's the case then you're doing it just to be a jerk. I don't talk to jerks, hence "No linkee no talkee".

As far as I'm concerned you are the biggest and best troll this forum has ever seen. You constantly dance all around the line, but you're so good at it you manage to only cross it very rarely. This is just another example of that behavior.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

Well Steve, I had to go into 'what if' land

No, you didn't have to. You chose to because you wanted to say something but didn't know quite how to say it. That's the time to stop talking and start thinking.

[Platapus]

So what was the topic of this thread again?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Platapus

So what was the topic of this thread again?

"More people shooting more people", which in modern parlance means "why Americans should/shouldn't be 'allowed' to own guns", which in netspeak translates to "Why your opinion is just an opinion but mine is hard truth".

You're welcome.

Many months ago I asked you to start using the quote button. You said at that time that you didn't have one.

I am afraid you are very mistaken, many months ago for the second time you said I was deliberately removing peoples names from my responses.
I replied that I posted replies using the rather obvious post reply button which is at the bottom of every topic.

This means that you are either intentionally not using it, or you are using it but going back and removing the link manually. In either case doing it intentionally means that you are intentionally being a jerk.

Errrr I have answered your allegation twice already.

So what was the topic of this thread again?

If I wanted to respond to this line by platapus in the same topic would that require a whole new post if I didn't use the post reply button?

This means you must be doing on purpose, and as I said, if that's the case then you're doing it just to be a jerk.

Your logic is faulty and your assumptions are way off again.