@nunboy said:

They are in the other threads that you walked out on. go have fun.

And what might that be? You might not have noticed but I post in almost every thread. We've been arguing for two days across about ten threads. Narrow it down a little.

You say "I walked out of a thread" but the fact of the matter is I'm at work, and there's 800 pounds of clean agent here that will cost the cleveland school board thousands of dollars to replace if I'm not paying attention, skippy, so you'll get a response when I'm damn good and ready to respond. Stop flattering yourself.

@the-cysko-kid said:

You're giving yourself too much credit. Way too much. I have a job. Present your factual numbers of whatever and ill argue with you at my leisure.

They are in the other threads that you walked out on. go have fun.

@nunboy said:

I guess that's why you walked on the other thread and continue to change the subject and move around the goal post when you are presented with factual numbers by me.

You're giving yourself too much credit. Way too much. I have a job. Present your factual numbers of whatever and ill argue with you at my leisure.

@the-cysko-kid said:

That's one thing you've been right about. Don't throw yourself a parade just yet.

I guess that's why you walked on the other thread and continue to change the subject and move around the goal post when you are presented with factual numbers by me.

@nunboy said:

I know very well what the intention of the founding fathers was they did us all a favour and wrote them down.

read http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html

Except smart gun technology doesn't interfere with the right to keep and bear arms. Not at all.

@nunboy said:

I know I like to work with facts they are fun.

That's one thing you've been right about. Don't throw yourself a parade just yet.

@the-cysko-kid said:

You're interpreting too much into the small paragraph that deals with it. You have no idea what the founding fathers intended. All you have to go off is that very ambiguous paragraph at the beginning of this thread.

I know very well what the intention of the founding fathers was they did us all a favour and wrote them down.

read http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html

@the-cysko-kid said:

Hmm. Yes you are correct.

I know I like to work with facts they are fun.

@nunboy said:

yes

Hmm. Yes you are correct.

@the-cysko-kid said:

Can you buy a gun without a safety?

yes

@nunboy said:

If you wish to buy one great, but you cannot force me to. The previous gun laws on the books already infringe on the constitution but that does not make them right, and that does not mean I have to accept more of them. I already disagree with the 1934 weapons ban because the government seems to feel that it has the ability to use these weapons and us plebes are not good enough. Yet clearly the intention of the founding fathers was that we were to have the same weapons as the ones available to our military.

Can you buy a gun without a safety?

@mld-woody said:

Your solution doesn't perfectly solve the problem.... ITS WORTHLESS!

If the use this technology then eventually we'll all be wrapped in bubble wrap and all sharp objects will be taken from us.

Slippery slope? No. Foresight

It does not solve the problem at all. Cry and protest all you want the right is written into our constitution.

@the-cysko-kid said:

I did and I told you its not in the constitution, is it? And smart guns can be any style. Fail. They already mandated a gun have a safety. This equates to the exact same thing.

If you wish to buy one great, but you cannot force me to. The previous gun laws on the books already infringe on the constitution but that does not make them right, and that does not mean I have to accept more of them. I already disagree with the 1934 weapons ban because the government seems to feel that it has the ability to use these weapons and us plebes are not good enough. Yet clearly the intention of the founding fathers was that we were to have the same weapons as the ones available to our military.

@nunboy said:

Just because it is a technological advancement does not mean it comes without flaws. And I already stated that the Government cannot press you into purchasing only one style of weapon. It was right there in the federalist papers quote that I highlighted for you. Not my fault that you did not read it.

I did and I told you its not in the constitution, is it? And smart guns can be any style. Fail. They already mandated a gun have a safety. This equates to the exact same thing.

If the use this technology then eventually we'll all be wrapped in bubble wrap and all sharp objects will be taken from us.

Slippery slope? No. Foresight

@the-cysko-kid said:

You're still equating a technological advancement with a loss of liberty. I don't see where it infringes on the second amendment at all. Read: first post.

Just because it is a technological advancement does not mean it comes without flaws. And I already stated that the Government cannot press you into purchasing only one style of weapon. It was right there in the federalist papers quote that I highlighted for you. Not my fault that you did not read it.

@the-cysko-kid said:

No he was mad at his mommy for taking his xbox away. Timothy mcveigh was dedicated to destruction, and you're right he might have been a reloader, but the issue here is not solving murder, its making our citizens as safe as possible. As humans its our duty to apply technology to advance our society.

His motives do not change his determination.

@nunboy said:

”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Ben Franklin

You're still equating a technological advancement with a loss of liberty. I don't see where it infringes on the second amendment at all. Read: first post.

@the-cysko-kid said:

Christ, really? Extremists will always talk about it. It won't happen, for a bunch of reasons I already mentioned. It certainly won't happen in the near future. It was dropped from the senate bill yesterday.

Just because it won't happen in the near future does not mean it will not happen. Have some foresight. Why is it that the country that is currently supplying arms to civilians in countries like Syria and Egypt deems it necessary to try and limit them on its own people

@the-cysko-kid said:

No he was mad at his mommy for taking his xbox away. Timothy mcveigh was dedicated to destruction, and you're right he might have been a reloader, but the issue here is not solving murder, its making our citizens as safe as possible. As humans its our duty to apply technology to advance our society.

”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Ben Franklin

@nunboy said:

Precisely just because they are not banning guns now does not mean they will not try later.

Christ, really? Extremists will always talk about it. It won't happen, for a bunch of reasons I already mentioned. It certainly won't happen in the near future. It was dropped from the senate bill yesterday.

@nunboy said:

Just because he did not does not mean he would not, after all he was dedicated to destruction.

No he was mad at his mommy for taking his xbox away. Timothy mcveigh was dedicated to destruction, and you're right he might have been a reloader, but the issue here is not solving murder, its making our citizens as safe as possible. As humans its our duty to apply technology to advance our society.