Comments
121 - 140 of 180 Comments Last updated May 9, 2013

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

#137 May 6, 2013
Right, so if every gun owner had to have insurance, the insurance companies would NEVER clog up the courts in order to avoid paying out a nickel.

Think woman!
Toj wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? I don't think so.
There's no law that you have to have a homeowners policy. Lawsuits don't protect anyone and we don't need more lawsuits clogging up the court.
I think there is a general disagreement with your #4. You are NOT the militia no matter what you think.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

#138 May 6, 2013
Until you finally realize that you cant legislate a totally safe world. BTW Machete's are legal! You still fail.
Toj wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know about you but I like my chances with a box cutter over a machete. Both could kill you but so could a pen stabbed in you.
How far you want to take this?

Toj

“Equality”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#139 May 6, 2013
RACE wrote:
Until you finally realize that you cant legislate a totally safe world. BTW Machete's are legal! You still fail.
<quoted text>
You obviously need every.word.spelled.out.

Machete's are not legal to carry around.

Toj

“Equality”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#140 May 6, 2013
RACE wrote:
Yes I have, it deals with the absolute minimum safety requirements, and I dont think are bags are one of them. If they are now, then the rules have been modified.
All guns are required to have safety switch, and trigger guards, so I still dont see what you point is.
<quoted text>
I like how you change your meaning of your posts. You said:

RACE wrote:
Wrong, Just like weapons are refined for their purpose so are cars.
Better fuel efficiency, safety, annimities....
You are missing the point of why refinements are made to either one to begin with....Money.
Airbags? only Volvo had them, and you paid thru the nose to get them, but people saw the value and paid the coin. Now demand has made them standard. Same is true with making a better weapon. It's really just building a better mousetrap.

Your point was that cars where refined b/c of money. I propose cars are refined because of safety regulations. And yes, there are airbag regulations.

Toj

“Equality”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#141 May 6, 2013
RACE wrote:
Right, so if every gun owner had to have insurance, the insurance companies would NEVER clog up the courts in order to avoid paying out a nickel.
Think woman!
<quoted text>
(sigh) Well, every driver has to have car insurance. There are laws on how much insurance you have to carry. If you are in a certain group or area your insurance can be higher or lower. Actuary tables. Done scientifically.

I wouldn't mind that gun owners had to have gun insurance. Pay the premium. There would be discounts for more training perhaps.

Hmmm. I like this idea.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

#142 May 6, 2013
And you call me dense...amazing.
What are the exact regulations about air bags? Does it say they are required?
Even if required now, Air bags were not required years ago, they were optional equipment like a radio or sunroof. So legislation simply followed technology. If they were never invented, they could never have been mandated could they?

So no missy you are still wrong. They were invented for profit, not to satisfy legislature. Just like disk brakes over drum brakes and anti-lock breaking systems. They were all invented to make a profit, the govt had no part in bringing them about.
Toj wrote:
<quoted text>
I like how you change your meaning of your posts. You said:
RACE wrote:
Wrong, Just like weapons are refined for their purpose so are cars.
Better fuel efficiency, safety, annimities....
You are missing the point of why refinements are made to either one to begin with....Money.
Airbags? only Volvo had them, and you paid thru the nose to get them, but people saw the value and paid the coin. Now demand has made them standard. Same is true with making a better weapon. It's really just building a better mousetrap.
Your point was that cars where refined b/c of money. I propose cars are refined because of safety regulations. And yes, there are airbag regulations.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

#143 May 6, 2013
You said PURCHASING, not carrying. But nice try at deflection.
Toj wrote:
<quoted text>
You obviously need every.word.spelled.out.
Machete's are not legal to carry around.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

#144 May 6, 2013
You are keenly overlooking that it is a right to own a weapon, and mandating insurance coverage (how much do you think the premiums are gonna be for that? Hint, think 10's of thousands) would infringe upon my right to own one.
Toj wrote:
<quoted text>
(sigh) Well, every driver has to have car insurance. There are laws on how much insurance you have to carry. If you are in a certain group or area your insurance can be higher or lower. Actuary tables. Done scientifically.
I wouldn't mind that gun owners had to have gun insurance. Pay the premium. There would be discounts for more training perhaps.
Hmmm. I like this idea.

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#145 May 6, 2013
Toj wrote:
<quoted text>
I like how you change your meaning of your posts. You said:
RACE wrote:
Wrong, Just like weapons are refined for their purpose so are cars.
Better fuel efficiency, safety, annimities....
You are missing the point of why refinements are made to either one to begin with....Money.
Airbags? only Volvo had them, and you paid thru the nose to get them, but people saw the value and paid the coin. Now demand has made them standard. Same is true with making a better weapon. It's really just building a better mousetrap.
Your point was that cars where refined b/c of money. I propose cars are refined because of safety regulations. And yes, there are airbag regulations.
Car companies resisted seatr belts because tehy didn't think people would pay for them. Safety regs forced the issue I think around 1974 or so, under Nixon as I recall

Toj

“Equality”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#146 May 6, 2013
RACE wrote:
You are keenly overlooking that it is a right to own a weapon, and mandating insurance coverage (how much do you think the premiums are gonna be for that? Hint, think 10's of thousands) would infringe upon my right to own one.
<quoted text>
I know you believe it is your right to own a weapon.

Not everyone believes so.

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#147 May 6, 2013
RACE wrote:
Right, so if every gun owner had to have insurance, the insurance companies would NEVER clog up the courts in order to avoid paying out a nickel.
Think woman!
<quoted text>
Think this:

the judges who are currently busy handling gun criminal cases would be re-assigned for gunshot medical bill claims somethinhg more administrative.

Or there could be mandatory arbitration. Alternative dispute resolution is a sexy concept these days in some circles.

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#148 May 6, 2013
RACE wrote:
Until you finally realize that you cant legislate a totally safe world. BTW Machete's are legal! You still fail.
<quoted text>
You can't legislate a titally safe world and most insurance policies have stuff they don't cover, but we hear about teh exceptions, not when teh system is functioning as designed.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Wilmington, IL

#149 May 6, 2013
Toj wrote:
The Mutt, as you call him, was saying there were no laws on knives. There are.
That's actually not what I said.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Wilmington, IL

#150 May 6, 2013
Toj wrote:
I know you believe it is your right to own a weapon.
Not everyone believes so.
Then "Not Everyone" needs to brush up on the 2nd Amendment. Owning a firearm IS a right. Now whether you want to follow that right is up to you, but you recognize my right to bear arms and I will recognize your right not to.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

#151 May 6, 2013
This makes no sense, you wanted insurance, so that in no way reduces the # of judges needed for criminal cases and in fact increases the need for more judges to handle the insurance litigation.

You have only made the problem worse and the lawyers richer.
PEllen wrote:
<quoted text>
Think this:
the judges who are currently busy handling gun criminal cases would be re-assigned for gunshot medical bill claims somethinhg more administrative.
Or there could be mandatory arbitration. Alternative dispute resolution is a sexy concept these days in some circles.

Toj

“Equality”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#152 May 6, 2013
RACE wrote:
You said PURCHASING, not carrying. But nice try at deflection.
<quoted text>
Where?

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Wilmington, IL

#153 May 6, 2013
animaniactoo wrote:
Okay, and you replied at various points:
"And *I* maintain the people who are MOST dangerous are criminals who don't obey gun laws in the first place."
This is what you wrote. Please indicate where I said that the most dangerous people aren't criminals
You said the people who were MOST dangerous were people who OWNED weapons. THAT'S what you said. I am not spinning it or taking it out of context. Your exact words.
animaniactoo wrote:
"WRONG. Most gun crimes are committed by people with extensive rap sheets."
Please indicate where I wrote that anything that contradicted this.
You said TOO MANY crimes were committed by "first time" offenders. I guess that's relative, but MANY MORE crimes are committed by veteran criminals.
animaniactoo wrote:
"So? Are those people more likely to go on shooting sprees?"
Please indicate where I wrote anything that said I was talking about a shooting spree, and that this is what I am concerned with reducing.
Frankly, I'm not quiet sure WHAT your point was, that's why I was asking. You just went on and on about people driving over the speed limit. What WAS your point, btw?

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Wilmington, IL

#154 May 6, 2013
RACE wrote:
All guns are required to have safety switch, and trigger guards
Trigger guards, yes, safety switches, no.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

#155 May 6, 2013
Anyone who does not believe so is a MORON! That right has been upheld in court. Deal with it or continue to pout, your choice.
Toj wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you believe it is your right to own a weapon.
Not everyone believes so.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

#156 May 6, 2013
Obviously this thread should have been titled Why Toj wants all firearms banned. only 1 post needed. She simply believes nobody has a right to own a weapon. What a simple world she lives in.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min shinningelectr0n 1,100,221
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 15 min lmao 46,314
Abby 8-29 38 min pde 11
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 41 min andet1987 1,452
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 45 min andet1987 569
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 1 hr J RULES 68,989
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr Mimi Seattle 97,933
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr wojar 177,384
Word (Dec '08) 2 hr _Zoey_ 4,650
Amy 8-29 10 hr Kuuipo 13
•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••