OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#648329 Aug 1, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>And I have agreed with you about 15 times that we need comprehensive, universal background checks. So does 90% of the US population.
Okay- so no argument then!
Huh

Euless, TX

#648330 Aug 1, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not "claiming" to get my information.
And I'm not going to get into a debate on this with you.
None of this is the POINT.
The POINT is that whatever background checks currently exist are a JOKE.
You seem to think that background checks make a difference- they DON'T- not based on the current criteria of the background checks.
Please point out where I wrote that our current hodgepodge system of background checks has any efficacy?

From my first post on this subject, I wrote of a need for universal, comprehensive background checks. That's the whole point. The residency check that the journalist mistakenly called a background check was a joke. You are being blinded to what I am actually writing. Stop skimming. Start reading.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#648331 Aug 1, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>And Ferguson would have failed a comprehensive, universal background check based on his criminal and scholastic history. Comprehensive, universal background checks that 90% of the country wants. Proof of residency was the only requirement. That is no "background check".
Yes and you are saying the articles are lying including a quote by the spokesperson for the ATF. The truth is background checks don't cover people who will commit a crime, only those who have.

Comprehensive, universal background checks is gun registration and unconstitutional and unenforceable. We already have comprehensive background checks. But who says that what 90% want you?
The same person who denies that the ATF said Ferguson passed the background check? Pffft Liberals
Huh

Euless, TX

#648332 Aug 1, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Sigh....whatEVER.
Do you honestly think if Ferguson had sought to legally purchase his gun in NY that he would have FAILED the background check?
Not at all likely, given how perfunctory ALL background checks are.
You seem to think that the background checks currently in place are fine and dandy and that they actually prevent a significant number of people from legally purchasing guns.
They don't.
So the issue is not whether or not the three guys we talked about went through background checks; the issue IS that what passes as background checks to legally buy guns is a JOKE.
Yes, in NY he would have failed in the year of the shooting.

Where did I state that the background checks are fine and dandy? I have been stating that neither Holes nor Ferguson were subjected to one. You are treading into RR-type river dancing. It is not becoming. Stop twisting what I write.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#648333 Aug 1, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>Once again. Ferguson did not receive a background check. That was a misnomer. California law only required a residency check. That is not a universal, comprehensive background check. I never once mentioned the VT shooter. What's up with that obsession.
If Ferguson had been subject to a comprehensive, universal background check, he would not have been able to purchase that gun. Of Holmes had been subject to a universal, comprehensive background check, he would not have been able to purchase the arsenal in gun shops and online. You're blinding yourself to what I am writing in agreement with you with some strange obsession to "win".
Sigh.....no I am NOT blinding myself with anything- cut the crap, please- nor am I trying to "win" anything.

And there is NO obsession with the VA (NOT VT) shooter- I was simply pointing out that he went through the prerequisite background check when he sought to legally purchase his guns.

What's up with you today, Huh?

And If, if, if.....the POINT is Ferguson was able to purchase his guns under the laws as they stood at the time.

And he would still be able to if it was TODAY instead of 1993.

That is because the background checks STILL suck.

So for the LAST time- because it is YOU who is getting obsessive here- the question is not whether Ferguson, the VA shooter or the Aurora shooter went through background checks; the POINT is that even if they did, the checks are a JOKE.

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#648334 Aug 1, 2013
I guess RR believes abiogenesis did happen since he can't prove that it didn't.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#648335 Aug 1, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>Please point out where I wrote that our current hodgepodge system of background checks has any efficacy?
From my first post on this subject, I wrote of a need for universal, comprehensive background checks. That's the whole point. The residency check that the journalist mistakenly called a background check was a joke. You are being blinded to what I am actually writing. Stop skimming. Start reading.
OMG- you didn't say that but why are you so stuck on whether or not Ferguson had a background check?

And I am NOT skimming and so I don't have to START reading- I've read your posts in their entirety.

Look- let's just end this conversation now, okay?

It's getting irritating and it's starting to get a bit nasty and I see no reason for either as I am quite sure we are on the same side of the issue of ordinary citizens being able to walk around armed.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#648336 Aug 1, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>You're right- which proves that background checks in this country are a JOKE.
How about the super strict gun laws in California? They haven't done a bit of good, as California has the highest rate of gun crime in the country.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#648337 Aug 1, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>Sure
yeah- you CAN be sure about that.

And be sure about this- because as much as I like your views and enjoy reading your posts- you're getting on my last nerve right now.

Peace OUT.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#648338 Aug 1, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>The percentage of Christians worldwide, if you count Cathoilics, has remained steady at about 33% in the last 100 years. If you subtract Catholics, the percentage had dropped precipitously as you would subtract half of the Christian population. Fail, again.
Christianity in America is slowly going down, yes. But thoughout the world, Christianity is, and has always been, steadily rising.

• At slightly less than 2 billion, Christianity makes up about a third of the world population and approximately the same as the two next largest religions combined; Islam and Hinduism. Christianity is also the only religion represented in all 238 surveyed countries.

• The largest religion (Christianity) is aprox. 68% larger than the second largest religion (Islam) and 246% larger than the third largest religion (Hinduism).

• The nine smallest religions combined have fewer adherents than the third largest (Hinduism).

• And the eight smallest religions combined have fewer adherents than the fourth largest (Buddhism).

• The combined adherents of the three primary Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, makes up approximately 52.8%(3,202,240,666 persons) of the total population - more than half. Some times also Sikhism and the Bahá'í faith are counted as Abrahamic religions, in which case that number will be slightly higher.

• Non-religious people and people belonging to religions not part of the 12 world religions makes up slightly less than 27%. A smaller number than the largest religion, Christianity, but larger than the second largest religion, Islam.

fastestgrowingreligion.com/numbers.html

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#648339 Aug 1, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, in NY he would have failed in the year of the shooting.
Where did I state that the background checks are fine and dandy? I have been stating that neither Holes nor Ferguson were subjected to one. You are treading into RR-type river dancing. It is not becoming. Stop twisting what I write.
Better yet- stop writing to me.

Talk about not becoming- that's the same word that came to MY mind to describe your behavior and posts on this particular topic.

And comparing ME to RR and HIS style? Gee- I guess I can also compare YOU to RR as behaving as somewhat of an idiot yourself.

I asked you several times to DROP this, but whatever obsession you have with it won't allow you to.

Since I am NOT obsessed about this, I'LL now drop it for once and for all so feel free to get in the last word- RR likes to do that too.

Geesh!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#648340 Aug 1, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Right- so using as what passes as LOGIC for YOU (see how subjective logic is?) then:
So because we haven't figured out how to test for pink unicorns, they don't exist?
So because we haven't figured out how to test for the tooth fairy, it doesn't exist?
So because we haven't figured out how to test for geese that lay golden eggs, they don't exist?
You're such a child.

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#648341 Aug 1, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>Who commits most of the murders in the audited States. Black and white American males, with blacks having the statistical edge. Hispanics actually are underrepresented compared to their percentage of the population. Last time I checked, blacks were brought here in chains before 1965.
Net immigration from our southern border is now zero. The Mexican econonmy is booming The majority of illegal aliens now come from places like Ireland and Eastern Europe and overstay their visas. Curiously, there is no crowing about them. Could race be a factor? Illegal immigrants only make up four percent of the population, a number that has held steady for years.
http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata/...
Hispanics are figured into the "white" category by most stats. I hope you didn't check again, nobody is arguing how Blacks got here before 1965. Does that mean they have a pass to commit crime at a higher rate? The question is whether Mexico's Expanding Economy Reaching All The Population? I Doubt it. And do we see the illegal Mexicans running back across the border? Then why are our prisons here in California full of Illegal Mexicans? It cost our State 1 Billion a year to house these wonderful immigrants in our prisons.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#648342 Aug 1, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>How do you know they would have passed a background check? Where is the evidence for your assertion? No background checks were performed. A 15 day cooling off period is not a background check.
In fact, based on Ferguson's past, he probably would have failed a comprehensive background check. Police often were called to intervene in his marriage. He had many incidents in school where he angrily shouted to "kill whitey". He was forced to leave a college class for acting aggressively towards a teacher. He was arrested for harassing a woman on a subway. All these incidents occurred before he moved to California where no background check was performed.
You're an idiot.
"Probably...
Maybe...
Might've...
So I conclude it as fact..."

You sure do sound like a scientist.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#648343 Aug 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
How about the super strict gun laws in California? They haven't done a bit of good, as California has the highest rate of gun crime in the country.
It's not the gun laws so much that is the issue; the issue is how very much the background checks are lacking.

Not having a CRIMINAL history does NOT necessarily mean one will be a responsible gun owner or will never wrongly use their gun.

Without an IN-DEPTH psychological and emotional evaluation and background check, guns will continue to be handed out like gum drops.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#648344 Aug 1, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>Holmes had a psychiatric history and Ferguson had a criminal history. Fail.
If you've convinced yourself of that, good for you.

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#648345 Aug 1, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>You're missing the point. The danger of the religion is in how it is abused in war. Our invisible friend told us to attack them.
example?

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#648346 Aug 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Christianity in America is slowly going down, yes. But thoughout the world, Christianity is, and has always been, steadily rising.
• At slightly less than 2 billion, Christianity makes up about a third of the world population and approximately the same as the two next largest religions combined; Islam and Hinduism. Christianity is also the only religion represented in all 238 surveyed countries.
• The largest religion (Christianity) is aprox. 68% larger than the second largest religion (Islam) and 246% larger than the third largest religion (Hinduism).
• The nine smallest religions combined have fewer adherents than the third largest (Hinduism).
• And the eight smallest religions combined have fewer adherents than the fourth largest (Buddhism).
• The combined adherents of the three primary Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, makes up approximately 52.8%(3,202,240,666 persons) of the total population - more than half. Some times also Sikhism and the Bahá'í faith are counted as Abrahamic religions, in which case that number will be slightly higher.
• Non-religious people and people belonging to religions not part of the 12 world religions makes up slightly less than 27%. A smaller number than the largest religion, Christianity, but larger than the second largest religion, Islam.
fastestgrowingreligion.com/numbers.html
See? You're all about your agenda, RR.

When something suits your agenda- such as trying to prove Christianity being on the rise- you're all up in what is taking place in other countries that you really don't give a rat's Aunt Fanny about.

But gee- all of a sudden, what is taking place in countries other than the USA becomes of paramount importance to you.

Too funny!

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#648347 Aug 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You're such a child.
LOL!! You post a 100% IMPOTENT "come back" and accuse ME of being a child.

YOUR statement about testing souls was not only childish, but delusional and just downright STUPID.

I provided the examples I did to show YOU how childish YOU are.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#648348 Aug 1, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>And to re-post my first response to this post of yours in order to add to it:
Right- so using as what passes as LOGIC for YOU (see how subjective logic is?) then:
So because we haven't figured out how to test for pink unicorns, they don't exist?
So because we haven't figured out how to test for the tooth fairy, it doesn't exist?
So because we haven't figured out how to test for geese that lay golden eggs, they don't exist?
**********
That's right- we haven't figured out how to test for any of the above because we already know that the above do NOT exist so why would any tests be invented to test for that which is already known to NOT exist?
Nobody's gonna try to test for a childish fairy tale.

You can keep your golden eggs, unicorns and tooth fairies dreams right next to your santa claus dream.
In the case of a soul- that is a 100% RELIGIOUS belief and is a part of religious dogma.
It isn't 100% religious....
Science won't be bothered- and shouldn't be- to test for that which is based on nothing more than religious beliefs with no basis in fact.
As I've said, it's a damn good thing you're no scientist.
If you think science should devise a means to test for a soul, then LOGIC would dictate you think science should devise a means to test for unicorns, tooth fairies and geese who lay golden eggs.
No it wouldn't.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min truth 550,943
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 6 min Innocent Holy dr ... 602,845
If Muslim women were smart... 13 min Otto Von Hapsburg 2
3 Word Game (Feb '12) 14 min Hatti_Hollerand 4,338
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 30 min Remnant of 144000 38,904
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 31 min Trunketeer 4,840
Too many Asians in California which makes it suck (Mar '12) 32 min andet1987 97
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 49 min Dr_Zorderz 262,090
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 59 min Activeforpeace 96,453
Does anyone do incest sex with your sister (Apr '12) 6 hr girls united states 173

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE