How many members would like a firearms discussion area

Funny. . . so easy to quote someone in this forum but you can't find the quote.

 

And as has been explained to you numerous times, the entire reason for citing the case in the state of Wisconsin, was to prove your previous claim wrong. Simply because you do not wish to admit to the fact that you fell into a trap, does not invalidate the fact that such did indeed happen. You were too overconfident in your perceived superiority, that you did not even consider what you were doing until it was too late.

 

And what it did was prove you wrong.

That you told us that even thinking about possessing (according to you) was
possessing.

And you trotted out as 'proof' (after I already told you that possession wasn't about
touching) was a FINDING in a case of an arrest not of possession - as you touted-
but an ATTEMPT to possess.

I cannot help you do not understand the FACT that these are two different laws.

 

I get that way when I prove myself to be correct.

 

We need a snicker button.

 

And yet the court held that even asking about where to acquire a firearm is attempted possession, which is a felony.

Touching and attempting to possess are the same thing.

Thus proving conclusively that a prohibited individual is committing a felony in attempting to purchase a firearm.

And your previous argument was proven as being incorrect, which was the intention all along. You were led into a trap, and you did not realize it until it was too late.

 

I guess you forgot you told us it was possession.

Not attempted possession.

 

Of course, they aren't.

 

Pigeon chess.

 

No, I have had many gardens, and as a boy, I helped many freinds, older women maintain gardens, and it requires methodology and dedication to small simple regularly scheduled maintenance and tasks.

 

Sig's are probably the very best pistols made.

Some of them are even as accurate as revolvers.

Anybody who can afford a Sig should get one.

My commie gun (CZ) is almost as good as a Sig but costs half as much.

So I am happy with it.

 

Just as it was forgotten by yourself where you claimed it is not against the law for a prohibited individual to attempt to purchase a firearm?

 

That's nice.

It takes a half hour to run a rototiller through a strip of a yard and then takes
a summer to bring it to harvest. Every day.

 

I guess you forgot you told us you said it was possession just to think about it.

And we are still waiting for you to prove it is against the law for someone on the
prohibited list to try to buy a weapon.

Maybe after you finish proving the earth being flat?

 

As has been explained several times already, the entire purpose of the argument was to prove yourself as being incorrect in your argument. It was not necessary to prove myself correct, it was only necessary to prove yourself as being incorrect. The fact remains that you yourself cited the portion of the court case that undid your own argument.

No matter how many times you refuse to acknowledge the facts of the matter, you were made to undo yourself. You were baited and lured into a line of argument that you could not win without citing the specifics that undid your own argument. You may have achieved success in a minor skirmish, but you ultimately lost the metaphorical war in the process.

You yourself proved such to be the case when you cited the portion of the court case stating that attempted possession of a firearm by a prohibited person was against the law.

Off topic and irrelevant nonsense.

 

I know how difficult it is for you to admit you are wrong, long after you
have been proved wrong.

Many times.

Attempt to possess is not the same as possess.

Period.

Don't waste anymore electrons.

 

Except you told us thinking about possession was the same as possession
and if this were so: you could prove it again instead of rolling around on the
floor stomping your feet.

PS: Baiting is against the rules of this forum. Nice of you to confess.

 

Is it truly necessary to once again present the quote made by yourself, where you admit that it is indeed illegal for a prohibited individual to attempt to purchase a firearm, after you told a federal prosecutor that such was not a crime?

The examples in rule number four includes quoting other members in your signature without permission, mischaracterizing their statements by quoting them and changing the quotes, disclosing personal or confidential information about other posters, or disclosing the substance of confidential communications. None of which was done in this case.

Forum rules do not forbid asking questions, or presenting arguments that are carefully constructed for the purpose of leading a forum member to undo their own established position.

Now cease and desist with this subject of discussion, or you will find yourself reported for violation of forum rule five. Continuing to complain about how you did not understand what you were doing is not relevant to discussing how many members wish for a firearm discussion area to be set up.

 

true, and claiming any sort of leftwing gun control schemes will make honest people safer is a lie. the only truth to gun control making people safer is when those people are criminals

 

true, and claiming any sort of right wing gun proliferation schemes will make honest people safer is a lie. the only truth to gun proliferation making people safer is when those people are criminals.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pot_calling_the_kettle_black

 

Unsupportable nonsense.

 

You insisted thinking about possession was the same as possession and I
proved you wrong.

 

Attempted to possess is not possess.

 

Referring to those here as inferior to yourself reveals that sort of thinking of much of the left; that you somehow have superior knowledge and are worthy of telling others what to think. I see few pigeons playing games here, the discussion regarding gun rights isn't a game of wits or a game of gottcha, it is a discussion of fundamental principals.