Gun Control is Completely Useless.

[JamesBondo]

SIDE NOTE on the rules for a formal debate:

person A makes an assertion

person B is allowed to cast doubt on the the assertion by asking questions.

person A must answer person B's questions or his assertion will suffer

it seems to me you're still a troll in this exchange regard! You weren't even up front about your "reasonable" question; hence, why I relayed your underlying premise in my last post.... that the underlying premise to your question was that, "guns were being searched for", in the name of, "people being searched for".

Again, as I said, I didn't read anything in the report to support your underlying premise. Again, I suggest you read the actual report yourself and look for anything to support your underlying premise. I look forward to your feedback response.

That is true that I brought up that premise, and you responded by not answering anything.

But then, my next post backed up to a simpler question about just the searching of closets for children.. and you have responded by not answering again.

Did I miss something here?

 

[waldo]

SIDE NOTE on the rules for a formal debate:

person A makes an assertion

person B is allowed to cast doubt on the the assertion by asking questions.

person A must answer person B's questions or his assertion will suffer​

person A - my assertion? Was what? You didn't qualify that... by the rules of formal debate... what did you presume to cast doubt on? :mrgreen:

person B - your casting doubt on some undeclared assertion: was you asking a question; one that held an underlying premise, one you didn't explicitly declare. Again, your underlying premise was that, "guns were being searched for", in the name of, "people being searched for".

person A - I answered your question by advising I found nothing in the report to support your underlying premise on an assertion you didn't identify/qualify. I further suggested you read the report to see if the report could support your underlying premise.
​

you seem predisposed to avoid reading the report; again, is reading the report yourself in order to have you, yourself, attempt to support your underlying premise... is that a difficult thing for you to do?

 

[JamesBondo]

person A - my assertion? Was what?​

your post#4492

...for example, on the assumption that a child might have sought refuge in a closet....

Are you claiming that you didn't write this?

Clearly, the child in the closet is your premise, not mine.​

 

[waldo]

your post#4492

Are you claiming that you didn't write this?

Clearly, the child in the closet is your premise, not mine.

here, let me re-quote what you're apparently not willing/wanting to:

imagine that! My quick scan pulls this reference out: "The RCMP had only the limited authority to search for the protection of life. While opening the door to a closet may arguably be a reasonable measure to accomplish that goal (for example, on the assumption that a child might have sought refuge in a closet....."

that's a direct quote from the report; again, you should actually read it! I didn't assert anything here... it holds no underlying premise. Oh wait... perhaps you'd like to attribute an assertion/premise to the report authors. Again, it's a direct quote from the report... and, if you followed the post flow, it was only provided in response to a prior post.

you sure went a long way to actually avoid being up-front and clear; however, at least now in your prior post you've acknowledged you did have this underlying premise... one you didn't declare. And you're the guy speaking about formal debate rules?


cuLater... please read the actual report while I'm gone! Perhaps you'll find your answer...

 

[JamesBondo]

it is a quote from the report that you endorsed by QUOTING it.

If you would rather just say that it is bull****, that would be fine with me.

 

[Colpy]

cuLater... please read the actual report while I'm gone! Perhaps you'll find your answer...

From the Commission Report findings:

Finding Number 29: In a number of cases the RCMP seized firearms which were lawfully secured.

Finding Number 30: The RCMP were not authorized by the Criminal Code to seize secured firearms.

Finding Number 34: Where a secondary entry into a building was not authorized under the Emergency Management Act or the Common Law, the seizure of unsecured firearms was also unauthorized.

Finding Number 37: In several cases the searches exceeded their authorized scope by expanding from a search for people or pets to a search for firearms or contraband.

There ya go, Dumbass, not that I believe it will make the slightest dent in your titanium cranium............

Let me translate: The RCMP broke into houses illegally and/or siezed privately held goods in what was in essence a break, enter and theft. They did not do so in all cases, but they did so in some, and that is completely unacceptable.

 

[Colpy]

 

[B00Mer]

Texas Woman Fatally Shoots Sex Offender Nicknamed ‘Outlaw’ Who Was Trying To Break Into Her Home

A Van Zandt County, Texas woman fatally shot a convicted sex offender as he was trying to break into a side door of her rural home Tuesday morning, an act of self-defense the local sheriff praised in light of an understaffed police force.

Christopher Ray Foster, 37, died at the scene after the unidentified woman shot him at her home near Canton, Texas. She called 911 at around 4:30 a.m.

Foster, who had an extensive criminal history, was recently released on a personal recognizance bond from Van Zandt County jail for failure to register as a sex offender, KLTV reported. Police also believed Foster was the prime suspect in an arson which occurred on Monday.

According to the Texas Department of Public Safety’s sex offender registry, Foster was sentenced to 10 years in prison in 1999 for sexual assault of a child. The female victim was 15.

According to the registry, Foster also went by the aliases Outlaw and XX.

source: Armed Robber Breaks Into Home, Woman Inside Shoots Him Dead | Defund.com

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Armed Robber Breaks Into Home, Woman Inside Shoots Him Dead

Authorities today identified a man shot to death Sunday when police say he tried to rob a woman at a Homewood hotel.

The Jefferson County Coroner’s Office identified the man as Kentrell Lamar Hudson. Hudson, 24, was a husband and father.

The shooting happened about 3:40 a.m. Sunday at America’s Best Inn and Suites on Summit Parkway, confirmed police spokesman Sgt. Andrew Didcoct. A woman was inside her room, possibly with the door propped open, when a man came in and robbed her at gunpoint.

The woman pulled her own gun and shot Hudson, police said. Didcoct said the female shooter was taken to police headquarters for questioning and later released without being charged with any crime. “It looks like self-defense at this time,” he said this morning. “He tried to rob her and she shot him.”

Didcoct said the case will presented to the Jefferson County District Attorney’s Office for review. The Sunday slaying is the first in Homewood this year. Homewood only recorded one homicide in 2014.

source: Armed Robber Breaks Into Home, Woman Inside Shoots Him Dead | Defund.com

 

[waldo]

now that you've accepted your azz-whoopin' over your big-time fails concerning the EMA and CC S.489... sure, let's move on to the lil' stuff! :mrgreen: But first, let me repeat some key points you're not willing to even acknowledge:

is that it Colpy... 6 reported incidents, 3 of which come from the RCMP... with the report also stating "It is unclear whether any of these reports are duplicative." Damn, your mega whine/Freedom wail... over this? :mrgreen:

but as I said: please... proceed to whine/wail over "some number" of "not in plain view" & "some number" of "secured" circumstances... it appears that number is 6, hey Colpy... and there could be incidents reported more than once within that. And do that all in the context of a State of Emergency, some 300 persons who refused to leave (inclusive of a high-risk offender), and ongoing incidents of reported break and enter/theft. While you're doing all that make sure you throw in some degree of, at large, platitude expression over the concern for murdered RCMP officers.

as I said, given the circumstances, I'm certainly willing to give the RCMP the latitude shown.

From the Commission Report findings:

Finding Number 29: In a number of cases the RCMP seized firearms which were lawfully secured.
Finding Number 30: The RCMP were not authorized by the Criminal Code to seize secured firearms.
​

There ya go, Dumbass, not that I believe it will make the slightest dent in your titanium cranium............

Let me translate: The RCMP broke into houses illegally and/or siezed privately held goods in what was in essence a break, enter and theft. They did not do so in all cases, but they did so in some, and that is completely unacceptable.

are you sure? :mrgreen: Looks like you haven't had enough of an azz-whoopin yet! Clearly your comprehension fail is even higher than usual here... I already showed the extract from the report that focused on the State of Emergency, public safety concerns and related circumstance. Again:

as the report states, Colpy: "Given the emergency circumstances which existed at the time and the potential accessibility of the firearms within homes, the RCMP's belief that the unsecured firearms posed a threat to public safety was not unreasonable."

as the report also states, Colpy: there is no case law to speak to "whether the public safety risk justified the seizure". However, in conclusion the report does state that the RCMP action was "...arguably a reasonable and common sense approach. However, at present there is no clear guidance from the courts on this issue and, accordingly, it is not possible to make a definitive finding in this regard. A determination of this point will not be possible until the courts have been called upon to rule on the issue or until legislation is passed."


Colpy, read the last 2 sentences from the most immediate paragraph! Again, you're most welcome.

 

[Colpy]

now that you've accepted your azz-whoopin' over your big-time fails concerning the EMA and CC S.489... sure, let's move on to the lil' stuff! :mrgreen: But first, let me repeat some key points you're not willing to even acknowledge:

is that it Colpy... 6 reported incidents, 3 of which come from the RCMP... with the report also stating "It is unclear whether any of these reports are duplicative." Damn, your mega whine/Freedom wail... over this? :mrgreen:

but as I said: please... proceed to whine/wail over "some number" of "not in plain view" & "some number" of "secured" circumstances... it appears that number is 6, hey Colpy... and there could be incidents reported more than once within that. And do that all in the context of a State of Emergency, some 300 persons who refused to leave (inclusive of a high-risk offender), and ongoing incidents of reported break and enter/theft. While you're doing all that make sure you throw in some degree of, at large, platitude expression over the concern for murdered RCMP officers.

as I said, given the circumstances, I'm certainly willing to give the RCMP the latitude shown.



are you sure? :mrgreen: Looks like you haven't had enough of an azz-whoopin yet! Clearly your comprehension fail is even higher than usual here... I already showed the extract from the report that focused on the State of Emergency, public safety concerns and related circumstance. Again:

as the report states, Colpy: "Given the emergency circumstances which existed at the time and the potential accessibility of the firearms within homes, the RCMP's belief that the unsecured firearms posed a threat to public safety was not unreasonable."

as the report also states, Colpy: there is no case law to speak to "whether the public safety risk justified the seizure". However, in conclusion the report does state that the RCMP action was "...arguably a reasonable and common sense approach. However, at present there is no clear guidance from the courts on this issue and, accordingly, it is not possible to make a definitive finding in this regard. A determination of this point will not be possible until the courts have been called upon to rule on the issue or until legislation is passed."


Colpy, read the last 2 sentences from the most immediate paragraph! Again, you're most welcome.

They broke the law, you fvcking idiot.

No amount of rant (which I no longer even read.........) can change that.

I guess you would LOVE the Gestapo, huh?

I do not have to read the last two lines.......the findings say it all.....they broke the law.

So now, you Stalinist pieve of excrement, tell me how you would love them to burst into your house.........

 

[waldo]

it is a quote from the report that you endorsed by QUOTING it.

If you would rather just say that it is bull****, that would be fine with me.

again, I simply quoted directly from the report... I didn't, as you stated, assert anything or posit a premise. And again, as I stated, I don't recall reading anything in the report that speaks to your question. I will again suggest you actually read the report to see if there is support for the underlying premise you held with your question... the underlying premise you didn't identify, that I had to explicitly state, that you subsequently acknowledged was, in fact, your underlying premise.

 

[petros]

Is there a worldo outside of reports, charts, graphs, renderings and hand drawn facsimiles?

 

[waldo]

They broke the law, you fvcking idiot.

No amount of rant (which I no longer even read.........) can change that.

I guess you would LOVE the Gestapo, huh?

I do not have to read the last two lines.......the findings say it all.....they broke the law.

So now, you Stalinist pieve of excrement, tell me how you would love them to burst into your house.........

:mrgreen: purrfect! Nothing sweeter than to read a gunNutter blow-up... blow-up reeeeal good! Have another read of the following and go shoot off a few hundred rounds... maybe that will help you get over your big-time fail.

... as the report states, Colpy: "Given the emergency circumstances which existed at the time and the potential accessibility of the firearms within homes, the RCMP's belief that the unsecured firearms posed a threat to public safety was not unreasonable."

as the report also states, Colpy: there is no case law to speak to "whether the public safety risk justified the seizure". However, in conclusion the report does state that the RCMP action was "...arguably a reasonable and common sense approach. However, at present there is no clear guidance from the courts on this issue and, accordingly, it is not possible to make a definitive finding in this regard. A determination of this point will not be possible until the courts have been called upon to rule on the issue or until legislation is passed."

Colpy, read the last 2 sentences from the most immediate prior paragraph! Again, you're most welcome.

 

[petros]

B&E = Bacon & Eggs.

 

[Colpy]

:mrgreen: purrfect! Nothing sweeter than to read a gunNutter blow-up... blow-up reeeeal good! Have another read of the following and go shoot off a few hundred rounds... maybe that will help you get over your big-time fail.

I am not blowing up. Calling you a fvcking idiot is not blowing up, it is stating the obvious.

Perhaps you should buy yourself a book on law.....and one on history, and one on constitutional principles..........which, btw, includes the principle that officers of the law are not permitted to violate that law.


Oh, perhaps you could find the time to read them on some idyllic trip, perhaps on the bus ride to Macchu Piccu.....

Really?

The BUS???

You are such a troll, so immature, and sooo ignorant, and now proven a liar...... suddenly I suspect........

How OLD are you? Fourteen??

The bus.....

OMG that is funny......lol

 

[waldo]

I am not blowing up. Calling you a fvcking idiot is not blowing up, it is stating the obvious.

you've completely lost it... and nothing is sweeter! You're so desperate you're now resorting to lashing out with something you think I give a damn about!

Perhaps you should buy yourself a book on law.....and one on history, and one on constitutional principles..........which, btw, includes the principle that officers of the law are not permitted to violate that law.

I could repeat those same findings from the report... but you're so incensed that I question what you'll do. Your guns are all locked up, right? Ah what the hey... in any case, lil buddy, you don't get to speak of violating the law in this instance. Again, per your own linked resource, the report you referenced, the report that you brought forward:

.. as the report states, Colpy: "Given the emergency circumstances which existed at the time and the potential accessibility of the firearms within homes, the RCMP's belief that the unsecured firearms posed a threat to public safety was not unreasonable."

as the report also states, Colpy: there is no case law to speak to "whether the public safety risk justified the seizure". However, in conclusion the report does state that the RCMP action was "...arguably a reasonable and common sense approach. However, at present there is no clear guidance from the courts on this issue and, accordingly, it is not possible to make a definitive finding in this regard. A determination of this point will not be possible until the courts have been called upon to rule on the issue or until legislation is passed."

Colpy, read the last 2 sentences from the most immediate prior paragraph! Again, you're most welcome.​

 

[JamesBondo]

again, I simply quoted directly from the report... I didn't, as you stated, assert anything or posit a premise. And again, as I stated, I don't recall reading anything in the report that speaks to your question. I will again suggest you actually read the report to see if there is support for the underlying premise you held with your question... the underlying premise you didn't identify, that I had to explicitly state, that you subsequently acknowledged was, in fact, your underlying premise.

It is an act of forum vanity to quote something when it serves your purpose then not claim any responsibility for the quote when someone calls you out on it.

 

[B00Mer]

You are such a troll, so immature, and sooo ignorant, and now proven a liar...... suddenly I suspect........

How OLD are you? Fourteen??

Yet you keep replying to his "silly" posts... :roll:

 

[waldo]

It is an act of forum vanity to quote something when it serves your purpose then not claim any responsibility for the quote when someone calls you out on it.

you... called me out on it? Is that what you did? You called me out on the direct statements I quoted from the report... really, is that what you think you did? I've given you an answer to your question; the same answer, now repeated several times. I've repeatedly told you that I've not read anything in the report to support your underlying premise that, "there was a search for guns... done in the name of a search for children". And I've suggested, several times now, that you actually read the report to attempt to find support for your underlying premise. Apparently... you actually want me to support your underlying premise! :mrgreen: Have you actually bothered to read the report yet?

...My quick scan pulls this reference out: "The RCMP had only the limited authority to search for the protection of life. While opening the door to a closet may arguably be a reasonable measure to accomplish that goal (for example, on the assumption that a child might have sought refuge in a closet....."

I am not aware of an extensive door to door search for children hiding in closets. Did police search all closets for children?

 

[DaSleeper]

It is an act of forum vanity to quote something when it serves your purpose then not claim any responsibility for the quote when someone calls you out on it.

There's a lot of Baghdad Bob in that one....