Opinions on Billy Graham

[Cow Poke]

So the argument you are making is,

Any time you say that, you can take it to the bank that you're about to misrepresent my position.

"because the system doesn't work 100% of the time - it's useless."

Never said that. Please try again.

[rogue06]

The "registering cars" and "registering guns" just outright sucks as an analogy - it doesn't work at all.



It is ONLY required to be licensed/registered if used on public roads - if I keep it on my ranch, as you admitted, it's not the government's business at all.



Ah, so TOTALLY different than a vehicle!



You're just trying to wiggle out of your really bad 'analogy'.

I believe I've mentioned this previously...

And there are several restrictions placed on firearms owners that are not imposed upon people who own an automobile.

• Anyone can purchase an automobile -- even if they're under 18 (if they pay cash).

• There is no waiting period to purchase an automobile

• You do not have to have a license to purchase an automobile.

• There is no limit how many cars you can own, or how many you can buy per month.

• You only need to register an automobile if you plan to drive it on the street.

• You can take your automobile into different jurisdictions without getting a license for each one you go into (and facing a felony and automatic confiscation for failure to do so)

• You can own and operate an automobile on public roads designed to break the law (cars that can exceed the speed limit by several fold)

If we treated autos like firearms then

• You'd pay for a car, register it and then have to wait up to two weeks before you can pick up your car.

• You must store your car where no child could access it (no leaving it on the street or the driveway).

• If a child were to take your car and harm himself or others you could be charged with a felony

• People under psychiatric care or convicted of a felony (or in some jurisdictions even merely accused of spousal abuse) could not either own or drive an automobile

• It would be illegal to directly buy a car from an out of state dealer or seller

• You could be arrested for taking your automobile across state lines or even into different counties or cities within the same state

Finally, as has been previously noted (but seems to be ignored) you do not have a right to own an automobile, or to drive one, but here in the U.S. we most certainly do have the right to own firearms.

[Cow Poke]

OK, I've had it! I've said all I'm gonna say - we're just repeating the same stuff over and over.

I'm not going to comment on this any more at all ever!





Unless I want to. Then I will.


Otherwise, I'm done!




(for now, but don't hold me to it! )

[carpedm9587]

Hmmm... you're conversing, and I'm griping, eh?

When it comees to guns, where exactly did I say I wasn't griping? Gripe: express a complaint or grumble about something, especially something trivial. Except for the trivial part, when it comes to guns, I am definitely griping.

The "child" shooter in Florida passed the background check because of failed liberal polices - own it.

I have no idea what specifically was the reason he was not arrested. I was not there, so I am not in a position to pass judgment. It seems to me some of what he is said to have done should have resulted in an arrest.

As for owning it - you're talking to a man who summoned the police to his own home on his own son. So, quite frankly, stuff it.

[rogue06]

OK, I've had it! I've said all I'm gonna say - we're just repeating the same stuff over and over.

I'm not going to comment on this any more at all ever!





Unless I want to. Then I will.


Otherwise, I'm done!




(for now, but don't hold me to it! )

Sounds like one of your I quit posts.

[carpedm9587]

Any time you say that, you can take it to the bank that you're about to misrepresent my position.

Never said that. Please try again.

You did not use those words - but that was the essence of your argument. "So much for background checks" - and the argument apparently has been that we are doing something wrong by having background checks.

[Cow Poke]

You did not use those words - but that was the essence of your argument.

No, that's your dishonest and disingenuous summary.

[Cow Poke]

Sounds like one of your I quit posts.

Oh, and....


I quit!!!!!

[Cow Poke]

I have no idea what specifically was the reason he was not arrested. I was not there, so I am not in a position to pass judgment.

So, you're posting out of ignorance.

[Zymologist]

You did not use those words - but that was the essence of your argument. "So much for background checks" - and the argument apparently has been that we are doing something wrong by having background checks.

That isn't how I read him at all.

[Cow Poke]

As for owning it - you're talking to a man who summoned the police to his own home on his own son. So, quite frankly, stuff it.

Sheeeesh!

[Sparko]

I think he got tripped up in the "licensing vehicles" as opposed to "licensing drivers", and can't seem to keep those things straight.

you didn't even complain about the bad grammar in my post! I was rushing out of the door and didn't proof read.

[Sparko]

On the Graham Rule - yes - I'm done. I;'ve been reading the subsequent posts, but I won't be responding further.

On the gun issue - not yet.

well this thread is about Billy Graham which includes the BG rule. I only brought up guns to point out how you were being hypocritical. this is not the thread to discuss guns except in that context.

I was trying to get you to realize that you indeed do support 'policies that treat ALL people as untrustworkthy because a FEW people are.'

- so your objection to the BG rule based on that excuse falls flat.

[Cow Poke]

well this thread is about Billy Graham which includes the BG rule.

Ya know, and this is the God's honest truth... I've only had ONE woman complain about my policy, because she wanted to meet with me on a Wednesday night after Church. I suggested we meet "tomorrow morning during the day, unless there's an emergency". She OFTEN stopped by the Church in the day.

This particular woman, who actually got mad enough over this to leave the Church, was on her FORTH marriage. Her THIRD marriage was to a local Methodist preacher. Their affair began in his office at night, while he was still married (divorce pending) and they continued meeting in his office at night.

She's the ONLY woman who complained about my policy. The only MAN who complained about my policy was her 4th husband!

(I did not know about her divorce/marriage/divorce to the Methodist preacher until after this incident)

[Sparko]

Ya know, and this is the God's honest truth... I've only had ONE woman complain about my policy, because she wanted to meet with me on a Wednesday night after Church. I suggested we meet "tomorrow morning during the day, unless there's an emergency". She OFTEN stopped by the Church in the day.

This particular woman, who actually got mad enough over this to leave the Church, was on her FO[U]RTH marriage. Her THIRD marriage was to a local Methodist preacher. Their affair began in his office at night, while he was still married (divorce pending) and they continued meeting in his office at night.

She's the ONLY woman who complained about my policy. The only MAN who complained about my policy was her 4th husband!

(I did not know about her divorce/marriage/divorce to the Methodist preacher until after this incident)