Anything goes thread

[hotwheelsgunclub]

New member

How can I post a new thread? I am having issues with my 95 4Runner. I know this thread is for whatever so after searching I figured I would ask here. Thank Monica

 

[ThorInc]

How can I post a new thread? I am having issues with my 95 4Runner. I know this thread is for whatever so after searching I figured I would ask here. Thank Monica

Check this out, it will help:
http://www.toyota-4runner.org/gsear...hing-goes-thread-28.html#post2475315&ref=&ss=

 

[Yukon4Runner]

I'd try the classic t4rs thread.

 

[Hepar]

it is valid.
if I may, you are saying the presence and access to guns is the problem. they are restricted in Chicago, so those people go to neighboring states to get them. that is your position, correct?

if that were true, and access was the issue, those neighboring states would ALSO have high gun crime. because they clearly have more and easier access to them.

so instead you would rather just lay down and die?
there are many that feel that way, but there are MANY, including myself, and others responding in this thread, that would fight/die to preserve our freedom.
who are you(or anyone) else to even attempt to deny us that right?


if they suddenly came out with a law banning listening to the radio while driving, because its too much of a distraction(not that far fetched to think they would try) then EVERYONE who currently does that would be a criminal.


key word here is KNOWN. who gets to make that assessment?

I believe their are current laws against people with restraining orders and guns. but it doesn't take any facts to get a restraining order. you only have to say you fear being attacked by someone. as if a piece of paper will keep them from trying to hurt you.

so anyone at any time would be able to restrict your personal rights on a whim. how is that OK?

that's very much like the no fly list that was mentioned earlier. its ridiculously easy to get put on, but very difficult to be removed from.

Whoa. OK. I'll try my best to address each point.

How I interpreted his comment and I am pro firearm and pro carry (if allowed in the GWN ), he is saying that Chicago is not really a valid example of firearm restriction laws not being effective as you can simply go to the next state and drive one back so using chicago as an example of firearm control laws not being effective is kinda moot to anyone that wants access to a firearm. But I am just zeroing in on his point in response to using Chicago as an example.........

Exactly. I'm not saying it's the sole reason. There are many factors as to why an area over another has a particularly high gun-related crime rate or crime rate in general for that matter. Some people here have used statistics that break down the demographics of this country to try and elude to where that problem lies, but I'm not going to even try to respond to that line of garbage.

As with almost everything discussed, it's not an A or B solution. So, by saying I know that our own military has the power to squelch any sort of civilian uprising, I'm not saying the only other option is to lay down and die.

With your radio analogy, I do see what you are trying to say. But the difference lies in the choice. If they deem listening to the radio as too much of a distraction to driving, then after that it is YOUR choice whether or not to continue to do so. If you choose to not obey that new law, then yes you are now a criminal. But just because it's now the law, doesn't make it wrong to have listened to the radio before.

key word here is KNOWN. who gets to make that assessment?

And that goes back to the slippery slope discussion. It is not now or will ever be a clear cut line. Nor will it be without its own fallacies.

 

[nevada]

How I interpreted his comment and I am pro firearm and pro carry (if allowed in the GWN ), he is saying that Chicago is not really a valid example of firearm restriction laws not being effective as you can simply go to the next state and drive one back so using chicago as an example of firearm control laws not being effective is kinda moot to anyone that wants access to a firearm. But I am just zeroing in on his point in response to using Chicago as an example.........

right. I understand that. but considering that fact, shouldn't those other states have just as bad of crime? if not worse, since they don't have to leave the state to get their guns?

that points to the fact that GUNS are not the problem.

 

[Hepar]

right. I understand that. but considering that fact, shouldn't those other states have just as bad of crime? if not worse, since they don't have to leave the state to get their guns?

that points to the fact that GUNS are not the problem.

No. You're not understanding. None of us are saying that the reason Chicago has it's high gun-related crime rate is due to the fact that there are areas around that are lax. All we are saying is that using the argument that it is an example of strict gun laws not working is moot.

Yes, the areas in close proximity have different laws. Yes, they are more lax than the urban areas of Chicago. But no, that does not mean they should automatically see a rise in gun-related crime. Again, there are many other factors in play. There are reasons that urban centers are higher in certain types of crime than others.

 

[Thefishguy77]

How I interpreted his comment and I am pro firearm and pro carry (if allowed in the GWN ), he is saying that Chicago is not really a valid example of firearm restriction laws not being effective as you can simply go to the next state and drive one back so using chicago as an example of firearm control laws not being effective is kinda moot to anyone that wants access to a firearm. But I am just zeroing in on his point in response to using Chicago as an example.........

I interpreted his comment as to say that people that want a gun will just go to the next state. No, all states have different laws but I believe most will require you to show a ID. and some states will only sell to residents or make sure your resident state laws will allow you to have the weapon you are trying to purchase. Or are you saying they are trying to purchase the firearm illegally? If so I doubt they will have to leave Chicago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hepar]

I interpreted his comment as to say that people that want a gun will just go to the next state. No, all states have different laws but I believe most will require you to show a ID. and some states will only sell to residents or make sure your resident state laws will allow you to have the weapon you are trying to purchase. Or are you saying they are trying to purchase the firearm illegally? If so I doubt they will have to leave Chicago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Since we all seem to like graphs.

 

[nevada]

haha.

still, it only proves that guns themselves are not the problem. but the people using them.

but instead, lets make a tool, a chunk of metal and parts, harder to get for those that WILL be using them correctly. meanwhile, the criminal will continue on as he always has, except now with easier targets.

makes sense...

 

[Thefishguy77]

Since we all seem to like graphs.

Now are all of those guns legally purchased?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hepar]

haha.

still, it only proves that guns themselves are not the problem. but the people using them.

but instead, lets make a tool, a chunk of metal and parts, harder to get for those that WILL be using them correctly. meanwhile, the criminal will continue on as he always has, except now with easier targets.

makes sense...

Yet again an example of people reading what they want into things. I never said guns were the issue. This all stemmed from comments made using Chicago's high gun-crime rate and their strict gun laws as an example of gun laws being pointless.

Now are all of those guns legally purchased?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not a clue. But if a gun is potentially easier to get your hands on be it illegally or legally outside of just the county in which you live, using that counties gun laws to correlate anything towards their crime rate is pointless. That has been my stance all along.

 

[nevada]

Yet again an example of people reading what they want into things. I never said guns were the issue. This all stemmed from comments made using Chicago's high gun-crime rate and their strict gun laws as an example of gun laws being pointless.

yet again an example of presuming I was talking to/about you.

there are people posting in this thread(and others) calling for better/more gun control. there are also people across the nation calling for the same.

though its been proven many times over that gun control is not the correct solution to the problem, their song remains the same.


I do believe though, that Chicago is a damn fine example of the fact that gun control/restrictions do not work. they have some of the strictest laws regarding guns, yet have the highest amount of gun crime. regardless of where they are getting the guns. which, is the point of gun control NOT working. criminals will get theirs....

 

[nevada]

just something to think about, we have citizens of another country, stating that our guns laws are not enough, and that it should be "more"
we also have people who do not even own guns saying the same thing.

you wont find too many actual guns owners(in the US) that feel that way.

so basically, you have people commenting on things that they personally have no experience with..



reminds of the idiot reporter(s?) that tried to show how easy it was to buy a gun. one of them was denied the purchase due to a previous court order or ruling against him. his plan backfired just slightly..

another purchased the firearm legally, then proceeded to break the law by illegally transferring the weapon to someone else.
uninformed, ignorant, idiots. whatever you want to call it. they are speaking against something they know nothing about...

 

[Hepar]

yet again an example of presuming I was talking to/about you.

Yeah, your response was a direct response to my post. Crazy how I could think that.

I do believe though, that Chicago is a damn fine example of the fact that gun control/restrictions do not work. they have some of the strictest laws regarding guns, yet have the highest amount of gun crime. regardless of where they are getting the guns. which, is the point of gun control NOT working. criminals will get theirs....

Fine. You're right. You can make the correlation between the two and it makes perfect sense. Now that we've cleared that up, we can move on.

 

[Gunslinger-13]

why bother engaging with the op? clearly, you won't sway his opinion in any way, nor will you get any satisfaction in having enlightened him about your opinions and positions on various topics. all you'll get is the condescending smugness of a know-it-all who discounts any differing opinion and will not see the world through anything but polarized lenses.

I know I likely won't change any truly anti gun persons mind, even though I've posted a metric ton of facts backing up my position and have been met with nothing of substance in return.

The folks I'm going after are those on the fence, who aren't pro or anti gun- when they see debates like these they see folks like me bringing the data, taking the time to research and forming an opinion based on the data- they see the logic. And they also see the emotional responses, the lack of data and lack of logic from the anti gun side.

Fence sitters are easy to inform and get on board the pro gun side with logic and facts. That's who I'm going after. When they see debates like these, it's rather easy to see who is bringing substance to the debate and who is just typing words in a thread on the Internet with little to no substance and tons of biased opinion.

I'll always meet the anti's with facts and data, and always win over the fence sitters with the same.

Just flipped a fence sitter today, he's a democrat and I'm taking him and his wife shooting this weekend.

That's the best way to fight anti gunners, get people involved and informed about firearms- and ask them to pass it on.

 

[-JD-]

Fine. You're right. You can make the correlation between the two and it makes perfect sense. Now that we've cleared that up, we can move on.

I know I likely won't change any truly anti gun persons mind, even though I've posted a metric ton of facts backing up my position and have been met with nothing of substance in return.

The folks I'm going after are those on the fence, who aren't pro or anti gun- when they see debates like these they see folks like me bringing the data, taking the time to research and forming an opinion based on the data- they see the logic. And they also see the emotional responses, the lack of data and lack of logic from the anti gun side.

Fence sitters are easy to inform and get on board the pro gun side with logic and facts. That's who I'm going after. When they see debates like these, it's rather easy to see who is bringing substance to the debate and who is just typing words in a thread on the Internet with little to no substance and tons of biased opinion.

I'll always meet the anti's with facts and data, and always win over the fence sitters with the same.

Just flipped a fence sitter today, he's a democrat and I'm taking him and his wife shooting this weekend.

That's the best way to fight anti gunners, get people involved and informed about firearms- and ask them to pass it on.

Its like talking to a brick wall.

:ybrick:

 

[Yukon4Runner]

100% agree...it's pointless arguing with libs.

 

[Gunslinger-13]

Its like talking to a brick wall.

:ybrick:

Always with the name calling.

I asked for data and statistics backing up your position and we could debate them. All I got was a weak catch all "gun deaths" graph.

You're free to post more, please do. You said the data I've posted is all "extreme" interpretations of the sources/studies and your single source that didn't even break any of the info out- was "more balanced.

Well, back it up JD. If you've got such a plethora of "balanced" and "more accurate" info- please share and let's discuss it already.

Name calling- why resort to calling me an idiot? All it does is further weaken your position to onlookers who use logic to formulate opinions. Thanks though, it helps the fence sitters see you for what you are.

 

[-JD-]

I asked for data and statistics backing up your position and we could debate them. All I got was a weak catch all "gun deaths" graph.

You're free to post more, please do. You said the data I've posted is all "extreme" interpretations of the sources/studies and your single source that didn't even break any of the info out- was "more balanced.

Well, back it up JD. If you've got such a plethora of "balanced" and "more accurate" info- please share and let's discuss it already.

Name calling- why resort to calling me an idiot? All it does is further weaken your position to onlookers who use logic to formulate opinions. Thanks though, it helps the fence sitters see you for what you are.

I provided multiple links. One of them was a rather large and comprehensive study. If you read and study those links you will find that they cite their sources at the end. There are dozens of them.

You obviously didn't look at my sources, nor did you make any attempt to address the facts presented by them. Instead you went quiet for a day or two and then came back in here posturing about how you had won the debate and converted the fence sitters.

 

[wallytoo]

Its like talking to a brick wall.

:ybrick:

no surprise here. you continue with your hypocrisy. similar to indecent.

the correct version is "it's", too. if indecent were consistent, that would garner a "like". but that ain't happening.