Going have to leave this site.

Post Reply New Topic

I believe Sly is his own payee.

He just feels like his rights (gun rights) are being infringed upon. It's a 2nd Amendement thing....the right to bear arms.

That, and he seems to expect our federal and various state governments abide by their own rules; meaning that the proposed Social Security regulation is at least inharmonious with other federal laws which sets up a court review whether the courts want to review or not.

Well then I don't understand why he got so upset then. I know gun control laws is a strong topic for lot of people it never goes well. I try to imagine how I would feel if people started saying how video games should be outlawed. No I don't want to lose my Nintendo 3DS and have all the games taken away. When people think anything should be outlawed or controlled, many people get upset about it. That is how much people love their guns like how much I love my games. But I didn't see anyone specifically say how aspies shouldn't own guns and how they are mentally ill how he shouldn't own a gun. He made it all that and why couldn't the other person ignore him is beyond me. Like I say, I just ignore those people who take anything out of context and twist what people say which is what Sly did so I ignored it. I know that is what he typically does and wasn't the first time he's done it so that is why I ignored it.

I think a person's ability to own firearms should depend on if they are able to handle them in a responsible manner, this is essentially how gun licensing works in Canada. Being on disability should have nothing to do with it.

I understand things work a bit differently in the US, well actually a LOT differently, but the way your gun laws work is really strange to me. You have a constitutional right to bear arms, yet there are all sorts of laws barring certain people from owning firearms or certain types of firearms?

Whatever the case may be, I think it's too late to implement stricter gun control laws in the US. Millions of people there already own guns and are used to having very little regulations on them. While I like Canada's system and think that the US would do well with a similar system if it were implemented from the beginning, things are too far gone now, and nothing can really be done without trampling all over people's rights.

This isn't too dissimilar from U.S. law which sees constitutionally that every citizen is eligible to purchase, own, possess and use firearms. The restrictions kick in if and when an individual is either: 1) not eligible to have a firearm because of a lack of citizenship or other ineligible condition, or 2) triggers a restriction based on subsequent actions such as committing one or more of certain crimes, or being determined by a federal court to be a "mental defective." In other words, the U.S. government doesn't restrict an eligible individual until the individual creates cause to do so; like that old saying about being "innocent until proven guilty." In the United States, the Bill of Rights remains the birthright of every citizen unless and until the citizen creates a cause to restrict those rights. Status, like race or religion (or, in this case, certain conditions related to mental illness, except under the federal Gun Control Act of 1968) can't be used as a reason to restrict constitutional rights because that would violate the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the constitution's guarantees of Due Process and Equal Protection.

I honestly like how strict the gun laws are in the UK. It's a myth that no one owns a gun there but it's very very difficult to own one. If anyone tried to pull that law here, I bet lot of people would go in uproar. No one likes being allowed something and then all of a sudden have it snatched from them. That is why it's a lot easier to train kids than it is to teach a teen or an adult regarding rules and behavior. You can't just hand a kid everything and do everything for them and then expect them to earn it on their own and do things on their own all of a sudden when they are an adult.

True, unless the firearm owner is: 1) part of the royal family (search for description of how princes William and Harry pretty much obliterated every living thing -- in a single day -- on a nature preserve which was managed by their grandfather, Prince Philip; 2) all the other little royalettes (think knights all the way up to dukes); 3) friends and relatives of all the foregoing silk hankies; 4) celebrities (search for description of Madonna's enthusiasm in learning to "shoot" her own meals when she was Guy Richie's wife living on his estate) and 5) business types who can easily receive permission to join one of many members-only "gun clubs" throughout little Britain, thereby skirting the firearm prohibitions with which mere mortals (or are they still titled "subjects" these days?) are obligated to comply. Extra point: All the drug king pins, pornmeisters, camp followers and assorted criminals who call the Queen "mum" while banging their way to financial freedom ... and don't comply and never intended to do so.

No, people who really, really want firearms will get them. They "don't need no stinkin' laws."

I find it odd that this thread is still open.

It reminds me of when I have a mute episode and everyone takes that as permission to discuss my issues and make assumptions about me as though I wasn't sitting right there in the room hearing everything they said.

Not that I haven't enjoyed the discussion of cheese.

Wth?

I agree, it's time to close this thread. I'll just say that I think Sly is a good guy and I hope when he comes back that he will be forgiven for anything offensive he said out of frustration and welcomed back to this forum.

When will sly's ban be lifted?

Sorry, everyone, for my comment earlier.
I thought Sly was banned, but he's not.


Carry on talking about whatever you want, I guess.

Sly is just taking a vacation for a few days.

He hasn't posted since May 29, even though he's logged in at least once (today) since then.

Self control or lack of interest for a once obsessive use of the site, who knows. Either way, a good progressive step.
Sly, don't leave. Everyone has faced difficulties in communicating how they feel once in a while on this forum.
And as you've said before WP is a place where you shouldn't be penalised for being awkward and frustrated as an Aspie.

See you soon.

I bet this "Katy"person is probably me...But who knows? I can't stand certain people (not naming names).I disagree with a ban being for a month. I think the ban should be based on the severity of the problem, if it's being more than enough people and if it stresses others out highly or causing problems and if after a ban has been done and it's still being repeated.

I know a permanent ban would be uncessary unless a troll is running around. I wouldn't feel worse being banned but rules are rules. Aspies in my opinion, just like everywhere foruns wise else should be disciplined. I know I have AS. I also apologize if I sound harsh about bans. But how can a month for a person to be banned be enough especially for Aspies. A one month ban depending on the Aspie might not work in my opinion.

The only time a permanent ban should be enforced ONLY if scammers, spammers and repeat offenders who have not learned from thier mistakes after a number of times.

Alex, if you see this please take consideration about bans and have the mods discuss what the apropriate actions that should be taken. I apologize if I'm sounding heartless, mean and a**holelike but there's discipline and in real life along with consequences for actions. I think if there's rules on a board they're there for a reason. And for action there's a reaction, good or bad.