New Colorado Safe Storage law

[Rich2018]

Never claimed I did. If so, post the quote.

I hope it's not the 'same' one where you "TOLD" me what "I" meant. But if so, I'll show how you're wrong again...altho I dont know how to dumb it down any further.

Can you not read ?

I posted it above and keep posting what you said in post #492, which was:

...the laws for securing weapons may end up being applied to everyone, whether they have kids or not. So we wouldnt get to choose according to our needs, risks, and circumstances...the law would treat us all the same...

So you were clearly talking about in a legal context that the LAW makes some kind of distinction between various individuals needs when it come to defense


Then you said in post #494

"Same" does not mean "equal".

But you refused to explain how they differ in a legal context




Then you said in post #504:

The type of laws usually suggested to restrict guns treat all people as if they have *the same* needs, face the *same* risks, and live under the *same* circumstances. *snicker*

But you refuse to cite a law, ANY law that makes a distinction between individuals needs


But you instead blatantly lie in post #58:

Repeated over and over in my posts.

Then you back tracked and blatantly moved the goal posts by falsely claim you were actually just referring to your own posts and not the law at all when I challenged you to cite such a law, ANY law

 

[RF667799]

Can you not read ?

I posted it above and keep posting what you said in post #492, which was:




So you were clearly talking about in a legal context that the LAW makes some kind of distinction between various individuals needs when it come to defense


Then you back tracked and blatantly moved the goal posts by falsely claim you were actually just referring to your own posts and not the law at all when I challenged you to cite such a law, ANY law

Looks to me like she is saying that the law being discussed doesn't make allowances for different needs. What nether region you retrieved your argumentation from is hard to say.

 

[Rich2018]

Never claimed I did. If so, post the quote.

I hope it's not the 'same' one where you "TOLD" me what "I" meant. But if so, I'll show how you're wrong again...altho I dont know how to dumb it down any further.

Please answer the questions about which law makes a distinction between individuals defense needs

And while you're at it, show how "the same" and "equal" differ in a legal context.

 

[Wayne Jr]

M'k. It's been awhile since I read that specific law. But our discussion went much farther and you claimed that you believed I should indeed lock up my house defense pistol...even to the point of believing stray kids would break into my rural, locked-gate property and take it and shoot themselves

That's my opinion of what the law should be, not what this law actually is.

This law does not force you to lock up anything inside your home if kids are not present.

 

[RF667799]

Please answer the questions about which law makes a distinction between individuals defense needs

And while you're at it, show how "the same" and "equal" differ in a legal context.

And again, her position is that the law in question doesn't make a distinction.

 

[Lursa]

Can you not read ?

I posted it above and keep posting what you said in post #492, which was:




So you were clearly talking about in a legal context that the LAW makes some kind of distinction between various individuals needs when it come to defense


Then you said in post #494




But you refused to explain how they differ in a legal context




Then you said in post #504:





But you refuse to cite a law, ANY law that makes a distinction between individuals needs


But you instead blatantly lie in post #58:




Then you back tracked and blatantly moved the goal posts by falsely claim you were actually just referring to your own posts and not the law at all when I challenged you to cite such a law, ANY law

I have no idea what you are posting about. YOur posts are totally convoluted. You didnt understand what I wrote, obviously...and it's probably intentional.

Laws generally apply to everyone...because they're about things you shouldnt do because they do harm, they infringe on others' rights. Everyone shouldnt do them. (See: rape, murder) OTOH, gun laws are applied to everyone "the same" (as a generalization), yet they arent usually about stopping people from doing something harmful....they are about property ownership and the control over legal property. The law in the OP is an example. That means restrictions on those things affect everyone, even if their use and/or purpose for their property is different.

And I have given clear examples of this all thru the thread. If you dont get it now, I dont care.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[Rich2018]

I have no idea what you are posting about.

Actually, I'd say you have no dea of what YOU'RE posting about

Your posts are totally convoluted. You didnt understand what I wrote, obviously...and it's probably intentional.

Do you deny that you said that the LAW makes some kind of distinction between various individuals needs when it come to defense ?


You denied that "equal" and "the same" are different in a legal context, but you refuse to say how they differ

Laws generally apply to everyone...because they're about things you shouldnt do because they do harm, they infringe on others' rights. Everyone shouldnt do them. (See: rape, murder) OTOH, gun laws are applied to everyone "the same" (as a generalization), yet they arent usually about stopping people from doing something harmful....they are about property ownership and the control over legal property. The law in the OP is an example. That means restrictions on those things affect everyone, even if their use and/or purpose for their property is different.

So "the same" and "equal" do mean the same in a legal context ?

Don't some gun laws stop/restrict you from owning/buying something too ?
Don't some gun laws prohibit what you can carry or how you carry it ?
Don't some gun laws make it mandatory to register your gun ?
Don't some gun laws make it mandatory to have a serial number on your gun ?

In any case what law makes a distinction between individuals defense needs ?

And I have given clear examples of this all thru the thread. If you dont get it now, I dont care.

And I respond to you as I have before, in what post # were they ?

 

[Lursa]

Actually, I'd say you have no dea of what YOU'RE posting about




Do you deny that you said that the LAW makes some kind of distinction between various individuals needs when it come to defense ?


You denied that "equal" and "the same" are different in a legal context, but you refuse to say how they differ




So "the same" and "equal" do mean the same in a legal context ?

Don't some gun laws stop/restrict you from owning/buying something too ?
Don't some gun laws prohibit what you can carry or how you carry it ?
Don't some gun laws make it mandatory to register your gun ?
Don't some gun laws make it mandatory to have a serial number on your gun ?

In any case what law makes a distinction between individuals defense needs ?





And I respond to you as I have before, in what post # were they ?

Forget it. Again, you've convoluted my posts. Quote them. I never said the law makes distinctions between individuals re: defense. Quote it.

Regarding your use of 'same' vs. 'equal' it means what I said it means in the sentences I wrote it in. I am not bothering with interpreting yours...you are specifically using the words the way you choose.

You are lying when you say I didnt write the distinction between same and equal and I never said I was using 'same' in a legal context. If I did...quote it.

And many times I listed the differences in people's defense needs. :roll: Are you claiming everyone's risks, circumstances,physical capabilities, living situations are the same??? :doh

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[Rich2018]

Forget it. Again, you've convoluted my posts. Quote them. I never said the law makes distinctions between individuals re: defense. Quote it.

So you admit that the law DOESN'T make any distinction between individuals defense needs and that they are treated "the same" under the law ?

So people are treated "equally"

And that, in a legal context, "the same" and "equal" are synonymous ?

And that all along, you've been referencing a legal context ?

Regarding your use of 'same' vs. 'equal' it means what I said it means in the sentences I wrote it in. I am not bothering with interpreting yours...you are specifically using the words the way you choose.

You said that "equal" was not "the same"
But you failed to explain how they differ in a legal context

And that all along, you've been referencing a legal context

You are lying when you say I didnt write the distinction between same and equal and I never said I was using 'same' in a legal context. If I did...quote it.

So you deny you were using a legal context

Post #492 you said:

...the laws for securing weapons may end up being applied to everyone, whether they have kids or not. So we wouldnt get to choose according to our needs, risks, and circumstances...the law would treat us all the same...

How is that NOT in a legal context ?

And many times I listed the differences in people's defense needs....

But you just don't happen to have the post numbers available ?
More of your lies.

 

[Lursa]

So you admit that the law DOESN'T make any distinction between individuals defense needs and that they are treated "the same" under the law ?

So people are treated "equally"

And that, in a legal context, "the same" and "equal" are synonymous ?

And that all along, you've been referencing a legal context ?




You said that "equal" was not "the same"
But you failed to explain how they differ in a legal context

And that all along, you've been referencing a legal context




So you deny you were using a legal context

Post #492 you said:



How is that NOT in a legal context ?





But you just don't happen to have the post numbers available ?
More of your lies.

Not admitting something I never claimed. Never claimed that laws re: defense treat people equally. Let's see the quotes that back up your BS ^^

Please just stop...you post intentional mischarterization one after another. Just lies so you can try and prop up your own agenda.

You lie and you cant even produce the quotes. And I cant be bothered...they're all here. But if you want to 'win' you'll have to produce the quotes.

Oh and no. Listing people's different defensive needs definitely doesnt need to be, nor was, written in a legal context. What is 'legal' about the things I listed? Is it in a legal context if I list people's vehicle needs? Number of seats, air conditioning, stereo, USB ports, etc? :doh

Post the quotes that prove you're right: Good luck :mrgreen: Otherwise, it's just you continuing to lie.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[Rich2018]

...Never claimed that laws re: defense treat people equally. Let's see the quotes that back up your BS

Just just can't stop lying can you ?

...the laws for securing weapons may end up being applied to everyone, whether they have kids or not. So we wouldnt get to choose according to our needs, risks, and circumstances...the law would treat us all the same...

Statement one: "Never claimed that laws re: defense treat people equally"
Statement two: "the law would treat us all the same"


Spot the difference

Please just stop...you post intentional mischarterization one after another. Just lies so you can try and prop up your own agenda.

When you admit your lies

You lie and you cant even produce the quotes. And I cant be bothered...they're all here. But if you want to 'win' you'll have to produce the quotes.

Quotes?
See above

Listing people's different defensive needs definitely doesnt need to be, nor was, written in a legal context. What is 'legal' about the things I listed? Is it in a legal context if I list people's vehicle needs? Number of seats, air conditioning, stereo, USB ports, etc? :doh

Post the quotes that prove you're right...

Quotes: See above to show clearly your lies

I've established you we talking in a legal context by your repeated references to the law

You have STILL refused to explain how "the same" and "equal" differ in a legal context


As for individuals different defense needs, which post did you list them again ?