On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:36:03 GMT, John R. Carroll wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

Passing a bad law in the hopes of a SCOTUS reversal is a poor
strategy.

I'd agree with you in many, even most, circumstances but not here because of
the active and well financed nature of the gun lobby.

The reason the "gun lobby" is active and well financed, John, is because
people like me actively finance it. It's not some nebulous entity, it's
people who give a **** about the issues enough to give time and money to
the effort.

Time will tell. Taking away the second would make the fourth pretty
useless though, wouldn't it.

Privacy is under attack by the executive branch today Dave. Not the second.

Yes, I _UNDERSTAND_ that, John. Would you feel better about what you
see to be Bush's plan, if Clinton and friends had already succeeded in
disarming us?

Some day you need to go look up what "infringed" means, John. Even if
she was only talking about (gasp!) ugly guns, her intent is
unmistakable. As you undoubtedly know, those guns are functionally
identical to millions of other, not-on-that-list guns.

Yes Dave, but in our earlier conversations you managed to impress the value
of being precise and the disingenuous nature of being overly broad. LOL

LOL yourself. "Turn them all in" is pretty damn clear to me. Further,
you missed my point about "infringed". Even if she did mean just those
17 models (which I don't believe given the context, and I've read the
interview several times), it's on obvious step to the next which is "Oh,
look, this one is functionally identical but doesn't have a (flash hider
/ bayonet mount / whatever) and of course the intent of the law was to
ban that, too. Oh, and look, Grandpa's 100 year old Browning fires
every time you pull the trigger, so that's functionally identical too,
and... and pretty soon, you're infringed into oblivion. Don't pretend
that wouldn't be the obvious tactic.

You don't make a stray dog go away by only giving it a little steak.

I mentioned that regarding privacy rights and you shined it Dave. The camel
and tent flap analogy is the same thing.

And you keep missing my point that without the second, the fourth is
worthless. They're both important, and both under threat. If both
sides take away what they want, we're very screwed.

First, I've pretty much dropped any party affiliation but I'm still
registered as a Republican. My office is in Jane Harmon's district
but live in one represented by the clones of B-1 Bob. My youngest
brother lives in what used to be Duke Cunningham's district as a
matter of fact and I have a longstanding business relationship with
one of the candidates for that seat, Allan Uke. I've contributed the
maximum to his campaign. Seems fair as he gave me all of the
bussiness I could handle and then some when I was starting out years
back.

Evasion noted.

I corrected what was your own false statement Dave. You said something about
"my party" if you will recall.

OK, whatever. The party of whose actions you don't seem to have a
problem with then. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, you know,
that whole thing.

Riiiiight. History doesn't matter, especially when it's
inconveniently
at odds with the point you're trying to make. Facts don't exist in a
vacuum, John, especially when we're talking current people in the same
jobs.

I don't see that we are at all. The jobs may be the same but they have been
significantly marginalized.

I see Clinton, Clinton, Kennedy, Boxer, Schumer, and friends to be
current threats to my rights. They don't stop being a threat just
because they're ineffective at the moment.

I think we just dissagree on these things Dave. I doubt that I could
influence you and you likely won't influence me. I can live with that.

Fair enough.