In article , markem618
@hotmail.com says...

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 00:01:30 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Markem wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 17:24:39 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:

Sorry Mark, but I really have to call you on that last statement. Just what
is your basis for stating anyone (who ever that may be) in your definition,
should not own a gun. You might have a good explanation for why you feel
this way, but the problem is that you have not stated anything more
substanative to articulate your point.

If they just buy a gun have no experience or training and do not seek
out training, put the loaded gun in the night stand.

Why should such a person be prohibited from owning a firearm? Do you
have evidence that such people create a signficant social problem?

That would be an
example, the kids who were shooting a birds on the telephone line with
a couple twelve gauges, putting bird shot into Qwests fiber optic (the
judge took they're toys away and sold them to pay Qwest for the
damages, civil court).

Kids make mistakes. Would you prohibit them from ever owning a firearm
again because they made a mistake that didn't harm anyone?

Actually no I do not have to articulate any more, some people should
not own firearms. Most of the time it is after the fact that this
become apparent.

The problem is that you can't just say "some people should not own
firearms" without defining which people in a manner that is legally
enforcable. So how would you define this prohibited class?