"Markem" wrote in message
...

Actually no I do not have to articulate any more, some people should
not own firearms.

Nobody has disputed that. The problem is your definition of who that
should
be is arbitrary and nonsensical.

BTW, "they're toys" means "they are toys". You seem to routinely
substitute
"they're" for "their".

Aw gee now you have fallen low

Think of it as a public service announcement, like don't shake your baby or
fasten your seatbelt. Everybody makes typos or spells a word wrong now and
then, but this appeared to be a regular habit I thought you might like to
know about.

, I have not defined anything. It was
you how sought to define what and whom.

Ummm, no, actually. You offered the example of people who want a gun
without (in your opinion) needing one being people who shouldn't own guns.
People keep quoting your own words to you, it's odd that they keep slipping
your memory.

Now that we have established that some who own firearms should not.

Again, nobody ever denied that. The issue has always been that arbitrary
rules on who "needs" to own a firearm are unacceptable. The Constitution
does not say only people who hunt or are target shooters or live in
dangerous areas have a right to be armed, does it.

By the way I have an FIOD card, now the fight over releasing that
information per a FOI request for all statewide is a more pressing
issue.

I would be opposed to public release of such information just as I would
with any other government information on individuals without a compelling
public purpose in so doing. One has to wonder if this a way to discourage
firearms ownership without being slapped down by the Supreme Court again--of
course it would only impact law-abiding citizens.