On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 00:45:14 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:39:38 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:39:26 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:00:25 -0400, "
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:22:21 -0700, "David Kaye"
wrote:

The gun nuts claim to follow the Constitution, but the Constitution makes
VERY CLEAR that the laws are subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court,
and it is THEIR DECISION as to what a particular clause actually means.

Well, the Supreme Court has ruled many times that the 2nd Amendment refers
to regulating a MILITIA, and that it does not confer ANY right for
individual citizens to own guns.

Good Lord, you're stupid. I thought Dougie was bad!



I still am bad if that means I still favor better laws to account for
gun ownership. I don't want "anyone" to have a right to own a gun no
matter how well you word your reply. There has to be some regulation
(perhaps I should say better regulation) of gun ownership in a
civilized world.

Jebus Christ, how much regulation is "some"??? There are already
20,000+ gun laws in this country, many of them conflicting. If wrist
watches were subject to the same level of control that guns are no one
would risk wearing one without LOTS of forethought of where they
planned to go, what route they would be taking, what the local cities
might have in the way of "special" controls on watches, etc. Imagine
that merely wearing your wris****ch as you drove past a school was a
federal felony offense. Imagine that if you were habitually late (or
early) that your right to own and wear a watch might be taken away.
And god forbid you own more then two watches!!!! Why does ANYONE need
more then two watches!!!


I did say also "better regulation" in case of conflicting words that
are on the books now. In an earlier post elsewhere I went as far as
saying to wipe the words clean and rewrite them to try to avoid
conflicts. I do admit, this is not easy to do but I still think we
should try rather than do nothing. Of course this is my belief.


The problem I see is that in an effort to eliminate a tiny tiny
fraction of gun crime people are willing to kill the second amendment.
It's a shame people got shot by lunatics but shift happens. I am not
willing to trade away the rights of 350,000,000 Americans just to
assuage the furrowed brows of a tiny minority of people for whom the
mindless "if it saves one life..." mantra is a way of life.

Until the anti-gun side says they are willing to wipe all the current
gun laws off the books and start over I don't care to listen to their
silly justifications for taking away MY rights.