On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 16:10:07 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 21:20:33 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:

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!!!

imagine if you could take your watch into a movie theater and kill 12 and
injure 58 people with it


You can, it's called a time bomb.

it wasn't the time that killed them, it was the bomb


And it wasn't the gun that kills, it's the person firing it.


If all such portable time keeping apparatus was kept out of the hands of the
public no one could make time bombs.

what a perfect reason for keeping cigarettes out of the hands of the public.
thank you