"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:32:19 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Doug wrote:

Now back on topic .... I debated myself whether it's wise to go
after the legal or illegal guns first but I felt it's easier to do the
legal ones which might spread out over to the illegal ones to a small
degree. And by doing this, might work out the kinks in so doing. No
doubt the illegal guns will be harder to find or control so I felt the
legal ones should be first. Yeah, this might sound like a penalty for
a legal gun but my purpose is for a strategy of finding or accounting
for guns as a whole. As I said, it's a debatable issue which to go
for first. I don't claim my way is the only way to go after guns.


By "go after," I assume you mean confiscation. In furtherance of the 5th


WRONG ... WRONG.... WRONG. I meant to find out who has the
guns... aka account for them and not take them away unless in doing
so, they have a criminal record, mentally treated, etc.. .

SO you're willing to abrogate the constitutional right to privacy ?
You know the part about people being secure in their property ?
Read this:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-34.pdf


I keep
saying I believe people have a right to guns but I don't want certain
types to have those same rights.

Good than leave guns and their lawful owners alone and go after the people
you believe should not have guns

People seem to want to put a twist
on my words or meaning or disect my words out of context.


Nah !
You made your original meaning quite clear
And since then it has been you who's been shucking and jiving to try to
redefine your position



And I also keep saying that the present gun laws aren't working so why
should I bother to cite them? Those laws either need to be enforced
or rewritten including the right to bear arms so it doesn't apply
without some better qualification.

Good
Let's start by repealing ALL such laws and start from the ground up with an
honest discussion of the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment