"Doug" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:46:05 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 07:10:23 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:52:05 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:31:44 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:15:00 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 23:21:11 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:35:55 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 21:06:22 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:31:13 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:01:31 -0500, "Doug"

wrote:

I'm amazed how many think I want no one to have a gun. That's
just
not the case...

You said here, very clearly. I pointed this out to you when you
tried
to pull the wool over our eyes. Read what you wrote. Read when it
was


Please tell me where. Except for one post I can recall which I
admitted to poor wording, I clearly have said I believe people have
a
right to guns under certain conditions.


This is the last time I point out what you said. I'll give the exact
information. You said:

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

: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.

The exact words were " I don't want "anyone" to have a right to own
a
gun no matter how well you word your reply."



And as I pointed out once or twice after this post, I could have
worded it better. WHY do you ignor my admitance???


I'm not ignoring it. It is important to be know sure if what you say
is what you mean.

I meant it to say .... " I don't want anyone without qualifications "
to own a gun. Do you see the difference???????


Define "qualifications".


No because I did earlier and people say what I have in mind doesn't
work. I tend to disagree but let it be.


No you have not. If I'm wrong just show me.



And if you don't see my admitance then just go by my multiple other
posts.... clearly you should see for the 100th time, I do not oppose
guns if the gun holder is qualified. I will say it one more time
for
you .... I do not want lunatics holding a gun. Is this not simple
enough to understand??????????????????

Just checking to make sure you're not flip-flopping. A person can seem
normal one minute and in the next minute be talking about a space ship
in his room.


I think you have read or will read that I considered owning a gun at
least twice in my life so unless I've suddenly changed my mind now, I
am not against gun ownership with responsible, law abiding citizens. I
can't prove what I say so all you have is my word. I would never
consider lobbying against gun ownership but I would never agree to
just giving guns away without some form of regulation or whatever you
call it. In my mind, I think it's a good idea to know who has a
gun(s) and what they own (minimum). I suppose a valid question is
how much regulation and I don't know. I agree that's a fair question
addressed to me or whoever wants gun control of any kind. That said,
I don't think doing nothing and just giving guns away is the right
answer neither.

Oh, Doug, the swamp is filling up with alligators again. You think
regulation is the answer. You cannot say why or what regulation is
needed.

I have multiple guns, my wife has a gun. Is that enough for you?


No problem. I really don't care how many you have as long as you obey
the law and local ordinances. Personally I might wonder why so many
but I would not want to stop you from buying another.

Why are you worried about me or other legal guns owner obeying the
law? My state: "Nevada originally passed a preemption law in 1989,


You're right. Why obey any law?

Well, since that is your attitude, why are you blathering about more
gun-control laws ?
How stupid is that ?