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.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

I suppose a valid question is how much regulation and I don't know.

How about *none*? ...as the Constitution states.

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.

Idiot. No one is "giving guns away".

Ah, the Constitution. Actually, the 2nd Amendment says "... shall not be
infringed." In this case, "infringed" means something less than absolute. A
law could exist - and does - that limits some forms of "keeping" and/or
"bearing."

As for "giving guns away," my view is somewhat straightforward. How often
have we heard: "If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided to
you..." as a fair reading of the 6th Amendment. By no great leap of logic,
we could be hearing "If you cannot afford a gun, one will be provided to
you..."

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:00:18 -0400, "
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.

Then there is no point in you whining here, anymore, right?

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.

Then why are you wanting to restrict their ownership by law abiding citizens?


I can't prove what I say so all you have is my word.

Your "word" has proven to be worthless.

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.

Who is "giving guns away"? I'll take a few more.

In my mind, I think it's a good idea to know who has a
gun(s) and what they own (minimum).

To what purpose, except to later confiscate them? ...as is the inevitable
result.

I suppose a valid question is how much regulation and I don't know.

How about *none*? ...as the Constitution states.

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.

Idiot. No one is "giving guns away".


You're the idiot twisting my words but I don't expect anything else
from you so I won't bother to address what you say. It's like talking
to the wall...... actually the wall is more civil.

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:54:29 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
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:


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.


Run away dougie, run away

1) YOU did NOT demonstrate ANYTHING earlier
2) YOU are UNABLE to demonstrate ANYTHING AT ALL
3) All you can you is repeat yourself like the stupid parrot that you
are.



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.

There you go repeating yourself again
Who the **** cares what you did, did not do, and the why of it



Ok, do us both a favor and kill file me !!!

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:00:18 -0400, "
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.

Then there is no point in you whining here, anymore, right?

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.

Then why are you wanting to restrict their ownership by law abiding
citizens?


I can't prove what I say so all you have is my word.

Your "word" has proven to be worthless.

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.

Who is "giving guns away"? I'll take a few more.

In my mind, I think it's a good idea to know who has a
gun(s) and what they own (minimum).

To what purpose, except to later confiscate them? ...as is the inevitable
result.

I suppose a valid question is how much regulation and I don't know.

How about *none*? ...as the Constitution states.

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.

Idiot. No one is "giving guns away".


You're the idiot twisting my words but I don't expect anything else
from you so I won't bother to address what you say. It's like talking
to the wall...... actually the wall is more civil.

Run away, dougie
Run away
Funny how you try to spin when you spout nonsense and get called on it.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:54:29 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
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:


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.


Run away dougie, run away

1) YOU did NOT demonstrate ANYTHING earlier
2) YOU are UNABLE to demonstrate ANYTHING AT ALL
3) All you can you is repeat yourself like the stupid parrot that you
are.



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.

There you go repeating yourself again
Who the **** cares what you did, did not do, and the why of it



Ok, do us both a favor and kill file me !!!

Why ?
I enjoy pointing out the stupid things you spout, followed by your
justifications afterwards

The whole "just giving guns away" crap is nothing but a diversion

I asked you 5 questions
Have you even read them ?
Have you even tried thinking about them ?
Have you even tried answering them ?

You will have more credibility if you avoid spinning like a puppy chasing
it's tail and start responding to people directly instead of just repeating
your "lunatic" mantra.

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 07:14:15 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:00:18 -0400, "
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.

Then there is no point in you whining here, anymore, right?

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.

Then why are you wanting to restrict their ownership by law abiding citizens?


I can't prove what I say so all you have is my word.

Your "word" has proven to be worthless.

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.

Who is "giving guns away"? I'll take a few more.

In my mind, I think it's a good idea to know who has a
gun(s) and what they own (minimum).

To what purpose, except to later confiscate them? ...as is the inevitable
result.

I suppose a valid question is how much regulation and I don't know.

How about *none*? ...as the Constitution states.

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.

Idiot. No one is "giving guns away".


You're the idiot twisting my words but I don't expect anything else
from you so I won't bother to address what you say. It's like talking
to the wall...... actually the wall is more civil.

Ya' dingbat, I didn't twist your words. YOU SAID IT - IN CONTEXT! You really
*are* a stupid asshole.

"Doug" wrote in
:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:00:18 -0400, "
wrote:

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

Idiot. No one is "giving guns away".


You're the idiot twisting my words

He's not twisting your words, you ass, he's quoting them.

but I don't expect anything else
from you so I won't bother to address what you say. It's like talking
to the wall...... actually the wall is more civil.

You could cut the irony with a knife.

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,
meaning that counties and municipalities cannot pass gun laws that are
more restrictive than the state law. Some gun ordinances in some parts
of the state were “grandfathered” in at that time. However, in 2007,
Senate Bill 92 amended the preemption law, removing all grandfathered
ordinances with the exception of a handgun registration ordinance."
[only two counties require handgun registration] Nevada is an open
carry state. There is no law allowing open carry, just the opposite,
there is no law preventing open carry.

Why wonder why I have multiple guns? Simple: I want guns.

Just this Sunday a man walked into a Dairy Queen with a 3 foot sword
to rob the place. He was rapidly dispatched and removed from the
population count.
--

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 07:16:01 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:


Ok, do us both a favor and kill file me !!!

Why? He can poke you with a sharp stick instead.

You bark about regulations, accountability, qualifications, etc., but
have not offered what you would do. I'm interested in what YOU would
do and how you would accomplish your objective.
--

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 02:49:52 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:


Liberal anti gun freaks often watch themselves and their loved ones die
at the hands of some poor misunderstood, disadvantaged criminal while
contemplating how morally superior their position on gun ownership is. ^_^

TDD

You already know the gun grabbers are superior thinkers. They know
best what is good for you. I'd wonder how they would _feel_ if their
family was murdered and did nothing to stop the carnage.
--

"Oren" wrote in message
...
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,
meaning that counties and municipalities cannot pass gun laws that are
more restrictive than the state law. Some gun ordinances in some parts
of the state were "grandfathered" in at that time. However, in 2007,
Senate Bill 92 amended the preemption law, removing all grandfathered
ordinances with the exception of a handgun registration ordinance."
[only two counties require handgun registration] Nevada is an open
carry state. There is no law allowing open carry, just the opposite,
there is no law preventing open carry.

Why wonder why I have multiple guns? Simple: I want guns.

Just this Sunday a man walked into a Dairy Queen with a 3 foot sword
to rob the place. He was rapidly dispatched and removed from the
population count.
--

https://www.google.com/#q=Dairy+Queen+with+a+3+foot+sword&hl=en&prmd=imvn su&source=univ&tbm=nws&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=vS81UKDzI_Kvy gHSrYCADA&sqi=2&ved=0CCQQqAI&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw .r_qf.&fp=cb42c285be9de963&biw=998&bih=494

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 07:16:01 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:


Ok, do us both a favor and kill file me !!!

Why? He can poke you with a sharp stick instead.


Bingo
It's funny watching dougie chase his own tail, and bark in frustration when
he can't even catch it.

You bark about regulations, accountability, qualifications, etc., but
have not offered what you would do. I'm interested in what YOU would
do and how you would accomplish your objective.


I doubt he has the mental capacity so go that far.
I gave him 5 simple questions to answer
And the poor thing couldn't even answer those

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 02:49:52 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:


Liberal anti gun freaks often watch themselves and their loved ones die
at the hands of some poor misunderstood, disadvantaged criminal while
contemplating how morally superior their position on gun ownership is. ^_^

TDD

You already know the gun grabbers are superior thinkers. They know
best what is good for you. I'd wonder how they would _feel_ if their
family was murdered and did nothing to stop the carnage.
--

We know how they would "feel"
They would consider it the fault of the government for not passing stricter
gun-control laws.

Doug wrote:


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.

Best I can explain it, guns are like cats - you can't have too many. Most
gun owners view their guns like women do shoes, you never have enough.

Remember, in considering guns, the word "need" is never appropriate. The
only word that counts is "wants."

I own eleven handguns. Counting the cars and BUGs (back up guns), that's
almost enough for every room in the house. Still need a few more. The theory
is that a gun should be available wherever you might need it.

Of course the same thing could be said of fire extinguishers, but fire
extinguishers, what with being bright red and all, are usually ugly, or at
least clash with the decor. A gun, however, compliments everything.

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:17:14 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:

Just this Sunday a man walked into a Dairy Queen with a 3 foot sword
to rob the place. He was rapidly dispatched and removed from the
population count.
--

https://www.google.com/#q=Dairy+Queen+with+a+3+foot+sword&hl=en&prmd=imvn su&source=univ&tbm=nws&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=vS81UKDzI_Kvy gHSrYCADA&sqi=2&ved=0CCQQqAI&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw .r_qf.&fp=cb42c285be9de963&biw=998&bih=494


Yep. North of my location... Not the first time someone took a knife
to a gun fight.
--

On 8/22/2012 2:20 PM, Atila Iskander wrote:

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 02:49:52 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:


Liberal anti gun freaks often watch themselves and their loved ones die
at the hands of some poor misunderstood, disadvantaged criminal while
contemplating how morally superior their position on gun ownership
is. ^_^

TDD

You already know the gun grabbers are superior thinkers. They know
best what is good for you. I'd wonder how they would _feel_ if their
family was murdered and did nothing to stop the carnage.
--

We know how they would "feel"
They would consider it the fault of the government for not passing
stricter gun-control laws.


Have you hugged a terrorist today? ^_^

TDD

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:19:07 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 07:16:01 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:


Ok, do us both a favor and kill file me !!!

Why? He can poke you with a sharp stick instead.


Bingo
It's funny watching dougie chase his own tail, and bark in frustration when
he can't even catch it.

You bark about regulations, accountability, qualifications, etc., but
have not offered what you would do. I'm interested in what YOU would
do and how you would accomplish your objective.


I doubt he has the mental capacity so go that far.
I gave him 5 simple questions to answer
And the poor thing couldn't even answer those


Doug lives in Texas, I would've thought by now something would have
rubbed off on him about guns.
--

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:20:05 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 02:49:52 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:


Liberal anti gun freaks often watch themselves and their loved ones die
at the hands of some poor misunderstood, disadvantaged criminal while
contemplating how morally superior their position on gun ownership is. ^_^

TDD

You already know the gun grabbers are superior thinkers. They know
best what is good for you. I'd wonder how they would _feel_ if their
family was murdered and did nothing to stop the carnage.
--

We know how they would "feel"
They would consider it the fault of the government for not passing stricter
gun-control laws.


Right. Hide behind momma's skirt.

--
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government,
so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution
so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
Thomas Jefferson

--

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 8/22/2012 2:20 PM, Atila Iskander wrote:

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 02:49:52 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:


Liberal anti gun freaks often watch themselves and their loved ones die
at the hands of some poor misunderstood, disadvantaged criminal while
contemplating how morally superior their position on gun ownership
is. ^_^

TDD

You already know the gun grabbers are superior thinkers. They know
best what is good for you. I'd wonder how they would _feel_ if their
family was murdered and did nothing to stop the carnage.
--

We know how they would "feel"
They would consider it the fault of the government for not passing
stricter gun-control laws.


Have you hugged a terrorist today? ^_^


Nope
And I wouldn't hug one, If I met one.
But given the chance, I would gladly shoot one.

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:15:21 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 00:36:45 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:33:49 -0400, "
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:56:14 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:52:37 -0400, "
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:44:40 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:53:40 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Aug 17, 8:13*am, "Doug" wrote:
GIANT SNIP
Regardless what laws there are or are not, gun control has to change.
I don't want us to live in the wild west.

You are not familiar with the data surrounding the existing conditions
yet you clamor for change?

You don't know where you are or how you got there.
You don't like where you are so you're going to start walking to
undefined destination via an unknown route?

Clue: You don't live in the wild west..... to your uneducated mind,
it just "feels" that way.

Unfortunately, it's not about the data it's about feelings.

cheers
Bob


Why is crime in particular gun crime going down nationwide? Please
cite the sources.

You've already stated that you wouldn't read them. Here, show us that you've
changed your (teensy) mind:

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less...uns+less+crime


Plain and simple even for you....

It would be far too complicated for you.

I don't want lunatics carrying guns.
If you have a better method to do this, fine with me.

I suggested that we take away all of your Constitutional rights. That would
help.

My suggestion was a form of gun control but if there is a better way, fine.

Your "suggestion" isn't.


Ok, I have no problem with someone else's suggestion as long as it
helps to get guns away from lunatics. I never said my idea was the
only way or the best way... it was just my idea.

Ya' dumb ****! You have *no* ideas. You've not proposed one, except that you
want to confiscate guns.

Nope. I considered having a gun more than once in my life.

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.

If you don't recognize the Supreme Court as the interpreter of the
Constitution, then YOU ARE UNAMERICAN. Simple as that.






After so many posts, I couldn't agree any more with you.... they are
Gun Nuts.

Atila Iskander wrote:


With minor quibbles, that was as perfect an answer as possible.

I went to law school. Regrettably, sometimes it shows.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:15:21 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 00:36:45 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:33:49 -0400, "
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:56:14 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:52:37 -0400, "
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:44:40 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:53:40 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK

wrote:

On Aug 17, 8:13 am, "Doug" wrote:
GIANT SNIP
Regardless what laws there are or are not, gun control has to
change.
I don't want us to live in the wild west.

You are not familiar with the data surrounding the existing
conditions
yet you clamor for change?

You don't know where you are or how you got there.
You don't like where you are so you're going to start walking to
undefined destination via an unknown route?

Clue: You don't live in the wild west..... to your uneducated mind,
it just "feels" that way.

Unfortunately, it's not about the data it's about feelings.

cheers
Bob


Why is crime in particular gun crime going down nationwide? Please
cite the sources.

You've already stated that you wouldn't read them. Here, show us that
you've
changed your (teensy) mind:

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less...uns+less+crime


Plain and simple even for you....

It would be far too complicated for you.

I don't want lunatics carrying guns.
If you have a better method to do this, fine with me.

I suggested that we take away all of your Constitutional rights. That
would
help.

My suggestion was a form of gun control but if there is a better way,
fine.

Your "suggestion" isn't.


Ok, I have no problem with someone else's suggestion as long as it
helps to get guns away from lunatics. I never said my idea was the
only way or the best way... it was just my idea.

Ya' dumb ****! You have *no* ideas. You've not proposed one, except that
you
want to confiscate guns.

Nope. I considered having a gun more than once in my life.

LOL
"considering having a gun", even more than once, has nothing to do with your
stated intent to block other people from having them

"Doug" wrote in message
...
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.

If you don't recognize the Supreme Court as the interpreter of the
Constitution, then YOU ARE UNAMERICAN. Simple as that.


So you've just declared yourself "UNAMERICAN"
Got it.



After so many posts, I couldn't agree any more with you.... they are
Gun Nuts.

Too bad that you're agreeing with an ignoramus who is UNABLE to support his
claim about
".. the Supreme Court has ruled many times that the 2nd Amendment refers
to regulating a MILITIA.."
with a SINGLE CITE to a ANY case that says so.
Meanwhile we have a whole slew of cases going back 150 years that say
EXACTLY the opposite

Recently the 2008, 2010 cases of Heller and Macdonald, all the way back to
the Dredd Scott, where the Supreme Court actually justified not declaring
Dredd Scott a free man, BECAUSE it would give him the right of keep and bear
arms.

You two twits are perfect examples of the failure of modern education

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:10:25 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:15:21 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 00:36:45 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:33:49 -0400, "
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:56:14 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:52:37 -0400, "
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:44:40 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:53:40 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK

wrote:

On Aug 17, 8:13 am, "Doug" wrote:
GIANT SNIP
Regardless what laws there are or are not, gun control has to
change.
I don't want us to live in the wild west.

You are not familiar with the data surrounding the existing
conditions
yet you clamor for change?

You don't know where you are or how you got there.
You don't like where you are so you're going to start walking to
undefined destination via an unknown route?

Clue: You don't live in the wild west..... to your uneducated mind,
it just "feels" that way.

Unfortunately, it's not about the data it's about feelings.

cheers
Bob


Why is crime in particular gun crime going down nationwide? Please
cite the sources.

You've already stated that you wouldn't read them. Here, show us that
you've
changed your (teensy) mind:

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less...uns+less+crime


Plain and simple even for you....

It would be far too complicated for you.

I don't want lunatics carrying guns.
If you have a better method to do this, fine with me.

I suggested that we take away all of your Constitutional rights. That
would
help.

My suggestion was a form of gun control but if there is a better way,
fine.

Your "suggestion" isn't.


Ok, I have no problem with someone else's suggestion as long as it
helps to get guns away from lunatics. I never said my idea was the
only way or the best way... it was just my idea.

Ya' dumb ****! You have *no* ideas. You've not proposed one, except that
you
want to confiscate guns.

Nope. I considered having a gun more than once in my life.

LOL
"considering having a gun", even more than once, has nothing to do with your
stated intent to block other people from having them



LOL.... do you really think before you write or do you just like to
twist words? Common sense should apply here.

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:42:42 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 07:14:15 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:00:18 -0400, "
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.

Then there is no point in you whining here, anymore, right?

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.

Then why are you wanting to restrict their ownership by law abiding citizens?


I can't prove what I say so all you have is my word.

Your "word" has proven to be worthless.

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.

Who is "giving guns away"? I'll take a few more.

In my mind, I think it's a good idea to know who has a
gun(s) and what they own (minimum).

To what purpose, except to later confiscate them? ...as is the inevitable
result.

I suppose a valid question is how much regulation and I don't know.

How about *none*? ...as the Constitution states.

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.

Idiot. No one is "giving guns away".


You're the idiot twisting my words but I don't expect anything else
from you so I won't bother to address what you say. It's like talking
to the wall...... actually the wall is more civil.

Ya' dingbat, I didn't twist your words. YOU SAID IT - IN CONTEXT! You really
*are* a stupid asshole.


I bet you make a lot of friends with your vocabulary. LOL

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:15:35 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
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.

If you don't recognize the Supreme Court as the interpreter of the
Constitution, then YOU ARE UNAMERICAN. Simple as that.


So you've just declared yourself "UNAMERICAN"
Got it.



After so many posts, I couldn't agree any more with you.... they are
Gun Nuts.

Too bad that you're agreeing with an ignoramus who is UNABLE to support his
claim about
".. the Supreme Court has ruled many times that the 2nd Amendment refers
to regulating a MILITIA.."
with a SINGLE CITE to a ANY case that says so.
Meanwhile we have a whole slew of cases going back 150 years that say
EXACTLY the opposite

Recently the 2008, 2010 cases of Heller and Macdonald, all the way back to
the Dredd Scott, where the Supreme Court actually justified not declaring
Dredd Scott a free man, BECAUSE it would give him the right of keep and bear
arms.

You two twits are perfect examples of the failure of modern education


Yep, you fit the "Gun Nuts" subject line.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:10:25 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:15:21 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 00:36:45 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:33:49 -0400, "
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:56:14 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:52:37 -0400, "
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:44:40 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:53:40 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK

wrote:

On Aug 17, 8:13 am, "Doug" wrote:
GIANT SNIP
Regardless what laws there are or are not, gun control has to
change.
I don't want us to live in the wild west.

You are not familiar with the data surrounding the existing
conditions
yet you clamor for change?

You don't know where you are or how you got there.
You don't like where you are so you're going to start walking to
undefined destination via an unknown route?

Clue: You don't live in the wild west..... to your uneducated
mind,
it just "feels" that way.

Unfortunately, it's not about the data it's about feelings.

cheers
Bob


Why is crime in particular gun crime going down nationwide?
Please
cite the sources.

You've already stated that you wouldn't read them. Here, show us
that
you've
changed your (teensy) mind:

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less...uns+less+crime


Plain and simple even for you....

It would be far too complicated for you.

I don't want lunatics carrying guns.
If you have a better method to do this, fine with me.

I suggested that we take away all of your Constitutional rights. That
would
help.

My suggestion was a form of gun control but if there is a better way,
fine.

Your "suggestion" isn't.


Ok, I have no problem with someone else's suggestion as long as it
helps to get guns away from lunatics. I never said my idea was the
only way or the best way... it was just my idea.

Ya' dumb ****! You have *no* ideas. You've not proposed one, except
that
you
want to confiscate guns.

Nope. I considered having a gun more than once in my life.

LOL
"considering having a gun", even more than once, has nothing to do with
your
stated intent to block other people from having them



LOL.... do you really think before you write or do you just like to
twist words? Common sense should apply here.

Too bad that you have yet to demonstrate ANY "sense" not to mention common
sense"
So far all you have done is state that you want "to keep guns from
lunatics",
Yet after repeated requests by MULTIPLE posters, you have been UNABLE to
explain EXACTLY how you intend to do that.
As a matter of fact, you were stupid enough to demand that OTHERS propose to
you how to do that
And this in the face of repeated demonstrations that gun control really does
NOT work, and more gun control does not work either

So once again, dummy.
Let's hear YOUR definition of "lunatic" and exactly how YOU propose to keep
guns way from them WITHOUT keeping guns away from those who actually have
the RIGHT to keep and bear them

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:15:35 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
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.

If you don't recognize the Supreme Court as the interpreter of the
Constitution, then YOU ARE UNAMERICAN. Simple as that.


So you've just declared yourself "UNAMERICAN"
Got it.



After so many posts, I couldn't agree any more with you.... they are
Gun Nuts.

Too bad that you're agreeing with an ignoramus who is UNABLE to support
his
claim about
".. the Supreme Court has ruled many times that the 2nd Amendment
refers
to regulating a MILITIA.."
with a SINGLE CITE to a ANY case that says so.
Meanwhile we have a whole slew of cases going back 150 years that say
EXACTLY the opposite

Recently the 2008, 2010 cases of Heller and Macdonald, all the way back to
the Dredd Scott, where the Supreme Court actually justified not declaring
Dredd Scott a free man, BECAUSE it would give him the right of keep and
bear
arms.

You two twits are perfect examples of the failure of modern education


Yep, you fit the "Gun Nuts" subject line.

Your abject and complete surrender is accepted

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:42:42 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 07:14:15 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:00:18 -0400, "
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.

Then there is no point in you whining here, anymore, right?

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.

Then why are you wanting to restrict their ownership by law abiding
citizens?


I can't prove what I say so all you have is my word.

Your "word" has proven to be worthless.

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.

Who is "giving guns away"? I'll take a few more.

In my mind, I think it's a good idea to know who has a
gun(s) and what they own (minimum).

To what purpose, except to later confiscate them? ...as is the
inevitable
result.

I suppose a valid question is how much regulation and I don't know.

How about *none*? ...as the Constitution states.

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.

Idiot. No one is "giving guns away".


You're the idiot twisting my words but I don't expect anything else
from you so I won't bother to address what you say. It's like talking
to the wall...... actually the wall is more civil.

Ya' dingbat, I didn't twist your words. YOU SAID IT - IN CONTEXT! You
really
*are* a stupid asshole.


I bet you make a lot of friends with your vocabulary. LOL

Too bad for you that the only friends you seem to make are other idiot
ignorati like kaye

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 00:45:10 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:15:21 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 00:36:45 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:33:49 -0400, "
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:56:14 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:52:37 -0400, "
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:44:40 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:53:40 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Aug 17, 8:13*am, "Doug" wrote:
GIANT SNIP
Regardless what laws there are or are not, gun control has to change.
I don't want us to live in the wild west.

You are not familiar with the data surrounding the existing conditions
yet you clamor for change?

You don't know where you are or how you got there.
You don't like where you are so you're going to start walking to
undefined destination via an unknown route?

Clue: You don't live in the wild west..... to your uneducated mind,
it just "feels" that way.

Unfortunately, it's not about the data it's about feelings.

cheers
Bob


Why is crime in particular gun crime going down nationwide? Please
cite the sources.

You've already stated that you wouldn't read them. Here, show us that you've
changed your (teensy) mind:

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less...uns+less+crime


Plain and simple even for you....

It would be far too complicated for you.

I don't want lunatics carrying guns.
If you have a better method to do this, fine with me.

I suggested that we take away all of your Constitutional rights. That would
help.

My suggestion was a form of gun control but if there is a better way, fine.

Your "suggestion" isn't.


Ok, I have no problem with someone else's suggestion as long as it
helps to get guns away from lunatics. I never said my idea was the
only way or the best way... it was just my idea.

Ya' dumb ****! You have *no* ideas. You've not proposed one, except that you
want to confiscate guns.

Nope. I considered having a gun more than once in my life.

You're a liar, Dougie.

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:35:34 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:10:25 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:15:21 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 00:36:45 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:33:49 -0400, "
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:56:14 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:52:37 -0400, "
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:44:40 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:53:40 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK

wrote:

On Aug 17, 8:13 am, "Doug" wrote:
GIANT SNIP
Regardless what laws there are or are not, gun control has to
change.
I don't want us to live in the wild west.

You are not familiar with the data surrounding the existing
conditions
yet you clamor for change?

You don't know where you are or how you got there.
You don't like where you are so you're going to start walking to
undefined destination via an unknown route?

Clue: You don't live in the wild west..... to your uneducated
mind,
it just "feels" that way.

Unfortunately, it's not about the data it's about feelings.

cheers
Bob


Why is crime in particular gun crime going down nationwide?
Please
cite the sources.

You've already stated that you wouldn't read them. Here, show us
that
you've
changed your (teensy) mind:

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less...uns+less+crime


Plain and simple even for you....

It would be far too complicated for you.

I don't want lunatics carrying guns.
If you have a better method to do this, fine with me.

I suggested that we take away all of your Constitutional rights. That
would
help.

My suggestion was a form of gun control but if there is a better way,
fine.

Your "suggestion" isn't.


Ok, I have no problem with someone else's suggestion as long as it
helps to get guns away from lunatics. I never said my idea was the
only way or the best way... it was just my idea.

Ya' dumb ****! You have *no* ideas. You've not proposed one, except
that
you
want to confiscate guns.

Nope. I considered having a gun more than once in my life.

LOL
"considering having a gun", even more than once, has nothing to do with
your
stated intent to block other people from having them



LOL.... do you really think before you write or do you just like to
twist words? Common sense should apply here.

Too bad that you have yet to demonstrate ANY "sense" not to mention common
sense"
So far all you have done is state that you want "to keep guns from
lunatics",
Yet after repeated requests by MULTIPLE posters, you have been UNABLE to
explain EXACTLY how you intend to do that.
As a matter of fact, you were stupid enough to demand that OTHERS propose to
you how to do that
And this in the face of repeated demonstrations that gun control really does
NOT work, and more gun control does not work either

So once again, dummy.
Let's hear YOUR definition of "lunatic" and exactly how YOU propose to keep
guns way from them WITHOUT keeping guns away from those who actually have
the RIGHT to keep and bear them

crickets

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:32:18 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:42:42 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 07:14:15 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:00:18 -0400, "
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.

Then there is no point in you whining here, anymore, right?

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.

Then why are you wanting to restrict their ownership by law abiding citizens?


I can't prove what I say so all you have is my word.

Your "word" has proven to be worthless.

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.

Who is "giving guns away"? I'll take a few more.

In my mind, I think it's a good idea to know who has a
gun(s) and what they own (minimum).

To what purpose, except to later confiscate them? ...as is the inevitable
result.

I suppose a valid question is how much regulation and I don't know.

How about *none*? ...as the Constitution states.

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.

Idiot. No one is "giving guns away".


You're the idiot twisting my words but I don't expect anything else
from you so I won't bother to address what you say. It's like talking
to the wall...... actually the wall is more civil.

Ya' dingbat, I didn't twist your words. YOU SAID IT - IN CONTEXT! You really
*are* a stupid asshole.


I bet you make a lot of friends with your vocabulary. LOL

Unlike you, dingbat, I don't want stupid assholes as friends.

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:15:35 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
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.

If you don't recognize the Supreme Court as the interpreter of the
Constitution, then YOU ARE UNAMERICAN. Simple as that.


So you've just declared yourself "UNAMERICAN"
Got it.

So has everyone else. It's unanimous.


After so many posts, I couldn't agree any more with you.... they are
Gun Nuts.

Too bad that you're agreeing with an ignoramus who is UNABLE to support his
claim about
".. the Supreme Court has ruled many times that the 2nd Amendment refers
to regulating a MILITIA.."
with a SINGLE CITE to a ANY case that says so.
Meanwhile we have a whole slew of cases going back 150 years that say
EXACTLY the opposite

Recently the 2008, 2010 cases of Heller and Macdonald, all the way back to
the Dredd Scott, where the Supreme Court actually justified not declaring
Dredd Scott a free man, BECAUSE it would give him the right of keep and bear
arms.

You two twits are perfect examples of the failure of modern education

The mentally deficient have never been educable.

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 00:45:10 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:


Nope. I considered having a gun more than once in my life.

What happened? Did the guns have cooties?
--

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:46:46 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 00:45:10 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:


Nope. I considered having a gun more than once in my life.

What happened? Did the guns have cooties?

He decided that lunatics shouldn't have guns.

Atila Iskander wrote:

I bet you make a lot of friends with your vocabulary. LOL

Too bad for you that the only friends you seem to make are other
idiot
ignorati like kaye

kaye is none other than the stupid MF homeguy
I'm surprised you didn't catch it

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:13:03 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Atila Iskander wrote:

I bet you make a lot of friends with your vocabulary. LOL

Too bad for you that the only friends you seem to make are other
idiot
ignorati like kaye

kaye is none other than the stupid MF homeguy
I'm surprised you didn't catch it


What makes you think this was home guy? A few obvious things tell me
it was not.
--

Doug wrote:

LOL
"considering having a gun", even more than once, has nothing to do
with your stated intent to block other people from having them



LOL.... do you really think before you write or do you just like to
twist words? Common sense should apply here.

You said you don't want lunatics to have guns. That implies some sort of
testing to determine who's a lunatic. If not the government doing the
testing, then some private outfit following government regulations.

Therefore, the government decides who can have a gun.

Do you see any problem with that?