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.

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.


Perhaps you should read Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010).

Come back after you dry the tears away.
--

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!

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

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!


Now you know why San Diego got all the lawyers; instead of San
Francisco. San Diego got the first vote.

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

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.

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.

We have enough gun laws already.

How about we take away your "right" to free speech, freedom to
assemble and other "rights"? Can we take away your wife's "right" to
vote? What about your right to be protected in your person and papers?

After you take the 2nd Amendment rights, were does it stop?

You keep harping on this "don't want "anyone" to have a right to own a
gun".

Can I say I "don't want "anyone" to have a right to own" teeth?

Doug you don't get it. What you propose worked great to disarm
civilians in Europe. Look at Mexico. The poor people can't have a
gun to kill a Puma attacking their live stock".

P.S. You do not have a "right" to reply here.
--

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 16:56:47 -0700, Oren wrote:

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.

We have enough gun laws already.

How about we take away your "right" to free speech, freedom to
assemble and other "rights"? Can we take away your wife's "right" to
vote? What about your right to be protected in your person and papers?

After you take the 2nd Amendment rights, were does it stop?

You keep harping on this "don't want "anyone" to have a right to own a
gun".

Can I say I "don't want "anyone" to have a right to own" teeth?

Doug you don't get it. What you propose worked great to disarm
civilians in Europe. Look at Mexico. The poor people can't have a
gun to kill a Puma attacking their live stock".

P.S. You do not have a "right" to reply here.


No reply... my rights were taken away g.

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 00:01:20 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 16:56:47 -0700, Oren wrote:

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.

We have enough gun laws already.

How about we take away your "right" to free speech, freedom to
assemble and other "rights"? Can we take away your wife's "right" to
vote? What about your right to be protected in your person and papers?

After you take the 2nd Amendment rights, were does it stop?

You keep harping on this "don't want "anyone" to have a right to own a
gun".

Can I say I "don't want "anyone" to have a right to own" teeth?

Doug you don't get it. What you propose worked great to disarm
civilians in Europe. Look at Mexico. The poor people can't have a
gun to kill a Puma attacking their live stock".

P.S. You do not have a "right" to reply here.


No reply... my rights were taken away g.

See. The 2nd Amendment *guarantees* all the other rights. With a gun
you can protect them and stop tyranny.
--

"Doug" wrote in message
...
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.

I'll play the game. To what end do you see better law to account for gun
ownership?

NotMe wrote:

I'll play the game. To what end do you see better law to account
for gun ownership?

- new law that allows gun victims, surviving family, etc, to be able to
sue gun makers and gun owners for "wrongful death" or for dammages
(health-care costs) caused by gun injuries, gun-shot deaths,
malfunctions, etc. If gun manufacturers don't want to be sued, then
they can alter the functionality of their products to make them more
secure / safer as any consumer product should be. If gun owners don't
want to be sued if a gun they owned was used (accidentally or
intentionally) to injure/kill someone, then they can choose to NOT own a
gun in the first place, or they can rely on their gun insurance (which
would or could be mandated that they have) to cover them for any
court-determined financially-liable compensation claim.

This law would only apply to death or injury caused by a gun sold after
a certain date - not for any guns in current circulation. Gun makers
can also respond to this law by withdrawing certain guns from their
product line for which they make the determination that the risk/reward
is not in their favor. Gun makers could also respond by incorporating
electronic biometrics into their products to better insure that the
product is not functional in the hands of un-registered persons.

The ability to sue for death or injury would not apply if a court
determines the claimant was performing an illegal or criminal act at the
time of injury / death.


- new law that requires that permits or licences to own firearms must be
renewed on some basis (anually, once every 2 years, etc - unless this
already exists now) AND that a license can only be renewed if the holder
can show proof of insurance (insurance against causing bodily harm or
injury , dammage to property, etc) that can be traced back to any guns
owned by the license holder regardless when the gun was acquired. Same
insurance idea as currently exists for motor vehicles, boats and other
liesure craft, etc.

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 20:32:47 -0400, Charlton Heston
wrote:

NotMe wrote:

I'll play the game. To what end do you see better law to account
for gun ownership?

- new law that allows gun victims, surviving family, etc, to be able to
sue gun makers and gun owners for "wrongful death" or for dammages
(health-care costs) caused by gun injuries, gun-shot deaths,
malfunctions, etc.

By that lame logic I should be able to sue Ford motor Company for the
death of my Mother. The person that hit and killed her in a traffic
accident was driving a Ford.

If gun manufacturers don't want to be sued, then
they can alter the functionality of their products to make them more
secure / safer as any consumer product should be. If gun owners don't
want to be sued if a gun they owned was used (accidentally or
intentionally) to injure/kill someone, then they can choose to NOT own a
gun in the first place,

You idiot, we already have a law that makes murder illegal.

or they can rely on their gun insurance (which
would or could be mandated that they have) to cover them for any
court-determined financially-liable compensation claim.

Here we go with mandated again. Too bad we can't mandate higher
I.Q.'s in the left wing loons!

snipped rest of drivel

"Charlton Heston" wrote in message
.. .
NotMe wrote:

I'll play the game. To what end do you see better law to account
for gun ownership?

- new law that allows gun victims, surviving family, etc, to be able to
sue gun makers and gun owners for "wrongful death" or for dammages
(health-care costs) caused by gun injuries, gun-shot deaths,
malfunctions, etc. If gun manufacturers don't want to be sued, then
they can alter the functionality of their products to make them more
secure / safer as any consumer product should be. If gun owners don't
want to be sued if a gun they owned was used (accidentally or
intentionally) to injure/kill someone, then they can choose to NOT own a
gun in the first place, or they can rely on their gun insurance (which
would or could be mandated that they have) to cover them for any
court-determined financially-liable compensation claim.

This law would only apply to death or injury caused by a gun sold after
a certain date - not for any guns in current circulation. Gun makers
can also respond to this law by withdrawing certain guns from their
product line for which they make the determination that the risk/reward
is not in their favor. Gun makers could also respond by incorporating
electronic biometrics into their products to better insure that the
product is not functional in the hands of un-registered persons.

The ability to sue for death or injury would not apply if a court
determines the claimant was performing an illegal or criminal act at the
time of injury / death.


- new law that requires that permits or licences to own firearms must be
renewed on some basis (anually, once every 2 years, etc - unless this
already exists now) AND that a license can only be renewed if the holder
can show proof of insurance (insurance against causing bodily harm or
injury , dammage to property, etc) that can be traced back to any guns
owned by the license holder regardless when the gun was acquired. Same
insurance idea as currently exists for motor vehicles, boats and other
liesure craft, etc.

About as functional as tits on a bore hog. Duplicates, to a lesser degree,
existing laws that address the issues outlined much much more effectively.

Regardless the proposed legislation will not pass legal review in the
appeals courts (if they even get that far)

"Charlton Heston" wrote in message
.. .
NotMe wrote:

I'll play the game. To what end do you see better law to account
for gun ownership?

- new law that allows gun victims, surviving family, etc, to be able to
sue gun makers and gun owners for "wrongful death" or for dammages
(health-care costs) caused by gun injuries, gun-shot deaths,
malfunctions, etc


Why ?
The ONLY individual responsible for that wrongfull death is the shooter

How would you like to be held liable if you car was stolen and use to kill
someone ?
Why don't you advocate the same law for car manufacturers
After all they make the cars that cause all thos "wrongfull deaths" on
the streets
Funny that you want that kind of liability for one group but not the other


If gun manufacturers don't want to be sued, then
they can alter the functionality of their products to make them more
secure / safer as any consumer product should be.

There is NO liability if the product works as designed and intended
That the use was improper is NOT the responsibility of the manufacturer

It's the USER who is responsible
By your logic, car manufacturers should be held liable for EVERY single
death and injury attributable to a car
WHy are you NOT advocating that ?




rest of repettitive stupidity ignored

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:56:57 -0500, "NotMe" wrote:

'll play the game. To what end do you see better law to account for gun
ownership?


(piggyback)

Pay no attention to Home Guy. He lacks any credibility. The idiot is
an idiot about liability - person or a gun maker.

He stuck his head up as he does, by being a fool.
--

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:56:57 -0500, "NotMe" wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
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.

I'll play the game. To what end do you see better law to account for gun
ownership?



I can give my ideas but what's more important is that we improve
accounting and regulate the guns better. Obviously this means more
or different govt. controls and gun owners hate me for wanting this.
So if I gave my ideas here, you could shoot them down and you may be
RIGHT but that doesn't mean we can't use some other ideas for my
intended purpose. Maybe we have the right laws already but don't
enforce them well so in that case, lets do so. See where I'm going
(even if you disagree) ?

Can I say more on this, sure but I'll just keep repeating myself from
earlier posts.

On Aug 11, 10:39*pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:56:57 -0500, "NotMe" wrote:

"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
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.

I'll play the game. * To what end do you see better law to account for gun
ownership?

I can give my ideas but what's more important is that we improve
accounting and regulate the guns better. * Obviously this means more
or different govt. controls and gun owners hate me for wanting this.
So if I gave my ideas here, you could shoot them down and you may be
RIGHT but that doesn't mean we can't use some other ideas for my
intended purpose. *Maybe we have the right laws already but don't
enforce them well so in that case, lets do so. * See where I'm going
(even if you disagree) ?

Can I say more on this, sure but I'll just keep repeating myself from
earlier posts.

Doug-

When the War on Drugs comes to a successful conclusion (the
elimination of drug use & drug related crimes) then you can sign me up
for the stepped War on Guns.

Do us all a favor, do some research on the history & motivation for
gun control.
You'll find them firmly rooted in classism & racism.

One of the first major gun control efforts (at least in my life time)
1968 Gun Control was totally motivated by fear & racism.

Politicians fear an armed populace..... exactly the intent of the
guys who started this whole thing.

cheers
Bob

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 00:39:21 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:56:57 -0500, "NotMe" wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
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.

I'll play the game. To what end do you see better law to account for gun
ownership?



I can give my ideas but what's more important is that we improve
accounting and regulate the guns better.

Define "accounting" and "regulate", moron.

Obviously this means more
or different govt. controls and gun owners hate me for wanting this.

There already are, moron. Too many.

So if I gave my ideas here, you could shoot them down and you may be
RIGHT but that doesn't mean we can't use some other ideas for my
intended purpose.

LOL! At least you know you're stupid.

Maybe we have the right laws already but don't
enforce them well so in that case, lets do so. See where I'm going
(even if you disagree) ?

You're absolutely clueless. Who wudda guessed?

Can I say more on this, sure but I'll just keep repeating myself from
earlier posts.

That's all you do; repeat your nonsense.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:56:57 -0500, "NotMe" wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
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.

I'll play the game. To what end do you see better law to account for gun
ownership?



I can give my ideas but what's more important is that we improve
accounting and regulate the guns better. Obviously this means more
or different govt. controls and gun owners hate me for wanting this.
So if I gave my ideas here, you could shoot them down and you may be
RIGHT but that doesn't mean we can't use some other ideas for my
intended purpose. Maybe we have the right laws already but don't
enforce them well so in that case, lets do so. See where I'm going
(even if you disagree) ?

Can I say more on this, sure but I'll just keep repeating myself from
earlier posts.

What's the point of even trying to discuss the subject with you when you
CLEARLY STATE:
"I don't want "anyone" to have a right to own a gun
no matter how well you word your reply."
That's clear enough that you are NOT interested in an honest discussion

On your way, boi

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!!!

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

and not be Harry Potter

"Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" wrote in message
...
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

and not be Harry Potter

Seems McVay did something along those lines ...

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

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.

On Aug 12, 1:45*am, "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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Cocaine and Heroin are totally illegal. It's against
the law for anyone to possess them period. So,
they no longer exist here right? They are now
well controlled and we no longer have a drug
problem, right? Actually what you have is MORE
violence precisely because they are regulated and
illegal.

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.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
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.

Since you have ALREADY declared that your intent is to prevent ANY and ALL
citizens to have guns, the only regulation you espouse is a single one
A total BAN

Won't happen.

On Aug 11, 7:39*pm, "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.

Yes perhaps you should say "better regulation" so
you don't look like a total ass, just mostly one.
There are all kinds of laws on the books. So forgive
me if I'm just a bit sceptical when a clown like
Senator Lousenberg, from NJ, proposes a new
law that would require reporting when anyone
buys 1000 rounds or more of ammo in a week.
Other than this nonsense, I haven't heard a peep
from the old skeletor. Worried about $16tril in
debt? Iran making the A bomb? The economy
that sucks? Nahh, it's those
ammo sales that are the problem worthy of his
attention that finally woke him up.

We've outlawed cocaine and heroin. That's worked
real well, right? Prohibition ring a bell?

On Aug 12, 9:58*am, "
wrote:

Here is an example of a real problem in the area
of regulation, but I don't know what the solution, if
any is. Perhaps the libs can figure it out.

Currently if you purchase a firearm, the dealer
must run your ID through the federal govt's database,
NICS. Presumably that database contains all felons who
cannot legally buy a gun. What other names it has
beyond criminals, is not clear to me. But presumably
it would have names from say court orders, barring
a person from owning a gun for some reason.
I think it's also supposed to have those committed
to mental institutions by courts, but from what I've
seen because state records are such a mess, that
data may or may not get in there.

What that database does not have are people
who are nuts, but have not been committed by a
court to a mental institution. And health records
are covered by strict privacy laws. So, you have
paranoid schizophrenics under the care of a
shrink, who can go out and buy any gun they
choose without showing up on any list. So,
seems like a big loophole. It seems recent
experience has been that it's never someone
who has been committed, but may be someone
who has or is receiving psychiatric treatment,
like the Colorado shooter.

The question is, what can or should be done
about it? Require any healthcare provider to
report all their patients receiving mental health
treatment? Require them to report
the ones they think MIGHT be dangerous?
There are obviously huge problems with
the latter too, like what is enough to constitute
them being reported?

And then what? If their name went on a list,
it would prevent them from buying more guns,
but what about the ones they may already own?
Police could be notified via the healthcare
worker reporting and they could see if the
person had any permits they had applied for
in the past. But, in may states, no permit
is even needed to buy a gun, so it's easy
to have guns without the cops knowing. They
could also have a gun handed down from
a father, received as a gift, etc.
So, now what? Should the
police search every reported persons house
for guns? Are those in favor of more gun
control OK with this?

And once you institute that type of system,
what does it do to discourage people from
going to get the very treatment they need?

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:04:04 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Aug 12, 9:58*am, "
wrote:

Here is an example of a real problem in the area
of regulation, but I don't know what the solution, if
any is. Perhaps the libs can figure it out.

Currently if you purchase a firearm, the dealer
must run your ID through the federal govt's database,
NICS. Presumably that database contains all felons who
cannot legally buy a gun. What other names it has
beyond criminals, is not clear to me. But presumably
it would have names from say court orders, barring
a person from owning a gun for some reason.
I think it's also supposed to have those committed
to mental institutions by courts, but from what I've
seen because state records are such a mess, that
data may or may not get in there.

What that database does not have are people
who are nuts, but have not been committed by a
court to a mental institution. And health records
are covered by strict privacy laws. So, you have
paranoid schizophrenics under the care of a
shrink, who can go out and buy any gun they
choose without showing up on any list. So,
seems like a big loophole. It seems recent
experience has been that it's never someone
who has been committed, but may be someone
who has or is receiving psychiatric treatment,
like the Colorado shooter.

The question is, what can or should be done
about it? Require any healthcare provider to
report all their patients receiving mental health
treatment? Require them to report
the ones they think MIGHT be dangerous?
There are obviously huge problems with
the latter too, like what is enough to constitute
them being reported?

And then what? If their name went on a list,
it would prevent them from buying more guns,
but what about the ones they may already own?
Police could be notified via the healthcare
worker reporting and they could see if the
person had any permits they had applied for
in the past. But, in may states, no permit
is even needed to buy a gun, so it's easy
to have guns without the cops knowing. They
could also have a gun handed down from
a father, received as a gift, etc.
So, now what? Should the
police search every reported persons house
for guns? Are those in favor of more gun
control OK with this?

And once you institute that type of system,
what does it do to discourage people from
going to get the very treatment they need?


There are risks to living in a free society. We can look to different
states and other countries and see that there is no relationship
between gun violence and gun ownership by "normal people". What we
can also see is that because of PC thinking, we can't rationally
discuss the FACT that most gun violence is perpetrated by people with
a culture of entitlement, laziness, criminality. Instead of rounding
up the people in these urban cesspools and putting them behind bars,
we allow them to continue to celebrate their "culture" and pop out
kids they can't afford and won't properly care for. The PC crowd got
their wishes and we now have an endless cycle of poverty and crime
that's a cancer in most large cities. We have a media that rarely
reports the truth and believes that "fairness" consists of giving
equal time to people who have factual info and those who are nothing
but emotionally driven blowhards who don't know the first thing about
guns.

wrote:
On Aug 12, 9:58 am, "
wrote:

Here is an example of a real problem in the area
of regulation, but I don't know what the solution, if
any is. Perhaps the libs can figure it out.

Currently if you purchase a firearm, the dealer
must run your ID through the federal govt's database,
NICS.

Nope. I can buy any amount of firearms from a licensed dealer and he does
not call anybody. My concealed handgun license attests that I'm a righteous
dude.

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:04:04 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Aug 12, 9:58*am, "
wrote:

Here is an example of a real problem in the area
of regulation, but I don't know what the solution, if
any is. Perhaps the libs can figure it out.

Currently if you purchase a firearm, the dealer
must run your ID through the federal govt's database,
NICS. Presumably that database contains all felons who
cannot legally buy a gun. What other names it has
beyond criminals, is not clear to me. But presumably
it would have names from say court orders, barring
a person from owning a gun for some reason.
I think it's also supposed to have those committed
to mental institutions by courts, but from what I've
seen because state records are such a mess, that
data may or may not get in there.

What that database does not have are people
who are nuts, but have not been committed by a
court to a mental institution. And health records
are covered by strict privacy laws. So, you have
paranoid schizophrenics under the care of a
shrink, who can go out and buy any gun they
choose without showing up on any list. So,
seems like a big loophole. It seems recent
experience has been that it's never someone
who has been committed, but may be someone
who has or is receiving psychiatric treatment,
like the Colorado shooter.

The question is, what can or should be done
about it? Require any healthcare provider to
report all their patients receiving mental health
treatment? Require them to report
the ones they think MIGHT be dangerous?
There are obviously huge problems with
the latter too, like what is enough to constitute
them being reported?

When is it OK to breech their privacy? Isn't that a primary goal of statists?
Is it an obligation? Will shrinks be liable if one of their clients goes
"postal"? Why would anyone become a shrink, with those liabilities?

And then what? If their name went on a list,
it would prevent them from buying more guns,
but what about the ones they may already own?

How would police know?

Police could be notified via the healthcare
worker reporting and they could see if the
person had any permits they had applied for
in the past. But, in may states, no permit
is even needed to buy a gun, so it's easy
to have guns without the cops knowing. They
could also have a gun handed down from
a father, received as a gift, etc.
So, now what? Should the
police search every reported persons house
for guns? Are those in favor of more gun
control OK with this?

And once you institute that type of system,
what does it do to discourage people from
going to get the very treatment they need?

wrote the following on 8/12/2012 11:04 AM (ET):
On Aug 12, 9:58 am, "
wrote:

Here is an example of a real problem in the area
of regulation, but I don't know what the solution, if
any is. Perhaps the libs can figure it out.

Currently if you purchase a firearm, the dealer
must run your ID through the federal govt's database,
NICS.

You misspelled NCIC (National Crime Information Center).


Presumably that database contains all felons who
cannot legally buy a gun. What other names it has
beyond criminals, is not clear to me. But presumably
it would have names from say court orders, barring
a person from owning a gun for some reason.
I think it's also supposed to have those committed
to mental institutions by courts, but from what I've
seen because state records are such a mess, that
data may or may not get in there.

What that database does not have are people
who are nuts, but have not been committed by a
court to a mental institution. And health records
are covered by strict privacy laws. So, you have
paranoid schizophrenics under the care of a
shrink, who can go out and buy any gun they
choose without showing up on any list. So,
seems like a big loophole. It seems recent
experience has been that it's never someone
who has been committed, but may be someone
who has or is receiving psychiatric treatment,
like the Colorado shooter.

The question is, what can or should be done
about it? Require any healthcare provider to
report all their patients receiving mental health
treatment? Require them to report
the ones they think MIGHT be dangerous?
There are obviously huge problems with
the latter too, like what is enough to constitute
them being reported?

And then what? If their name went on a list,
it would prevent them from buying more guns,
but what about the ones they may already own?
Police could be notified via the healthcare
worker reporting and they could see if the
person had any permits they had applied for
in the past. But, in may states, no permit
is even needed to buy a gun, so it's easy
to have guns without the cops knowing. They
could also have a gun handed down from
a father, received as a gift, etc.
So, now what? Should the
police search every reported persons house
for guns? Are those in favor of more gun
control OK with this?

And once you institute that type of system,
what does it do to discourage people from
going to get the very treatment they need?



--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeros after @

On Aug 11, 4:39*pm, "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.

So which is it? Outright ban on gun ownership? More regulation of
gun ownership?

Those two are mutually exclusive if you are able to comprehend
English.

Harry K

"Harry K" wrote in message
...
On Aug 11, 4:39 pm, "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.

So which is it? Outright ban on gun ownership? More regulation of
gun ownership?

Those two are mutually exclusive if you are able to comprehend
English.


We know from his very first post that his agenda is an outright ban

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.

No, you're not "bad". You're an idiot. You can't help it.

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

If not just "anyone" has the right to own a gun, then there is *no* right to
own guns. There are those who have lost that right but that's a different
subject. You seem to be vary confused about what constitutes a "right". Not
unexpected because you are vary confused about EVERYTHING. Lefties are.

There has to be some regulation
(perhaps I should say better regulation) of gun ownership in a
civilized world.

What "regulation" would you like, moron?

"Doug" wrote in message
...
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.

Too bad that intelligent people do not equtate "civilized" with defenseless
The Greeks already had a definition for those disarmed
It was "slave"..
YOu would be wise to think about how true that definition has proven itself
to be whenever and wherever people have been disarmed

Shows how much you know. Our rights are "endowed by our creator". The
ammendments are limits on the power of the government.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"David Kaye" wrote in message
...
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.

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

Shows how much you know. Our rights are "endowed by our creator". The
ammendments are limits on the power of the government.

which one of the commandments was about gun ownership?

On Aug 12, 12:23*am, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:
In article ,
*"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

Shows how much you know. Our rights are "endowed by our creator". The
ammendments are limits on the power of the government.

which one of the commandments was about gun ownership?

Thou shalt not kill.

And if thou tries to and I'm around and I have
a gun, I'll make sure thou keeps that commandment.

In article ,
" wrote:

On Aug 12, 12:23*am, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:
In article ,
*"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

Shows how much you know. Our rights are "endowed by our creator". The
ammendments are limits on the power of the government.

which one of the commandments was about gun ownership?

Thou shalt not kill.

And if thou tries to and I'm around and I have
a gun, I'll make sure thou keeps that commandment.

but you aren't "our creator"