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 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

On Aug 12, 9:47*am, "Doug" wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:32:24 -0400, "Meanie" wrote:

"Doug" wrote in message
.. .

Whether I am or not, my purpose is still the same. * Maybe we need to
change the law if needed.

Yes, changing/modifying laws always works (rolls eyes).

What you fail to understand is the laws are made for those who are already
responsible and thus, will follow those law. Criminals don't follow the
law....period. Restricting gun ownership for responsible citizens reduces
protection against criminals who are not responsible. Until you have a
resolution to eliminate guns from the hands of criminals, eliminating them
from the hands of responsible citizens is asinine.

I do realize this but we have to start somewhere and build upon it.
Whether we start with legal or illegal may be a worthy discussion

The above alone proves you're an idiot. Why would
you start with the legal gun owners when the overwhelming
amount of gun violence is coming from criminals?





but
I'm of the opinion to start with the legal ones first and then spread
out the enforcment to the illegal (which I think will be harder of
course).

Of course, because you're an idiot who knows nothing
about the actual problem.



*And I lived in NYC once for many years so I'm aware of guns,
legal and illegal being all around me as well as drugs and other
weapons.- Hide quoted text -


And how many of the murders each year in NYC were
or are caused by legal guns versus illegal ones?

What a marooon.


Having lived in NYC, you must know of the mandatory
prison time for anyone possessing a gun illegally, right?
Not just for those using a gun in crime, right? As a
result, to protect the citizenry, this is what we have.
Some poor ******* gets on a plane in TX, headed
for say Maine. He's taking a gun with him that's
perfectly legal for him to have in TX. He may even
have a permit to carry it in TX. So, he declares it
to the airline at check-in time and they handle it
appropriately. So far, so good. But the plane is
going to Maine via a connection in NYC at JFK.

Now, because of weather, the flight is delayed and
he misses his connection at JFK and will have
to catch a flight the next morning. The airline offers
to give him his luggage and not even thinking about
it, he takes possession of it. He goes off to a hotel
spends the night and returns to JFK the next AM.
He does just what he did in TX. He goes up to the
counter and tells them he has a gun in his luggage
to declare. BUT, this is NYC and unless he has a
NYC permit for that gun, it's illegal. They call the
police, he is arrested, tried and convicted because
it's a crime. And the judge has no choice, because
it's a mandatory sentence, off to prison he goes
to prison FOR 3 YEARS.

And this isn't a hypothetical situation either. It's
happened many times now. That's lib gun laws for you....
Meanwhile, the real crime is going on by real
criminals using real illegal guns.

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.
--

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.

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 00:55:02 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:

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.

"...Gun control laws were originally promulgated by Democrats to keep
guns out of the hands of blacks. This allowed the Democratic policy of
slavery to proceed with fewer bumps and, after the Civil War, allowed
the Democratic Ku Klux Klan to menace and murder black Americans with
little resistance.

(Contrary to what illiterates believe, the KKK was an outgrowth of the
Democratic Party, with overlapping membership rolls. The Klan was to
the Democrats what the American Civil Liberties Union is today: Not
every Democrat is an ACLU'er, but every ACLU'er is a Democrat. Same
with the Klan.)

In 1640, the very first gun control law ever enacted on these shores
was passed in Virginia. It provided that blacks -- even freemen --
could not own guns.

Chief Justice Roger Taney's infamous opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford
circularly argued that blacks could not be citizens because if they
were citizens, they would have the right to own guns: "[i]t would give
them the full liberty," he said, "to keep and carry arms wherever they
went."

_NEGROES WITH GUNS_

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-04-18.html

--

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?

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 07:40:05 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Now if you assert, as you did, that SCOTUS can define the Constitution any
way it sees fit, you must accept that any notion of "militia", by any
definition, is, today, irrelevant. In the Heller case (2010) the court said
the 2nd Amendment conferred an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms. The vote was
9-0.

The following year, in the McDonald case, SCOTUS declared that the 2nd
Amendment was binding on all the states, this is the so-called
"incorporation doctrine." (There are still parts of the Bill of Rights that
are NOT binding on the states.)


Pardon a minor correction:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

McDonald v. Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010).
--

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:43:41 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

I'm not against our population having guns just not all.

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

You've said similar before. Which is it?
--

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:57:11 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:43:41 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

I'm not against our population having guns just not all.

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

You've said similar before. Which is it?



Ok, I do mean ....I'm not against our population having guns just not
all. Perhaps my words yesterday failed to convey my meaning in text
as I truly meant it. Honestly I think you already knew where I stand
from previous posts but ok for pointing it out.

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 07:15:15 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

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.


I didn't say what I propose would be easy or perfect the first time
around. Nor did I say that illegal stuff doesn't exist. I don't
think doing nothing or allowing everyone to carry a gun is the answer
to our problems.

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:18:42 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Aug 12, 9:47*am, "Doug" wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:32:24 -0400, "Meanie" wrote:

"Doug" wrote in message
.. .

Whether I am or not, my purpose is still the same. * Maybe we need to
change the law if needed.

Yes, changing/modifying laws always works (rolls eyes).

What you fail to understand is the laws are made for those who are already
responsible and thus, will follow those law. Criminals don't follow the
law....period. Restricting gun ownership for responsible citizens reduces
protection against criminals who are not responsible. Until you have a
resolution to eliminate guns from the hands of criminals, eliminating them
from the hands of responsible citizens is asinine.

I do realize this but we have to start somewhere and build upon it.
Whether we start with legal or illegal may be a worthy discussion

The above alone proves you're an idiot. Why would
you start with the legal gun owners when the overwhelming
amount of gun violence is coming from criminals?





but
I'm of the opinion to start with the legal ones first and then spread
out the enforcment to the illegal (which I think will be harder of
course).

Of course, because you're an idiot who knows nothing
about the actual problem.



*And I lived in NYC once for many years so I'm aware of guns,
legal and illegal being all around me as well as drugs and other
weapons.- Hide quoted text -


And how many of the murders each year in NYC were
or are caused by legal guns versus illegal ones?

What a marooon.


Having lived in NYC, you must know of the mandatory
prison time for anyone possessing a gun illegally, right?
Not just for those using a gun in crime, right? As a
result, to protect the citizenry, this is what we have.
Some poor ******* gets on a plane in TX, headed
for say Maine. He's taking a gun with him that's
perfectly legal for him to have in TX. He may even
have a permit to carry it in TX. So, he declares it
to the airline at check-in time and they handle it
appropriately. So far, so good. But the plane is
going to Maine via a connection in NYC at JFK.

Now, because of weather, the flight is delayed and
he misses his connection at JFK and will have
to catch a flight the next morning. The airline offers
to give him his luggage and not even thinking about
it, he takes possession of it. He goes off to a hotel
spends the night and returns to JFK the next AM.
He does just what he did in TX. He goes up to the
counter and tells them he has a gun in his luggage
to declare. BUT, this is NYC and unless he has a
NYC permit for that gun, it's illegal. They call the
police, he is arrested, tried and convicted because
it's a crime. And the judge has no choice, because
it's a mandatory sentence, off to prison he goes
to prison FOR 3 YEARS.

And this isn't a hypothetical situation either. It's
happened many times now. That's lib gun laws for you....
Meanwhile, the real crime is going on by real
criminals using real illegal guns.


Calling me stupid isn't going to change my mind. Of course gun
legislation isn't perfect in the wording and maybe it needs a serious
makeover. I clearly don't think allowing everyone to have a gun is
the answer to our problems.

Oren wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 07:40:05 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Now if you assert, as you did, that SCOTUS can define the
Constitution any way it sees fit, you must accept that any notion of
"militia", by any definition, is, today, irrelevant. In the Heller
case (2010) the court said the 2nd Amendment conferred an INDIVIDUAL
right to bear arms. The vote was 9-0.

The following year, in the McDonald case, SCOTUS declared that the
2nd Amendment was binding on all the states, this is the so-called
"incorporation doctrine." (There are still parts of the Bill of
Rights that are NOT binding on the states.)


Pardon a minor correction:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

McDonald v. Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010).

Thank you. I keep thinking it was just yesterday...

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:35:23 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

McDonald v. Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010).

Thank you. I keep thinking it was just yesterday...


Seems it SCOTUS forever to get this far...
--

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.

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"

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.

but don't you know, guns don't kill people, at least that's what the devil tells
us



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

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.

In article , "NotMe" wrote:

"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 ...

what brand was that watch?

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.

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:25:28 -0700 (PDT), "
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.

That's laughable as a cite from the bible indicating guns are bad.
Based on how many people were slaughtered on GOD's instructions as
detailed in the bible, if guns were around back in the day you can be
sure GOD would have instructed his chosen people to go get an AK-47
and blow the other tribes away.

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:26:20 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:57:11 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:43:41 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

I'm not against our population having guns just not all.

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

You've said similar before. Which is it?



Ok, I do mean ....I'm not against our population having guns just not
all. Perhaps my words yesterday failed to convey my meaning in text
as I truly meant it. Honestly I think you already knew where I stand
from previous posts but ok for pointing it out.

So you finally acknowledge a person has a "right" to own at gun, while
at the same time wanting more "regulations". Got it.

More regulation will not solve gun problems. If you want to solve
crime, just repeal all the criminal laws. Then there will be no more
crime. See how easy that was?
--

On Aug 12, 1:32*pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:18:42 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Aug 12, 9:47 am, "Doug" wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:32:24 -0400, "Meanie" wrote:

"Doug" wrote in message
.. .

Whether I am or not, my purpose is still the same. Maybe we need to
change the law if needed.

Yes, changing/modifying laws always works (rolls eyes).

What you fail to understand is the laws are made for those who are already
responsible and thus, will follow those law. Criminals don't follow the
law....period. Restricting gun ownership for responsible citizens reduces
protection against criminals who are not responsible. Until you have a
resolution to eliminate guns from the hands of criminals, eliminating them
from the hands of responsible citizens is asinine.

I do realize this but we have to start somewhere and build upon it.
Whether we start with legal or illegal may be a worthy discussion

The above alone proves you're an idiot. *Why would
you start with the legal gun owners when the overwhelming
amount of gun violence is coming from criminals?

but
I'm of the opinion to start with the legal ones first and then spread
out the enforcment to the illegal (which I think will be harder of
course).

Of course, because you're an idiot who knows nothing
about the actual problem.

And I lived in NYC once for many years so I'm aware of guns,
legal and illegal being all around me as well as drugs and other
weapons.- Hide quoted text -

And how many of the murders each year in NYC were
or are caused by legal guns versus illegal ones?

What a marooon.

Having lived in NYC, you must know of the mandatory
prison time for anyone possessing a gun illegally, right?
Not just for those using a gun in crime, right? *As a
result, to protect the citizenry, this is what we have.
Some poor ******* gets on a plane in TX, headed
for say Maine. *He's taking a gun with him that's
perfectly legal for him to have in TX. *He may even
have a permit to carry it in TX. *So, he declares it
to the airline at check-in time and they handle it
appropriately. *So far, so good. *But the plane is
going to Maine via a connection in NYC at JFK.

Now, because of weather, the flight is delayed and
he misses his connection at JFK and will have
to catch a flight the next morning. *The airline offers
to give him his luggage and not even thinking about
it, he takes possession of it. * He goes off to a hotel
spends the night and returns to JFK the next AM.
He does just what he did in TX. *He goes up to the
counter and tells them he has a gun in his luggage
to declare. * BUT, this is NYC and unless he has a
NYC permit for that gun, it's illegal. *They call the
police, he is arrested, tried and convicted because
it's a crime. *And the judge has no choice, because
it's a mandatory sentence, off to prison he goes
to prison FOR 3 YEARS.

And this isn't a hypothetical situation either. *It's
happened many times now. That's lib gun laws for you....
Meanwhile, the real crime is going on by real
criminals using real illegal guns.

Calling me stupid isn't going to change my mind.

It wasn't intended to.


*Of course gun
legislation isn't perfect in the wording and maybe it needs a serious
makeover. * I clearly don't think allowing everyone to have a gun is
the answer to our problems.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And who is proposing to allow "everyone" to have
a gun? You're obviously ignorant of all the gun laws
we already have, both at the federal and state level
Why is it that those that know the least always know
what the rest of us need?

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:32:30 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:18:42 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Aug 12, 9:47*am, "Doug" wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:32:24 -0400, "Meanie" wrote:

"Doug" wrote in message
.. .

Whether I am or not, my purpose is still the same. * Maybe we need to
change the law if needed.

Yes, changing/modifying laws always works (rolls eyes).

What you fail to understand is the laws are made for those who are already
responsible and thus, will follow those law. Criminals don't follow the
law....period. Restricting gun ownership for responsible citizens reduces
protection against criminals who are not responsible. Until you have a
resolution to eliminate guns from the hands of criminals, eliminating them
from the hands of responsible citizens is asinine.

I do realize this but we have to start somewhere and build upon it.
Whether we start with legal or illegal may be a worthy discussion

The above alone proves you're an idiot. Why would
you start with the legal gun owners when the overwhelming
amount of gun violence is coming from criminals?





but
I'm of the opinion to start with the legal ones first and then spread
out the enforcment to the illegal (which I think will be harder of
course).

Of course, because you're an idiot who knows nothing
about the actual problem.



*And I lived in NYC once for many years so I'm aware of guns,
legal and illegal being all around me as well as drugs and other
weapons.- Hide quoted text -


And how many of the murders each year in NYC were
or are caused by legal guns versus illegal ones?

What a marooon.


Having lived in NYC, you must know of the mandatory
prison time for anyone possessing a gun illegally, right?
Not just for those using a gun in crime, right? As a
result, to protect the citizenry, this is what we have.
Some poor ******* gets on a plane in TX, headed
for say Maine. He's taking a gun with him that's
perfectly legal for him to have in TX. He may even
have a permit to carry it in TX. So, he declares it
to the airline at check-in time and they handle it
appropriately. So far, so good. But the plane is
going to Maine via a connection in NYC at JFK.

Now, because of weather, the flight is delayed and
he misses his connection at JFK and will have
to catch a flight the next morning. The airline offers
to give him his luggage and not even thinking about
it, he takes possession of it. He goes off to a hotel
spends the night and returns to JFK the next AM.
He does just what he did in TX. He goes up to the
counter and tells them he has a gun in his luggage
to declare. BUT, this is NYC and unless he has a
NYC permit for that gun, it's illegal. They call the
police, he is arrested, tried and convicted because
it's a crime. And the judge has no choice, because
it's a mandatory sentence, off to prison he goes
to prison FOR 3 YEARS.

And this isn't a hypothetical situation either. It's
happened many times now. That's lib gun laws for you....
Meanwhile, the real crime is going on by real
criminals using real illegal guns.


Calling me stupid isn't going to change my mind. Of course gun
legislation isn't perfect in the wording and maybe it needs a serious
makeover. I clearly don't think allowing everyone to have a gun is
the answer to our problems.

Then you need to be proposing that we change/eliminate the 2nd
amendment. As it stands now, everyone has a right to keep and bear
arms. That's the fly in the ointment of the anti-gun crowd. They
were handed their head in Heller. But Heller is still not enough; it
still potentially allows ridiculous levels of gun regulation that
ONLY prevents honest people from defending themselves.

I live in a very liberal (in the proper sense of the word) state (AZ)
when it comes to guns. Yet even here it's impossible for me to
LEGALLY just strap on a concealed weapon and go about my daily
business without constant worry about breaking one of the 20,000 gun
laws. So I don't generally carry. Of course, the criminals have no
such worry.

We need laws that say I can carry my frigging gun ANYWHERE I want as
long as I'm not a prohibited possessor. I shouldn't have to leave it
behind to go in a restaurant just because the owner has a fear of
guns. We don't let them keep out Muslims because they have a fear of
Muslim people!

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:36:28 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

And who is proposing to allow "everyone" to have
a gun? You're obviously ignorant of all the gun laws
we already have, both at the federal and state level
Why is it that those that know the least always know
what the rest of us need?

This is how progressive liberals (feral socialist / marxist) think.
They believe they are superior thinkers and conservatives can't think
for themselves. They know what is best for you and the government
should provide you with all you need.

When their ideas fail, they move onto the next thing you need.

Spit!
--

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:32:24 -0400, "Meanie" wrote:

I do realize this but we have to start somewhere and build upon it.
Whether we start with legal or illegal may be a worthy discussion but
I'm of the opinion to start with the legal ones first and then spread
out the enforcment to the illegal (which I think will be harder of
course). And I lived in NYC once for many years so I'm aware of guns,
legal and illegal being all around me as well as drugs and other
weapons.

As was already pointed out, that is an asinine approach to a solution. You
are disarming responsible citizens before disarming criminals. Once the
criminals are aware citizens are disarmed, expect the crime to increase as
well as illegal gun population.

I won't call you stupid, but that is a very ignorant suggestion.

-BTW, more people are killed by cars than guns every year. Should we outlaw
cars?

-More people are killed from alcohol related causes more than gun deaths.Ban
alcohol.

-More people are killed by doctors than guns. In fact, an average of
120,000 accidental deaths are caused by doctors every year and 1,500
accidental deaths by guns. Ban doctors.

-24 out of 25 gun owners have used their weapon for self defense.

-Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill
at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).And
readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings
involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error
rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.

-States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%,
rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%

-Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens
can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or
without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet
for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest
states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award.

Stop being an uneducated sheep. Increasing your knowledge about guns instead
of following the rest of the ignorant naysayers will help you understand the
truth and eliminate the ignorance of what you think are solutions.

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:25:28 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

That's laughable as a cite from the bible indicating guns are bad.
Based on how many people were slaughtered on GOD's instructions as
detailed in the bible, if guns were around back in the day you can be
sure GOD would have instructed his chosen people to go get an AK-47
and blow the other tribes away.

That's called hypocrisy. All religious zealots are full of it.

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:

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

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:

I still am bad if that means I still favor better laws to account for gun
ownership. I don't want "anyone" to have a right to own a gun no matter
how well you word your reply. There has to be some regulation (perhaps
I should say better regulation) of gun ownership in a civilized world.

Jebus Christ, how much regulation is "some"??? There are already 20,000+
gun laws in this country, many of them conflicting. If wrist watches were
subject to the same level of control that guns are no one would risk
wearing one without LOTS of forethought of where they planned to go, what
route they would be taking, what the local cities might have in the way of
"special" controls on watches, etc. Imagine that merely wearing your
wris****ch as you drove past a school was a federal felony offense.
Imagine that if you were habitually late (or early) that your right to own
and wear a watch might be taken away. And god forbid you own more then two
watches!!!! Why does ANYONE need more then two watches!!!

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


You can, it's called a time bomb.

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

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

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

Oren wrote:

Ok, I do mean ....I'm not against our population having guns just not
all. Perhaps my words yesterday failed to convey my meaning in text
as I truly meant it. Honestly I think you already knew where I stand
from previous posts but ok for pointing it out.

So you finally acknowledge a person has a "right" to own at gun, while
at the same time wanting more "regulations". Got it.

More regulation will not solve gun problems. If you want to solve
crime, just repeal all the criminal laws. Then there will be no more
crime. See how easy that was?

The gun debate comes down, mostly, to those who fear criminals more than
guns vs. those who are phobic over guns but think criminals are just part of
life.

To illustrate how the fear of guns is irrational, the anti-gunners would
prefer all the guns in the country to be confiscated. By eliminating guns,
they reckon, gun crime would be eliminated. The idea of eliminating guns is
irrational and certainly impractical.

One hundred and ten million people own, it is estimated, 240 million guns*.
How much effort and expense would it take to attempt the roundup? In most
states, there is no record of who owns what.

Then there's the cost. Presumably, the government would compensate those
whose guns were confiscated. Let's see: 240,000,000 x $400 = about $96
billion. And that's not chump change.

-----------------------------
* Gun owership is like having cats. Many owners, if not most, have more than
one. I, personally, have five handguns (and four cats).

Doug wrote:


I didn't say what I propose would be easy or perfect the first time
around. Nor did I say that illegal stuff doesn't exist. I don't
think doing nothing or allowing everyone to carry a gun is the answer
to our problems.

But gun ownership is a constitutional right!

In my view, gun ownership is much like the guarantee of being provided a
lawyer if you cannot afford one. That is, if you cannot afford to buy a
reliable firearm, the government should make one available at no charge.

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.

Ashton Crusher wrote:

which one of the commandments was about gun ownership?

Thou shalt not kill.

That's laughable as a cite from the bible indicating guns are bad.
Based on how many people were slaughtered on GOD's instructions as
detailed in the bible, if guns were around back in the day you can be
sure GOD would have instructed his chosen people to go get an AK-47
and blow the other tribes away.

Right. The commandment is properly translated as "Thou shalt not murder."
Even God recognizes that some people need killin'.

Harry K wrote the following on 8/12/2012 11:04 AM (ET):
On Aug 11, 2:22 pm, "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.

Come back when you discover what the Supremes have really ruled.

Harry K

"Stop In The Name Of Love"?


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

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.

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 20:39:35 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

Oren wrote:

Ok, I do mean ....I'm not against our population having guns just not
all. Perhaps my words yesterday failed to convey my meaning in text
as I truly meant it. Honestly I think you already knew where I stand
from previous posts but ok for pointing it out.

So you finally acknowledge a person has a "right" to own at gun, while
at the same time wanting more "regulations". Got it.

More regulation will not solve gun problems. If you want to solve
crime, just repeal all the criminal laws. Then there will be no more
crime. See how easy that was?

The gun debate comes down, mostly, to those who fear criminals more than
guns vs. those who are phobic over guns but think criminals are just part of
life.

To illustrate how the fear of guns is irrational, the anti-gunners would
prefer all the guns in the country to be confiscated. By eliminating guns,
they reckon, gun crime would be eliminated. The idea of eliminating guns is
irrational and certainly impractical.

One hundred and ten million people own, it is estimated, 240 million guns*.
How much effort and expense would it take to attempt the roundup? In most
states, there is no record of who owns what.

Then there's the cost. Presumably, the government would compensate those
whose guns were confiscated. Let's see: 240,000,000 x $400 = about $96
billion. And that's not chump change.

-----------------------------
* Gun owership is like having cats. Many owners, if not most, have more than
one. I, personally, have five handguns (and four cats).

I have two cats and four handguns (two are .22s). I'll buy a couple more
(looking at 1911s and I'd like to buy a Walther PPK/S for SWMBO). Does that
mean we need another cat? I don't think that would be pretty.

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:39:49 -0700, Oren wrote:
[i]
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 00:55:02 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:

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.

"...Gun control laws were originally promulgated by Democrats to keep
guns out of the hands of blacks. This allowed the Democratic policy of
slavery to proceed with fewer bumps and, after the Civil War, allowed
the Democratic Ku Klux Klan to menace and murder black Americans with
little resistance.

(Contrary to what illiterates believe, the KKK was an outgrowth of the
Democratic Party, with overlapping membership rolls. The Klan was to
the Democrats what the American Civil Liberties Union is today: Not
every Democrat is an ACLU'er, but every ACLU'er is a Democrat. Same
with the Klan.)

In 1640, the very first gun control law ever enacted on these shores
was passed in Virginia. It provided that blacks -- even freemen --
could not own guns.

Chief Justice Roger Taney's infamous opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford
circularly argued that blacks could not be citizens because if they
were citizens, they would have the right to own guns: "t would give
them the full liberty," he said, "to keep and carry arms wherever they
went."

_NEGROES WITH GUNS_

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-04-18.html

"Saturday Night Specials" were banned specifically to make it too expensive to
ghetto blacks to defend themselves.

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:23:15 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article , "NotMe" wrote:

"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 ...

what brand was that watch?

Ryder.

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 20:42:42 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

Doug wrote:


I didn't say what I propose would be easy or perfect the first time
around. Nor did I say that illegal stuff doesn't exist. I don't
think doing nothing or allowing everyone to carry a gun is the answer
to our problems.

But gun ownership is a constitutional right!

The Constitution means nothing to lefties.

In my view, gun ownership is much like the guarantee of being provided a
lawyer if you cannot afford one. That is, if you cannot afford to buy a
reliable firearm, the government should make one available at no charge.

You want one the day after you're mugged?

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?

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 20:45:13 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

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.

It's the same in Georgia.