On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 23:24:40 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 8/11/2012 4:22 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.


You big silly! Everyone knows that gun nuts should be protected by an
athletic supporter and a properly fitted cup. ^_^

LOL! *******, there's coffee all over my laptop

In article ,
" 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.

strange, I don't find any. what model was it?

On 8/12/2012 11:35 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 23:24:40 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

You big silly! Everyone knows that gun nuts should be protected by an
athletic supporter and a properly fitted cup. ^_^

LOL! *******, there's coffee all over my laptop


Hopefully your keyboard will stop working.

In article ,
" wrote:



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?

That is why I always get a giggle out of people stating we can keep
guns from the mentally ill. At least since the 80s, the privacy
protections for mental health related issues have been much more
stringent than even regular health records. Court records too are
generally sealed.
Shrinks are already required to report direct threats to the
potential victim under the finding of the Tarasoff case in CA. In
Aurora, unless the shooter had said specifically he was going to shoot
up the movie theatre, the doc's hands were tied.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

-----------------------------
* 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.

Consider a CZ-75. Used, military surplus, can be had for about $200. 9mm
(Makarov, 9x18), double action, and built like a tank. Every bit as
dependable as a 1911. It may, however, be too big or heavy for your current
squeeze.

With a C&R (Curio & Relic license - $30.00), you can have the weapon
delivered directly to your home without having to bother with a FFL dealer.

On another note: I actually have eleven handguns and, counting those that
hang around outside, seven cats.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

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?

Uh, not exactly. I want one prior to the attempted mugging.

Ashton Crusher wrote:

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.

Where'd you get that idea? Arizona is an "Open Carry" state. Subject to some
restrictions, you may strap on your hog-leg and meander unmolested just
about anywhere.

See:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...pen-Carry-Laws

for a summary and directions elsewhere.


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!

Ah, the eternal debate between gun carry and private property rights. We
mostly solved that in Texas by allowing private property owners (bars,
churches, auto repair shops, etc.) to post a sign. But here's the trick: The
sign must carry specific statutory language:

"Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to
carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Article 4413(29ee),
Revised Statutes (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a
concealed handgun"

The sign must also have the same wording in Spanish, be in letters 1" or
more in height, and displayed near every door to the establishment. The
sign, when all this is done, will be about 2x3 feet in size. As it turns
out, about six places in the entire state have gone to the trouble...

Meanie wrote:

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.


-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.

I'm not sure I believe the Newsweek number. I recently saw an assertion that
in all shootings by concealed handgun permit holders, not a single
unintended person was shot. Now there's no specific distance between
"innocent persons mistakenly identified as a criminal" and "collateral
damage," but I still think Newsweek's claim is probably bogus.

As for the "error rate" of the cops being five times higher, that figure
makes sense when you consider that the civilian was (probably) on the scene
when the nasty business went down; the civilian KNOWS who the goblin is,
whereas the cops, arriving some time AFTER the slime started, have to guess.

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 Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:54:58 -0700, Oren wrote:

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!


A bit harsh don't you think? Why are the gun advocates so worked
up? I think its clear to me, based on the number of killings, there
needs to be better gun laws. And I'm tired of the labels that you por
gun people like to use on me like dem, lib, etc... . I speak for
myself and I could careless if one of these groups agree or disagree
with me. I can imagine if I said I was a jew, muslim, black, etc..
the slurs that would come my way just because I believe in some form
of gun control or regulation or whatever you want to label my opinion.
Yeah some are right, there is racism in this topic. I laugh at all
the so called pro gun people who claim to know their rights. What
about the rights of the majority of people who do not have a gun?

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!

As I said, the law needs to be updated based on current events or
trends.


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.


No, I don't agree but interesting opinion.

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 23:13:26 -0400, "
wrote:


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

That worked out really well, huh?

About 1977 I was talking to a black prisoner about his crime (double
murder). I had already read his file He was in an alley shooting
craps and the other guys decided to rob him. He caught up with them
and shot them both dead.

He said to me, "Boss Man, if dem niggas came alive I'd shoot 'em
again."
--

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 23:18:11 -0400, "
wrote:

But gun ownership is a constitutional right!

The Constitution means nothing to lefties.

They want to call the Constitution a "living, breathing document".

What it means on Saturday can mean something totally different on
Thursday. Go figure.
--

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 09:12:44 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:54:58 -0700, Oren wrote:

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!


A bit harsh don't you think? Why are the gun advocates so worked
up? I think its clear to me, based on the number of killings, there
needs to be better gun laws. And I'm tired of the labels that you por
gun people like to use on me like dem, lib, etc... . I speak for
myself and I could careless if one of these groups agree or disagree
with me. I can imagine if I said I was a jew, muslim, black, etc..
the slurs that would come my way just because I believe in some form
of gun control or regulation or whatever you want to label my opinion.
Yeah some are right, there is racism in this topic. I laugh at all
the so called pro gun people who claim to know their rights. What
about the rights of the majority of people who do not have a gun?

No. Not harsh at all. I was being nice. Now if the shoe fits... well
you know.
--

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 09:14:41 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

But gun ownership is a constitutional right!

As I said, the law needs to be updated based on current events or
trends.

Which law out of the thousands? Got a specific one in mind?
--

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

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.


I can't say lf it stills holds true today, but I know of instances
where a government agency could issue a gun to an employee for
personal protection. If the employee received a "reliable and
credible threat" against their life that was work related, the Warden
had the authority to issue a weapon for personal carry. Don't recall
it ever happening, but the policy was there to do so.
--

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:35:23 -0700, Oren wrote:

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?


I'm not changing my opinion but that's not a bad idea too!!!

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 16:01:06 -0400, "Meanie" wrote:


"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.



Off topic a little but whether I change my opinion or not, you are the
first reply to actually sound worthy of me "trying" to change my
opinion. Now I didn't say I would but at least you sounded calm in
trying to discuss this topic and I for what it's worth (probably not
much) praise you for that.

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

As I keep repeating myself, I am not again most people having guns as
long as they are better accounted for. I do admit I do not want
everyone to have a gun because I don't think everyone is fit to be
responsible for one. It sounds like, most who disagree with me here
who have a gun are responsible but of course I am guessing. And I
refuse to quote laws because even if they are worded well (which I
have some doubts), they aren't working or being enforced in my
opinion. And yes this is my opinion so that's subject to different
opinions of course.

One last thing, I don't know the actual stats but I will assume you
are correct about car deaths vs. gun deaths. The problem is more
people depend on cars for different reasons than guns in everyday
life. I kinda like guns being treated like cars for regulation
purposes like renewal of licenses, registration, etc... .

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:42:31 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

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?


I'm not changing my opinion but that's not a bad idea too!!!

You wont have to change your opinion then. Repeal all the criminal
law and everyone can have a gun. HOOAH! More guns, more ammo please.
--

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:02:29 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:

-----------------------------
* 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.

Consider a CZ-75. Used, military surplus, can be had for about $200. 9mm
(Makarov, 9x18), double action, and built like a tank. Every bit as
dependable as a 1911. It may, however, be too big or heavy for your current
squeeze.

Current squeeze is the same "squeeze" as 41 years ago. I have an FS92 - too
heavy.

With a C&R (Curio & Relic license - $30.00), you can have the weapon
delivered directly to your home without having to bother with a FFL dealer.

That is an idea, though.

On another note: I actually have eleven handguns and, counting those that
hang around outside, seven cats.

Don't they rust?

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 21:07:35 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" 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.

strange, I don't find any. what model was it?

18ft.

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:39:06 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 23:18:11 -0400, "
wrote:

But gun ownership is a constitutional right!

The Constitution means nothing to lefties.

They want to call the Constitution a "living, breathing document".

What it means on Saturday can mean something totally different on
Thursday. Go figure.

No, what they really mean is "It's dead, Jim".

On Aug 13, 11:47*am, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 09:14:41 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

But gun ownership is a constitutional right!

As I said, the law needs to be updated based on current events or
trends.

Which law out of the thousands? *Got a specific one in mind?
--

That's like asking a lib "What percentage of their income should
a wealthy person pay in taxes?"

I've heard it asked 100 times and never answered.

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:02:56 -0400, "
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:39:06 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 23:18:11 -0400, "
wrote:

But gun ownership is a constitutional right!

The Constitution means nothing to lefties.

They want to call the Constitution a "living, breathing document".

What it means on Saturday can mean something totally different on
Thursday. Go figure.

No, what they really mean is "It's dead, Jim".

Imagine that!
--

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 16:10:07 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

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


And it wasn't the gun that kills, it's the person firing it.


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

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:22:39 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Ashton Crusher wrote:

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.

Where'd you get that idea? Arizona is an "Open Carry" state. Subject to some
restrictions, you may strap on your hog-leg and meander unmolested just
about anywhere.


It's the "some restrictions" that gets you. If you stay ONLY on the
roads you are fairly safe, but as soon as you go INTO buildings you
open up a can of worms.


See:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...pen-Carry-Laws

for a summary and directions elsewhere.


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!

Ah, the eternal debate between gun carry and private property rights. We
mostly solved that in Texas by allowing private property owners (bars,
churches, auto repair shops, etc.) to post a sign. But here's the trick: The
sign must carry specific statutory language:

"Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to
carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Article 4413(29ee),
Revised Statutes (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a
concealed handgun"

The sign must also have the same wording in Spanish, be in letters 1" or
more in height, and displayed near every door to the establishment. The
sign, when all this is done, will be about 2x3 feet in size. As it turns
out, about six places in the entire state have gone to the trouble...

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:01:06 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

And it wasn't the gun that kills, it's the person firing it.

Not so. The bullet kills, not the person. Only shoot what needs
shootin' at and needs killin'. Let the bullet do the work.
--

On Aug 13, 1:29*pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 16:01:06 -0400, "Meanie" wrote:

"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.

Off topic a little but whether I change my opinion or not, you are the
first reply to actually sound worthy of me "trying" to change my
opinion. *Now I didn't say I would but at least you sounded calm in
trying to discuss this topic and I for what it's worth (probably not
much) praise you for that.

Now back on topic .... * I debated myself whether it's wise to go
after the legal or illegal guns first but I felt it's easier to do the
legal ones which might spread out over to the illegal ones to a small
degree.

See, this is why some of us get annoyed. WTF? You'd
go after the LEGAL gun owners first? And you think
that what you do to the LEGAL gun owners is going
to spread out to the illegal gun owners? Like the
gang bangers give a rat's ass that the responsible
gun owners have more laws to comply with?
Can you possibly be that dumb?



And by doing this, might work out the kinks in so doing.

Yes, following that logic we should take all the
innocent people and use them to work out the kinks
in the prison system.




No
doubt the illegal guns will be harder to find or control so I felt the
legal ones should be first.

Yeah, because you can't figure out how to fix the
real problem, screw someone else. Makes a lot of
sense.



*Yeah, this might sound like a penalty for
a legal gun but my purpose is for a strategy of finding or accounting
for guns as a whole.

And for exactly what purpose do you need to account and
find for all the guns as a whole? You'd have a list of legal
gun owners. Now tell us how the hell that would have prevented
say the Colorado shooting. As far as anyone knew, except
perhaps his psychiatrist, he was just as entitled to have a
gun as anyone else.



*As I said, it's a debatable issue which to go
for first.

It's only debtable if you're an idiot.


*I don't claim my way is the only way to go after guns.

Sure, it doesn't have to be *your* way, as long as
someone goes after legal gun owners in some
way, right?



As I keep repeating myself, I am not again most people having guns as
long as they are better accounted for.

And tell us again how the better accounting for is
going to prevent crime?



*I do admit I do not want
everyone to have a gun because I don't think everyone is fit to be
responsible for one.

Who, a stunning admission. Who would have thought that?



It sounds like, most who disagree with me here
who have a gun are responsible but of course I am guessing. *And I
refuse to quote laws because even if they are worded well (which I
have some doubts), they aren't working or being enforced in my
opinion.

You refuse to quote any laws because you don't know
anything about all the laws that are already out there
and instead prefer to remain an ignoramus. Which is
fine. But then don't be bitching about what to do, and
how the solution is to go after the legal gun owners,
when you admit you're clueless.

And then you wonder why some of us get ****ed?



And yes this is my opinion so that's subject to different
opinions of course.

Actually your opinion is not subject to different opinions.



One last thing, I don't know the actual stats but I will assume you
are correct about car deaths vs. gun deaths. * The problem is more
people depend on cars for different reasons than guns in everyday
life. *I kinda like guns being treated like cars for regulation
purposes like renewal of licenses, registration, etc... . * *- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And this from the guy that admits he doesn't even have
a grasp of the current gun laws.

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:05:24 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

Where'd you get that idea? Arizona is an "Open Carry" state. Subject to some
restrictions, you may strap on your hog-leg and meander unmolested just
about anywhere.


It's the "some restrictions" that gets you. If you stay ONLY on the
roads you are fairly safe, but as soon as you go INTO buildings you
open up a can of worms.

Maybe you should see the girl in Phoenix that carries openly in her
work place ( a sandwich shop deli ?). Then tell us more that you
cannot open carry in AZ. I can cross the Colorado River (minutes from
my NV home) and be as free as I need with a hog leg strapped on.
--

willshak wrote:
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).



No he didn't. "NICS" = National Insta-Check System. It is run by the FBI and
is used ONLY for verifying that the individual is not disqualified from
buying a firearm.

"NCIC" = National Crime Information Center is also run by the FBI and is a
collection of databases to aid law enforcement. It's databases range from
serial number checks on stolen property (guns, boats, TVs, etc.) to a
database of lost law enforcement badges.

The two are not connected. In fact, the NICS is prohibited, by law, from
interacting with any other system.

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:04:45 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:

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?

Uh, not exactly. I want one prior to the attempted mugging.

Well, you suggested that government could help.

Doug wrote:


A bit harsh don't you think? Why are the gun advocates so worked
up? I think its clear to me, based on the number of killings, there
needs to be better gun laws.

Just like any other constitutional right, occasional tragedies are the price
we as a society must pay to recognize and support that right. I submit that
the publication of vicious tracts (freedom of the press) may have engendered
more violence than guns. I submit that unfettered utterances from the pulpit
(freedom of religion) may have caused more deaths than guns. I submit that
inflammatory rhetoric at a public gathering (peaceable(?) assembly) has
fostered more mob violence than guns.

Would you support Draconian restrictions on the subjects of other
amendments?

I laugh at all
the so called pro gun people who claim to know their rights. What
about the rights of the majority of people who do not have a gun?

Uh, you have a right not to have a gun. In fact, I'll wager you're
exercising that right this very moment. What's the controversy?

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:09:20 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Aug 13, 11:47*am, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 09:14:41 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

But gun ownership is a constitutional right!

As I said, the law needs to be updated based on current events or
trends.

Which law out of the thousands? *Got a specific one in mind?
--

That's like asking a lib "What percentage of their income should
a wealthy person pay in taxes?"

I've heard it asked 100 times and never answered.

I've heard it answered, "10 percent". That's a lib I can agree with but when
pressed, it turns out they're totally clueless. Surprise!

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:46:14 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:



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?

That is why I always get a giggle out of people stating we can keep
guns from the mentally ill. At least since the 80s, the privacy
protections for mental health related issues have been much more
stringent than even regular health records. Court records too are
generally sealed.
Shrinks are already required to report direct threats to the
potential victim under the finding of the Tarasoff case in CA. In
Aurora, unless the shooter had said specifically he was going to shoot
up the movie theatre, the doc's hands were tied.

AIUI, in the Aurora case, the shrink *did* report the threat. It was never
stated that she(?) illegally disclosed patient information, though.

Doug wrote:

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


By "go after," I assume you mean confiscation. In furtherance of the 5th
Amendments "Takings Clause" (... nor shall private property be taken without
just compensation.") you would no doubt agree that some government must pay
a reasonable sum for each weapon confiscated.

Best estimates are that there exist some 240 million firearms in the
country. At, say, $500 fair market value each, that works out to be $120
billion. Excluding suicides, there are some 11,000 gun fatalities per year
in the U.S. Some are accidental, some justified (i.e., self defense), but
let's stick with 11,000.

Now, assuming you COULD confiscate all the guns and, as a result, drive the
unjustified gun deaths to zero, that would make each life, for the first
year, worth about $11 million. As time goes on, you amortize the initial
"investment." That is, the second year each life would be worth $5.5
million, the 3rd year, $4 million, the 5th year $2.2 million, and so on.

Now the average life saved in stopping gun homicides is worth about eighteen
bucks. My calculations show it would take a bit over 600 years to break
even.

This is a BAD bargain, even for the government.

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 06:03:08 -0400, Jesus Christ
wrote:

On 8/12/2012 11:35 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 23:24:40 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

You big silly! Everyone knows that gun nuts should be protected by an
athletic supporter and a properly fitted cup. ^_^

LOL! *******, there's coffee all over my laptop


Hopefully your keyboard will stop working.

Back in your box, HomoGuy.

In article ,
" wrote:


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.

strange, I don't find any. what model was it?

18ft.

but ryder doesn't make watches

On 8/12/2012 10:35 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 23:24:40 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 8/11/2012 4:22 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.


You big silly! Everyone knows that gun nuts should be protected by an
athletic supporter and a properly fitted cup. ^_^

LOL! *******, there's coffee all over my laptop


I use it whenever I hear one of the P.L.L.C.F. yapping about "Gun Nuts"
and for some reason it disarms(no pun) them. ^_^

TDD

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:04:45 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

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?

Uh, not exactly. I want one prior to the attempted mugging.

Well, you suggested that government could help.

No, I take the position that the government SHOULD help. Look, for the
criminals, the government provides legal counsel every time they're arrested
at an average cost of, oh, say $2,000. Many of these dudes get arrested
dozens of times.

Providing a gun one-time would only be $400 or so. Then the people with new,
serviceable firearms, could kill a great number of the aforementioned.

Seems like a bargain compared.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

AIUI, in the Aurora case, the shrink *did* report the threat. It was
never stated that she(?) illegally disclosed patient information,
though.

When a mental health professional receives a credible threat that a life is
in jeopardy, either a suicide by the client or a homicide involving others:

a. The mental health professional MUST report same to the proper
authorities,
b. At the instant the threat takes place, by law, all patient
confidentiality vanishes.