On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:20:38 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

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.


You miss my point... the laws aren't working or they're not written
yet. If I use your logic, no accounting of guns will help society?
Tell me how.

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:32:19 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

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


WRONG ... WRONG.... WRONG. I meant to find out who has the
guns... aka account for them and not take them away unless in doing
so, they have a criminal record, mentally treated, etc.. . I keep
saying I believe people have a right to guns but I don't want certain
types to have those same rights. People seem to want to put a twist
on my words or meaning or disect my words out of context.

And I also keep saying that the present gun laws aren't working so why
should I bother to cite them? Those laws either need to be enforced
or rewritten including the right to bear arms so it doesn't apply
without some better qualification.

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 22:00:01 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:20:38 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

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.


You miss my point... the laws aren't working or they're not written
yet. If I use your logic, no accounting of guns will help society?

You're close. No accounting of guns *will* help society.

Tell me how.

Several orders of magnitude more people are helped by guns than are harmed by
them.


You're still an idiot.

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 22:11:26 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:32:19 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

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


WRONG ... WRONG.... WRONG. I meant to find out who has the
guns...

Why? SO they can be confiscated? That *is* the next step.

aka account for them and not take them away unless in doing
so, they have a criminal record, mentally treated, etc.. . I keep
saying I believe people have a right to guns but I don't want certain
types to have those same rights. People seem to want to put a twist
on my words or meaning or disect my words out of context.

And I also keep saying that the present gun laws aren't working so why
should I bother to cite them?

You obviously don't know a thing about them, or even if they do. You really
don't feel the need to understand an issue before "fixing" it? You really are
an idiot.

Those laws either need to be enforced
or rewritten including the right to bear arms so it doesn't apply
without some better qualification.

Has anyone told you that you're an idiot?

Doug wrote:
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.

here's something to ponder from an email I received

Subject: Very good pro-gun letter

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and
force.
If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either
convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat
of
force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories,
without exception. Reason or force, that's it. In a truly moral and
civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.
Force has
no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing
that
removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as
it
may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use
reason
and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or
employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a
100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old
retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single
guy on
equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The
gun
removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a
potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad
force
equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized
if all
guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a
[armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the
mugger's
potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by
legislative
fiat -- it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are
armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule
by
the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a
civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a
successful
living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that
otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in
several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the
physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute
lethal
force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it
with
a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier
works
solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If
both
are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as
lethal
in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight
lifter. It
simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both
lethal
and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but
because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I
cannot
be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but
because
it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who
would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who
would
do so by force. It removes force from the equation... And that's why
carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret.)

Doug wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:20:38 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


You miss my point... the laws aren't working or they're not written
yet. If I use your logic, no accounting of guns will help society?
Tell me how.

the laws are working, but criminals don't care what the laws are,
that's why they are criminals
You can pass all the laws you want, but criminals don't care. The laws
only effect LAW ABIDING citizens.
Prison statitics show that 99% of inmates/criminals support gun
control. Can you guess why?

On 8/11/2012 6:09 PM, 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.

First it's "AMENDMEMTS" and second it's "CERTAIN" inalienable rights.

Although the Declaration of Independence was initially ignored after the
American Revolution it has come to be considered a major statement on
human rights, particularly its second sentence:


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It could be argued that the right to own an assault style rifle with a
100 round drum magazine is for some "the pursuit of happiness." The
reality is that both recent SC decisions still allow for reasonable
regulation of guns. Those will come to be defined by perhaps 10 years
of upcoming lawsuits. There doesn't appear to be a God-given "Certain
inalienable" right to own a gun - only "life,liberty and the pursuit of
happiness" are enumerated specifically in the Declaration.


Heller represents a conservative activist court busy overturning the
precedents set by liberal activist courts. Heller is the law of the land
now, but it might change back if the balance of the court changes back
to a liberal one again. Justice Antonin Scalia’s decision to excises
all reference to the “well regulated militia” clause flies in the face
of historical precedent as well as simple logic. Why insert that clause
if it's meant to be ignored? For 100's of years most people assumed the
purpose of the clause was to make sure that the federal government could
not disarm state militias.

Is the Declaration a realistic, truthful document? Ask any parent of a
child with a serious birth defect if all men are truly "created equal."

"Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to the endless night."

(No, not Jim Morrison but William Blake - Auguries of Innocence.)


--
Sherlock

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

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.

Just to pick a nit, they must also report it to the person being
threatened. That is a given, some states only require that while others
also require authorities be contacted.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

Sherlock.Homes wrote:
On 8/11/2012 6:09 PM, 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.



Heller represents a conservative activist court busy overturning the
precedents set by liberal activist courts. Heller is the law of the
land now, but it might change back if the balance of the court
changes back to a liberal one again. Justice Antonin Scalia’s
decision to excises all reference to the “well regulated militia”
clause flies in the face of historical precedent as well as simple
logic. Why insert that clause if it's meant to be ignored? For 100's
of years most people assumed the purpose of the clause was to make
sure that the federal government could not disarm state militias.

Ah, what "precedents" did the conservative court overturn?

No, the Heller decision merely reinforced and updated the militia clause of
the 2nd Amendment.

In 1791, a "militia" was every able-bodied man and boy capable of defending
the state. The term "militia" did NOT imply an organized military body - it
meant every citizen capable of rising to the defense of home and hearth
(with certain exceptions: the infirm, women, slaves, etc.). As such, it was
expected that every member of the citizenry would possess his own personal
fiirearm.

In a like manner, the phrase "well regulated" did NOT mean a group of people
subject to a chain-of-command hierarchy. First, in 1791 there were no
"regulations" as we think of the word today. Second, in 1791, the words
"well regulated" meant possessing an accurately functioning mechanical
device; in this case, a gun. We see vestiges of that meaning in the phrase
"well-regulated timepiece" or "well regulated piano."

Doug wrote:

By "go after," I assume you mean confiscation. In furtherance of the
5th


WRONG ... WRONG.... WRONG. I meant to find out who has the
guns... aka account for them and not take them away unless in doing
so, they have a criminal record, mentally treated, etc.. . I keep
saying I believe people have a right to guns but I don't want certain
types to have those same rights. People seem to want to put a twist
on my words or meaning or disect my words out of context.

Ah, my misapprehension. Sorry for the confusion.

If we did follow your prescription - tag each gun to an owner, that huge
amount of effort would do little to diminish gun crime. Most studies
indicate that 85% or so of gun crime is perpetrated by guns obtained
illegally. That is, the gun was stolen in a burglary, obtained via a straw
purchase, found in the bottom of a CrackerJack box, and the like. So is your
proposal worth it?

Canada tried EXACTLY what you propose in 1993. To date, it has cost the
Canadian federal government about $66 million for a country with one-tenth
the population and only 4% of the number of guns in the US*. In April, 2012
the whole idea what scuttled as being, unworkable, expensive, and totally
without a single redeeming social value.


-------
* High end estimate: 11 million guns in Canada vs. 240 million in the US.

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:50:52 -0400, "
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 22:00:01 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:20:38 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

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.


You miss my point... the laws aren't working or they're not written
yet. If I use your logic, no accounting of guns will help society?

You're close. No accounting of guns *will* help society.

Tell me how.

Several orders of magnitude more people are helped by guns than are harmed by
them.


You're still an idiot.


Yeah ... LOL

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 00:14:24 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Doug wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:20:38 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


You miss my point... the laws aren't working or they're not written
yet. If I use your logic, no accounting of guns will help society?
Tell me how.

the laws are working, but criminals don't care what the laws are,
that's why they are criminals
You can pass all the laws you want, but criminals don't care. The laws
only effect LAW ABIDING citizens.
Prison statitics show that 99% of inmates/criminals support gun
control. Can you guess why?



I don't think some of the laws are working for different reasons. I'm
not saying criminal laws don't need revising but gun laws need it too.

Also I got thinking about how people compare # of car deaths to gun
deaths. I think a lot of car deaths are due to accidents but can we
say the same thing about gun deaths?

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 05:17:54 -0400, "Sherlock.Homes"
wrote:

On 8/11/2012 6:09 PM, 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.

First it's "AMENDMEMTS" and second it's "CERTAIN" inalienable rights.

Although the Declaration of Independence was initially ignored after the
American Revolution it has come to be considered a major statement on
human rights, particularly its second sentence:


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It could be argued that the right to own an assault style rifle with a
100 round drum magazine is for some "the pursuit of happiness." The
reality is that both recent SC decisions still allow for reasonable
regulation of guns. Those will come to be defined by perhaps 10 years
of upcoming lawsuits. There doesn't appear to be a God-given "Certain
inalienable" right to own a gun - only "life,liberty and the pursuit of
happiness" are enumerated specifically in the Declaration.

Anything can be argued by a statist moron, such as yourself. The words that
you miss in the paragraph (second above) is "among these are". Unalienable
rights are NOT limited to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Heller represents a conservative activist court busy overturning the
precedents set by liberal activist courts. Heller is the law of the land
now, but it might change back if the balance of the court changes back
to a liberal one again. Justice Antonin Scalia’s decision to excises
all reference to the “well regulated militia” clause flies in the face
of historical precedent as well as simple logic. Why insert that clause
if it's meant to be ignored? For 100's of years most people assumed the
purpose of the clause was to make sure that the federal government could
not disarm state militias.

Spoken like a leftist moron. What is there about "shall not be infringed"
that you don't understand? You do realize that "necessary for a well
regulated militia" is a subordinate clause and as such, in no way modifies
"shall not be infringed". No, I suppose you don't.

Is the Declaration a realistic, truthful document? Ask any parent of a
child with a serious birth defect if all men are truly "created equal."

The Declaration is not the Constitution. They are equal, under the law, which
is the point. Only a leftist moron believes equal outcomes are a good thing.

ignorant quote snipped

" wrote in
:

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.


"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and
law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own
conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the
law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the
lawless will allow...
For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to
accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals.
Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate
themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
---------- Jeff Snyder



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!




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

" wrote in
:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 05:17:54 -0400, "Sherlock.Homes"
wrote:

On 8/11/2012 6:09 PM, 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.

First it's "AMENDMEMTS" and second it's "CERTAIN" inalienable rights.

Although the Declaration of Independence was initially ignored after
the American Revolution it has come to be considered a major statement
on human rights, particularly its second sentence:


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness."

It could be argued that the right to own an assault style rifle with a
100 round drum magazine is for some "the pursuit of happiness." The
reality is that both recent SC decisions still allow for reasonable
regulation of guns. Those will come to be defined by perhaps 10 years
of upcoming lawsuits. There doesn't appear to be a God-given "Certain
inalienable" right to own a gun - only "life,liberty and the pursuit
of happiness" are enumerated specifically in the Declaration.

Anything can be argued by a statist moron, such as yourself. The
words that you miss in the paragraph (second above) is "among these
are". Unalienable rights are NOT limited to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness.

Heller represents a conservative activist court busy overturning the
precedents set by liberal activist courts. Heller is the law of the
land now, but it might change back if the balance of the court changes
back to a liberal one again. Justice Antonin Scalia’s decision to
excises all reference to the “well regulated militia” clause flies in
the face of historical precedent as well as simple logic. Why insert
that clause if it's meant to be ignored? For 100's of years most
people assumed the purpose of the clause was to make sure that the
federal government could not disarm state militias.

Spoken like a leftist moron. What is there about "shall not be
infringed" that you don't understand? You do realize that "necessary
for a well regulated militia" is a subordinate clause and as such, in
no way modifies "shall not be infringed". No, I suppose you don't.

Is the Declaration a realistic, truthful document? Ask any parent of
a child with a serious birth defect if all men are truly "created
equal."

The Declaration is not the Constitution. They are equal, under the
law, which is the point. Only a leftist moron believes equal outcomes
are a good thing.

ignorant quote snipped


the Second Amendment of the Constitution is NOT ABOUT hunting or sporting.
it's about the people retaining the ability to "alter or to abolish" a
government gone bad,as written in the Declaration of Independence.
the Founders had just overthrown their own incumbent government (Britain)
by FORCE OF ARMS,and recognized that it might have to be done again in the
future,thus the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment protecting the People's
right to keep and bear arms.
The American Revolution BEGAN when the Brits moved to confiscate arms at
Concord.
the people (in militia) responded with privately owned arms.

semi-auto,magazine-fed rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 are today's
modern MILITIA weapons,and thus should be the most protected of firearms
under the Second Amendment.

Militiamen were expected to appear for muster bearing arms and ammo similar
to and compatible with what the Regular military had in use AT THAT TIME.
Since we "compromised" and restricted ownership of full-auto,true assault
rifles,that leaves the semi-auto versions for civilian militia use.

In US v Miller,SCOTUS asked if a short-barreled shotgun was a weapon that a
militia would commonly use,implying that arms protected by the 2nd
Amendment had to be arms a militia would use. AR-15's,M-16's and AK-47s
would be ordinary militia arms,and "hi-capacity magazines" also would be
protected.

During the LA riots of 1992,the police REFUSED to enter the riot zone to
protect citizens,and Korean shopkeepers used "assault weapons" to hold off
the rioting mob that came to burn them and their families alive in their
shops/homes. that's just ONE good reason,not that we need ANY reason to own
them.
it also is justification for 30 round magazines,you need firepower to hold
off a riot mob.
Not that we need any justification.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 00:14:24 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Prison statitics show that 99% of inmates/criminals support gun
control. Can you guess why?

Sure. They prefer gun free victim zones.

Did I win?
--

Small technical point. The militia arms are typically select fire, now days.
Semi, or full auto. Those are the protected ones.

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

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
4...

the Second Amendment of the Constitution is NOT ABOUT hunting or sporting.
it's about the people retaining the ability to "alter or to abolish" a
government gone bad,as written in the Declaration of Independence.
the Founders had just overthrown their own incumbent government (Britain)
by FORCE OF ARMS,and recognized that it might have to be done again in the
future,thus the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment protecting the People's
right to keep and bear arms.
The American Revolution BEGAN when the Brits moved to confiscate arms at
Concord.
the people (in militia) responded with privately owned arms.

semi-auto,magazine-fed rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 are today's
modern MILITIA weapons,and thus should be the most protected of firearms
under the Second Amendment.

Militiamen were expected to appear for muster bearing arms and ammo similar
to and compatible with what the Regular military had in use AT THAT TIME.
Since we "compromised" and restricted ownership of full-auto,true assault
rifles,that leaves the semi-auto versions for civilian militia use.

In US v Miller,SCOTUS asked if a short-barreled shotgun was a weapon that a
militia would commonly use,implying that arms protected by the 2nd
Amendment had to be arms a militia would use. AR-15's,M-16's and AK-47s
would be ordinary militia arms,and "hi-capacity magazines" also would be
protected.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:01:09 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:

the Second Amendment of the Constitution is NOT ABOUT hunting or sporting.
it's about the people retaining the ability to "alter or to abolish" a
government gone bad,as written in the Declaration of Independence.

+1

[a tyrannical government]
--

I've read through this whole thread and I still don't know what everyone
is talking about.
None of my guns have nuts. I checked them all. There are screws, but
they are used to attach parts together without nuts. The guns have
threaded holes to accept the screws in those parts.


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

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 20:15:48 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

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.

My point is that you forget, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

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.

You would trust a government supplied gun? No thanks. I like the ones I
already have. Uncontrolled carry would be far more beneficial than any piece
of junk the government might "give" me (paid with my own money, after
bureaucrats take their cut).

Seems like a bargain compared.

I don't like the bargains government offers.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:07:30 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:50:52 -0400, "
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 22:00:01 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:20:38 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

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.


You miss my point... the laws aren't working or they're not written
yet. If I use your logic, no accounting of guns will help society?

You're close. No accounting of guns *will* help society.

Tell me how.

Several orders of magnitude more people are helped by guns than are harmed by
them.


You're still an idiot.


Yeah ... LOL

Only a moron laughs at being an idiot.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:14:50 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 00:14:24 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Doug wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:20:38 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


You miss my point... the laws aren't working or they're not written
yet. If I use your logic, no accounting of guns will help society?
Tell me how.

the laws are working, but criminals don't care what the laws are,
that's why they are criminals
You can pass all the laws you want, but criminals don't care. The laws
only effect LAW ABIDING citizens.
Prison statitics show that 99% of inmates/criminals support gun
control. Can you guess why?



I don't think some of the laws are working for different reasons. I'm
not saying criminal laws don't need revising but gun laws need it too.

You haven't even stated why gun laws need revising, moron. I would agree, but
I don't think you have abolishing them, in mind.

Also I got thinking about how people compare # of car deaths to gun
deaths. I think a lot of car deaths are due to accidents but can we
say the same thing about gun deaths?

There are accidental gun deaths, just as there are intentional automobile
deaths. So? How many people are saved by guns? Cars?

wrote in message
...
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.



The commandment is actually "thou shall not murder"


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

Agree with you there
Although I much prefer Jeff Coopers response to violence
""One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview
if I did not agree that 'violence begets violence.'
I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does.
I would like very much to ensure - and in some cases I have
- that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen
begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy."

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
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.
++++++++++++
++Stsrt UNsnip
+
+And if thou tries to and I'm around and I have
+a gun, I'll make sure thou keeps that commandment.
+
++Stop UNsnip
++++++++++++

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.

YOu really should have left the 2nd part in to demonstrate how ignorant your
knee-jerk reaction actually is

I'd rather be called a gun nut, than be called a violence victim.

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

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:39:05 -0400, willshak
wrote:

I've read through this whole thread and I still don't know what everyone
is talking about.
None of my guns have nuts. I checked them all. There are screws, but
they are used to attach parts together without nuts. The guns have
threaded holes to accept the screws in those parts.

You need bigger guns. Plenty of guns have nuts, some with big nuts.
--

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Sherlock.Homes wrote in a demonstration of ignorance

Heller represents a conservative activist court busy overturning the
precedents set by liberal activist courts.

Feel free to cite the cases that were "overturned by Heller


Heller is the law of the
land now, but it might change back if the balance of the court
changes back to a liberal one again.

Highly doubtfull
The trend is back towards more open application of the 2nd


Justice Antonin Scalia's
decision to excises all reference to the "well regulated militia"
clause flies in the face of historical precedent as well as simple
logic.

Actually he did NOT
He clearly demonstrted that the milita portion is NOT a RESTRICTION but a
JUSTIFICATION


Why insert that clause if it's meant to be ignored?

Because it was ONE reason WHY the government should not infringe
Sadly ignorant hoplophobes have been trying to turn it into a restriction


For 100's of years most people assumed the purpose of the clause was to
make
sure that the federal government could not disarm state militias.


A TOTAL and COMPLETE Lie
It's ONLY RECENTLY that the hoplophobes tried to use that part of the 2nd as
a restriction by misreading it and ignoring the writings of the framers on
the subject.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Sherlock.Homes wrote:
On 8/11/2012 6:09 PM, 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.



Heller represents a conservative activist court busy overturning the
precedents set by liberal activist courts. Heller is the law of the
land now, but it might change back if the balance of the court
changes back to a liberal one again. Justice Antonin Scalia's
decision to excises all reference to the "well regulated militia"
clause flies in the face of historical precedent as well as simple
logic. Why insert that clause if it's meant to be ignored? For 100's
of years most people assumed the purpose of the clause was to make
sure that the federal government could not disarm state militias.

Ah, what "precedents" did the conservative court overturn?


NONE WHATSOEVER since there was NEVER a US SUpreme Court decision that
interepreted the 2nd the hoplophobe way.


No, the Heller decision merely reinforced and updated the militia clause
of the 2nd Amendment.


It didn't even do that
What it did was demonstrate CLEARLY that the claim that the militia clause
was a restriction and not a justification was COMPLETELY FALSE.


In 1791, a "militia" was every able-bodied man and boy capable of
defending the state. The term "militia" did NOT imply an organized
military body - it meant every citizen capable of rising to the defense of
home and hearth (with certain exceptions: the infirm, women, slaves,
etc.). As such, it was expected that every member of the citizenry would
possess his own personal fiirearm.

In a like manner, the phrase "well regulated" did NOT mean a group of
people subject to a chain-of-command hierarchy. First, in 1791 there were
no "regulations" as we think of the word today. Second, in 1791, the words
"well regulated" meant possessing an accurately functioning mechanical
device; in this case, a gun. We see vestiges of that meaning in the phrase
"well-regulated timepiece" or "well regulated piano."


Agree with you there.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:00:25 -0400, "
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:22:21 -0700, "David Kaye"
wrote:

The gun nuts claim to follow the Constitution, but the Constitution makes
VERY CLEAR that the laws are subject to interpretation by the Supreme
Court,
and it is THEIR DECISION as to what a particular clause actually means.

Well, the Supreme Court has ruled many times that the 2nd Amendment
refers
to regulating a MILITIA, and that it does not confer ANY right for
individual citizens to own guns.

Good Lord, you're stupid. I thought Dougie was bad!



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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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




rest of repettitive stupidity ignored

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:45:37 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:46:38 -0500, "Doug"
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.

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






I'm not up on the constitution or law but I tend to think you are
right because we've had some form of gun control for a while and it's
not been thrown out. I do think we need to do a better job tho. I
tend to agree with your "Gun Nuts" subject line as they seem to be. I
can understand they want to own a gun but I can't understand why they
don't like to see it regulated so not "anyone" has a gun. Simply put
I want to see them in the hands or responsible owners. I'm not
implying the Gun Nuts here are irresponsible as I don't know but I'm
just surprised how much they want an open market for guns.


You should have stopped after your eighth word.


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

Considering that you have stated elsewhere
++++++
+ "Doug" wrote in message
+ ...
+
+ snip
+ ..
+ I don't want "anyone" to have a right to own a gun no
+ matter how well you word your reply.
++++++++++++

Any claim that you favor limited gun control is a lie

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:48:56 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:14:50 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 00:14:24 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Doug wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:20:38 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


You miss my point... the laws aren't working or they're not written
yet. If I use your logic, no accounting of guns will help society?
Tell me how.

the laws are working, but criminals don't care what the laws are,
that's why they are criminals
You can pass all the laws you want, but criminals don't care. The laws
only effect LAW ABIDING citizens.
Prison statitics show that 99% of inmates/criminals support gun
control. Can you guess why?



I don't think some of the laws are working for different reasons. I'm
not saying criminal laws don't need revising but gun laws need it too.

You haven't even stated why gun laws need revising, moron. I would agree, but
I don't think you have abolishing them, in mind.

Also I got thinking about how people compare # of car deaths to gun
deaths. I think a lot of car deaths are due to accidents but can we
say the same thing about gun deaths?

There are accidental gun deaths, just as there are intentional automobile
deaths. So? How many people are saved by guns? Cars?

Intentional auto deaths? Hmmm..... Even if true, you think the
numbers are equal ? And why don't you stop with "stupid" and "moron"
and just talk straight or is that beyond your IQ level?

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:46:25 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:07:30 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:50:52 -0400, "
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 22:00:01 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:20:38 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

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.


You miss my point... the laws aren't working or they're not written
yet. If I use your logic, no accounting of guns will help society?

You're close. No accounting of guns *will* help society.

Tell me how.

Several orders of magnitude more people are helped by guns than are harmed by
them.


You're still an idiot.


Yeah ... LOL

Only a moron laughs at being an idiot.

You're IQ is showing.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
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.

Start where exactly ?
Removing guns from the law-abiding in NO WAY prevents criminals from getting
guns and using them
Since you are NOT suggesting ANYTHING that would work on criminals, and
since you have already clearly stated:
" I don't want "anyone" to have a right to own a gun no
matter how well you word your reply."
Clearly your objective is NOT to disarm criminals
Your objective is to disarm the law-abiding and hope in the process to
disarm the criminals



Whether we start with legal or illegal may be a worthy discussion but

NO it's NOT
Gun-control has been PROVEN a failure as a means to control crime
IT HAS NO EFFECT
Therefore disarming the law-abiding is NOT a "start"
By your own words quoted above, it is the end that you wish to achieve


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).

Too bad that your "opinion" is not fact-based
It's pure wishful thinking
Also it's a cover to hide your real agenda


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.

There are a lot of other things that you clearly are not aware of.
I would suggest that you do some research into the failure of gun control
Start on YOUTUBE and search for " against gun control" as a start
Then read though the JPFO.org site and watch some of their videos
Go to Guncite.com and read the material there
Go to gunfacts.info and read the material there

I doubt that you will change your mind
But at least, you will have taken the trouble to inform yourself, instead of
just working on ignorance and bigotry

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:18:13 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I'd rather be called a gun nut, than be called a violence victim.

I'd rather be judged by twelve, than carried by six.

On 2012-08-14, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:18:13 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I'd rather be called a gun nut, than be called a violence victim.

I'd rather be judged by twelve, than carried by six.

I'd rather be applying iodine to a deep cut that reading this
tripe.

nb

--
Definition of objectivism:
"Eff you! I got mine."
http://www.nongmoproject.org/

"Doug" wrote

You're IQ is showing.

Yours, too. Learn to snip.

Steve

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 09:31:31 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:01:09 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:

the Second Amendment of the Constitution is NOT ABOUT hunting or sporting.
it's about the people retaining the ability to "alter or to abolish" a
government gone bad,as written in the Declaration of Independence.

+1

[a tyrannical government]

Now you have the crux of the issue. Lefties *want* a tyrannical government.
They're foolish enough to believe that they'll be part of the ruling class.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:28:09 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:46:25 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:07:30 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:50:52 -0400, "
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 22:00:01 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:20:38 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

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.


You miss my point... the laws aren't working or they're not written
yet. If I use your logic, no accounting of guns will help society?

You're close. No accounting of guns *will* help society.

Tell me how.

Several orders of magnitude more people are helped by guns than are harmed by
them.


You're still an idiot.


Yeah ... LOL

Only a moron laughs at being an idiot.

You're IQ is showing.

Sorry Dilbert, you've already claimed position of "clapper of the bell curve".

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:26:52 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:48:56 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:14:50 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 00:14:24 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Doug wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:20:38 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


You miss my point... the laws aren't working or they're not written
yet. If I use your logic, no accounting of guns will help society?
Tell me how.

the laws are working, but criminals don't care what the laws are,
that's why they are criminals
You can pass all the laws you want, but criminals don't care. The laws
only effect LAW ABIDING citizens.
Prison statitics show that 99% of inmates/criminals support gun
control. Can you guess why?



I don't think some of the laws are working for different reasons. I'm
not saying criminal laws don't need revising but gun laws need it too.

You haven't even stated why gun laws need revising, moron. I would agree, but
I don't think you have abolishing them, in mind.

Also I got thinking about how people compare # of car deaths to gun
deaths. I think a lot of car deaths are due to accidents but can we
say the same thing about gun deaths?

There are accidental gun deaths, just as there are intentional automobile
deaths. So? How many people are saved by guns? Cars?

Intentional auto deaths? Hmmm.....

Certainly. Suicide, running down pedestrians. Drunk driving. All sorts of
intentional homicides.

Even if true, you think the numbers are equal ?

How many people's lives are saved by an automobile?

And why don't you stop with "stupid" and "moron"
and just talk straight or is that beyond your IQ level?

I just call you what you are. I can't help it if you take offense at the
obvious.