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

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.

By your logic, since the current laws don't work, let's put in even MORE of
the same type of laws in the (vain) hope that this will (somehow magically)
work better.
Isn't that the definition of insanity
To keep doing the same thing over and over in the same way, in the hope
that this time the result will be different ?

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


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

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

wrote:

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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

On your way, boi

"Doug" wrote in message
...
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.

Let's make a simple equation for you
Crime is committed by criminals
Eliminate criminals and you eliminate crime
Criminals use guns to commit crime
Eliminate guns, and you still have criminals and crime

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:41:54 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:08:00 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:14:34 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 07:48:29 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:48:22 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:21:45 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:11:08 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:02:54 -0400, "
wrote:

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:
snip

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".


Whatever.

I'm glad you finally agree.

Didn't say that.

You did but you never know what you say; too stupid.


:-)

At least we agree, once again.


How could I agree, if by your words, I'm stupid ?

Your words show how stupid you are. I'm simply pointing out what is obvious
to others.

Guess I'm too stupid to understand that too.

Once again, we agree.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 19:11:45 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
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.


3 really good sites for you to study and read through
guncite.com
gunfacts.info
jpfo.org
There's more but if you follow up their references, your education on the
subject will be high enough to make you start reading more serious
literature on the subject

Dingbat Doug has already stated that he has no interest in learning anything
about the issue. He just wants to DO SOMETHING.

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.


What's so smart chasing after the law-abiding and limiting their rights and
ability to defend themselves in the hope that magically criminals will be
motivated to not commit crime
That's as intelligent as making purchasing cars more difficult in the hope
of cutting down on drunk drivers

Good analogy. ...except, of course, that cars aren't written into the
Constitution.

HELLO ???



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.



That brings us to the next point
History clearly shows that gun-control is an intrusive step-by-step process
that keeps putting one more and more restrictions on the law-abiding while
having no effect on criminals
See the last 100 years of gun-control in Canada and England
Study the increase on gun-control and the LACK of decrease of crime
In England the most recent restriction on handguns actually led to a
very noticeable crease in ALL crime.

Dingbat Doug doesn't care. One gun death is too many, even if they save a
thousand.

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... .

A lot of people (about 2,500,000 annually) depend on a gun to AVOID being
the victim of a criminal

Again, Dingbat Doug doesn't care. "One life is too many".

LOL
Goes to show how little you know about the differences between "car control"
and "gun control"

If you change the current laws to be equal to guns
1) I could walk into any gun store ANYWHERE in the country and buy a gun
without a background check or a license needed
2) I could take that gun home and shoot it on my property without
registration and license
3) I would only need a license to take it out in public, and then
effectively could take it anywhere including buildings
4) I could mail order a car online, no questions or papers required
5) Even a minor could own or purchase a gun, as long as they had money to
pay for it.
And that is just the first 5 differences
And there are more


YOU REALLY REALLY need to educate yourself and soon.

He's already stated that he refuses to educate himself. That's why I said
he's STUPID (willful ignorance).

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

Let's make a simple equation for you
Crime is committed by criminals
Eliminate criminals and you eliminate crime
Criminals use guns to commit crime
Eliminate guns, and you still have criminals and crime

Not fair! You're using real math - or at least the logic of it.

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:32:55 -0700, Oren wrote:

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.

I never said you couldn't open carry. AZ allows both open and
concealed now without a permit. What I did say was that as liberal
as the rules are in AZ there are still "gotcha's" you have to watch
out for, esp if you want to take your gun into a building.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:39:38 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:39:26 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:00:25 -0400, "
wrote:

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

wrote:

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

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

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



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

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


I did say also "better regulation" in case of conflicting words that
are on the books now. In an earlier post elsewhere I went as far as
saying to wipe the words clean and rewrite them to try to avoid
conflicts. I do admit, this is not easy to do but I still think we
should try rather than do nothing. Of course this is my belief.

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

Won't happen.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
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.

Your post is wrong on several levels.

First, the Constitution is completely silent on the subject of
interpretation. This is an aspect of the judiciary system that the court
took on by fiat in Marbury v. Madison in 1803. (You really should keep
up.)


Marbury was a logical result, derived from the notion that the courts have 2
functions
Applicability of the law in cases
Review of the law in said cases

I know of no case where SCOTUS specifically referred to the 2nd Amendment
as applying only to a "militia." Had it ever done so, we would be in good
shape inasmuch as the definition of "militia" in 1791 meant "Every
able-bodied man and boy capable of bearing arms in defense." It did NOT
mean an organized fighting body; it meant EVERY citizen capable of
fighting (with exceptions, such as the infirm, women, and slaves).


Which definition has been expanded since then, and nonetheless includes just
about ANYONE with few exceptions who declares a desire to be part of the
militia


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

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


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

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Doug wrote:


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.

Okay, I'll play.

Define "responsible owner."

Presumably you'd insist on someone demonstrating "responsibility" before
they were able to obtain a firearm. How would he do that?

Even if you could determine, in advance, whether someone would be
responsible, you've changed the definition. Currently, everyone is
eligible to own a gun until or unless they violate some law or rule. In
your world, everyone would be prohibited from owning a firearm unless they
could demonstrate "responsibility."


It's like New York State, that until you have a permit to purchase, you can
NOT even go into a store to handle the gun that interests you
How can one decide which gun fits ones hand to make a purchasing decision,
if you are required to make such a decision BEFORE learning if it fits or
not
It's a catch-22 law and should be repealed

"Doug" wrote in message
...
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.


Maybe the update you have in mind is the REPEAL of all the laws currently on
the books, attempting to control guns. Laws which have been shown to be
useless and ineffective
(But I doubt that is what you really had in mind)



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.

Naturally you wouldn't agree, when you have clearly stated that your agenda
is to disarm people one way or another

"willshak" wrote in message
...
Harry K wrote the following on 8/12/2012 11:04 AM (ET):
On Aug 11, 2:22 pm, "David Kaye" wrote:
The gun nuts claim to follow the Constitution, but the Constitution
makes
VERY CLEAR that the laws are subject to interpretation by the Supreme
Court,
and it is THEIR DECISION as to what a particular clause actually means.

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

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

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

Harry K

"Stop In The Name Of Love"?



I think that applies to the rhythm method as applied by teenagers

"Harry K" wrote in message
...
On Aug 11, 4:39 pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:00:25 -0400, "

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

wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 21:20:33 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:

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

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

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


You can, it's called a time bomb. If all such portable time keeping
apparatus was kept out of the hands of the public no one could make
time bombs.

Hell, in some places they use cell phones for that purpose.
Maybe cinemas should also ban cell phones because of that




Gun-control a notion equivalent to the idea that restricting access to cars,
will somehow stop drunks from drinking and driving.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
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.. .

SO you're willing to abrogate the constitutional right to privacy ?
You know the part about people being secure in their property ?
Read this:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-34.pdf


I keep
saying I believe people have a right to guns but I don't want certain
types to have those same rights.

Good than leave guns and their lawful owners alone and go after the people
you believe should not have guns

People seem to want to put a twist
on my words or meaning or disect my words out of context.


Nah !
You made your original meaning quite clear
And since then it has been you who's been shucking and jiving to try to
redefine your position



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.

Good
Let's start by repealing ALL such laws and start from the ground up with an
honest discussion of the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
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.



You dropped nearly $1 Billion on the cost of the Canadian Long Gun Registry

"Doug" wrote in message
...
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?

So are you claiming that a person killed by accident is less dead than one
killed by criminal intent ?
If most deaths with a gun involved are due to criminal activity and not
accidental usage, they it would follow that you should be worried about
criminals and their activity.
But you clearly are not, since you keep trying to argue that you need
to control the non-criminal use of guns
Can you not see the basic fallacy of your position ?

"G. Morgan" wrote in message
...
Stormin Mormon wrote:

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

$200 tax to the BATF and three months waiting on paperwork and anyone
legally allowed to own a firearm can buy a class 3 weapon. Have a
machine gun if you want, they aint cheap though.

http://www.impactguns.com/machine-guns.aspx


But if the argument that military weapons (true Assault rifles) are the
most protected, then the NFA and other restrictions on such weapons,
including the $200 tax become unconstitutional.

I'd go with that idea.

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

"Atila Iskander" wrote in message
...

But if the argument that military weapons (true Assault rifles) are the
most protected, then the NFA and other restrictions on such weapons,
including the $200 tax become unconstitutional.

"willshak" wrote in message
...
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.



My M14 has a nut
It's so important that it's even called a "Castle Nut"

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 22:29:10 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:41:54 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:08:00 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:14:34 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 07:48:29 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:48:22 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:21:45 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:11:08 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:02:54 -0400, "
wrote:

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:
snip

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".


Whatever.

I'm glad you finally agree.

Didn't say that.

You did but you never know what you say; too stupid.


:-)

At least we agree, once again.


How could I agree, if by your words, I'm stupid ?

Your words show how stupid you are. I'm simply pointing out what is obvious
to others.

Guess I'm too stupid to understand that too.

Once again, we agree.


NO. Frankly quoting laws is stupid so that makes you just as stupid.
I don't have to be a lawyer to know that the handling of guns needs to
change.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:47:11 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Aug 16, 2:41*pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:08:00 -0400, "





wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:14:34 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 07:48:29 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:48:22 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:21:45 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:11:08 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:02:54 -0400, "
wrote:

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:
snip

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".

Whatever.

I'm glad you finally agree.

Didn't say that.

You did but you never know what you say; too stupid.

:-)

At least we agree, once again.

How could I agree, if by your words, I'm stupid ? * Guess I'm too
stupid to understand that too.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'd say when you clearly know nothing about current
gun laws and you propose passing more laws,
specifically targeting LEGAL gun owners rather than
the criminals using illegal guns, that qualifies you as
too stupid to understand just about anything.

It's like a customer driving in to a mechanic with
a car with a flat tire and the mechanic going to work
on the radio.


Regardless what laws there are or are not, gun control has to change.
I don't want us to live in the wild west.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:13:33 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:47:11 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Aug 16, 2:41*pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:08:00 -0400, "





wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:14:34 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 07:48:29 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:48:22 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:21:45 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:11:08 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:02:54 -0400, "
wrote:

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:
snip

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".

Whatever.

I'm glad you finally agree.

Didn't say that.

You did but you never know what you say; too stupid.

:-)

At least we agree, once again.

How could I agree, if by your words, I'm stupid ? * Guess I'm too
stupid to understand that too.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'd say when you clearly know nothing about current
gun laws and you propose passing more laws,
specifically targeting LEGAL gun owners rather than
the criminals using illegal guns, that qualifies you as
too stupid to understand just about anything.

It's like a customer driving in to a mechanic with
a car with a flat tire and the mechanic going to work
on the radio.


Regardless what laws there are or are not, gun control has to change.

Wrong, of course.

I don't want us to live in the wild west.

Bye!

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:54:23 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 22:29:10 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:41:54 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:08:00 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:14:34 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 07:48:29 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:48:22 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:21:45 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:11:08 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:02:54 -0400, "
wrote:

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:
snip

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".


Whatever.

I'm glad you finally agree.

Didn't say that.

You did but you never know what you say; too stupid.


:-)

At least we agree, once again.


How could I agree, if by your words, I'm stupid ?

Your words show how stupid you are. I'm simply pointing out what is obvious
to others.

Guess I'm too stupid to understand that too.

Once again, we agree.


NO. Frankly quoting laws is stupid so that makes you just as stupid.

You really are nuts!

I don't have to be a lawyer to know that the handling of guns needs to
change.

You're wrong, and stupid, but that's news to no one here.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:17:29 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
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?

So are you claiming that a person killed by accident is less dead than one
killed by criminal intent ?
If most deaths with a gun involved are due to criminal activity and not
accidental usage, they it would follow that you should be worried about
criminals and their activity.
But you clearly are not, since you keep trying to argue that you need
to control the non-criminal use of guns
Can you not see the basic fallacy of your position ?

Of course not. The moron can't see his nose.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:54:07 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


Naturally you wouldn't agree, when you have clearly stated that your agenda
is to disarm people one way or another

Liberals think they have no moral obligation to protect their family
or themselves.
--

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:54:23 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

I don't have to be a lawyer to know that the handling of guns needs to
change.

Right. Just buy an ambidextrous handgun.
--

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:13:33 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

Regardless what laws there are or are not, gun control has to change.
I don't want us to live in the wild west.

Don't move to Chicago, then.
--

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 22:29:10 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:41:54 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:08:00 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:14:34 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 07:48:29 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:48:22 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:21:45 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:11:08 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:02:54 -0400, "
wrote:

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:
snip

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".


Whatever.

I'm glad you finally agree.

Didn't say that.

You did but you never know what you say; too stupid.


:-)

At least we agree, once again.


How could I agree, if by your words, I'm stupid ?

Your words show how stupid you are. I'm simply pointing out what is
obvious
to others.

Guess I'm too stupid to understand that too.

Once again, we agree.


NO. Frankly quoting laws is stupid so that makes you just as stupid.

But if you want to discuss laws and changing them, then quoting law is the
PROPER way to proceed
AND ONLY someone who is NOT into HONEST discussion would claim it stupid

I don't have to be a lawyer to know that the handling of guns needs to
change.

Not really
As long as you respect the 4 rules of proper gun handling, you have just
about eliminated the possibility of an accident
No need to change those "laws" at all
On the other hand if your CLEARLY STATED agenda, is to take guns away from
everyone, as YOU have repeatedly stated, then yes you would need to espouse
changing laws.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 02:13:44 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

AZ allows both open and
concealed now without a permit. What I did say was that as liberal
as the rules are in AZ there are still "gotcha's" you have to watch
out for, esp if you want to take your gun into a building.

Stay away from the "gotcha's" or get work to change the gotcha laws.
--

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:47:11 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Aug 16, 2:41 pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:08:00 -0400, "





wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:14:34 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 07:48:29 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:48:22 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:21:45 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:11:08 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:02:54 -0400, "
wrote:

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:
snip

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".

Whatever.

I'm glad you finally agree.

Didn't say that.

You did but you never know what you say; too stupid.

:-)

At least we agree, once again.

How could I agree, if by your words, I'm stupid ? Guess I'm too
stupid to understand that too.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'd say when you clearly know nothing about current
gun laws and you propose passing more laws,
specifically targeting LEGAL gun owners rather than
the criminals using illegal guns, that qualifies you as
too stupid to understand just about anything.

It's like a customer driving in to a mechanic with
a car with a flat tire and the mechanic going to work
on the radio.


Regardless what laws there are or are not, gun control has to change.
I don't want us to live in the wild west.

Funny you should raise that point
First off, the image of the "Wild West", shootout in corrals, and all that
nonsense, is PURE HOLLYWOOD FICTION.
The so-called Wild West was actually quite safe and peacefully.

Secondly, there was a study done on a town called Bodie, Ca, which was
involved in the Gold and silver rush of California in the late 1800s
Here's a reference to it:
http://www.guncite.com/wild_west_myth.html

And even though EVERYONE was armed, and the town was full of young single
men, there was less crime there than in the East Coast cities and towns
that were FAR MORE strictly gun controlled.
Why do you think that is ??

"Doug" wrote in message
...


Regardless what laws there are or are not, gun control has to change.
I don't want us to live in the wild west.

Funny you should raise that point
First off, the image of the "Wild West", shootout in corrals, and all that
nonsense, is PURE HOLLYWOOD FICTION.
The so-called Wild West was actually quite safe and peacefully.

Secondly, there was a study done on a town called Bodie, Ca, which was
involved in the Gold and silver rush of California in the late 1800s
Here's a reference to it:
http://www.guncite.com/wild_west_myth.html

And even though EVERYONE was armed, and the town was full of young single
men, there was less crime there than in the East Coast cities and towns
that were FAR MORE strictly gun controlled.
Why do you think that is ??


Oh and by the way, strict gun-control Chicago has the equivalent of ONE
Aurora, CO. shooting every 10 days so far this year
Looks like Chicago is much closer to your Hollywood fantasy of the "Wild
West"
And yet Chicago is one of the STRICTEST gun-control cities in the US.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:29:54 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:54:07 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


Naturally you wouldn't agree, when you have clearly stated that your agenda
is to disarm people one way or another

Liberals think they have no moral obligation to protect their family
or themselves.

"That's what government is for."

On Aug 16, 7:59*am, "
wrote:
On Aug 13, 11:00*pm, "Doug" wrote:


GIANT SNIP

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. *- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's not that anyone is missing your point. *It's that
you don't have a point. * And my logic does not say
that no accounting of guns will help society. *I never
said that or anything that could be interpreted that
way. *What I said was:

A - You obviously are clueless regarding existing
gun laws, crimes committed with guns, crimes
prevented with guns, etc

B - Yet given the above, you're here demanding more
regulation of guns.

C - And inexplicably, you want to start with more
laws for LEGAL gun owners first. *Not the criminals
that are committing crimes using illegal weapons.
You actually want to start with the legal gun owners.

The last part, IMO, qualifies you as the village idiot.


Kinda hard to argue with the logic of these points....

cheers
Bob

On Aug 17, 7:54*am, "Doug" wrote:

GIANT SNIP

I don't have to be a lawyer to know that the handling of guns needs to
change.

You are not knowledgeable of current gun laws or gun use / misuse
statistics.

None the less, I await your well thought out suggestions.......

cheers
Bob

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

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

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

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

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

cheers
Bob

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:41:10 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:13:33 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

Regardless what laws there are or are not, gun control has to change.
I don't want us to live in the wild west.

Don't move to Chicago, then.

Where they *have* gun laws that would suit the moron just fine.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:39:21 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:54:23 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

I don't have to be a lawyer to know that the handling of guns needs to
change.

Right. Just buy an ambidextrous handgun.

I'm sure he's already got one. A small one, but still a little hand gun.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:52:28 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .


Regardless what laws there are or are not, gun control has to change.
I don't want us to live in the wild west.

Funny you should raise that point
First off, the image of the "Wild West", shootout in corrals, and all that
nonsense, is PURE HOLLYWOOD FICTION.
The so-called Wild West was actually quite safe and peacefully.

Secondly, there was a study done on a town called Bodie, Ca, which was
involved in the Gold and silver rush of California in the late 1800s
Here's a reference to it:
http://www.guncite.com/wild_west_myth.html

And even though EVERYONE was armed, and the town was full of young single
men, there was less crime there than in the East Coast cities and towns
that were FAR MORE strictly gun controlled.
Why do you think that is ??


Oh and by the way, strict gun-control Chicago has the equivalent of ONE
Aurora, CO. shooting every 10 days so far this year
Looks like Chicago is much closer to your Hollywood fantasy of the "Wild
West"
And yet Chicago is one of the STRICTEST gun-control cities in the US.




Let me get this straight, you take a study about one town and expect
me to believe that every other town at that time to be the same? Gimme
a break.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:58:56 -0400, "
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:13:33 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:47:11 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Aug 16, 2:41*pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:08:00 -0400, "





wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:14:34 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 07:48:29 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:48:22 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:21:45 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:11:08 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:02:54 -0400, "
wrote:

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:
snip

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".

Whatever.

I'm glad you finally agree.

Didn't say that.

You did but you never know what you say; too stupid.

:-)

At least we agree, once again.

How could I agree, if by your words, I'm stupid ? * Guess I'm too
stupid to understand that too.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'd say when you clearly know nothing about current
gun laws and you propose passing more laws,
specifically targeting LEGAL gun owners rather than
the criminals using illegal guns, that qualifies you as
too stupid to understand just about anything.

It's like a customer driving in to a mechanic with
a car with a flat tire and the mechanic going to work
on the radio.


Regardless what laws there are or are not, gun control has to change.

Wrong, of course.

I don't want us to live in the wild west.

Bye!


Finally.... you just made my day !!