On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:53:40 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:

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


Why is crime in particular gun crime going down nationwide? Please
cite the sources.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:00:42 -0400, "
wrote:

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.


Sure resort to name calling because you can't dispute my assertion. Go
back to your hole.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:43:11 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"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.



A change is needed whether its to add, delete, modify or enforce laws.
I have my ideas but there may be better ones or ones that just aren't
being followed.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:46:47 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:

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


Even if I know the law, it doesn't change the facts. Perhaps the laws
are good but not being enforced ??? Whatever but gun control is
needed. I don't want anyone without proper checking, to have a gun.
I'm amazed how many think I want no one to have a gun. That's just
not the case... my thoughts of gun control means to not eliminate
ownership but have better quality controls of them. And then there's
probably one or two people who don't believe me... well how do you
prove your opinion if I'm not in a position of authority to carry out
my thoughts?

Doug wrote:


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.

Sure.

It was you who raised the specter of "Wild West shootouts" and they were
shown, by example, to not be very violent at all.

I recall hearing that Dodge City, during the height of lawlessness, was
still tamer than its contemporaries back east.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:53:06 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

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.



A change is needed whether its to add, delete, modify or enforce laws.
I have my ideas but there may be better ones or ones that just aren't
being followed.

Which change?. Which laws? You did get it right about enforcing the
laws. We have enough of them already. Get specific with what you want;
other than taking guns away, that are legal and a protected right.

Do you feel a moral obligation to protect your family or yourself? Or
do you think the police will arrive on time when only minutes count?
You do know that police have no obligation to protect you, right?

Doug, you are up to your ass with alligators and don't know how to
drain the swamp.
--

On Aug 17, 2:01*pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:46:47 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:

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

Even if I know the law, it doesn't change the facts. *Perhaps the laws
are good but not being enforced ??? * *Whatever but gun control is
needed. * I don't want anyone without proper checking, to have a gun.
I'm amazed how many think I want no one to have a gun. *That's just
not the case... my thoughts of gun control means to not eliminate
ownership but have better quality controls of them. * And then there's
probably one or two people who don't believe me... well how do you
prove your opinion if I'm not in a position of authority to carry out
my thoughts?

Doug-

I don't see how your situation can be improved......

You don't know the existing laws, you don't know the existing stats,
you don't know what works & what doesn't.
You are making suggestions for "change" but you don't know really know
the existing conditions.
You position & suggestions seem to be based on guesses & feelings.
Clearly not a science or logic background.

You what "better quality controls"..... a lofty goal but based on
what?

I think the saddest thing is.... you cannot see the fallacy of your
position & faults in your logic.

I guess the best you can do is "hope for change".

One last time....research the stats, try to educate yourself.

cheers
Bob

On Aug 17, 1:44*pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:53:40 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:









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

Why is crime in particular gun crime going down nationwide? * Please
cite the sources.


Why is crime in particular gun crime going down nationwide?

Huh? Missing some punctuatin?

Please cite the sources.

The man who is self-admittedly ignorant of gun laws & crime stats asks
someone else to do the work.
Do your own homework.

cheers
Bob

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:01:31 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

I'm amazed how many think I want no one to have a gun. That's just
not the case...

You said here, very clearly. I pointed this out to you when you tried
to pull the wool over our eyes. Read what you wrote. Read when it was
pointed out to you by others. It was your words. We did not make them
up.

Tell you what, we can freeze all the criminals. Then put them orbit
around the earth. When we find a solution to crime we can bring them
back and administer the cure.
--

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:46:47 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:

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


Even if I know the law, it doesn't change the facts. Perhaps the laws
are good but not being enforced ???

Poor dougie
Reduced to parrot mode- repeating the same admission of ignorance over and
over again.



Whatever but gun control is needed.

Since gun-control has been demonstrate in 2 separate and independent studies
by the CDC and NAS, what is the point of having gun-control ?

Basically what you are doing is a variant of:
"This is the conclusion to which I'm trying to find facts"
The trouble is that the facts we already have demonstrate that your indented
conclusion is WRONG, USELESS, and provides NO RESULTS


I don't want anyone without proper checking, to have a gun.

Why ?
People with "proper" checking have had NO problems getting and misusing
guns
Are you naïve enough to imagine that more of the same will somehow magically
become a success ?
Insanity is defined as doing the same thing in the hope that someday it
will work.

I'm amazed how many think I want no one to have a gun.

Since you have CLEARLY stated that in your very first post and have
re-iterated a variant of that after you were called on it, there is NO
REASON to believe that you really, really didn't mean it.
It's called a Freudian slip.



That's just not the case...
my thoughts of gun control means to not eliminate
ownership but have better quality controls of them.

Been tried elsewhere- didn't work
NEXT !


And then there's probably one or two people
who don't believe me...
well how do you prove your opinion if I'm not
in a position of authority to carry out my thoughts?

That's REAL easy
YOU EDUCATE YOURSELF on PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS
LOOK AT what was done and the results that were gotten
Had you done that in the first place, you wouldn't be here blathering about
wanting more gun-control

There's a reason why you're getting smacked down
You're NOT the first ignorant idiot to show up with IDENTICAL augments
Most of the regulars have been through this process MULTIPLE times
hearing the same pie-in-the sky-wouldn't- it-be-nice nonsense
Been there, DONE that.


I already gave you 3 web sites for you to read and educate yourself
They will CLEARLY show to you that you're way out in left field without
a clue, in a field FULL of clues

"Doug" wrote in message
...



Why is crime in particular gun crime going down nationwide? Please
cite the sources.

What's "gun crime" ?
I've NEVER heard of a SINGLE gun committing a crime...
Maybe you need to start with a better vocabulary.
That's always a good first step, but naturally it does requires that you do
some reading BEFORE you come back to demonstrate how clueless you are.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
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.

I already DID give you a break, dummy
I already gave you 3 web sites where you could start your education on the
subject
Instead, you're still here being stupid.

As I said elsewhere, the so-called "Wild West" was a fictional creation by
pulp writers and Hollywood
Your ignorance is not really my problem

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:00:42 -0400, "
wrote:

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.


Sure resort to name calling because you can't dispute my assertion. Go
back to your hole.

Actually, it's NOT "name calling"
It's a factual description of your level of knowledge
Do you know the difference between ignorant and stupid
"Stupid is just ignorant refusing to learn"

Ignorance is always forgiven is the individual makes an effort to correct it
Stupid is contemptible specifcally because the individual CHOOSES to
remain ignorant, And worse, keeps foisting it on others

You have been given the means to learn
Go to it, or accept being considered stupid

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:43:11 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"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.



A change is needed whether its to add, delete, modify or enforce laws.
I have my ideas but there may be better ones or ones that just aren't
being followed.

Since your ideas are based on abyssal ignorance (that you have demonstrated
here), don't expect to be taken very seriously

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:53:06 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

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.



A change is needed whether its to add, delete, modify or enforce laws.
I have my ideas but there may be better ones or ones that just aren't
being followed.

Which change?. Which laws? You did get it right about enforcing the
laws. We have enough of them already. Get specific with what you want;
other than taking guns away, that are legal and a protected right.

Do you feel a moral obligation to protect your family or yourself? Or
do you think the police will arrive on time when only minutes count?
You do know that police have no obligation to protect you, right?

Doug, you are up to your ass with alligators and don't know how to
drain the swamp.


He's not even smart enough to get to the shore

" wrote in
:

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

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!


the so-called "Wild West" was actually a pretty calm and safe place,because
many people carried guns,in normal daily life. People left their doors
unlocked,women were safe,there was low crime. People also were very POLITE
to each other. Few people mouthed off to a person who carried a gun.
The media of that day sensationalized the few robberies and shootouts that
mostly occurred in saloons and other bad places,just as today's media
sensationalizes many tragedies.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

" wrote in
:

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.

Norway has strict gun control and they STILL had the recent Norway mass
murder by Anders Brevik. Australia had their Port Arthur under strict gun
control,and UK had their Dunblaine under strict gun control.


Insanity is doing the same thing over and over,expecting different results
each time. Proglodytes never learn.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Doug wrote:

A change is needed whether its to add, delete, modify or enforce laws.
I have my ideas but there may be better ones or ones that just aren't
being followed.

Okay, I'll play.

Why are changes [in gun laws] needed? I'm not being silly, just curious.

You may, for example, respond "To cut down on the amount of gun deaths."

If you do, I'll put forth my next question: "And why, exactly, it
diminishing the number of gun deaths a good idea?" And no, it is not
obvious.

Or we could go in an alternate direction. You tell us exactly, and I do mean
EXACTLY what changes in laws involving guns you would support. Before you
do, however, consider carefully the unintended consequences of the law.

Let's take an example to illustrate. You might say, "Well, anyone that's
mentally ill must be reported to a centralized database that can be queried
before a gun sale." Leaving aside the obvious right to privacy issue, this
kind of law would certainly discourage the mentally ill from seeking
treatment. So, then, you would have to choose between having unmedicated
manic-depressives wandering about or preventing someone with a chicken (not
all chickens, just white ones) phobia from purchasing a gun.

So, let's play. By that I mean it is insufficient to say "Somebody has to do
something!" I'm asking what is it you want "them" to do?

Show your work.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:41:28 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

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 !!

*YOU* said you wanted to leave, moron! So *LEAVE* already!

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 19:00:39 -0500, Jim Yanik wrote:

" wrote in
:

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.

Norway has strict gun control and they STILL had the recent Norway mass
murder by Anders Brevik. Australia had their Port Arthur under strict gun
control,and UK had their Dunblaine under strict gun control.


Insanity is doing the same thing over and over,expecting different results
each time. Proglodytes never learn.

But they keep winning elections.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:40:51 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

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.

No, we really don't expect you to learn anything, ever. You're too stupid.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:44:40 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:53:40 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:

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


Why is crime in particular gun crime going down nationwide? Please
cite the sources.

You've already stated that you wouldn't read them. Here, show us that you've
changed your (teensy) mind:

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less...uns+less+crime

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:46:07 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:00:42 -0400, "
wrote:

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.


Sure resort to name calling because you can't dispute my assertion. Go
back to your hole.

You ****ing moron. We've been disputing your stupid assertion for over a
week. You admit that you refuse to learn, so there isn't any downside to
calling you what you are; a ****ing moron. No name calling at all; fact.

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:54:00 -0400, "
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:46:07 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:00:42 -0400, "
wrote:

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.


Sure resort to name calling because you can't dispute my assertion. Go
back to your hole.

You ****ing moron. We've been disputing your stupid assertion for over a
week. You admit that you refuse to learn, so there isn't any downside to
calling you what you are; a ****ing moron. No name calling at all; fact.


Thanks for proving my point !!!!

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:22:06 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:53:06 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

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.



A change is needed whether its to add, delete, modify or enforce laws.
I have my ideas but there may be better ones or ones that just aren't
being followed.

Which change?. Which laws? You did get it right about enforcing the
laws. We have enough of them already. Get specific with what you want;
other than taking guns away, that are legal and a protected right.

Do you feel a moral obligation to protect your family or yourself? Or
do you think the police will arrive on time when only minutes count?
You do know that police have no obligation to protect you, right?

Doug, you are up to your ass with alligators and don't know how to
drain the swamp.


Because people put words in my mouth. I don't want to take guns away
from all, just the nuts so to speak. I just saw a commercial from the
NRA and it said that Hillary wants people to register guns with the UN
and "you know what that means".... implying that they want to take
your guns away. Well I don't but it's hard to make people believe me
here because they want to slant what I say or put words in my post.
Sure maybe one or two posts weren't worded as good as they should have
been but based on the number of posts I made, I thought I made my
opinion clear. Guess not.... I think I give up in posting on this
topic but not in my beliefs.

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:49:58 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

Because people put words in my mouth. I don't want to take guns away
from all, just the nuts so to speak. I just saw a commercial from the
NRA and it said that Hillary wants people to register guns with the UN
and "you know what that means".... implying that they want to take
your guns away. Well I don't but it's hard to make people believe me
here because they want to slant what I say or put words in my post.
Sure maybe one or two posts weren't worded as good as they should have
been but based on the number of posts I made, I thought I made my
opinion clear. Guess not.... I think I give up in posting on this
topic but not in my beliefs.

In case you don't know, Hillary can kiss my ass. As for the UN, we
should cut money off and send those fools home.

Ask locally if you can sit-in and audit a firearms training class for
CCW. You will not have to touch a gun and get gun cooties on you. You
might learn something that makes sense. You know like learning the
LAW(S).
--

On Aug 18, 3:43*pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:54:00 -0400, "

GIANT SNIP

You ****ing moron. We've been disputing your stupid assertion for over a
week. You admit that you refuse to learn, so there isn't any downside to
calling you what you are; a ****ing moron. No name calling at all; fact.


Thanks for proving my point !!!!


Sorry Doug.....krw's post doesn't not prove your point.
It only serves to illustrate his frustration with your lack of
capacity to understand & absorb logical argument.

I am totally conflicted with respect to your interaction in this
newsgroup.
I feel ultimately sorry for your employer but hope he does not
discover your lack ability.....lest you become a ward of the state. :
(

cheers
Bob

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:49:58 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

I think I give up in posting on this
topic but not in my beliefs.

Before you do, please tell me if you feel a moral obligation to
protect your family from lawlessness.

I ask you before but you avoided giving me an answer.
--

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:43:50 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:54:00 -0400, "
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:46:07 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:00:42 -0400, "
wrote:

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.


Sure resort to name calling because you can't dispute my assertion. Go
back to your hole.

You ****ing moron. We've been disputing your stupid assertion for over a
week. You admit that you refuse to learn, so there isn't any downside to
calling you what you are; a ****ing moron. No name calling at all; fact.


Thanks for proving my point !!!!

That you're a moron? You're welcome.

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:05:00 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:49:58 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

Because people put words in my mouth. I don't want to take guns away
from all, just the nuts so to speak. I just saw a commercial from the
NRA and it said that Hillary wants people to register guns with the UN
and "you know what that means".... implying that they want to take
your guns away. Well I don't but it's hard to make people believe me
here because they want to slant what I say or put words in my post.
Sure maybe one or two posts weren't worded as good as they should have
been but based on the number of posts I made, I thought I made my
opinion clear. Guess not.... I think I give up in posting on this
topic but not in my beliefs.

In case you don't know, Hillary can kiss my ass. As for the UN, we
should cut money off and send those fools home.

Ask locally if you can sit-in and audit a firearms training class for
CCW. You will not have to touch a gun and get gun cooties on you. You
might learn something that makes sense. You know like learning the
LAW(S).

He's **** when the brought one into the room.

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:10:27 -0400, "
wrote:

brought one into the room.

(another group) ... you might like this video.

Put aside your girly-man assault rifles and shoot the largest center
fire rifle ever made, the .950 JDJ by SSK Industries (Ohio).

This was the lightest, the carbine version, weighing in at 50 lbs. It
shoots a .95 caliber 2,400 grain bullet at 2,100 fps using 240 grains
of powder, which generates 25,400 f/lbs of muzzle energy and 277 f/lbs
of recoil energy.

Each round costs $40.

http://www.staged.com/video?v=q0eb

Hold on :-\
--

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:05:00 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:49:58 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

Because people put words in my mouth. I don't want to take guns away
from all, just the nuts so to speak. I just saw a commercial from the
NRA and it said that Hillary wants people to register guns with the UN
and "you know what that means".... implying that they want to take
your guns away. Well I don't but it's hard to make people believe me
here because they want to slant what I say or put words in my post.
Sure maybe one or two posts weren't worded as good as they should have
been but based on the number of posts I made, I thought I made my
opinion clear. Guess not.... I think I give up in posting on this
topic but not in my beliefs.

In case you don't know, Hillary can kiss my ass. As for the UN, we
should cut money off and send those fools home.

Ask locally if you can sit-in and audit a firearms training class for
CCW. You will not have to touch a gun and get gun cooties on you. You
might learn something that makes sense. You know like learning the
LAW(S).


This doesn't change my mind of what I've said previously but I do NOT
favor doing this with the UN. Perhaps we have some ground we agree on
even if not much on this topic.

" wrote in
:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 19:00:39 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
m:

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.

Norway has strict gun control and they STILL had the recent Norway
mass murder by Anders Brevik. Australia had their Port Arthur under
strict gun control,and UK had their Dunblaine under strict gun
control.


Insanity is doing the same thing over and over,expecting different
results each time. Proglodytes never learn.

But they keep winning elections.

because,a long time ago(early 1900s)"progressives" targeted education for
their socialist indoctrination efforts. it's paid off for them,and we are
now seeing the results.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:25:43 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Aug 17, 2:01*pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:46:47 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:

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

Even if I know the law, it doesn't change the facts. *Perhaps the laws
are good but not being enforced ??? * *Whatever but gun control is
needed. * I don't want anyone without proper checking, to have a gun.
I'm amazed how many think I want no one to have a gun. *That's just
not the case... my thoughts of gun control means to not eliminate
ownership but have better quality controls of them. * And then there's
probably one or two people who don't believe me... well how do you
prove your opinion if I'm not in a position of authority to carry out
my thoughts?

Doug-

I don't see how your situation can be improved......

You don't know the existing laws, you don't know the existing stats,
you don't know what works & what doesn't.
You are making suggestions for "change" but you don't know really know
the existing conditions.
You position & suggestions seem to be based on guesses & feelings.
Clearly not a science or logic background.

You what "better quality controls"..... a lofty goal but based on
what?

I think the saddest thing is.... you cannot see the fallacy of your
position & faults in your logic.

I guess the best you can do is "hope for change".

One last time....research the stats, try to educate yourself.

cheers
Bob


Ok I'll educate myself but I doubt I will change my mind. Yeah, I
like the "hope for change for the better" approach whether I know or
don't know the facts.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:31:13 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:01:31 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

I'm amazed how many think I want no one to have a gun. That's just
not the case...

You said here, very clearly. I pointed this out to you when you tried
to pull the wool over our eyes. Read what you wrote. Read when it was


Please tell me where. Except for one post I can recall which I
admitted to poor wording, I clearly have said I believe people have a
right to guns under certain conditions.



pointed out to you by others. It was your words. We did not make them
up.

Tell you what, we can freeze all the criminals. Then put them orbit
around the earth. When we find a solution to crime we can bring them
back and administer the cure.


I'll say it one more time....I don't want lunatics having guns, others
I have no problem with as long as they follow the laws present or
future. I do advocate for some improvements in gun control.

Now watch how some twist these words above to somehow say I don't want
people to have guns, etc.. .

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:42:41 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:46:47 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:

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


Even if I know the law, it doesn't change the facts. Perhaps the laws
are good but not being enforced ???

Poor dougie
Reduced to parrot mode- repeating the same admission of ignorance over and
over again.



Whatever but gun control is needed.

Since gun-control has been demonstrate in 2 separate and independent studies
by the CDC and NAS, what is the point of having gun-control ?

Basically what you are doing is a variant of:
"This is the conclusion to which I'm trying to find facts"
The trouble is that the facts we already have demonstrate that your indented
conclusion is WRONG, USELESS, and provides NO RESULTS


I don't want anyone without proper checking, to have a gun.

Why ?
People with "proper" checking have had NO problems getting and misusing
guns
Are you naïve enough to imagine that more of the same will somehow magically
become a success ?
Insanity is defined as doing the same thing in the hope that someday it
will work.

I'm amazed how many think I want no one to have a gun.

Since you have CLEARLY stated that in your very first post and have
re-iterated a variant of that after you were called on it, there is NO
REASON to believe that you really, really didn't mean it.
It's called a Freudian slip.


If you posted on the subject as many times as I did here, you might
make a mistake and that's just what you want to see. Even with my
admitance to poor wording, go by that post and ignor all my other
posts that clearly state my view.... sounds ludicrous.

If you don't want to believe me, suit yourself. I know what I mean
whether I say it this way or another way.


That's just not the case...
my thoughts of gun control means to not eliminate
ownership but have better quality controls of them.

Been tried elsewhere- didn't work
NEXT !


And then there's probably one or two people
who don't believe me...
well how do you prove your opinion if I'm not
in a position of authority to carry out my thoughts?

That's REAL easy
YOU EDUCATE YOURSELF on PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS
LOOK AT what was done and the results that were gotten
Had you done that in the first place, you wouldn't be here blathering about
wanting more gun-control

There's a reason why you're getting smacked down
You're NOT the first ignorant idiot to show up with IDENTICAL augments
Most of the regulars have been through this process MULTIPLE times
hearing the same pie-in-the sky-wouldn't- it-be-nice nonsense
Been there, DONE that.


I already gave you 3 web sites for you to read and educate yourself
They will CLEARLY show to you that you're way out in left field without
a clue, in a field FULL of clues




Ok, I can find just as many sites in favor of gun control as against
citing stats to back up their opinion. Now what ???

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:03:56 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:49:58 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

I think I give up in posting on this
topic but not in my beliefs.

Before you do, please tell me if you feel a moral obligation to
protect your family from lawlessness.

I ask you before but you avoided giving me an answer.


Do you mean for me to carry a gun personally? If I'm asking the
wrong question, then I don't understand the question.

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 21:06:22 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:31:13 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:01:31 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

I'm amazed how many think I want no one to have a gun. That's just
not the case...

You said here, very clearly. I pointed this out to you when you tried
to pull the wool over our eyes. Read what you wrote. Read when it was


Please tell me where. Except for one post I can recall which I
admitted to poor wording, I clearly have said I believe people have a
right to guns under certain conditions.


This is the last time I point out what you said. I'll give the exact
information. You said:

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

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

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

Now you are becoming a liar or a misfit.


pointed out to you by others. It was your words. We did not make them
up.

See what you said and I pointed out? As did others when they saw it.

I'll say it one more time....I don't want lunatics having guns, others
I have no problem with as long as they follow the laws present or
future. I do advocate for some improvements in gun control.

Now watch how some twist these words above to somehow say I don't want
people to have guns, etc.. .

You go Spin Doctor. You DID say it -- on the date and time I just
provided to you.

Just for your silly spin, nobody here wants a "lunatic" to have a gun.

We know what you said and when; we know you have tried to spin it into
something else.

Stop playing games and fess up to what you said.

I pity your family if you don't have the dangling participles to
protect them and die to save them. You do not see a moral reason to do
so.

If you can't follow what you said and defend it, one way or the other
we can't help but pity you. And, I don't.

Tell your lie any gawdamn way you like.
--

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 21:27:57 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:03:56 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:49:58 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

I think I give up in posting on this
topic but not in my beliefs.

Before you do, please tell me if you feel a moral obligation to
protect your family from lawlessness.

I ask you before but you avoided giving me an answer.


Do you mean for me to carry a gun personally? If I'm asking the
wrong question, then I don't understand the question.

Let me break it down for you Doug. DO YOU feel a MORAL obligation to
kill another person to save your family from rape, sodomy, murder,
brutal attack or any other crime that causes great bodily harm, death
and permanent injury to your family?!

Would you take a knife to a gun fight?!

Simple enough questions for you?
--

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:52:10 -0500, Jim Yanik wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 19:00:39 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
:

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.

Norway has strict gun control and they STILL had the recent Norway
mass murder by Anders Brevik. Australia had their Port Arthur under
strict gun control,and UK had their Dunblaine under strict gun
control.


Insanity is doing the same thing over and over,expecting different
results each time. Proglodytes never learn.

But they keep winning elections.

because,a long time ago(early 1900s)"progressives" targeted education for
their socialist indoctrination efforts. it's paid off for them,and we are
now seeing the results.

That doesn't change the fact.