On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 18:25:02 -0700, Oren wrote:

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 :-\

I think Dougie needs one of those.

On 8/18/2012 8:25 PM, Oren wrote:
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 :-\


I wonder if they make a pistol version? O_o

TDD

Oren wrote:

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.


In his own unartful way, I think he was trying to say that no "right" is
absolute. If that's what he meant, he is correct.

When a constitutional right is possibly restricted, the Supreme Court
applies the "strict scrutiny" test. These tests a
* Compelling government interest - something important and necessary, as
opposed to something preferred
* Narrowly tailored - it should affect, and only affect, a specific narrow
attribute
* Least restrictive means - a law should not go beyond the specific target

That's the legal theory, anyway.

This kind of stuff comes into most relief when two rights collide. It is
basic that one person's "right" imposes a "duty" on someone else. If this
resultant "duty" interferes with the second person's "right," some choice
must be made. There's the old maxims "Your right to swing your fist stops
at my nose" and "No one has a right to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre."

In the case of gun ownership, we start with the "right" of everyone to
possess a gun. On top of that, we can add laws restricting that right,
subject to the "strict scrutiny" rules above. For example, a government may
implement a law that those incarcerated in penal institutions may not keep a
gun in their cell. Such a rule would easily meet the three strict scrutiny
tests.

Doug wrote:

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

Make two lists: One in favor of wide-spread gun ownership and one promoting
significant and severe restrictions. On each item in each list, try to
determine whether the attribute is based on demonstrable facts or is based
on "feelings" or "possibilities". Take firearm registration as an example:

Pro-gun: "Registration of firearms will or can lead to confiscation". While
this is a "possibility" and an emotional "fear," it HAS happened in many
parts of the world. Both New York and California have used such lists to
confiscate guns within their jurisdictions. So, then, those who oppose
registration based on the possibility of confiscation are not entirely
off-base.

Anti-gun: "Guns have gun-cooties and merely touching a gun will infect the
handler with an overwhelming desire to shoot babies." It IS true that some
are unable to control their anger or fear and that the availability of a
weapon will give them the ability to act out their rage. The opposition to
guns based on this fact evidences a psychological condition known as
"projection," that is, attributing to others what the subject feels he would
do.

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:48:32 -0700, Oren wrote:

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?


First question is easy to answer... yes. I think it's harder to
answer the 2nd question but on a simple basis I think yes.

I have thought about owning a gun at different times in my life but
for different reasons each time, I decided no for personal reasons.
The fact that I even considered it should show I'm not against gun
ownership but some still won't believe me, even at that. Oh well...

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:35:55 -0700, Oren wrote:

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."



And as I pointed out once or twice after this post, I could have
worded it better. WHY do you ignor my admitance???

I meant it to say .... " I don't want anyone without qualifications "
to own a gun. Do you see the difference???????

And if you don't see my admitance then just go by my multiple other
posts.... clearly you should see for the 100th time, I do not oppose
guns if the gun holder is qualified. I will say it one more time for
you .... I do not want lunatics holding a gun. Is this not simple
enough to understand??????????????????

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:29:20 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Doug wrote:

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

Make two lists: One in favor of wide-spread gun ownership and one promoting
significant and severe restrictions. On each item in each list, try to
determine whether the attribute is based on demonstrable facts or is based
on "feelings" or "possibilities". Take firearm registration as an example:

Pro-gun: "Registration of firearms will or can lead to confiscation". While
this is a "possibility" and an emotional "fear," it HAS happened in many
parts of the world. Both New York and California have used such lists to
confiscate guns within their jurisdictions. So, then, those who oppose
registration based on the possibility of confiscation are not entirely
off-base.

Anti-gun: "Guns have gun-cooties and merely touching a gun will infect the
handler with an overwhelming desire to shoot babies." It IS true that some
are unable to control their anger or fear and that the availability of a
weapon will give them the ability to act out their rage. The opposition to
guns based on this fact evidences a psychological condition known as
"projection," that is, attributing to others what the subject feels he would
do.



Sounds interesting / informative. I could think of a question to
ask here but research should answer it as well.

I'll take my hat off to you vs. many others here... you have a more
calm way of talking on this subject. Too many seem to get hot heads.
Obviously they have strong feelings. Thank you for your calmness.

Doug wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:29:20 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Doug wrote:

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

Make two lists: One in favor of wide-spread gun ownership and one
promoting significant and severe restrictions. On each item in each
list, try to determine whether the attribute is based on
demonstrable facts or is based on "feelings" or "possibilities".
Take firearm registration as an example:

Pro-gun: "Registration of firearms will or can lead to
confiscation". While this is a "possibility" and an emotional
"fear," it HAS happened in many parts of the world. Both New York
and California have used such lists to confiscate guns within their
jurisdictions. So, then, those who oppose registration based on the
possibility of confiscation are not entirely off-base.

Anti-gun: "Guns have gun-cooties and merely touching a gun will
infect the handler with an overwhelming desire to shoot babies." It
IS true that some are unable to control their anger or fear and that
the availability of a weapon will give them the ability to act out
their rage. The opposition to guns based on this fact evidences a
psychological condition known as "projection," that is, attributing
to others what the subject feels he would do.



Sounds interesting / informative. I could think of a question to
ask here but research should answer it as well.

I'll take my hat off to you vs. many others here... you have a more
calm way of talking on this subject. Too many seem to get hot
heads.
Obviously they have strong feelings. Thank you for your calmness.

If every Jewish and anti-Nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser
rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition and the will to usr it, Hitler
would be a lttle known footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:21:59 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

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.



One example !

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:50:27 -0400, "
wrote:

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.


Whatever

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:49:37 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"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






I'll repeat myself.... I don't want lunatics with guns. If you have
a better way to control this, fine.

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:17:58 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:

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


I'll repeat myself.... I don't want lunatics carrying guns. If you
have a better way to control it, that's fine with me.

Doug wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:21:59 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

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.



One example !

"No number of experiments can prove my theory correct, but it only takes one
to prove it wrong." Albert Einstein.

Doug wrote:


I'll repeat myself.... I don't want lunatics with guns. If you have
a better way to control this, fine.

Maybe I'll agree with you, and maybe not. Your simple statement generates a
few questions:

1. Why shouldn't "lunatics" have access to guns? And no, it's not obvious.

2. What is your definition of "lunatic?" Following the dictionary thread:
"lunatic" - someone afflicted with lunacy
"lunacy" - insanity relieved intermittently by periods of
clear-mindedness
"insanity" - unsoundness of mind sufficient... to warrant commitment to a
mental health facility

3. Why should your "wants" or "don't wants" have any traction for the rest
of us?

4. Do you hold that people who go around repeating themselves suffer from a
mental disease or defect so severe as to make them not responsible for their
actions?

ChairMan wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:29:20 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Doug wrote:

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

Make two lists: One in favor of wide-spread gun ownership and one
promoting significant and severe restrictions. On each item in each
list, try to determine whether the attribute is based on
demonstrable facts or is based on "feelings" or "possibilities".
Take firearm registration as an example:

Pro-gun: "Registration of firearms will or can lead to
confiscation". While this is a "possibility" and an emotional
"fear," it HAS happened in many parts of the world. Both New York
and California have used such lists to confiscate guns within their
jurisdictions. So, then, those who oppose registration based on the
possibility of confiscation are not entirely off-base.

Anti-gun: "Guns have gun-cooties and merely touching a gun will
infect the handler with an overwhelming desire to shoot babies." It
IS true that some are unable to control their anger or fear and that
the availability of a weapon will give them the ability to act out
their rage. The opposition to guns based on this fact evidences a
psychological condition known as "projection," that is, attributing
to others what the subject feels he would do.



Sounds interesting / informative. I could think of a question to
ask here but research should answer it as well.

I'll take my hat off to you vs. many others here... you have a more
calm way of talking on this subject. Too many seem to get hot
heads.
Obviously they have strong feelings. Thank you for your calmness.

If every Jewish and anti-Nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser
rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition and the will to usr it, Hitler
would be a lttle known footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic

Many did, but gave them up willingly. Hence the Israeli national motto:
"Never Again".

Doug wrote:


I'll take my hat off to you vs. many others here... you have a more
calm way of talking on this subject. Too many seem to get hot heads.
Obviously they have strong feelings. Thank you for your calmness.

Oh, it's not calmness; I'd call it patience. You seem persuadable, I'm just
stringing you along until you get mugged.

A twist on the old saying popular when Giuliani was mayor of New York: "A
Republican is someone who realizes he hasn't been mugged in a while and
credits the Mayor."

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:11:44 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:49:37 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


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


"Doug" wrote in message
m...


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






I'll repeat myself.... I don't want lunatics with guns.

I don't want you to have a gun, either. You might live long enough to
procreate.

If you have a better way to control this, fine.

Tell them that guns are *scary*! what a maroon!

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:10:41 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:50:27 -0400, "
wrote:

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
m...


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.


Whatever

It really is interesting that the only time you agree with me is when I call
you stupid (you really are). Well, at least you can get that right.

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:52:37 -0400, "
wrote:

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


Plain and simple even for you.... I don't want lunatics carrying guns.
If you have a better method to do this, fine with me. My suggestion
was a form of gun control but if there is a better way, fine.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:53:10 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"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



whatever. I'll explain it so even a person like you can
understand....I don't want lunatics carrying guns. I suggested a
form of gun control but if you have a better way, fine.

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:08:52 -0400, "
wrote:

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.


Now that you got your childish ways done.....
Now let me explain it simple even for you.... I don't want lunatics
carrying guns. I suggested a form of gun control but if you have a
better way, fine.

In article ,
" wrote:

I'll repeat myself.... I don't want lunatics with guns.

I don't want you to have a gun, either. You might live long enough to
procreate.


I don't about that, this is a really hard call to make. On one hand,
you don't want him to have a gun so he might defend himself and live
long enough to procreate. On the other he might accidentally kill
himself cleaning it before he can procreate. Tough call.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:01:04 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:08:52 -0400, "
wrote:

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.


Now that you got your childish ways done.....

When playing with a child... (BTW, an ellipsis only has three dots)

Now let me explain it simple even for you....

Yet too simple for you.

I don't want lunatics carrying guns.

1. No one here cares what you want (or are you too stupid to notice?)
2. There are already restrictions on "lunatics" possessing guns (but you're
too stupid to know that, even though you've been told at least ten times)

I suggested a form of gun control but if you have a better way, fine.

Take away your first amendment rights.

On Aug 20, 5:14*am, "Doug" wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:17:58 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:









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

I'll repeat myself.... *I don't want lunatics carrying guns. *If you
have a better way to control it, that's fine with me.

Doug-

I'll let Hey Bub's clear & patience response serve as my own with this
addition.....

You make simplistic statements but fail to go further (peel the
onion).
You do not consider details required to achieve your desires.
Additionally you fail to consider the "knock-on effects", few actions
occur in a true "single variable" situation.

An ancient engineer (close to 80) I worked with once oft said
"concepts are easy, the devil is in the details"

cheers
Bob

"Doug" wrote in message
...
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.

What a TOTAL crock
YOU came here spewed your ignorant cant and was stupid enough to CLEARLY
state you agenda in your very first post
Your subsequent spin and bull**** has done NOTHING to demonstrate that you
CLEARLY are trying to sell a gun-control agenda, while CLEARLY being
ignorant of the subject


Even with my
admitance to poor wording, go by that post and ignor all my other
posts that clearly state my view.... sounds ludicrous.


Your other posts are just thinly veiled of the same
And your last paragraph below confirms it. (once again)


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


The problem is that we don't only look at what you state
We also look at HOW you state it, and how you SPIN when we point out your
mistakes
You keep coming back to the same thing and are UNABLE to knock down our
rebuttals
And then you whine because you are working to the rule
"this is the conclusion for which I cherry-pick my facts"
and we don't let you get away with it.



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.


Thanks for demonstrating that you CHOOSE to remain ignorant.
You apparently are stupid enough to confuse quantity with quality
So INSTEAD of looking at the facts of EITHER set of sites, and actually
doing the hard work of THINKING about the discrepancies and fallacies that
come up
YOU are just going with the nonsense of "my 3 cites trump your 3 cites"
That just shows that you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer and a waste
of time for a serious discussion

AS I said, you're not worth the effort of a discussion as long as you remain
ignorant



Now what ???



Go ahead and give us those 3 sites that you claim to have
And well point out their bull****

Either that or **** off

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:49:37 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


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


"Doug" wrote in message
m...


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






I'll repeat myself.... I don't want lunatics with guns. If you have
a better way to control this, fine.

Redirection and moving of the goalpost noted

Your way is NOT the better way, since it takes away from EVERYONE who is NOT
a "lunatic"
I'll repeat myself
Your way is NOT the "better way"

On Aug 20, 5:56*am, "Doug" wrote:
GIANT SNIP

Plain and simple even for you.... I don't want lunatics carrying guns.
If you have a better method to do this, fine with me. * My suggestion
was a form of gun control but if there is a better way, fine.

Actually Doug, your stated desire "I don't want lunatics carrying
guns", is just that, a desire.
Unless you have a magic wand, this mere statement of desire is not "a
form of gun control".

HOW to implement that desire would (ideally) start with an
intellectual exercise
that delved into the current situation and considered pros and cons of
changing it (ie adding more laws).

The passage of well crafted law might achieve your desire
but based on 40+ years observing gun control attempts, my money's on
"probably won't help".

Just throwing out simplistic / "feel good" desires does very little
(if anything) to improve the situation.

Tell us how you would craft a plan to achieve your desire?

Here's a good starting point for you...

http://bit.ly/P9dxhl

cheers
Bob

"Doug" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:53:10 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"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



whatever. I'll explain it so even a person like you can
understand....I don't want lunatics carrying guns. I suggested a
form of gun control but if you have a better way, fine.

You suggested way does NOT work
Only a lunatic would continue to do the same thing over and over and
hope that the next time it will work
Guess who the lunatic here actually is
Name has 4 letters.
Starts with "D", ends with "g", and has 2 vowels in between...


Repeating yourself like a parrot has NO traction if you want to convince us
You need to DEMONSTRATE that your solution is ACTUALLY a solution to your
problem
Most of us, unlike you have already spent a great deal of time thinking
about this and working through the questions and answers
You have NOT even bothered to educate yourself, and yet here you are
proposing a solution, when you can't even demonstrate clearly any
understanding of a problem

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

You have NOT even made a point so far
Nor have you in ANY WAY demonstrated that your assertion is valid
ALl you have done is made an assertion and expect is to DISprove it
Doesn't work that way
YOUR assertion - YOU provide the proof

Meanwhile, we have already demonstrated MULTIPLE flaws in your assertion.
All you have done is repeat yourself

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:17:58 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:

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


I'll repeat myself.... I don't want lunatics carrying guns. If you
have a better way to control it, that's fine with me.

Yes we know that you are capable of doing the parrot
Your way is not even demonstrated
ALl you're doing is being a parrot, and a very stupid one at that.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:08:52 -0400, "
wrote:

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.


Now that you got your childish ways done.....
Now let me explain it simple even for you.... I don't want lunatics
carrying guns. I suggested a form of gun control but if you have a
better way, fine.

The only ****ing moron here is the idiot doing the parrot
That's you
You seem INCAPABLE and UNWILLING to provide a HOW to do it
Also HOW your solution will actually work

YOU are the one reduced to stupidly repeat yourself.

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 23:21:11 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:35:55 -0700, Oren wrote:

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."



And as I pointed out once or twice after this post, I could have
worded it better. WHY do you ignor my admitance???


I'm not ignoring it. It is important to be know sure if what you say
is what you mean.

I meant it to say .... " I don't want anyone without qualifications "
to own a gun. Do you see the difference???????


Define "qualifications".

And if you don't see my admitance then just go by my multiple other
posts.... clearly you should see for the 100th time, I do not oppose
guns if the gun holder is qualified. I will say it one more time for
you .... I do not want lunatics holding a gun. Is this not simple
enough to understand??????????????????

Just checking to make sure you're not flip-flopping. A person can seem
normal one minute and in the next minute be talking about a space ship
in his room.
--

"Doug" wrote in message
...
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.

BULL****
Now you're lying


I don't want to take guns away
from all, just the nuts so to speak.


You have not demonstrated how that can be done WITHOUT taking guns away from
others
Not only that, but you have not even bothered to educate yourself on how
it's been tried elsewhere and what success was achieved, if any


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.

WE know they do
Just like you, they have CLEARLY over time stated their agenda one way or
another



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.

I already quoted your own words from your first post
ALl your claims since then have been circular logic coming back to that



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.

More fool you
YOU have had a chance to educate yourself on the subject, and you have done
EVERYTHING to avoid doing so
That makes you ignorant
The fact that you CHOOSE to remain ignorant makes you stupid

"Doug" wrote in message
...
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.

If you start your education with the attitude that "I doubt I will change my
mind", then why bother ?

The whole POINT of education IS to "change your mind"

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 23:12:58 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:


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?


First question is easy to answer... yes. I think it's harder to
answer the 2nd question but on a simple basis I think yes.

I have thought about owning a gun at different times in my life but
for different reasons each time, I decided no for personal reasons.
The fact that I even considered it should show I'm not against gun
ownership but some still won't believe me, even at that. Oh well...

A gun will give you a better chance at both. Using a knife at a gun
fight requires one to get much closer. I prefer the advantage of
distance between me an the criminal. I won't get any blood on me.
--

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:21:59 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

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.



One example !

Two towns actually
But hey you're the idiot who has NOT shown anything to the contrary
And have also claimed you can come up with data to support your side of the
argument, but have yet to do so..

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 09:07:48 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

I don't want you to have a gun, either. You might live long enough to
procreate.


I don't about that, this is a really hard call to make. On one hand,
you don't want him to have a gun so he might defend himself and live
long enough to procreate. On the other he might accidentally kill
himself cleaning it before he can procreate. Tough call.
-

Flip a coin?
--

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:52:37 -0400, "
wrote:

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


Plain and simple even for you.... I don't want lunatics carrying guns.
If you have a better method to do this, fine with me. My suggestion
was a form of gun control but if there is a better way, fine.

Back to the one note mantra
Classic example of "NAH, NAH, NAH, I can't hear you !"

" wrote in
:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:11:44 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:49:37 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


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


"Doug" wrote in message
om...


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

I'll repeat myself.... I don't want lunatics with guns.

so,in a futile effort to achieve that,"Doug" would disarm all the ODCs and
leave them defenseless against crazies and criminals armed with guns OR
other weapons.
that's throwing out the baby with the bath water.
to TRY to prevent a FEW such shootings,"Doug" would allow ODCs to be preyed
upon in MUCH greater numbers.

FEDGOV is "missing" over 1000 of their guns as of 2003,some being full-auto
machine guns. that does not include US military arms losses. Then state and
local law enforcement have guns stolen from their vehicles frequently.
Former Orlando POLICE CHIEF Val Demings had her service handgun stolen from
her unmarked SUV,and over a year later,it still hasn't been recovered. OPD
has "lost" 2 AR-15 kits,and had 2 machine guns stolen from vehicles.

Criminals and lunatics will always be able to get (or build) guns.
Unabomber Ted Kaszinski made a handgun in his remote Idaho cabin,using only
hand tools. the Pathans of Pakistan make them in home shops,even AK-47s.


I don't want you to have a gun, either. You might live long enough to
procreate.

If you have a better way to control this, fine.

there is no way to control what guns get stolen or sold in straw purchases.
you can penalize -after the fact-,but you can't prevent them from
happening.


Tell them that guns are *scary*! what a maroon!

"Doug" apparently is incapable of comprehending this statement;

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


Of course,he will miss the entire point and claim he's not trying to ban
guns,just to restrict them (somehow)only to good citizens.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

" wrote in
:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:01:04 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

I don't want lunatics carrying guns.

1. No one here cares what you want (or are you too stupid to notice?)
2. There are already restrictions on "lunatics" possessing guns (but
you're too stupid to know that, even though you've been told at least
ten times)

I suggested a form of gun control but if you have a better way, fine.

Take away your first amendment rights.



"Doug" is trying to do "prior restraint" and apparently incapable of
understanding that that will not work in this case.
He thinks that forcing licensing,registration,and psych tests before being
able to possess a firearm is going to work. It hasn't in any nation on
Earth. Norway has strict licensing and gun registration,and they still had
a mass murder with legally obtained guns,and the same occurred in UK and
AUS too.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com