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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Perhaps you should read Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010).

Come back after you dry the tears away.
--

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

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

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

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

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

Shows how much you know. Our rights are "endowed by our creator". The
ammendments are limits on the power of the government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Now you know why San Diego got all the lawyers; instead of San
Francisco. San Diego got the first vote.

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

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

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

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


You are clearly terminally something or other ... stupid/dumb comes to
mind.

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:23:56 -0500, "NotMe" wrote:

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

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

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


You are clearly terminally something or other ... stupid/dumb comes to
mind.


Maybe the guy is a student of Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi from San
Francisco (SF). The word is out SF banned gold fish and circumcision.

Now you can't own a circumcised gold fish.
--

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

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

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

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

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



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

On Saturday, August 11, 2012 2:22:21 PM UTC-7, David Kaye wrote:
The gun nuts claim to follow the Constitution, but the Constitution makes

VERY CLEAR that the laws are subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court,

and it is THEIR DECISION as to what a particular clause actually means.



Well, the Supreme Court has ruled many times that the 2nd Amendment refers

to regulating a MILITIA, and that it does not confer ANY right for

individual citizens to own guns.



If you don't recognize the Supreme Court as the interpreter of the

Constitution, then YOU ARE UNAMERICAN. Simple as that.

http://home.nra.org/#/nraorg

and we are organized.

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

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

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

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






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

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.

We have enough gun laws already.

How about we take away your "right" to free speech, freedom to
assemble and other "rights"? Can we take away your wife's "right" to
vote? What about your right to be protected in your person and papers?

After you take the 2nd Amendment rights, were does it stop?

You keep harping on this "don't want "anyone" to have a right to own a
gun".

Can I say I "don't want "anyone" to have a right to own" teeth?

Doug you don't get it. What you propose worked great to disarm
civilians in Europe. Look at Mexico. The poor people can't have a
gun to kill a Puma attacking their live stock".

P.S. You do not have a "right" to reply here.
--

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

On Saturday, August 11, 2012 4:46:38 PM UTC-7, Doug wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:22:21 -0700, "David Kaye"

wrote:



The gun nuts claim to follow the Constitution, but the Constitution makes

VERY CLEAR that the laws are subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court,

and it is THEIR DECISION as to what a particular clause actually means.



Well, the Supreme Court has ruled many times that the 2nd Amendment refers

to regulating a MILITIA, and that it does not confer ANY right for

individual citizens to own guns.



If you don't recognize the Supreme Court as the interpreter of the

Constitution, then YOU ARE UNAMERICAN. Simple as that.













I'm not up on the constitution or law but I tend to think you are

right because we've had some form of gun control for a while and it's

not been thrown out. I do think we need to do a better job tho. I

tend to agree with your "Gun Nuts" subject line as they seem to be. I

can understand they want to own a gun but I can't understand why they

don't like to see it regulated so not "anyone" has a gun. Simply put

I want to see them in the hands or responsible owners. I'm not

implying the Gun Nuts here are irresponsible as I don't know but I'm

just surprised how much they want an open market for guns.

Our forefathers wanted a balance of regulating power. The branches of the U..S. government is an example of that. They also wanted a balance of regulating firepower between the established governing body and its citizens; the NRA is the citizens’ side of the scale of regulating firepower. If you want better regulation join the NRA.

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:18:39 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Our forefathers wanted a balance of regulating power.

Doug should ping Han, a frequent poster here. Han can tell him about
gun confiscation in his mother land as a child.

Han are you reading this?
--

NotMe wrote:

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

- new law that allows gun victims, surviving family, etc, to be able to
sue gun makers and gun owners for "wrongful death" or for dammages
(health-care costs) caused by gun injuries, gun-shot deaths,
malfunctions, etc. If gun manufacturers don't want to be sued, then
they can alter the functionality of their products to make them more
secure / safer as any consumer product should be. If gun owners don't
want to be sued if a gun they owned was used (accidentally or
intentionally) to injure/kill someone, then they can choose to NOT own a
gun in the first place, or they can rely on their gun insurance (which
would or could be mandated that they have) to cover them for any
court-determined financially-liable compensation claim.

This law would only apply to death or injury caused by a gun sold after
a certain date - not for any guns in current circulation. Gun makers
can also respond to this law by withdrawing certain guns from their
product line for which they make the determination that the risk/reward
is not in their favor. Gun makers could also respond by incorporating
electronic biometrics into their products to better insure that the
product is not functional in the hands of un-registered persons.

The ability to sue for death or injury would not apply if a court
determines the claimant was performing an illegal or criminal act at the
time of injury / death.


- new law that requires that permits or licences to own firearms must be
renewed on some basis (anually, once every 2 years, etc - unless this
already exists now) AND that a license can only be renewed if the holder
can show proof of insurance (insurance against causing bodily harm or
injury , dammage to property, etc) that can be traced back to any guns
owned by the license holder regardless when the gun was acquired. Same
insurance idea as currently exists for motor vehicles, boats and other
liesure craft, etc.

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:56:57 -0500, "NotMe" wrote:

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


(piggyback)

Pay no attention to Home Guy. He lacks any credibility. The idiot is
an idiot about liability - person or a gun maker.

He stuck his head up as he does, by being a fool.
--

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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






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


You should have stopped after your eighth word.

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 20:32:47 -0400, Charlton Heston
wrote:

NotMe wrote:

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

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

By that lame logic I should be able to sue Ford motor Company for the
death of my Mother. The person that hit and killed her in a traffic
accident was driving a Ford.

If gun manufacturers don't want to be sued, then
they can alter the functionality of their products to make them more
secure / safer as any consumer product should be. If gun owners don't
want to be sued if a gun they owned was used (accidentally or
intentionally) to injure/kill someone, then they can choose to NOT own a
gun in the first place,

You idiot, we already have a law that makes murder illegal.

or they can rely on their gun insurance (which
would or could be mandated that they have) to cover them for any
court-determined financially-liable compensation claim.

Here we go with mandated again. Too bad we can't mandate higher
I.Q.'s in the left wing loons!

snipped rest of drivel

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

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

- new law that allows gun victims, surviving family, etc, to be able to
sue gun makers and gun owners for "wrongful death" or for dammages
(health-care costs) caused by gun injuries, gun-shot deaths,
malfunctions, etc. If gun manufacturers don't want to be sued, then
they can alter the functionality of their products to make them more
secure / safer as any consumer product should be. If gun owners don't
want to be sued if a gun they owned was used (accidentally or
intentionally) to injure/kill someone, then they can choose to NOT own a
gun in the first place, or they can rely on their gun insurance (which
would or could be mandated that they have) to cover them for any
court-determined financially-liable compensation claim.

This law would only apply to death or injury caused by a gun sold after
a certain date - not for any guns in current circulation. Gun makers
can also respond to this law by withdrawing certain guns from their
product line for which they make the determination that the risk/reward
is not in their favor. Gun makers could also respond by incorporating
electronic biometrics into their products to better insure that the
product is not functional in the hands of un-registered persons.

The ability to sue for death or injury would not apply if a court
determines the claimant was performing an illegal or criminal act at the
time of injury / death.


- new law that requires that permits or licences to own firearms must be
renewed on some basis (anually, once every 2 years, etc - unless this
already exists now) AND that a license can only be renewed if the holder
can show proof of insurance (insurance against causing bodily harm or
injury , dammage to property, etc) that can be traced back to any guns
owned by the license holder regardless when the gun was acquired. Same
insurance idea as currently exists for motor vehicles, boats and other
liesure craft, etc.

About as functional as tits on a bore hog. Duplicates, to a lesser degree,
existing laws that address the issues outlined much much more effectively.

Regardless the proposed legislation will not pass legal review in the
appeals courts (if they even get that far)

Gordon Shumway wrote in
:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 20:32:47 -0400, Charlton Heston
wrote:

NotMe wrote:

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

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

By that lame logic I should be able to sue Ford motor Company for the
death of my Mother. The person that hit and killed her in a traffic
accident was driving a Ford.

If gun manufacturers don't want to be sued, then
they can alter the functionality of their products to make them more
secure / safer as any consumer product should be. If gun owners don't
want to be sued if a gun they owned was used (accidentally or
intentionally) to injure/kill someone, then they can choose to NOT own a
gun in the first place,

You idiot, we already have a law that makes murder illegal.

or they can rely on their gun insurance (which
would or could be mandated that they have) to cover them for any
court-determined financially-liable compensation claim.

Here we go with mandated again. Too bad we can't mandate higher
I.Q.'s in the left wing loons!

snipped rest of drivel


the idiots want to make crime victims responsible for what a criminal does
with an item stolen from the victim.
AS IF the victim had any knowledge of or control over what the crook does
with the stolen item....

Of course,it's just a dishonest method of making gun ownership too risky
for ordinary decent ctizens.
it's also a dishonest way around the Second Amendment's "shall not be
infringed" that they seem incapable of comprehending.

"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

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:

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

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

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

and not be Harry Potter

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

Shows how much you know. Our rights are "endowed by our creator". The
ammendments are limits on the power of the government.

which one of the commandments was about gun ownership?

On 8/11/2012 4:22 PM, David Kaye wrote:
The gun nuts claim to follow the Constitution, but the Constitution makes
VERY CLEAR that the laws are subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court,
and it is THEIR DECISION as to what a particular clause actually means.

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

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


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

TDD

"Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:

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

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

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

and not be Harry Potter

Seems McVay did something along those lines ...

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 16:56:47 -0700, Oren wrote:

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.

We have enough gun laws already.

How about we take away your "right" to free speech, freedom to
assemble and other "rights"? Can we take away your wife's "right" to
vote? What about your right to be protected in your person and papers?

After you take the 2nd Amendment rights, were does it stop?

You keep harping on this "don't want "anyone" to have a right to own a
gun".

Can I say I "don't want "anyone" to have a right to own" teeth?

Doug you don't get it. What you propose worked great to disarm
civilians in Europe. Look at Mexico. The poor people can't have a
gun to kill a Puma attacking their live stock".

P.S. You do not have a "right" to reply here.


No reply... my rights were taken away g.

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:56:57 -0500, "NotMe" wrote:


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

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

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

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

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



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

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



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

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

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:39:38 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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


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

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:45:37 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

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

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

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

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

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






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


You should have stopped after your eighth word.


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

On Aug 11, 10:39*pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:56:57 -0500, "NotMe" wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doug-

When the War on Drugs comes to a successful conclusion (the
elimination of drug use & drug related crimes) then you can sign me up
for the stepped War on Guns.

Do us all a favor, do some research on the history & motivation for
gun control.
You'll find them firmly rooted in classism & racism.

One of the first major gun control efforts (at least in my life time)
1968 Gun Control was totally motivated by fear & racism.

Politicians fear an armed populace..... exactly the intent of the
guys who started this whole thing.

cheers
Bob

"Doug" wrote in message
...

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

Yes, changing/modifying laws always works (rolls eyes).

What you fail to understand is the laws are made for those who are already
responsible and thus, will follow those law. Criminals don't follow the
law....period. Restricting gun ownership for responsible citizens reduces
protection against criminals who are not responsible. Until you have a
resolution to eliminate guns from the hands of criminals, eliminating them
from the hands of responsible citizens is asinine.

David Kaye wrote:
The gun nuts claim to follow the Constitution, but the Constitution
makes VERY CLEAR that the laws are subject to interpretation by the
Supreme Court, and it is THEIR DECISION as to what a particular
clause actually means.
Well, the Supreme Court has ruled many times that the 2nd Amendment
refers to regulating a MILITIA, and that it does not confer ANY right
for individual citizens to own guns.

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

Your post is wrong on several levels.

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

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

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

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

Doug wrote:


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

Okay, I'll play.

Define "responsible owner."

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

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

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 00:55:02 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Aug 11, 10:39*pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:56:57 -0500, "NotMe" wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doug-

When the War on Drugs comes to a successful conclusion (the
elimination of drug use & drug related crimes) then you can sign me up
for the stepped War on Guns.

Do us all a favor, do some research on the history & motivation for
gun control.
You'll find them firmly rooted in classism & racism.

One of the first major gun control efforts (at least in my life time)
1968 Gun Control was totally motivated by fear & racism.

Politicians fear an armed populace..... exactly the intent of the
guys who started this whole thing.

cheers
Bob


Bob, I believe you and I can read up on it but my own opinion is not
based on racism or classism. I suppose one could make an argument my
opinion is based on fear.... well yes, to some extent that's true but
I'm not against our population having guns just not all. Frankly I
know the words in legislating my idea is tricky but I think the risk
of not doing anything is worst than going thru evolution of trying.
I appreciate tho what you are trying to tell me but I may be the lone
wolf for my reasons even tho my desires are similar to politicians.
And I know that my idea is going to involve more govt control and
normally I don't want more govt control but in some cases, I think
it's warranted tho that's where some disagree with me.

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:32:24 -0400, "Meanie" wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .

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

Yes, changing/modifying laws always works (rolls eyes).

What you fail to understand is the laws are made for those who are already
responsible and thus, will follow those law. Criminals don't follow the
law....period. Restricting gun ownership for responsible citizens reduces
protection against criminals who are not responsible. Until you have a
resolution to eliminate guns from the hands of criminals, eliminating them
from the hands of responsible citizens is asinine.


I do realize this but we have to start somewhere and build upon it.
Whether we start with legal or illegal may be a worthy discussion but
I'm of the opinion to start with the legal ones first and then spread
out the enforcment to the illegal (which I think will be harder of
course). And I lived in NYC once for many years so I'm aware of guns,
legal and illegal being all around me as well as drugs and other
weapons.

On Aug 11, 7:39*pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:00:25 -0400, "

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

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

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

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

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

Yes perhaps you should say "better regulation" so
you don't look like a total ass, just mostly one.
There are all kinds of laws on the books. So forgive
me if I'm just a bit sceptical when a clown like
Senator Lousenberg, from NJ, proposes a new
law that would require reporting when anyone
buys 1000 rounds or more of ammo in a week.
Other than this nonsense, I haven't heard a peep
from the old skeletor. Worried about $16tril in
debt? Iran making the A bomb? The economy
that sucks? Nahh, it's those
ammo sales that are the problem worthy of his
attention that finally woke him up.

We've outlawed cocaine and heroin. That's worked
real well, right? Prohibition ring a bell?

Would that be the same Supreme Court who redefines tax and penalty?

Steve

On Aug 12, 9:43*am, "Doug" wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 00:55:02 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:





On Aug 11, 10:39*pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:56:57 -0500, "NotMe" wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doug-

When the War on Drugs comes to a successful conclusion (the
elimination of drug use & drug related crimes) then you can sign me up
for the stepped War on Guns.

Do us all a favor, do some research on the history & motivation for
gun control.
You'll find them firmly rooted in classism & racism.

One of the first major gun control efforts (at least in my life time)
1968 Gun Control was totally motivated by fear & racism.

Politicians fear an armed populace..... *exactly the intent of the
guys who started this whole thing.

cheers
Bob

Bob, I believe you and I can read up on it but my own opinion is not
based on racism or classism. * I suppose one could make an argument my
opinion is based on fear.... well yes, to some extent that's true but
I'm not against our population having guns just not all. * Frankly I
know the words in legislating my idea is tricky but I think the risk
of not doing anything is worst than going thru evolution of trying.

Spoken like a true lib. Whenever any problem can
be indentified, the solution is always more govt, more
laws, more regulations. Yet Congress who makes
those laws has an approval rating of 15% and has
proven themselves totally incompetent. Go figure.




I appreciate tho what you are trying to tell me but I may be the lone
wolf for my reasons even tho my desires are similar to politicians.

You mean you want to demagogue the issue for
your own personal gain, to get re-elected?




And I know that my idea is going to involve more govt control and
normally I don't want more govt control

Yeah, I'm gonna believe that based on what you've
posted. What I see is someone too lazy to even
understand the situation, what works or doesn't work.
Yet you're clammering for more govt.

Kind of what we have a in Washington from the likes
of Pelosi. It's the MAGAZINES! BAN THOSE HIGH
CAPACITY MAGAZINES! Anyone who has any
reasonable familiarity with firearms will tell you that
the Colorado shooter could have just as easily
switched magazines one after the other and continued
to shoot away.
It takes a fraction of a second. Or he could have
used a shotgun and probably killed even more
people.


but in some cases, I think
it's warranted tho that's where some disagree with me.- Hide quoted text -


Why would what you think have any relevance when
you're totally ignorant about the whole situation?

On Aug 12, 1:45*am, "Doug" wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:39:38 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Show quoted text -

Cocaine and Heroin are totally illegal. It's against
the law for anyone to possess them period. So,
they no longer exist here right? They are now
well controlled and we no longer have a drug
problem, right? Actually what you have is MORE
violence precisely because they are regulated and
illegal.

On Aug 11, 2:22*pm, "David Kaye" wrote:
The gun nuts claim to follow the Constitution, but the Constitution makes
VERY CLEAR that the laws are subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court,
and it is THEIR DECISION as to what a particular clause actually means.

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

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

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

Harry K