Doug wrote:

Further, I learned that some other countries have very tight gun
control and the mass killings are few or none but if that means to
remove guns from owners, I do not support that.

You mean like Mexico?

Laxity of gun control has little to do with mayhem caused by firearms. For
every country with lax gun control and many deaths, I can respond with a
country with lax control and few deaths. Likewise, the reverse.

Home Guy wrote:

Most commercial establishments have nothing to gain, and much to lose
(from a legal / liability / insurance standpoint) to NOT make /
announce that their property is a "gun-free" zone.

So right off the bat, we can assume that most commercial
establishments (shopping malls, theaters, restaurants, factories,
offices, hospitals) are gun-free zones. We know that many
public-sector facilities (schools, libraries, gov't offices, court
buildings, DMV, airports, etc) are probably gun-free zones even if
they are not signed as such.

Nope. In my state every commercial establishment, by state law, is a "gun
friendly" zone, unless the owner posts a sign declaring concealed weapons
prohibited.

Best legal thinking is to post no sign at all, either prohibiting or
encouraging gun carry. Here's why. If you post a "no guns" sign, you are
implicitly taking responsibility for your patrons. If a person who normally
carrys a gun leaves his in the car, trusting you to protect him, and a bad
thing happens, YOU, the owner, will be hit by such legal damage claims,
you'll be reduced to operating a hot-dog cart. Conversely, if you erect a
sign encouraging gun carry and something goes amiss, you'll be accused of
encouraging the violence by the welcoming sign.

No, the best legal thinking is no sign or policy at all.


So in reality, where are the non-"gun-free" zones?

In my state less than 1% of the publically available enterprises. In my
state, we can carry a firearm into the state Capitol, the governor's office,
and, by law, any entity owned or leased by any agency of government except
schools. These include libraries, water treatment plants, city hall, and
everything else a city, county, mosquito control district, etc. Further,
this includes public hospitals.


If the US was suddenly confronted with people being electrocuted by
toasters, even if the vast majority of people continued to use
toasters without injury, you can bet that next year the old toaster
designs would be replaced with new ones. The same problem-solving
mentality is never applied when the consumer product in question is
personal firearms. Why is that?

Could be because of our 2nd Amendment which says "... the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Note that amendment
does not include toasters.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 06:59:26 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 23, 9:47*am, Doug wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "





wrote:
On Dec 22, 11:39*pm, Doug * wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:14:25 -0600, " Attila Iskander"

wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...

Hmmm,
Are you going to arm your self with assault rifle and 200 rounds magazine
or drum?

"Assault rifles" are and have been strickly controlled since 1934
* *(They are machine guns don't ya know...)
You have to jump through all kinds of hoops with the Feds and local police
and pay a $200 tax before you can get one.
If one the other hand you are babbling your ignorance about "assault
weapons" then you are talking about CERTAIN SEMI-automatic (single shot to
single trigger pull) rifles that have certain cosmetic features like a
bayonet lug that magically turn them into "assault weapons" while changing
NOTHING about how they operate, or anything else about their performance.

Owning a 200 round magazine or drum is really a novelty item that you would
only use for fun but not for serious shooting
They have a NASTY habit of jamming at the worst moments.
Smart shooters stick with what the firearm was designed to use normally

You know wackos will come there with such a weapon with mass killing power
in short time.

And ???
What ??

All I need is just one shot to stop them
* *And then what ?

I am not against owning fire arm, first step should be banning the
ownership of assault type automatic weapons and high capacity
magazines/clips.

LOL
Are you really this ****ing stupid ?
IN the same sentence you declare, you're OK with owning firearms but let's
just ban firearms

And owning a gun is one thing using it properly and well is another,
*how many owners are like that?

Just about most who own them
The seem to be much better qualified to using their guns properly than car
drivers with all the training and licensing they go through...
Let's see
Gun owners with about 330,000,000 guns, have about 600 deadly accidents a
year, about a thousand injuries, and property damage that is so low as to be
negligible.
Car owners with about 300,000,000 cars have over 43,000 deaths, injuries in
the millions and property damage in the Billions

Maybe you should worry more about car owners.

Are always ready for surprise attack? If teachers are armed can they
concentrate on teaching or be on the look oiut for the sudden danger?

If you carry, you don't become a defact security guard
* *It's much closer to carrying an umbrella in case it rains.

IMO, the more gun, the more possibility of trouble. No thanks
no gun for me or my family.

Apparently stupidity is a requirement for hoplophobia.
* *I feel sorry for your defenseless family.

Hopefully your defective genes will stop with you and yours.

You bypass all the checks and balances if you buy privately and 40% of
all gun purchases are done this way.

If I understood the NRA, I agree only partially with them. *I like the
idea of armed guards (professionals) in schools but not armed
teachers. * But armed guards in schools will not solve the overall
problem of mass killings because the criminals will just move from
schools to churches, malls, stadiums, train stations, etc... or other
places with less resistance.

I too was in favor of no semi automatic weapons in civilian hands but
I now I prefer to say it differently now.....I don't want civilians to
have guns as good or better than the military or police use, unless
they already own them. *In other words, I don't want military or
police to be out gunned by civilians. *If they satisfy this, civilians
can get whatever guns they want.

Do you realize that we did ban "assault weapons" and high
capacity magazines for a decade, starting in 1994. *Study after
study done by various organizations, including the CDC, which
clearly has no pro-gun agenda, concluded it made no difference
in crime rates, murder rates, etc.

Oh by the way, that's not what the CDC said. * If you go to their
website...http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
they say ....
"Evidence was *INSUFFICIENT *to determine the effectiveness of any of
these laws for the following reasons." * *They explain this as
depending on which study you go by, some say it went higher and other
studies say it went lower.

Therefore, since it's inconclusive, I'd say to do it because taking no
action is NOT the solution.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's apply that logic. We have a new experimental drug for
cancer. Many studies have been done. Some show the drug
increased the 5 year survival rate. An equal number say the
drug decreased the 5 year survival rate. So, the FDA should
approve the drug, put it on the market, because, as you say
"taking no action is not the solution".

You really are quite the village idiot.


No you are. Guns are not drugs.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 06:59:26 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 23, 9:47*am, Doug wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "





wrote:
On Dec 22, 11:39*pm, Doug * wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:14:25 -0600, " Attila Iskander"

wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...

Hmmm,
Are you going to arm your self with assault rifle and 200 rounds magazine
or drum?

"Assault rifles" are and have been strickly controlled since 1934
* *(They are machine guns don't ya know...)
You have to jump through all kinds of hoops with the Feds and local police
and pay a $200 tax before you can get one.
If one the other hand you are babbling your ignorance about "assault
weapons" then you are talking about CERTAIN SEMI-automatic (single shot to
single trigger pull) rifles that have certain cosmetic features like a
bayonet lug that magically turn them into "assault weapons" while changing
NOTHING about how they operate, or anything else about their performance.

Owning a 200 round magazine or drum is really a novelty item that you would
only use for fun but not for serious shooting
They have a NASTY habit of jamming at the worst moments.
Smart shooters stick with what the firearm was designed to use normally

You know wackos will come there with such a weapon with mass killing power
in short time.

And ???
What ??

All I need is just one shot to stop them
* *And then what ?

I am not against owning fire arm, first step should be banning the
ownership of assault type automatic weapons and high capacity
magazines/clips.

LOL
Are you really this ****ing stupid ?
IN the same sentence you declare, you're OK with owning firearms but let's
just ban firearms

And owning a gun is one thing using it properly and well is another,
*how many owners are like that?

Just about most who own them
The seem to be much better qualified to using their guns properly than car
drivers with all the training and licensing they go through...
Let's see
Gun owners with about 330,000,000 guns, have about 600 deadly accidents a
year, about a thousand injuries, and property damage that is so low as to be
negligible.
Car owners with about 300,000,000 cars have over 43,000 deaths, injuries in
the millions and property damage in the Billions

Maybe you should worry more about car owners.

Are always ready for surprise attack? If teachers are armed can they
concentrate on teaching or be on the look oiut for the sudden danger?

If you carry, you don't become a defact security guard
* *It's much closer to carrying an umbrella in case it rains.

IMO, the more gun, the more possibility of trouble. No thanks
no gun for me or my family.

Apparently stupidity is a requirement for hoplophobia.
* *I feel sorry for your defenseless family.

Hopefully your defective genes will stop with you and yours.

You bypass all the checks and balances if you buy privately and 40% of
all gun purchases are done this way.

If I understood the NRA, I agree only partially with them. *I like the
idea of armed guards (professionals) in schools but not armed
teachers. * But armed guards in schools will not solve the overall
problem of mass killings because the criminals will just move from
schools to churches, malls, stadiums, train stations, etc... or other
places with less resistance.

I too was in favor of no semi automatic weapons in civilian hands but
I now I prefer to say it differently now.....I don't want civilians to
have guns as good or better than the military or police use, unless
they already own them. *In other words, I don't want military or
police to be out gunned by civilians. *If they satisfy this, civilians
can get whatever guns they want.

Do you realize that we did ban "assault weapons" and high
capacity magazines for a decade, starting in 1994. *Study after
study done by various organizations, including the CDC, which
clearly has no pro-gun agenda, concluded it made no difference
in crime rates, murder rates, etc.

Oh by the way, that's not what the CDC said. * If you go to their
website...http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
they say ....
"Evidence was *INSUFFICIENT *to determine the effectiveness of any of
these laws for the following reasons." * *They explain this as
depending on which study you go by, some say it went higher and other
studies say it went lower.

Therefore, since it's inconclusive, I'd say to do it because taking no
action is NOT the solution.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's apply that logic. We have a new experimental drug for
cancer. Many studies have been done. Some show the drug
increased the 5 year survival rate. An equal number say the
drug decreased the 5 year survival rate. So, the FDA should
approve the drug, put it on the market, because, as you say
"taking no action is not the solution".

You really are quite the village idiot.


And if you want to talk about idiots, you can't even get your facts
straight about the CDC. LOL

On Dec 23, 12:09*pm, Doug wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 06:59:26 -0800 (PST), "





wrote:
On Dec 23, 9:47*am, Doug * wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
On Dec 22, 11:39*pm, Doug * wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:14:25 -0600, " Attila Iskander"

wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...

Hmmm,
Are you going to arm your self with assault rifle and 200 rounds magazine
or drum?

"Assault rifles" are and have been strickly controlled since 1934
* *(They are machine guns don't ya know...)
You have to jump through all kinds of hoops with the Feds and local police
and pay a $200 tax before you can get one.
If one the other hand you are babbling your ignorance about "assault
weapons" then you are talking about CERTAIN SEMI-automatic (single shot to
single trigger pull) rifles that have certain cosmetic features like a
bayonet lug that magically turn them into "assault weapons" while changing
NOTHING about how they operate, or anything else about their performance.

Owning a 200 round magazine or drum is really a novelty item that you would
only use for fun but not for serious shooting
They have a NASTY habit of jamming at the worst moments.
Smart shooters stick with what the firearm was designed to use normally

You know wackos will come there with such a weapon with mass killing power
in short time.

And ???
What ??

All I need is just one shot to stop them
* *And then what ?

I am not against owning fire arm, first step should be banning the
ownership of assault type automatic weapons and high capacity
magazines/clips.

LOL
Are you really this ****ing stupid ?
IN the same sentence you declare, you're OK with owning firearms but let's
just ban firearms

And owning a gun is one thing using it properly and well is another,
*how many owners are like that?

Just about most who own them
The seem to be much better qualified to using their guns properly than car
drivers with all the training and licensing they go through...
Let's see
Gun owners with about 330,000,000 guns, have about 600 deadly accidents a
year, about a thousand injuries, and property damage that is so low as to be
negligible.
Car owners with about 300,000,000 cars have over 43,000 deaths, injuries in
the millions and property damage in the Billions

Maybe you should worry more about car owners.

Are always ready for surprise attack? If teachers are armed can they
concentrate on teaching or be on the look oiut for the sudden danger?

If you carry, you don't become a defact security guard
* *It's much closer to carrying an umbrella in case it rains.

IMO, the more gun, the more possibility of trouble. No thanks
no gun for me or my family.

Apparently stupidity is a requirement for hoplophobia.
* *I feel sorry for your defenseless family.

Hopefully your defective genes will stop with you and yours.

You bypass all the checks and balances if you buy privately and 40% of
all gun purchases are done this way.

If I understood the NRA, I agree only partially with them. *I like the
idea of armed guards (professionals) in schools but not armed
teachers. * But armed guards in schools will not solve the overall
problem of mass killings because the criminals will just move from
schools to churches, malls, stadiums, train stations, etc... or other
places with less resistance.

I too was in favor of no semi automatic weapons in civilian hands but
I now I prefer to say it differently now.....I don't want civilians to
have guns as good or better than the military or police use, unless
they already own them. *In other words, I don't want military or
police to be out gunned by civilians. *If they satisfy this, civilians
can get whatever guns they want.

Do you realize that we did ban "assault weapons" and high
capacity magazines for a decade, starting in 1994. *Study after
study done by various organizations, including the CDC, which
clearly has no pro-gun agenda, concluded it made no difference
in crime rates, murder rates, etc.

Oh by the way, that's not what the CDC said. * If you go to their
website...http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
they say ....
"Evidence was *INSUFFICIENT *to determine the effectiveness of any of
these laws for the following reasons." * *They explain this as
depending on which study you go by, some say it went higher and other
studies say it went lower.

Therefore, since it's inconclusive, I'd say to do it because taking no
action is NOT the solution.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's apply that logic. *We have a new experimental drug for
cancer. *Many *studies have been done. Some show the drug
increased *the 5 year survival rate. *An equal number say the
drug *decreased the 5 year survival rate. * So, the FDA should
approve the drug, put it on the market, because, as you say
"taking no action is not the solution".

You really are quite the village idiot.

And if you want to talk about idiots, you can't even get your facts
straight about the CDC. * *LOL- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -






I have the facts right. YOU have no facts. You're just
a troll, clammering to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING,
whether it's been shown to make any difference or
not. In the case in question, a 10 year ban on "assault
weapons" (which like all the other gun control experts
here, you can't even define), made no difference in
crimer rates, murder rates, or anything else. All
it did was enable the pandering lib politicians to sucker
in fools like you. And now, it's "Yes Sir, let me have
another, Sir" Mindless sycophant that you are.

Message to all the Canadians posting on this web site:

Let's just stay out of any debate on guns. This is a US problem (for the most part) and it needs a US solution.

As far as I'm concerned, guns are the same as capital punishment and abortion. They're a social issue with no good solution. Arguing with someone about any of these topics isn't going to change their minds, it's only going to raise your blood pressure.

300 million guns in the country

young,
or immature people do stupid things [i was young once,
and did some pretty stupid things, so i should know]
kids bringing guns to elementary school!
what's going on?

come on people, hasn't gotten out of control?
this it nuts!

i suspect will are going to see more of this type of thing,
simply because of copycats, or for who knows what reason,
but i hope i'm wrong

marc

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Doug wrote:

Further, I learned that some other countries have very tight gun
control and the mass killings are few or none but if that means to
remove guns from owners, I do not support that.

You mean like Mexico?

Laxity of gun control has little to do with mayhem caused by firearms. For
every country with lax gun control and many deaths, I can respond with a
country with lax control and few deaths. Likewise, the reverse.

Which, of course, brings it back to gun violence being substantially
more society-driven.
--
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 Sun, 23 Dec 2012 09:24:35 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 23, 12:09*pm, Doug wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 06:59:26 -0800 (PST), "





wrote:
On Dec 23, 9:47*am, Doug * wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
On Dec 22, 11:39*pm, Doug * wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:14:25 -0600, " Attila Iskander"

wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...

Hmmm,
Are you going to arm your self with assault rifle and 200 rounds magazine
or drum?

"Assault rifles" are and have been strickly controlled since 1934
* *(They are machine guns don't ya know...)
You have to jump through all kinds of hoops with the Feds and local police
and pay a $200 tax before you can get one.
If one the other hand you are babbling your ignorance about "assault
weapons" then you are talking about CERTAIN SEMI-automatic (single shot to
single trigger pull) rifles that have certain cosmetic features like a
bayonet lug that magically turn them into "assault weapons" while changing
NOTHING about how they operate, or anything else about their performance.

Owning a 200 round magazine or drum is really a novelty item that you would
only use for fun but not for serious shooting
They have a NASTY habit of jamming at the worst moments.
Smart shooters stick with what the firearm was designed to use normally

You know wackos will come there with such a weapon with mass killing power
in short time.

And ???
What ??

All I need is just one shot to stop them
* *And then what ?

I am not against owning fire arm, first step should be banning the
ownership of assault type automatic weapons and high capacity
magazines/clips.

LOL
Are you really this ****ing stupid ?
IN the same sentence you declare, you're OK with owning firearms but let's
just ban firearms

And owning a gun is one thing using it properly and well is another,
*how many owners are like that?

Just about most who own them
The seem to be much better qualified to using their guns properly than car
drivers with all the training and licensing they go through...
Let's see
Gun owners with about 330,000,000 guns, have about 600 deadly accidents a
year, about a thousand injuries, and property damage that is so low as to be
negligible.
Car owners with about 300,000,000 cars have over 43,000 deaths, injuries in
the millions and property damage in the Billions

Maybe you should worry more about car owners.

Are always ready for surprise attack? If teachers are armed can they
concentrate on teaching or be on the look oiut for the sudden danger?

If you carry, you don't become a defact security guard
* *It's much closer to carrying an umbrella in case it rains.

IMO, the more gun, the more possibility of trouble. No thanks
no gun for me or my family.

Apparently stupidity is a requirement for hoplophobia.
* *I feel sorry for your defenseless family.

Hopefully your defective genes will stop with you and yours.

You bypass all the checks and balances if you buy privately and 40% of
all gun purchases are done this way.

If I understood the NRA, I agree only partially with them. *I like the
idea of armed guards (professionals) in schools but not armed
teachers. * But armed guards in schools will not solve the overall
problem of mass killings because the criminals will just move from
schools to churches, malls, stadiums, train stations, etc... or other
places with less resistance.

I too was in favor of no semi automatic weapons in civilian hands but
I now I prefer to say it differently now.....I don't want civilians to
have guns as good or better than the military or police use, unless
they already own them. *In other words, I don't want military or
police to be out gunned by civilians. *If they satisfy this, civilians
can get whatever guns they want.

Do you realize that we did ban "assault weapons" and high
capacity magazines for a decade, starting in 1994. *Study after
study done by various organizations, including the CDC, which
clearly has no pro-gun agenda, concluded it made no difference
in crime rates, murder rates, etc.

Oh by the way, that's not what the CDC said. * If you go to their
website...http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
they say ....
"Evidence was *INSUFFICIENT *to determine the effectiveness of any of
these laws for the following reasons." * *They explain this as
depending on which study you go by, some say it went higher and other
studies say it went lower.

Therefore, since it's inconclusive, I'd say to do it because taking no
action is NOT the solution.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's apply that logic. *We have a new experimental drug for
cancer. *Many *studies have been done. Some show the drug
increased *the 5 year survival rate. *An equal number say the
drug *decreased the 5 year survival rate. * So, the FDA should
approve the drug, put it on the market, because, as you say
"taking no action is not the solution".

You really are quite the village idiot.

And if you want to talk about idiots, you can't even get your facts
straight about the CDC. * *LOL- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -






I have the facts right. YOU have no facts. You're just
a troll, clammering to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING,
whether it's been shown to make any difference or
not. In the case in question, a 10 year ban on "assault
weapons" (which like all the other gun control experts
here, you can't even define), made no difference in
crimer rates, murder rates, or anything else. All
it did was enable the pandering lib politicians to sucker
in fools like you. And now, it's "Yes Sir, let me have
another, Sir" Mindless sycophant that you are.


I gave a reference with a link and quoted from it. That is a FACT.
And I used one of your references... the CDC.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 10:09:14 -0800 (PST), marco
wrote:

300 million guns in the country

young,
or immature people do stupid things [i was young once,
and did some pretty stupid things, so i should know]
kids bringing guns to elementary school!
what's going on?

come on people, hasn't gotten out of control?
this it nuts!

i suspect will are going to see more of this type of thing,
simply because of copycats, or for who knows what reason,
but i hope i'm wrong

marc

Dear Liberal Stanford University Student:

I already replied to you about this matter. Do you have a class soon
or are you posting from class using the Stanford Usenet groups?

"Doug" wrote in message
...



You bypass all the checks and balances if you buy privately and 40% of
all gun purchases are done this way.


And
Most of the transactions that way are still between law-abiding people
We know that restrictions do NOT curtail criminal transactions
Just look at England, now awash with "illegal" handguns since they have been
banned
There are more of them than before..



If I understood the NRA, I agree only partially with them. I like the
idea of armed guards (professionals) in schools but not armed
teachers.

Why not armed teachers
They would not be armed to act as guards
The would be armed to defend themselves and automatically defend their
charges
Do you think that having disarmed staff make Sandy Hook staff safer or less
safe ?


But armed guards in schools will not solve the overall
problem of mass killings because the criminals will just move from
schools to churches, malls, stadiums, train stations, etc... or other
places with less resistance.


There is that.
So once again we're back to what the NRA has to say
Armed bad guys are stopped by armed good guys
The great, great, great majority of citizens are the "good guys"

Remember that armed citizens shoot more than DOUBLE the number of bad guys
than police do.
Why are people trying to ignore the elephant in the room ??


I too was in favor of no semi automatic weapons in civilian hands but
I now I prefer to say it differently now.....I don't want civilians to
have guns as good or better than the military or police use, unless
they already own them. In other words, I don't want military or
police to be out gunned by civilians. If they satisfy this, civilians
can get whatever guns they want.


Then you have NO CLUE as to the intent of the 2nd Amendment
The 2nd Amendment is ALL ABOUT citizens having the same arms as the police
and military

They are SUPPOSED to be UNABLE to outgun the citizens as a protectio against
tryranny imposed with the use of police and/or military

Just take a look at EVERY SINGLE dictatorship in the world
Guess who is outgunned and who has all the guns

You need to rethink this.


Further, I learned that some other countries have very tight gun
control and the mass killings are few or none but if that means to
remove guns from owners, I do not support that.

Well at least you got that part right
No go back and rethink who should outgun whom...

"Doug" wrote in message
...


This is in dispute with CNN information.

DOH !
Then you should presume that CNN is wrong or playing with the truth
They have a history of doing that .

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


Do you realize that we did ban "assault weapons" and high
capacity magazines for a decade, starting in 1994. Study after
study done by various organizations, including the CDC, which
clearly has no pro-gun agenda, concluded it made no difference
in crime rates, murder rates, etc.


Oh by the way, that's not what the CDC said. If you go to their
website...http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
they say ....
"Evidence was INSUFFICIENT to determine the effectiveness of any of
these laws for the following reasons." They explain this as
depending on which study you go by, some say it went higher and other
studies say it went lower.


DOH !
1) The CDC has a history of being pro gun-control
2) The CC has had it's knuckles rapped by Congress because they got caught
at it
3) They studied more than 30 years of studies, and all they could come up
with is that ?

HELLO ?

How long do you want to study something before you go..
Hmmm
No evidence to support this theory after 30 years of studies
Maybe it's time to come up with a different theory
This is not "global warming" with a planet that operates by millenia
This is simple social issues that operate a MUCH, MUCH SHORTER scale
Try 5-10 years to have meaninfull data

Therefore, since it's inconclusive, I'd say to do it because taking no
action is NOT the solution.

Fine
But since it's INCONCLUSIVE after 30 years, then intelligent people are NOT
going to go back and do the same old, same old that has proven inconclusive
after all this time
SMART people are going to try something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

How about trying to do what the Israeli did to protect their schools after
the palestinian terrorists decided to target their schools
They have nearly 40 years of NO MORE attacks on schools, while we with our
"Gun Free Zones" have 30+ years of school attacks being repeated over and
over...

HELLO ??

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 06:59:26 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 23, 9:47 am, Doug wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "





wrote:
On Dec 22, 11:39 pm, Doug wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:14:25 -0600, " Attila Iskander"

wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...

Hmmm,
Are you going to arm your self with assault rifle and 200 rounds
magazine
or drum?

"Assault rifles" are and have been strickly controlled since 1934
(They are machine guns don't ya know...)
You have to jump through all kinds of hoops with the Feds and local
police
and pay a $200 tax before you can get one.
If one the other hand you are babbling your ignorance about "assault
weapons" then you are talking about CERTAIN SEMI-automatic (single
shot to
single trigger pull) rifles that have certain cosmetic features like
a
bayonet lug that magically turn them into "assault weapons" while
changing
NOTHING about how they operate, or anything else about their
performance.

Owning a 200 round magazine or drum is really a novelty item that
you would
only use for fun but not for serious shooting
They have a NASTY habit of jamming at the worst moments.
Smart shooters stick with what the firearm was designed to use
normally

You know wackos will come there with such a weapon with mass
killing power
in short time.

And ???
What ??

All I need is just one shot to stop them
And then what ?

I am not against owning fire arm, first step should be banning the
ownership of assault type automatic weapons and high capacity
magazines/clips.

LOL
Are you really this ****ing stupid ?
IN the same sentence you declare, you're OK with owning firearms but
let's
just ban firearms

And owning a gun is one thing using it properly and well is
another,
how many owners are like that?

Just about most who own them
The seem to be much better qualified to using their guns properly
than car
drivers with all the training and licensing they go through...
Let's see
Gun owners with about 330,000,000 guns, have about 600 deadly
accidents a
year, about a thousand injuries, and property damage that is so low
as to be
negligible.
Car owners with about 300,000,000 cars have over 43,000 deaths,
injuries in
the millions and property damage in the Billions

Maybe you should worry more about car owners.

Are always ready for surprise attack? If teachers are armed can
they
concentrate on teaching or be on the look oiut for the sudden
danger?

If you carry, you don't become a defact security guard
It's much closer to carrying an umbrella in case it rains.

IMO, the more gun, the more possibility of trouble. No thanks
no gun for me or my family.

Apparently stupidity is a requirement for hoplophobia.
I feel sorry for your defenseless family.

Hopefully your defective genes will stop with you and yours.

You bypass all the checks and balances if you buy privately and 40%
of
all gun purchases are done this way.

If I understood the NRA, I agree only partially with them. I like the
idea of armed guards (professionals) in schools but not armed
teachers. But armed guards in schools will not solve the overall
problem of mass killings because the criminals will just move from
schools to churches, malls, stadiums, train stations, etc... or other
places with less resistance.

I too was in favor of no semi automatic weapons in civilian hands but
I now I prefer to say it differently now.....I don't want civilians
to
have guns as good or better than the military or police use, unless
they already own them. In other words, I don't want military or
police to be out gunned by civilians. If they satisfy this, civilians
can get whatever guns they want.

Do you realize that we did ban "assault weapons" and high
capacity magazines for a decade, starting in 1994. Study after
study done by various organizations, including the CDC, which
clearly has no pro-gun agenda, concluded it made no difference
in crime rates, murder rates, etc.

Oh by the way, that's not what the CDC said. If you go to their
website...http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
they say ....
"Evidence was INSUFFICIENT to determine the effectiveness of any of
these laws for the following reasons." They explain this as
depending on which study you go by, some say it went higher and other
studies say it went lower.

Therefore, since it's inconclusive, I'd say to do it because taking no
action is NOT the solution.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's apply that logic. We have a new experimental drug for
cancer. Many studies have been done. Some show the drug
increased the 5 year survival rate. An equal number say the
drug decreased the 5 year survival rate. So, the FDA should
approve the drug, put it on the market, because, as you say
"taking no action is not the solution".

You really are quite the village idiot.


No you are. Guns are not drugs.

Really ?
At least you figured that much out
So let's try it again

STUDIES show that gun-control has NO EFFECT because the results are
INCONCLUSIVE
So after 30+, let's just do more of the same, so that we can have another 30
years of inconclusive results

That's like the village idiot who keeps spelling a word wrong every time
because they are hoping that even though it was wrong the last time, this
time spelling it the same way will be right ??

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 06:59:26 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 23, 9:47 am, Doug wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "


Oh by the way, that's not what the CDC said. If you go to their
website...http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
they say ....
"Evidence was INSUFFICIENT to determine the effectiveness of any of
these laws for the following reasons." They explain this as
depending on which study you go by, some say it went higher and other
studies say it went lower.

Therefore, since it's inconclusive, I'd say to do it because taking no
action is NOT the solution.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's apply that logic. We have a new experimental drug for
cancer. Many studies have been done. Some show the drug
increased the 5 year survival rate. An equal number say the
drug decreased the 5 year survival rate. So, the FDA should
approve the drug, put it on the market, because, as you say
"taking no action is not the solution".

You really are quite the village idiot.


And if you want to talk about idiots, you can't even get your facts
straight about the CDC. LOL

Now you're just shuckin' n' jivin' like a fool...

"Doug" wrote in message
...



I have the facts right. YOU have no facts. You're just
a troll, clammering to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING,
whether it's been shown to make any difference or
not. In the case in question, a 10 year ban on "assault
weapons" (which like all the other gun control experts
here, you can't even define), made no difference in
crimer rates, murder rates, or anything else. All
it did was enable the pandering lib politicians to sucker
in fools like you. And now, it's "Yes Sir, let me have
another, Sir" Mindless sycophant that you are.


I gave a reference with a link and quoted from it. That is a FACT.
And I used one of your references... the CDC.


And any intelligent person, which excludes you, is smart enough to realize
that when you have 30+ years of INCONCLUSIVE data, doing more of the same,
in the hope that this time you will magically come up with meaningful data,
IS A WASTE OF TIME..

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:59:34 +0000, nestork
wrote:


Message to all the Canadians posting on this web site:

Let's just stay out of any debate on guns. This is a US problem (for
the most part) and it needs a US solution.

As far as I'm concerned, guns are the same as capital punishment and
abortion. They're a social issue with no good solution. Arguing with
someone about any of these topics isn't going to change their minds,
it's only going to raise your blood pressure.

Even Canada has problems.

_Six Alberta schools shut down Friday due to threats_

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2012/12/20121221-214328.html

Pennsylvania might need to consider banning "high capacity assault
shovels".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252172/Woman-charged-threatening-kill-elementary-school-children-bus-stop-shovel.html

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 20:54:37 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:


Empty cart rattles most!!!
In my 55 years driving, I never had road accident. i handled so many
different weapons light and heavy in the service. Trained as sniper,
sharp shooter in boot camp. Never missed assigned target, never had fire
arm accident. When I was done working overdes, I did not choose to live
in the states for obvious reason. I never regret that decision
yet. Good people can defend themselithout using weapons. Only cowards
needs weapons.(they are usually mentally unsecure, that is why)
Illogical debates produce nothing progressive.

Like the dead Principal defended herself without a weapon?

By his own definition, since he trained and handled all those weapons, he
must be the biggest coward in town...

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 11:25:17 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 10:09:14 -0800 (PST), marco
wrote:

300 million guns in the country

young,
or immature people do stupid things [i was young once,
and did some pretty stupid things, so i should know]
kids bringing guns to elementary school!
what's going on?

come on people, hasn't gotten out of control?
this it nuts!

i suspect will are going to see more of this type of thing,
simply because of copycats, or for who knows what reason,
but i hope i'm wrong

marc

Dear Liberal Stanford University Student:

I already replied to you about this matter. Do you have a class soon
or are you posting from class using the Stanford Usenet groups?


My wife usually doesn't say much but about 1/2 hour ago she said outa
the clear blue to me, "the NRA is being unreasonable". I agree with
the NRA for armed guards in the school. I don't like the idea of
armed teachers but neither of these ideas will solve the mass
killings. The killers will just go elsewhere.

On 12/23/2012 2:21 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:59:34 +0000, nestork
wrote:


Message to all the Canadians posting on this web site:

Let's just stay out of any debate on guns. This is a US problem (for
the most part) and it needs a US solution.

As far as I'm concerned, guns are the same as capital punishment and
abortion. They're a social issue with no good solution. Arguing with
someone about any of these topics isn't going to change their minds,
it's only going to raise your blood pressure.

Even Canada has problems.

_Six Alberta schools shut down Friday due to threats_

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2012/12/20121221-214328.html

Pennsylvania might need to consider banning "high capacity assault
shovels".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252172/Woman-charged-threatening-kill-elementary-school-children-bus-stop-shovel.html


I darn near killed a burglar with my bare hands, should we have fist
control laws? O_o

TDD

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:05:16 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .



You bypass all the checks and balances if you buy privately and 40% of
all gun purchases are done this way.


And
Most of the transactions that way are still between law-abiding people
We know that restrictions do NOT curtail criminal transactions
Just look at England, now awash with "illegal" handguns since they have been
banned
There are more of them than before..



If I understood the NRA, I agree only partially with them. I like the
idea of armed guards (professionals) in schools but not armed
teachers.

Why not armed teachers
They would not be armed to act as guards
The would be armed to defend themselves and automatically defend their
charges
Do you think that having disarmed staff make Sandy Hook staff safer or less
safe ?


But armed guards in schools will not solve the overall
problem of mass killings because the criminals will just move from
schools to churches, malls, stadiums, train stations, etc... or other
places with less resistance.


There is that.
So once again we're back to what the NRA has to say
Armed bad guys are stopped by armed good guys
The great, great, great majority of citizens are the "good guys"

Remember that armed citizens shoot more than DOUBLE the number of bad guys
than police do.
Why are people trying to ignore the elephant in the room ??


I too was in favor of no semi automatic weapons in civilian hands but
I now I prefer to say it differently now.....I don't want civilians to
have guns as good or better than the military or police use, unless
they already own them. In other words, I don't want military or
police to be out gunned by civilians. If they satisfy this, civilians
can get whatever guns they want.


Then you have NO CLUE as to the intent of the 2nd Amendment
The 2nd Amendment is ALL ABOUT citizens having the same arms as the police
and military


I disagree. I just researched the 2nd Amendment and no where does it
come close to saying this. It does NOT say you have the right to bear
ANY arms. You have the right to bear ARMS.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:34:44 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Pennsylvania might need to consider banning "high capacity assault
shovels".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252172/Woman-charged-threatening-kill-elementary-school-children-bus-stop-shovel.html


I darn near killed a burglar with my bare hands, should we have fist
control laws? O_o

TDD

Can't you register your hands as deadly weapons? And buy insurance on
them?

Doug used improper usenet message composition style by unnecessarily
full-quoting:

It does NOT say you have the right to bear ANY arms.
You have the right to bear ARMS.

Against who?

Bear arms - against who?

Does the constitution say who you have a right to bear (use) arms
against?

On 12/23/2012 3:09 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:34:44 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Pennsylvania might need to consider banning "high capacity assault
shovels".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252172/Woman-charged-threatening-kill-elementary-school-children-bus-stop-shovel.html


I darn near killed a burglar with my bare hands, should we have fist
control laws? O_o

TDD

Can't you register your hands as deadly weapons? And buy insurance on
them?


I don't know if I could manage to do it now, I was in better shape and
100lbs heavier at the time and I could pick up a car engine. I have a
lot of trouble with stairs now. O_o

TDD

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:02:53 -0600, Doug
wrote:

Then you have NO CLUE as to the intent of the 2nd Amendment
The 2nd Amendment is ALL ABOUT citizens having the same arms as the police
and military


I disagree. I just researched the 2nd Amendment and no where does it
come close to saying this. It does NOT say you have the right to bear
ANY arms. You have the right to bear ARMS.

You researched the 2nd Amendment all in one day? Shame on you.

Do you really think _We the People_ have no right to remove a
tyrannical government? Even with force if necessary?

By tonight, you could read some more.

P.S. As to the comment about the NRA being unreasonable, ask the wife
if Clinton was wrong to add armed patrols in our schools...

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:17:51 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 06:59:26 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 23, 9:47 am, Doug wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "





wrote:
On Dec 22, 11:39 pm, Doug wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:14:25 -0600, " Attila Iskander"

wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...

Hmmm,
Are you going to arm your self with assault rifle and 200 rounds
magazine
or drum?

"Assault rifles" are and have been strickly controlled since 1934
(They are machine guns don't ya know...)
You have to jump through all kinds of hoops with the Feds and local
police
and pay a $200 tax before you can get one.
If one the other hand you are babbling your ignorance about "assault
weapons" then you are talking about CERTAIN SEMI-automatic (single
shot to
single trigger pull) rifles that have certain cosmetic features like
a
bayonet lug that magically turn them into "assault weapons" while
changing
NOTHING about how they operate, or anything else about their
performance.

Owning a 200 round magazine or drum is really a novelty item that
you would
only use for fun but not for serious shooting
They have a NASTY habit of jamming at the worst moments.
Smart shooters stick with what the firearm was designed to use
normally

You know wackos will come there with such a weapon with mass
killing power
in short time.

And ???
What ??

All I need is just one shot to stop them
And then what ?

I am not against owning fire arm, first step should be banning the
ownership of assault type automatic weapons and high capacity
magazines/clips.

LOL
Are you really this ****ing stupid ?
IN the same sentence you declare, you're OK with owning firearms but
let's
just ban firearms

And owning a gun is one thing using it properly and well is
another,
how many owners are like that?

Just about most who own them
The seem to be much better qualified to using their guns properly
than car
drivers with all the training and licensing they go through...
Let's see
Gun owners with about 330,000,000 guns, have about 600 deadly
accidents a
year, about a thousand injuries, and property damage that is so low
as to be
negligible.
Car owners with about 300,000,000 cars have over 43,000 deaths,
injuries in
the millions and property damage in the Billions

Maybe you should worry more about car owners.

Are always ready for surprise attack? If teachers are armed can
they
concentrate on teaching or be on the look oiut for the sudden
danger?

If you carry, you don't become a defact security guard
It's much closer to carrying an umbrella in case it rains.

IMO, the more gun, the more possibility of trouble. No thanks
no gun for me or my family.

Apparently stupidity is a requirement for hoplophobia.
I feel sorry for your defenseless family.

Hopefully your defective genes will stop with you and yours.

You bypass all the checks and balances if you buy privately and 40%
of
all gun purchases are done this way.

If I understood the NRA, I agree only partially with them. I like the
idea of armed guards (professionals) in schools but not armed
teachers. But armed guards in schools will not solve the overall
problem of mass killings because the criminals will just move from
schools to churches, malls, stadiums, train stations, etc... or other
places with less resistance.

I too was in favor of no semi automatic weapons in civilian hands but
I now I prefer to say it differently now.....I don't want civilians
to
have guns as good or better than the military or police use, unless
they already own them. In other words, I don't want military or
police to be out gunned by civilians. If they satisfy this, civilians
can get whatever guns they want.

Do you realize that we did ban "assault weapons" and high
capacity magazines for a decade, starting in 1994. Study after
study done by various organizations, including the CDC, which
clearly has no pro-gun agenda, concluded it made no difference
in crime rates, murder rates, etc.

Oh by the way, that's not what the CDC said. If you go to their
website...http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
they say ....
"Evidence was INSUFFICIENT to determine the effectiveness of any of
these laws for the following reasons." They explain this as
depending on which study you go by, some say it went higher and other
studies say it went lower.

Therefore, since it's inconclusive, I'd say to do it because taking no
action is NOT the solution.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's apply that logic. We have a new experimental drug for
cancer. Many studies have been done. Some show the drug
increased the 5 year survival rate. An equal number say the
drug decreased the 5 year survival rate. So, the FDA should
approve the drug, put it on the market, because, as you say
"taking no action is not the solution".

You really are quite the village idiot.


No you are. Guns are not drugs.

Really ?
At least you figured that much out
So let's try it again

STUDIES show that gun-control has NO EFFECT because the results are
INCONCLUSIVE

No not ineffective, just INCONCLUSIVE. See my earlier reference to
the CDC.

In article ,
" Attila Iskander" wrote:

"Doug" wrote in message
...


This is in dispute with CNN information.

DOH !
Then you should presume that CNN is wrong or playing with the truth
They have a history of doing that .

One side is on wikipedia, the other CNN. A Hobson's choice.
--
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 Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:21:16 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .



I have the facts right. YOU have no facts. You're just
a troll, clammering to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING,
whether it's been shown to make any difference or
not. In the case in question, a 10 year ban on "assault
weapons" (which like all the other gun control experts
here, you can't even define), made no difference in
crimer rates, murder rates, or anything else. All
it did was enable the pandering lib politicians to sucker
in fools like you. And now, it's "Yes Sir, let me have
another, Sir" Mindless sycophant that you are.


I gave a reference with a link and quoted from it. That is a FACT.
And I used one of your references... the CDC.


And any intelligent person, which excludes you, is smart enough to realize
that when you have 30+ years of INCONCLUSIVE data, doing more of the same,
in the hope that this time you will magically come up with meaningful data,
IS A WASTE OF TIME..



So then all the studies are worthless ... then we go back to using
good judgement.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:19:00 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 06:59:26 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 23, 9:47 am, Doug wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "


Oh by the way, that's not what the CDC said. If you go to their
website...http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
they say ....
"Evidence was INSUFFICIENT to determine the effectiveness of any of
these laws for the following reasons." They explain this as
depending on which study you go by, some say it went higher and other
studies say it went lower.

Therefore, since it's inconclusive, I'd say to do it because taking no
action is NOT the solution.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's apply that logic. We have a new experimental drug for
cancer. Many studies have been done. Some show the drug
increased the 5 year survival rate. An equal number say the
drug decreased the 5 year survival rate. So, the FDA should
approve the drug, put it on the market, because, as you say
"taking no action is not the solution".

You really are quite the village idiot.


And if you want to talk about idiots, you can't even get your facts
straight about the CDC. LOL

Now you're just shuckin' n' jivin' like a fool...


You sound like you are trying to hard to make a point without making
one.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:14:28 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


Do you realize that we did ban "assault weapons" and high
capacity magazines for a decade, starting in 1994. Study after
study done by various organizations, including the CDC, which
clearly has no pro-gun agenda, concluded it made no difference
in crime rates, murder rates, etc.


Oh by the way, that's not what the CDC said. If you go to their
website...http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
they say ....
"Evidence was INSUFFICIENT to determine the effectiveness of any of
these laws for the following reasons." They explain this as
depending on which study you go by, some say it went higher and other
studies say it went lower.


DOH !
1) The CDC has a history of being pro gun-control
2) The CC has had it's knuckles rapped by Congress because they got caught
at it
3) They studied more than 30 years of studies, and all they could come up
with is that ?

HELLO ?

How long do you want to study something before you go..
Hmmm
No evidence to support this theory after 30 years of studies
Maybe it's time to come up with a different theory
This is not "global warming" with a planet that operates by millenia
This is simple social issues that operate a MUCH, MUCH SHORTER scale
Try 5-10 years to have meaninfull data

Therefore, since it's inconclusive, I'd say to do it because taking no
action is NOT the solution.

Fine
But since it's INCONCLUSIVE after 30 years, then intelligent people are NOT
going to go back and do the same old, same old that has proven inconclusive
after all this time
SMART people are going to try something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

How about trying to do what the Israeli did to protect their schools after
the palestinian terrorists decided to target their schools
They have nearly 40 years of NO MORE attacks on schools, while we with our
"Gun Free Zones" have 30+ years of school attacks being repeated over and
over...

HELLO ??




I have no problem with trying DIFFERENT so we may agree on that point
but I bet we'll disagree after that.

Oren wrote:

Ask to the comment about the NRA being unreasonable, ask the wife
if Clinton was wrong to add armed patrols in our schools...

If mass murder performed on your children is not too high of a cost for
your american society to pay just so it can crow and brag that it has
the right to keep and bear arms (and maintain the intellectual farce
that it NEEDS that right) - then what exactly would be too high a
price. ?

You've already given up many things to the gov't. Any right or ability
you had (or thought you had, or wish you had) to conduct anonymous
commerce, travel and communications within your own country for a
start. You don't seem to care about losing those aspects of civilian
life that the founding fathers and early americans enjoyed.

Everything in society is balanced between cost and benefit. Risk and
reward. Every product, every service.

Cars, cutlery, toasters. The design and cost of all retail products and
services is a balance - overwhelmingly in favor of benefit, making great
efforts to reduce risk. Personal firearms exist outside this balance -
forever given idiosyncratic exception to their cost, their toll, their
liability upon society.

Nothing can be more insane, illogical, ugly or monstrous as when a
society gives itself the right to own and wield dangerous weapons
AGAINST ITSELF in order to protect itself.

Do you really think _We the People_ have no right to remove a
tyrannical government? Even with force if necessary?

Do you really believe that at any point in the history of your country,
and especially now, that US citizens could organize and fight against
the US Military and win, thereby overthrowing a so-called tyrannical
gov't?

Do you really believe that some simple, feeble words on a dusty piece of
paper would really give you some magical ability to be the hero and
overthrow a tyranical gov't?

Do you really believe that as a last resort, your gov't and the military
it controls wouldn't use it's significant chemical and biological
weapons against you - "the people" ?

The civillian right to own and bear arms is a hollow promise. It will
never be able to rescue you from a tyranical, beligerant government.
But you are paying, and will continue to pay a heavy price for that
false, inconsequential, ineffective "right".

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:34:44 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Pennsylvania might need to consider banning "high capacity assault
shovels".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252172/Woman-charged-threatening-kill-elementary-school-children-bus-stop-shovel.html


I darn near killed a burglar with my bare hands, should we have fist
control laws? O_o

TDD

Can't you register your hands as deadly weapons? And buy insurance on
them?

My neighbor has a Dachshund called Doobie, for some unknown and never
clarified reason. Doobie thinks Dobermans are wusses, at least when it comes
to protecting her turf against strangers.
If you are known and come in peace, you are watched carefully until her
human indicates that you are welcome and to be trusted. (Friendly greeting
and hug)
If you are known, come in peace and bring gifs (as in postman or UPS man)
your are welcomed at the front door.
Anything else constitutes toleration only, even if allowed to enter the
house. And you are watched most carefully.
But if you have no preceding history, then watch out, you are a snack.

Case in point about 6 months ago, a stranger to the neighborhood decided
that an open screened window was an invitation for entrance.
There was NO warning issued until the individual was mostly inside.
Then Doobie made her presence known by literally chewing her way up one leg
and down the other, leaving a nicely spread out series of bites.
The nether region escaped unharmed because the idiot in question had
"saggers", pants with a crotch about 6 inches lower than normal.
An ambulance was needed because the police didn't want any of the estimated
2 quarts of blood that had been splashed on the siding, lawn and sidewalk,
to also mar their clean cruiser.
When the individual was lying on the sidewalk incapacitated, and completely
off Doobie's property, Doobie sat down and started barking and howling to
attract attention to her prowess
Much praise and assorted yummies were presented to her by the neighbors
mightily impressed with her efforts.

"Doug" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:05:16 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


I too was in favor of no semi automatic weapons in civilian hands but
I now I prefer to say it differently now.....I don't want civilians to
have guns as good or better than the military or police use, unless
they already own them. In other words, I don't want military or
police to be out gunned by civilians. If they satisfy this, civilians
can get whatever guns they want.


Then you have NO CLUE as to the intent of the 2nd Amendment
The 2nd Amendment is ALL ABOUT citizens having the same arms as the police
and military


I disagree. I just researched the 2nd Amendment and no where does it
come close to saying this. It does NOT say you have the right to bear
ANY arms. You have the right to bear ARMS.

Then you need to continue with your research which clearly is INCOMPLETE.

"Arms and the Man" wrote in message
...
Oren wrote:

Ask to the comment about the NRA being unreasonable, ask the wife
if Clinton was wrong to add armed patrols in our schools...

If mass murder performed on your children is not too high of a cost for
your american society to pay just so it can crow and brag that it has
the right to keep and bear arms (and maintain the intellectual farce
that it NEEDS that right) - then what exactly would be too high a
price. ?


Considering that the same number of kids are killed weekly with cars, I
really don't know what your point is about what effectively is an
out-of-the-ordinary event




You've already given up many things to the gov't. Any right or ability
you had (or thought you had, or wish you had) to conduct anonymous
commerce, travel and communications within your own country for a
start. You don't seem to care about losing those aspects of civilian
life that the founding fathers and early americans enjoyed.

Everything in society is balanced between cost and benefit. Risk and
reward. Every product, every service.


OK

There are about 2,500,000 DGUs (Defensive gun uses where armed people avoid
being the victims of criminals intent on anything from petty theft all the
way to rape and murder
How does 20 compare to 2,500,000 in your book ??

How does 20 every week by car compare to 20 once in a blue moon ??


Cars, cutlery, toasters. The design and cost of all retail products and
services is a balance - overwhelmingly in favor of benefit, making great
efforts to reduce risk. Personal firearms exist outside this balance -
forever given idiosyncratic exception to their cost, their toll, their
liability upon society.


And other than rubbing the point on your head, did you have a point ??


Nothing can be more insane, illogical, ugly or monstrous as when a
society gives itself the right to own and wield dangerous weapons
AGAINST ITSELF in order to protect itself.


Fair enough, since FAR FAR more people, including young chldren are killed
by cars than guns, why don't you focus on that



Do you really think _We the People_ have no right to remove a
tyrannical government? Even with force if necessary?


Actually yes.
That is the WHOLE IDEA of a free society, that when the government morphs
into a tyranny, you have the means to clean house and change things back to
where they should be


Do you really believe that at any point in the history of your country,
and especially now, that US citizens could organize and fight against
the US Military and win, thereby overthrowing a so-called tyrannical
gov't?


There are far more armed citizens than police and military
And the military, and also hopefully the police, will remember their oath of
service


Do you really believe that some simple, feeble words on a dusty piece of
paper would really give you some magical ability to be the hero and
overthrow a tyranical gov't?



It has been working it's magic, turning the US into the power on the planet
for nearly 240 years
Why not ?

Do you really believe that as a last resort, your gov't and the military
it controls wouldn't use it's significant chemical and biological
weapons against you - "the people" ?


Fortunately, we have not yet reached that point where those in power can
succcessfully do so.


The civillian right to own and bear arms is a hollow promise. It will
never be able to rescue you from a tyranical, beligerant government.
But you are paying, and will continue to pay a heavy price for that
false, inconsequential, ineffective "right".

Your opinion is noted
Thank you for your input
Feel free to crawl back under your rock ASAP..

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
" Attila Iskander" wrote:

"Doug" wrote in message
...


This is in dispute with CNN information.

DOH !
Then you should presume that CNN is wrong or playing with the truth
They have a history of doing that .

One side is on wikipedia, the other CNN. A Hobson's choice.
--

There are other sources.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:14:28 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


Do you realize that we did ban "assault weapons" and high
capacity magazines for a decade, starting in 1994. Study after
study done by various organizations, including the CDC, which
clearly has no pro-gun agenda, concluded it made no difference
in crime rates, murder rates, etc.


Oh by the way, that's not what the CDC said. If you go to their
website...http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
they say ....
"Evidence was INSUFFICIENT to determine the effectiveness of any of
these laws for the following reasons." They explain this as
depending on which study you go by, some say it went higher and other
studies say it went lower.


DOH !
1) The CDC has a history of being pro gun-control
2) The CC has had it's knuckles rapped by Congress because they got caught
at it
3) They studied more than 30 years of studies, and all they could come up
with is that ?

HELLO ?

How long do you want to study something before you go..
Hmmm
No evidence to support this theory after 30 years of studies
Maybe it's time to come up with a different theory
This is not "global warming" with a planet that operates by millenia
This is simple social issues that operate a MUCH, MUCH SHORTER scale
Try 5-10 years to have meaninfull data

Therefore, since it's inconclusive, I'd say to do it because taking no
action is NOT the solution.

Fine
But since it's INCONCLUSIVE after 30 years, then intelligent people are
NOT
going to go back and do the same old, same old that has proven
inconclusive
after all this time
SMART people are going to try something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

How about trying to do what the Israeli did to protect their schools after
the palestinian terrorists decided to target their schools
They have nearly 40 years of NO MORE attacks on schools, while we with our
"Gun Free Zones" have 30+ years of school attacks being repeated over and
over...

HELLO ??




I have no problem with trying DIFFERENT so we may agree on that point
but I bet we'll disagree after that.

Then we can only hope that you do continue your "research" on not only the
2nd Amendment, but other subjects as well, so that you can come back and
argue more out of knowledge than ignorance.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:17:51 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 06:59:26 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 23, 9:47 am, Doug wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "





wrote:
On Dec 22, 11:39 pm, Doug wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:14:25 -0600, " Attila Iskander"

wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...

Hmmm,
Are you going to arm your self with assault rifle and 200 rounds
magazine
or drum?

"Assault rifles" are and have been strickly controlled since 1934
(They are machine guns don't ya know...)
You have to jump through all kinds of hoops with the Feds and
local
police
and pay a $200 tax before you can get one.
If one the other hand you are babbling your ignorance about
"assault
weapons" then you are talking about CERTAIN SEMI-automatic (single
shot to
single trigger pull) rifles that have certain cosmetic features
like
a
bayonet lug that magically turn them into "assault weapons" while
changing
NOTHING about how they operate, or anything else about their
performance.

Owning a 200 round magazine or drum is really a novelty item that
you would
only use for fun but not for serious shooting
They have a NASTY habit of jamming at the worst moments.
Smart shooters stick with what the firearm was designed to use
normally

You know wackos will come there with such a weapon with mass
killing power
in short time.

And ???
What ??

All I need is just one shot to stop them
And then what ?

I am not against owning fire arm, first step should be banning
the
ownership of assault type automatic weapons and high capacity
magazines/clips.

LOL
Are you really this ****ing stupid ?
IN the same sentence you declare, you're OK with owning firearms
but
let's
just ban firearms

And owning a gun is one thing using it properly and well is
another,
how many owners are like that?

Just about most who own them
The seem to be much better qualified to using their guns properly
than car
drivers with all the training and licensing they go through...
Let's see
Gun owners with about 330,000,000 guns, have about 600 deadly
accidents a
year, about a thousand injuries, and property damage that is so
low
as to be
negligible.
Car owners with about 300,000,000 cars have over 43,000 deaths,
injuries in
the millions and property damage in the Billions

Maybe you should worry more about car owners.

Are always ready for surprise attack? If teachers are armed can
they
concentrate on teaching or be on the look oiut for the sudden
danger?

If you carry, you don't become a defact security guard
It's much closer to carrying an umbrella in case it rains.

IMO, the more gun, the more possibility of trouble. No thanks
no gun for me or my family.

Apparently stupidity is a requirement for hoplophobia.
I feel sorry for your defenseless family.

Hopefully your defective genes will stop with you and yours.

You bypass all the checks and balances if you buy privately and 40%
of
all gun purchases are done this way.

If I understood the NRA, I agree only partially with them. I like
the
idea of armed guards (professionals) in schools but not armed
teachers. But armed guards in schools will not solve the overall
problem of mass killings because the criminals will just move from
schools to churches, malls, stadiums, train stations, etc... or
other
places with less resistance.

I too was in favor of no semi automatic weapons in civilian hands
but
I now I prefer to say it differently now.....I don't want civilians
to
have guns as good or better than the military or police use, unless
they already own them. In other words, I don't want military or
police to be out gunned by civilians. If they satisfy this,
civilians
can get whatever guns they want.

Do you realize that we did ban "assault weapons" and high
capacity magazines for a decade, starting in 1994. Study after
study done by various organizations, including the CDC, which
clearly has no pro-gun agenda, concluded it made no difference
in crime rates, murder rates, etc.

Oh by the way, that's not what the CDC said. If you go to their
website...http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
they say ....
"Evidence was INSUFFICIENT to determine the effectiveness of any of
these laws for the following reasons." They explain this as
depending on which study you go by, some say it went higher and other
studies say it went lower.

Therefore, since it's inconclusive, I'd say to do it because taking no
action is NOT the solution.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's apply that logic. We have a new experimental drug for
cancer. Many studies have been done. Some show the drug
increased the 5 year survival rate. An equal number say the
drug decreased the 5 year survival rate. So, the FDA should
approve the drug, put it on the market, because, as you say
"taking no action is not the solution".

You really are quite the village idiot.


No you are. Guns are not drugs.

Really ?
At least you figured that much out
So let's try it again

STUDIES show that gun-control has NO EFFECT because the results are
INCONCLUSIVE

No not ineffective, just INCONCLUSIVE. See my earlier reference to
the CDC.

If you spend money and effort for 30+ years and yet get NO POSITIVE
DEMONSTRATABLE RESULTS, only a fool would not consider that a failure and
argue to keep doing the same all over again.
Are you a fool ??

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:19:00 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 06:59:26 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 23, 9:47 am, Doug wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "


Oh by the way, that's not what the CDC said. If you go to their
website...http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
they say ....
"Evidence was INSUFFICIENT to determine the effectiveness of any of
these laws for the following reasons." They explain this as
depending on which study you go by, some say it went higher and other
studies say it went lower.

Therefore, since it's inconclusive, I'd say to do it because taking no
action is NOT the solution.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's apply that logic. We have a new experimental drug for
cancer. Many studies have been done. Some show the drug
increased the 5 year survival rate. An equal number say the
drug decreased the 5 year survival rate. So, the FDA should
approve the drug, put it on the market, because, as you say
"taking no action is not the solution".

You really are quite the village idiot.


And if you want to talk about idiots, you can't even get your facts
straight about the CDC. LOL

Now you're just shuckin' n' jivin' like a fool...


You sound like you are trying to hard to make a point without making
one.

Oh
I made my point all right
You just didn't get it.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:21:16 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..



I have the facts right. YOU have no facts. You're just
a troll, clammering to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING,
whether it's been shown to make any difference or
not. In the case in question, a 10 year ban on "assault
weapons" (which like all the other gun control experts
here, you can't even define), made no difference in
crimer rates, murder rates, or anything else. All
it did was enable the pandering lib politicians to sucker
in fools like you. And now, it's "Yes Sir, let me have
another, Sir" Mindless sycophant that you are.


I gave a reference with a link and quoted from it. That is a FACT.
And I used one of your references... the CDC.


And any intelligent person, which excludes you, is smart enough to realize
that when you have 30+ years of INCONCLUSIVE data, doing more of the same,
in the hope that this time you will magically come up with meaningful
data,
IS A WASTE OF TIME..



So then all the studies are worthless ... then we go back to using
good judgement.

LOL
Since you have yet to demonstrate you have any, that leaves you out of the
mix..

But unlike you we DO have ONE experiment which has given us VERY CLEAR and
POSITIVE results, almost immediately after it was put in effect.
Actually we have a whole slew of them, but let's keep it simple for you.

"Doug" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 11:25:17 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 10:09:14 -0800 (PST), marco
wrote:

300 million guns in the country

young,
or immature people do stupid things [i was young once,
and did some pretty stupid things, so i should know]
kids bringing guns to elementary school!
what's going on?

come on people, hasn't gotten out of control?
this it nuts!

i suspect will are going to see more of this type of thing,
simply because of copycats, or for who knows what reason,
but i hope i'm wrong

marc

Dear Liberal Stanford University Student:

I already replied to you about this matter. Do you have a class soon
or are you posting from class using the Stanford Usenet groups?


My wife usually doesn't say much but about 1/2 hour ago she said outa
the clear blue to me, "the NRA is being unreasonable".

I would suggest a couple of things
Tell your wife to read up on Ma'alot and what the Israeli did as a solution
for it

I agree with the NRA for armed guards in the school.
I don't like the idea of armed teachers but neither of these
ideas will solve the mass killings.

We don't disagree.
This is not a solution it's a bandaid to protect our children



The killers will just go elsewhere.


And frankly I have no problem that these maniac killers go after adult
hoplophobes congregating in posted location
It will give us more data about them and also cull the idiot herd a tad.
To me that's a win-win.