"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in
:

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...

And those are the legal ones whose effects on humans can be
ethically investigated in controlled-dosage trials.

This gift to the world from JFK is finally public:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_112

An early leak:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_of_NIMH
"..the rats and Mr. Ages, were once part of a series of experiments
at
a place known as NIMH (which stands for the National Institute of
Mental Health). The experiments had boosted their intelligence to
human level, allowing them to easily escape."

You *do* know that's a work of fiction, don't you?

The grad student at the chem lab bench beside mine worked on Project
112, synthesizing 'stuff' to be fed to the rats at NIMH. My research
grant was to add Deuterium tracers to measure the metabolic rate.

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 02:54:19 +0000 (UTC), Przemek Klosowski
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 04:16:38 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:

prohibitions in the face of demand are a lost cause. Regarding gun
control, as I've shown and as the examples from other countries
demonstrate, breaking the flow of guns to criminals appears to be far
more effective, both in terms of crime and culture, than prohibiting gun
ownership. If you do it right, you can have a lot of guns in a society
with few consequential problems.

Gun control is really an issue of risk management. I have another
proposal: outsource gun control to the free market by requiring gun
insurance---just like car insurance, where nobody complains about the
tyrannical government limiting our right to move around freely.

The actuarial method would identify the risks and price the insurance
accordingly, just like the flood, health or car insurance does. Instead
of surcharges due to accident or smoking, we may encounter a 'social
misfit' premium, but we know how to fairly regulate those issues. The
role of the government would, as usual, be to set and enforce rules on
both sides.

What part of :

"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

do you not understand?

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:52:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Gun restrictions are a convenient way to attack and punish "them"
while distracting attention away from the hazards that are important
to "us", such as the drugs (legal and otherwise) that keep your heads
together.

Poor paranoid gun nut, you're so abused. People actually threaten to
make you responsible for the things you own and what you do! The NERVE
of them!

Eddy is another one that always forgets:


"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Odd how that so often happens eh wot?

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:54:52 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:52:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Gun restrictions are a convenient way to attack and punish "them"
while distracting attention away from the hazards that are important
to "us", such as the drugs (legal and otherwise) that keep your heads
together.

Poor paranoid gun nut, you're so abused. People actually threaten to
make you responsible for the things you own and what you do! The NERVE
of them!

Eddy is another one that always forgets:


"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

It's not, Gunner. You can have guns. In fact, you do.

--
Ed Huntress


Odd how that so often happens eh wot?

Gunner

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:14:31 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:54:52 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:52:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Gun restrictions are a convenient way to attack and punish "them"
while distracting attention away from the hazards that are important
to "us", such as the drugs (legal and otherwise) that keep your heads
together.

Poor paranoid gun nut, you're so abused. People actually threaten to
make you responsible for the things you own and what you do! The NERVE
of them!

Eddy is another one that always forgets:


"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

It's not, Gunner. You can have guns. In fact, you do.

Some guns yes. But in California..we are not allowed to have some
guns. Our rights are indeed Infringed.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:58:31 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:14:31 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:54:52 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:52:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Gun restrictions are a convenient way to attack and punish "them"
while distracting attention away from the hazards that are important
to "us", such as the drugs (legal and otherwise) that keep your heads
together.

Poor paranoid gun nut, you're so abused. People actually threaten to
make you responsible for the things you own and what you do! The NERVE
of them!

Eddy is another one that always forgets:


"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

It's not, Gunner. You can have guns. In fact, you do.

Some guns yes. But in California..we are not allowed to have some
guns. Our rights are indeed Infringed.

Your opinion about that, and a dollar, will get you a cup of coffee.

Scalia laid out plenty of examples in Heller that demonstrate the
historical meaning of the 2nd. They are explicit that it never meant
what you think, that limits and regulations were always a part of it.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:37:30 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:58:31 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:14:31 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:54:52 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:52:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Gun restrictions are a convenient way to attack and punish "them"
while distracting attention away from the hazards that are important
to "us", such as the drugs (legal and otherwise) that keep your heads
together.

Poor paranoid gun nut, you're so abused. People actually threaten to
make you responsible for the things you own and what you do! The NERVE
of them!

Eddy is another one that always forgets:


"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

It's not, Gunner. You can have guns. In fact, you do.

Some guns yes. But in California..we are not allowed to have some
guns. Our rights are indeed Infringed.

Your opinion about that, and a dollar, will get you a cup of coffee.

Scalia laid out plenty of examples in Heller that demonstrate the
historical meaning of the 2nd. They are explicit that it never meant
what you think, that limits and regulations were always a part of it.

Scalia is 1 of 9...and only one of many thousands on SCOTUS since 1789

He (and many others) have pussy footed around the 20,000 existing
(unconstititional) laws that have been put on the books since the
founding of this nation.

Cant blame him (or them) too much though...giving their constitutional
Rights back to the People makes Leftwingers tremble and scream and
**** in their loafers..so he/they are having to do it incrementally.

All those racist Democrats who first put gun control laws on the books
to limit blacks access to arms.....shrug.


Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:37:30 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

It's not, Gunner. You can have guns. In fact, you do.

Some guns yes. But in California..we are not allowed to have some
guns. Our rights are indeed Infringed.

Your opinion about that, and a dollar, will get you a cup of coffee.

Scalia laid out plenty of examples in Heller that demonstrate the
historical meaning of the 2nd. They are explicit that it never meant
what you think, that limits and regulations were always a part of it.

--
Ed Huntress

It's huge, but well worth reading.

http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/35.htm

The Supreme Court’s Thirty-five Other Gun Cases:
What the Supreme Court Has Said about the Second Amendment

[This is a DRAFT of an article that will appear in a symposium issue
of volume 18 of the St. Louis University Public Law Review.]

By David B. Kopel[1]

Among legal scholars, it is conventional wisdom that the Supreme Court
has said almost nothing about the Second Amendment.[2] This article
suggests that the Court has not been so silent as the conventional
wisdom suggests. While the meaning of the Supreme Court's leading
Second Amendment case, the 1939 United States v. Miller[3] decision
remains hotly disputed, the question whether the Second Amendment
guarantees an individual right can be pretty well settled by looking
at the thirty-five other Supreme Court cases which quote, cite, or
discuss the Second Amendment. These cases suggest that the Justices of
the Supreme Court do now and usually have regarded the Second
Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear arms" as an individual
right, rather than as a right of state governments.
The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On 2/18/2013 10:02 AM, Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:37:30 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:58:31 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:14:31 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:54:52 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:52:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Gun restrictions are a convenient way to attack and punish "them"
while distracting attention away from the hazards that are important
to "us", such as the drugs (legal and otherwise) that keep your heads
together.

Poor paranoid gun nut, you're so abused. People actually threaten to
make you responsible for the things you own and what you do! The NERVE
of them!

Eddy is another one that always forgets:


"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

It's not, Gunner. You can have guns. In fact, you do.

Some guns yes. But in California..we are not allowed to have some
guns. Our rights are indeed Infringed.

Your opinion about that, and a dollar, will get you a cup of coffee.

Scalia laid out plenty of examples in Heller that demonstrate the
historical meaning of the 2nd. They are explicit that it never meant
what you think, that limits and regulations were always a part of it.

Scalia is 1 of 9...and only one of many thousands on SCOTUS since 1789

Scalia's view is the opinion of the court, meaning at least four other
justices agree with it. Some dissenting justices may well agree with
his statement on the limits of the right.

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]

Scalia is a legal scholar, and you are not.


He (and many others) have pussy footed around the 20,000 existing
(unconstititional) laws that have been put on the books since the
founding of this nation.

"(unconstitutional) laws" -- laws that gummer doesn't like.

On 2/18/2013 10:07 AM, Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:37:30 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

It's not, Gunner. You can have guns. In fact, you do.

Some guns yes. But in California..we are not allowed to have some
guns. Our rights are indeed Infringed.

Your opinion about that, and a dollar, will get you a cup of coffee.

Scalia laid out plenty of examples in Heller that demonstrate the
historical meaning of the 2nd. They are explicit that it never meant
what you think, that limits and regulations were always a part of it.

--
Ed Huntress

It's huge, but well worth reading.

http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/35.htm

The Supreme Court’s Thirty-five Other Gun Cases:
What the Supreme Court Has Said about the Second Amendment

It's not worth reading again. As another critic has noted, most of what
is contained there is either /obiter dicta/ or statements taken from the
*dissenting*, i.e. losing, opinion. It does give a lot of support to
the idea that many legal scholars saw the second amendment as securing
an *individual* rather than collective or state right, but nothing in
there supports your wrong belief that scholars have seen the right to
keep and bear arms as unlimited. It is *not* unlimited.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:02:27 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:37:30 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:58:31 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:14:31 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:54:52 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:52:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Gun restrictions are a convenient way to attack and punish "them"
while distracting attention away from the hazards that are important
to "us", such as the drugs (legal and otherwise) that keep your heads
together.

Poor paranoid gun nut, you're so abused. People actually threaten to
make you responsible for the things you own and what you do! The NERVE
of them!

Eddy is another one that always forgets:


"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

It's not, Gunner. You can have guns. In fact, you do.

Some guns yes. But in California..we are not allowed to have some
guns. Our rights are indeed Infringed.

Your opinion about that, and a dollar, will get you a cup of coffee.

Scalia laid out plenty of examples in Heller that demonstrate the
historical meaning of the 2nd. They are explicit that it never meant
what you think, that limits and regulations were always a part of it.

Scalia is 1 of 9...and only one of many thousands on SCOTUS since 1789

He (and many others) have pussy footed around the 20,000 existing
(unconstititional) laws that have been put on the books since the
founding of this nation.

Most of them aren't unconstitutional, although many of them are silly.


Cant blame him (or them) too much though...giving their constitutional
Rights back to the People makes Leftwingers tremble and scream and
**** in their loafers..so he/they are having to do it incrementally.

All those racist Democrats who first put gun control laws on the books
to limit blacks access to arms.....shrug.

Southern, conservative Democrats. They are an engangered species.

They're known as Republicans now. They were never libertarian, which
is something you frequently mix up with conservatism. They were the
paleo flavor of authoritarian, racist, narrow-minded conservatives.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:07:06 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:37:30 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

It's not, Gunner. You can have guns. In fact, you do.

Some guns yes. But in California..we are not allowed to have some
guns. Our rights are indeed Infringed.

Your opinion about that, and a dollar, will get you a cup of coffee.

Scalia laid out plenty of examples in Heller that demonstrate the
historical meaning of the 2nd. They are explicit that it never meant
what you think, that limits and regulations were always a part of it.

--
Ed Huntress

It's huge, but well worth reading.

http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/35.htm

The Supreme Court’s Thirty-five Other Gun Cases:
What the Supreme Court Has Said about the Second Amendment

[This is a DRAFT of an article that will appear in a symposium issue
of volume 18 of the St. Louis University Public Law Review.]

By David B. Kopel[1]

snip

We've been over this before. What Plimpton said.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2/18/2013 11:00 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:07:06 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:37:30 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

It's not, Gunner. You can have guns. In fact, you do.

Some guns yes. But in California..we are not allowed to have some
guns. Our rights are indeed Infringed.

Your opinion about that, and a dollar, will get you a cup of coffee.

Scalia laid out plenty of examples in Heller that demonstrate the
historical meaning of the 2nd. They are explicit that it never meant
what you think, that limits and regulations were always a part of it.

--
Ed Huntress

It's huge, but well worth reading.

http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/35.htm

The Supreme Court’s Thirty-five Other Gun Cases:
What the Supreme Court Has Said about the Second Amendment

[This is a DRAFT of an article that will appear in a symposium issue
of volume 18 of the St. Louis University Public Law Review.]

By David B. Kopel[1]

snip

We've been over this before. What Plimpton said.

It was worth reading once, because it does illustrate that the
gun-grabber crowd are wrong when they were insisting that there was a
consensus that the second amendment conferred a collective right, or a
"right" held by the states. To the extent anything had been written on
the subject at all, Kopel's research shows that most of what had been
written, even though not part of any holding, suggested that a large
number of second amendment scholars always did view it to be an
individual right, which Heller finally - and thankfully - held.

gummer's error is in reading more into it than is really there,
particularly seeing a view that the right is unlimited.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:00:11 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:07:06 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:37:30 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

It's not, Gunner. You can have guns. In fact, you do.

Some guns yes. But in California..we are not allowed to have some
guns. Our rights are indeed Infringed.

Your opinion about that, and a dollar, will get you a cup of coffee.

Scalia laid out plenty of examples in Heller that demonstrate the
historical meaning of the 2nd. They are explicit that it never meant
what you think, that limits and regulations were always a part of it.

--
Ed Huntress

It's huge, but well worth reading.

http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/35.htm

The Supreme Court’s Thirty-five Other Gun Cases:
What the Supreme Court Has Said about the Second Amendment

[This is a DRAFT of an article that will appear in a symposium issue
of volume 18 of the St. Louis University Public Law Review.]

By David B. Kopel[1]

snip

We've been over this before. What Plimpton said.

What Kopel said.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On 2/18/2013 1:08 PM, Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:00:11 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:07:06 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:37:30 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

It's not, Gunner. You can have guns. In fact, you do.

Some guns yes. But in California..we are not allowed to have some
guns. Our rights are indeed Infringed.

Your opinion about that, and a dollar, will get you a cup of coffee.

Scalia laid out plenty of examples in Heller that demonstrate the
historical meaning of the 2nd. They are explicit that it never meant
what you think, that limits and regulations were always a part of it.

--
Ed Huntress

It's huge, but well worth reading.

http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/35.htm

The Supreme Court’s Thirty-five Other Gun Cases:
What the Supreme Court Has Said about the Second Amendment

[This is a DRAFT of an article that will appear in a symposium issue
of volume 18 of the St. Louis University Public Law Review.]

By David B. Kopel[1]

snip

We've been over this before. What Plimpton said.

What Kopel said.

What Kopel cited was /obiter dicta/ and dissenting opinions.

Also...nothing Kopel said supports the notion that the right to keep and
bear arms is unlimited.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:59:14 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Scalia laid out plenty of examples in Heller that demonstrate the
historical meaning of the 2nd. They are explicit that it never meant
what you think, that limits and regulations were always a part of it.

Scalia is 1 of 9...and only one of many thousands on SCOTUS since 1789

He (and many others) have pussy footed around the 20,000 existing
(unconstititional) laws that have been put on the books since the
founding of this nation.

Most of them aren't unconstitutional, although many of them are silly.

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Most are very unconstitutional. Your opinion is once again laughed
at..but..respectfully. Kinda sorta...snicker.


Cant blame him (or them) too much though...giving their constitutional
Rights back to the People makes Leftwingers tremble and scream and
**** in their loafers..so he/they are having to do it incrementally.

All those racist Democrats who first put gun control laws on the books
to limit blacks access to arms.....shrug.

Southern, conservative Democrats. They are an engangered species.

The KKK are Conservative Democrats? Fasinating. So Dr King..a
Republican was murdered by a "conservative" Democrat?
Fascinating world view you have. Must have been the result of that
"summer of LSD" you mentioned years ago.

They're known as Republicans now. They were never libertarian, which
is something you frequently mix up with conservatism. They were the
paleo flavor of authoritarian, racist, narrow-minded conservatives.

Sorry old chump..they are no different than Stalinist socialist and
National Socialists with their hardons for Kulacks and Jews.

Hardly "conservatives" as defined by todays meaning.

Hell..if you werent a Democrat..you couldnt be in the KKK for most of
its 150+ yr history as the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.

And they still run for office as Democrats.


http://takimag.com/article/robert_by..._the_kkk/print
--
Ed Huntress

Your liberal side is showing again Ed.

""Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're
ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
Ronald Reagan

Fits you like a glove.

Btw..those donkey balls seem to be chaffing your chin.
(see the link I provided)



Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:38:36 -0800, George Plimpton
wrote:

On 2/18/2013 11:00 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:07:06 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:37:30 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

It's not, Gunner. You can have guns. In fact, you do.

Some guns yes. But in California..we are not allowed to have some
guns. Our rights are indeed Infringed.

Your opinion about that, and a dollar, will get you a cup of coffee.

Scalia laid out plenty of examples in Heller that demonstrate the
historical meaning of the 2nd. They are explicit that it never meant
what you think, that limits and regulations were always a part of it.

--
Ed Huntress

It's huge, but well worth reading.

http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/35.htm

The Supreme Court’s Thirty-five Other Gun Cases:
What the Supreme Court Has Said about the Second Amendment

[This is a DRAFT of an article that will appear in a symposium issue
of volume 18 of the St. Louis University Public Law Review.]

By David B. Kopel[1]

snip

We've been over this before. What Plimpton said.

It was worth reading once, because it does illustrate that the
gun-grabber crowd are wrong when they were insisting that there was a
consensus that the second amendment conferred a collective right, or a
"right" held by the states. To the extent anything had been written on
the subject at all, Kopel's research shows that most of what had been
written, even though not part of any holding, suggested that a large
number of second amendment scholars always did view it to be an
individual right, which Heller finally - and thankfully - held.

gummer's error is in reading more into it than is really there,
particularly seeing a view that the right is unlimited.

Precisely, on all counts.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:51:45 -0800, Gunner wrote:

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 02:54:19 +0000 (UTC), Przemek Klosowski
wrote:

Gun control is really an issue of risk management. I have another
proposal: outsource gun control to the free market by requiring gun
insurance---just like car insurance, where nobody complains about the
tyrannical government limiting our right to move around freely.

What part of :

"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

do you not understand?

You keep using that phrase but it does not mean what you think it means.
Is the right to have a car infringed by the registration and insurance
requirement? We as society do not think so, but I will not be surprised
to find that you hold a minority- opposing view.

Currently, the cost of gun ownership is externalized to everyone, and the
proposals like hiring armed bodyguards for every school (and let's not
forget churches, fast food places and shopping malls) would result in
even more cost that I as a taxpayer would have to foot. I object to that,
and I demand that gun ownership carries a set of obligations that Ed
Huntress outlined: responsible stewardship requirement is just a first,
fundamental one.

I happen to think that insurance would be an objective, fair way of
pricing such risks. In fact it's the only way in the long term to
guarantee that the gun ownership choice can be fairly exercised without
externalizing its cost. For instance, it would provide an objective
insight on the relative risks of keeping semi-automatic weapons in
households with psychotic teenagers.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 04:28:47 +0000 (UTC), Przemek Klosowski
wrote:

I happen to think that insurance would be an objective, fair way of
pricing such risks. In fact it's the only way in the long term to
guarantee that the gun ownership choice can be fairly exercised without
externalizing its cost. For instance, it would provide an objective
insight on the relative risks of keeping semi-automatic weapons in
households with psychotic teenagers.

"The Right to keep and bear arms shall not be Infringed"

You folks keep missing that part ....

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 04:28:47 +0000 (UTC), Przemek Klosowski
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:51:45 -0800, Gunner wrote:

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 02:54:19 +0000 (UTC), Przemek Klosowski
wrote:

Gun control is really an issue of risk management. I have another
proposal: outsource gun control to the free market by requiring gun
insurance---just like car insurance, where nobody complains about the
tyrannical government limiting our right to move around freely.

What part of :

"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

do you not understand?

You keep using that phrase but it does not mean what you think it means.
Is the right to have a car infringed by the registration and insurance
requirement?

Driving is not a Constitutionally listed right. Gun ownership is.
I don't think you quite grasp that concept.


We as society do not think so, but I will not be surprised
to find that you hold a minority- opposing view.

Would you believe that (until the media frenzy whips up support)
people who want gun control constitute a mere 10% of the population?
YOU are in the minority, Prze.


Currently, the cost of gun ownership is externalized to everyone, and the
proposals like hiring armed bodyguards for every school (and let's not
forget churches, fast food places and shopping malls) would result in
even more cost that I as a taxpayer would have to foot. I object to that,
and I demand that gun ownership carries a set of obligations that Ed
Huntress outlined: responsible stewardship requirement is just a first,
fundamental one.

Plenty of teachers are volunteering to carry concealed weapons. And
the cost of knife ownership, baseball bat ownership, steel pipe
ownership, and rock ownership is footed by all taxpayers. Why should
guns be any different? All can be used either as tools or weapons.
Why differentiate?

As it is, cars, slips/falls, and diseases kill MANY more people each
year than guns. Why the fixation on inanimate objects, guys? It's
idiotic! They don't even make the top ten list.
http://www.businessinsider.com/top-c...s-2011-11?op=1
(Suicides don't count. They'd do it anyway, with less efficient means)

Also, given the fact that schools have totally lost control of their
students, why NOT have armed guards there?


I happen to think that insurance would be an objective, fair way of
pricing such risks. In fact it's the only way in the long term to
guarantee that the gun ownership choice can be fairly exercised without
externalizing its cost.

Why are you putting all the costs (of criminals and psychotics), on
law-abiding citizens who happen to be gun owners?


For instance, it would provide an objective
insight on the relative risks of keeping semi-automatic weapons in
households with psychotic teenagers.

So put the little twerps into -psych- wards, damnit. Psychotics are
legally criminals and must be locked up, either in psych wards or
prisons. So we simply have to finish following the laws to reduce
violence and crime. IMHO, gang affiliation should be a capital crime.


--
The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:20:06 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 04:28:47 +0000 (UTC), Przemek Klosowski
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:51:45 -0800, Gunner wrote:

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 02:54:19 +0000 (UTC), Przemek Klosowski
wrote:

Gun control is really an issue of risk management. I have another
proposal: outsource gun control to the free market by requiring gun
insurance---just like car insurance, where nobody complains about the
tyrannical government limiting our right to move around freely.

What part of :

"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

do you not understand?

You keep using that phrase but it does not mean what you think it means.
Is the right to have a car infringed by the registration and insurance
requirement?

Driving is not a Constitutionally listed right. Gun ownership is.
I don't think you quite grasp that concept.


We as society do not think so, but I will not be surprised
to find that you hold a minority- opposing view.

Would you believe that (until the media frenzy whips up support)
people who want gun control constitute a mere 10% of the population?
YOU are in the minority, Prze.



Nope. You have to get yourself a television or something, Larry.
You're down the rabbit hole with Alice:

http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/...ority-support/





Currently, the cost of gun ownership is externalized to everyone, and the
proposals like hiring armed bodyguards for every school (and let's not
forget churches, fast food places and shopping malls) would result in
even more cost that I as a taxpayer would have to foot. I object to that,
and I demand that gun ownership carries a set of obligations that Ed
Huntress outlined: responsible stewardship requirement is just a first,
fundamental one.

Plenty of teachers are volunteering to carry concealed weapons. And
the cost of knife ownership, baseball bat ownership, steel pipe
ownership, and rock ownership is footed by all taxpayers. Why should
guns be any different? All can be used either as tools or weapons.
Why differentiate?

As it is, cars, slips/falls, and diseases kill MANY more people each
year than guns. Why the fixation on inanimate objects, guys? It's
idiotic! They don't even make the top ten list.
http://www.businessinsider.com/top-c...s-2011-11?op=1
(Suicides don't count. They'd do it anyway, with less efficient means)

Also, given the fact that schools have totally lost control of their
students, why NOT have armed guards there?


I happen to think that insurance would be an objective, fair way of
pricing such risks. In fact it's the only way in the long term to
guarantee that the gun ownership choice can be fairly exercised without
externalizing its cost.

Why are you putting all the costs (of criminals and psychotics), on
law-abiding citizens who happen to be gun owners?


For instance, it would provide an objective
insight on the relative risks of keeping semi-automatic weapons in
households with psychotic teenagers.

So put the little twerps into -psych- wards, damnit. Psychotics are
legally criminals and must be locked up, either in psych wards or
prisons. So we simply have to finish following the laws to reduce
violence and crime. IMHO, gang affiliation should be a capital crime.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:41:17 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:



Nope. You have to get yourself a television or something, Larry.
You're down the rabbit hole with Alice:

http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/...ority-support/


If you keep browsing the leftwing blogs..you will certainly find all
manner of lies. Pew is hardly to be considered anything other than
moderately leftwing, based on a series of their polls that have come
back to haunt them

http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/03/ac...e-poll-holder/

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew...registration-r


Btw....

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:13:07 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:41:17 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:



Nope. You have to get yourself a television or something, Larry.
You're down the rabbit hole with Alice:

http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/...ority-support/


If you keep browsing the leftwing blogs..you will certainly find all
manner of lies. Pew is hardly to be considered anything other than
moderately leftwing, based on a series of their polls that have come
back to haunt them

Pew Research is a leftwing blog? Compared to what, the John Birch
Society?


http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/03/ac...e-poll-holder/

"So, when the highly respected Pew Research Center came out with
Filibuster-debt-colbert-steele"their recent poll assessing the
knowledge base (or lack thereof) of the average voter I was intrigued
on several levels...

"First, I was struck by how incredibly similar the Pew poll (in both
methodology and results) was to the ones I commissioned, which were
viciously and wrongly attacked by the left as nothing but right-wing
propaganda."

You skimmed that piece, saw what he said about Zogby, and then misread
what he said about Pew.

You were saying, Gunner?



http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew...registration-r

"Given the potential accuracy problems that this Pew study has raised,
there ought to be many more such studies to cross-check polls in order
to determine their accuracy."

The article applauds Pew for uncovering polling issues.

Strike two. g When are you going to learn to read the articles you
link to before posting them in an argument?


Btw....

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

But when people find out it doesn't appoly to private sales or to
"collector" sales at gun shows, their jaws drop in disbelief. That's
why the Pew poll, and every poll taken recently, shows 85% support for
background checks for "private and gun show sales" -- and the numbers
are the same for Republicans, Democrats, and gun owners.

Did you note that 49% of the Republicans favor a ban on semi-automatic
weapons?

The gun nutz's gots troubles ahead....

--
Ed Huntress

On 2/4/2013 5:48 PM, Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 09:43:25 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 06:30:42 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 22:16:51 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 14:38:56 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 08:59:25 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 16:46:36 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Are you catching on yet? You keep repeating your silly mantra that
"criminals don't care if their guns are registered," missing the point that
the purpose is to keep those guns out of criminal hands with a sensible
system of deterrents.

Maybe you should run for the NRA Board. You'd fit right in. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

'What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not comprehend?

I comprehend the part that you don't.

Start by looking up the historical meaning of "infringed." It meant
"to defeat" or "to invalidate" the exercise of something, like a right
or a license. If you're going to rely on original meaning, you need to
understand the historical meaning of the words.


Tsk tsk tsk....once again you play fast and loose.

I plonked Old Eddie several years ago when he went insane and, I
firmly believe, tried to have me arrested by trying to incite me. THAT
is entrapment, and to that end, I say "**** him."

You nutjob. YOU were the one who said people should threaten their
congressmen with guns. You sailed off into loonyland all by yourself.

I wouldn't waste my time trying to have you arrested, Larry. Once I
found out you were serious -- I asked you two or three times because I
couldn't believe it -- I just plonked you until I cooled off.


He's so totally anti-NRA (aren't we all, a bit? pro-intention but
anti-admin) that he's foolishly and voluntarily giving up his (and
_our_) rights.

Things are much better with him in the bit bucket.

I'm sure they are, for you. I don't take kindly to people who want to
shoot duly elected representatives. My ancestors fought in numerous
wars, including the American Revolution, so we could have a republic
with democratic representation. I'll honor their commitment, even when
I'm revolted by some of the things those democratically elected
representatives do. It's all anyone's got -- unless you want mob rule
at the point of a gun. Some Russians tried that a while back.

Its interesting that Eddy has all the words..but fully approves of all
those unconstitutional Executive Orders and considers the 2nd
Amendment to be simply trash talk.

Im thinking he is going senile.

Gunner


It's OK! They are only taking away and murdering the Jews! (sound
familiar?)

On 2/5/2013 1:33 AM, Gunner wrote:
I have a rather nice library of history books. Most of which indicate
you are senile.

https://picasaweb.google.com/1040422...96864834567058


Shrug

Gunner


Arguing with an anti-gun liberal is rather pointless, they will never
get it. Ed once told me I was crazy when I said that Christians will be
persecuted and mass murdered in the Middle East Later he didn't
remember such statements.

In the same way he opposes the NRA and the 2nd "A". He just doesn't get
it. And, those of us that do get it are "NRA gun nuts". Funny, the
statistics for NRA members committing a gun related crime are
practically non-existent. Yet the NRA is the big bad guy in all this
****. What a bunch of stupid liberals! They should stick to what the
definition of "is" is.

On 2/20/2013 5:11 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 2/5/2013 1:33 AM, Gunner wrote:
I have a rather nice library of history books. Most of which indicate
you are senile.

https://picasaweb.google.com/1040422...96864834567058



Shrug

Gunner


Arguing with an anti-gun liberal is rather pointless, they will never
get it. Ed once told me I was crazy when I said that Christians will be
persecuted and mass murdered in the Middle East Later he didn't remember
such statements.

In the same way he opposes the NRA and the 2nd "A". He just doesn't get
it. And, those of us that do get it are "NRA gun nuts". Funny, the
statistics for NRA members committing a gun related crime are
practically non-existent. Yet the NRA is the big bad guy in all this
****. What a bunch of stupid liberals!


They should stick to what the definition of "is" is.

Wasn't that another famous liberal debate???

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:11:07 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/5/2013 1:33 AM, Gunner wrote:
I have a rather nice library of history books. Most of which indicate
you are senile.

https://picasaweb.google.com/1040422...96864834567058


Shrug

Gunner


Arguing with an anti-gun liberal is rather pointless, they will never
get it. Ed once told me I was crazy when I said that Christians will be
persecuted and mass murdered in the Middle East Later he didn't
remember such statements.

No, I didn't say any such thing. What you repeated a few days ago is
that you had said they were going to be "rounded up." I don't recall
responding to that, but in any case, they haven't been "rounded up."


In the same way he opposes the NRA and the 2nd "A". He just doesn't get
it. And, those of us that do get it are "NRA gun nuts". Funny, the
statistics for NRA members committing a gun related crime are
practically non-existent. Yet the NRA is the big bad guy in all this
****. What a bunch of stupid liberals! They should stick to what the
definition of "is" is.

Tom, all of that is bull****. Here's what you don't "get":

54% of gun owners in America want to ban semi-automatic firearms

60% of gun owners want a federal database to track gun sales

85% of gun owners want background checks for private sales and for all
sales at gun shows

49% of gun owners want a ban on high-capacity magazines.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/...ority-support/

A Fox News poll shows that 91% of respondants favor laws "Requiring
criminal background checks on all gun buyers, including those buying
at gun shows and private sales"

The same Fox poll shows that 80% of respondants favor laws "Requiring
criminal background checks on anyone buying bullets and ammunition"

The same Fox poll shows that 56% of respondants favor laws "Banning
high-capacity ammunition clips that can shoot dozens of bullets
without stopping to reload"

The same Fox poll shows that 54% favor laws "Banning assault rifles
and semi-automatic weapons"

52% of those Fox News poll respondants live in a household in which
guns are owned.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/inte...d-gun-control/

You'd better get out of this echo chamber and look around, bud. This
is serious business. Meanwhile, you, Gunner, Larry and the rest of the
gun nutz boyz are patting yourselves on the backs, as if you know that
everyone thinks like you do and that everything is just hunky-dory.

You're blowing smoke up each other's ass.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2/20/2013 5:58 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Tom, all of that is bull****. Here's what you don't "get":

54% of gun owners in America want to ban semi-automatic firearms

60% of gun owners want a federal database to track gun sales

85% of gun owners want background checks for private sales and for all
sales at gun shows

49% of gun owners want a ban on high-capacity magazines.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/...ority-support/


People's Press?

Ed, could that maybe possible be skewed just a little bit?

Because that's not what the Dallas News says at all.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:41:28 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/20/2013 5:58 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Tom, all of that is bull****. Here's what you don't "get":

54% of gun owners in America want to ban semi-automatic firearms

60% of gun owners want a federal database to track gun sales

85% of gun owners want background checks for private sales and for all
sales at gun shows

49% of gun owners want a ban on high-capacity magazines.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/...ority-support/


People's Press?

Ed, could that maybe possible be skewed just a little bit?

Go look at it, Richard. That's Pew Research, for which Gunner just
posted some right-wing stuff that praised Pew (he didn't realize it,
but he never reads his links, anyway.)


Because that's not what the Dallas News says at all.

And what does the Dallas News say?

Did you look at the Fox News poll that I quoted, and to which I posted
a link, or is Fox just too left-wing for you?

--
Ed Huntress

On Feb 20, 6:58*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:

54% of gun owners in America want to ban semi-automatic firearms

Ed Huntress



I strongly suspect the poll did not use neutral statements. I find it
hard to believe that 54% of the gun owners want to ban semi automatic
shotguns, pistols, or .22 caliber rimfire. Much easier to believe
that 54 % of gun owners have a semi automatic of some type. A Ruger
10/22 is probably the most popular .22 rifle The Remington 1100 is
probably the most popular shotgun. And the .22 Ruger pistol is
probably the most popular .22 pistol.


I will concede that Joe Biden said to buy a double barrelled shotgun,
not a pump or semi automatic.


Dan

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:08:54 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Feb 20, 6:58*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:

54% of gun owners in America want to ban semi-automatic firearms

Ed Huntress



I strongly suspect the poll did not use neutral statements. I find it
hard to believe that 54% of the gun owners want to ban semi automatic
shotguns, pistols, or .22 caliber rimfire. Much easier to believe
that 54 % of gun owners have a semi automatic of some type. A Ruger
10/22 is probably the most popular .22 rifle The Remington 1100 is
probably the most popular shotgun. And the .22 Ruger pistol is
probably the most popular .22 pistol.

Suspecting is one thing. Checking methodology is another.

Check the methodology. Then consider what many people understand to be
a "semi-automatic firearm." Then be alarmed.

--
Ed Huntress



I will concede that Joe Biden said to buy a double barrelled shotgun,
not a pump or semi automatic.


Dan

On 2/20/2013 6:50 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:41:28 -0600,

http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/...ority-support/


People's Press?

Ed, could that maybe possible be skewed just a little bit?

Go look at it, Richard. That's Pew Research, for which Gunner just
posted some right-wing stuff that praised Pew (he didn't realize it,
but he never reads his links, anyway.)


Because that's not what the Dallas News says at all.

And what does the Dallas News say?

Did you look at the Fox News poll that I quoted, and to which I posted
a link, or is Fox just too left-wing for you?


No, Ed, I'm afraid I didn't.

There were 21 scripts running on that page.

I temporarily enabled the top four, and still got nothing, but that's
about as far as I'll go.

And it IS People's Press, so WTF?

It's a hard core right wing rag in Colorado.
We already KNOW about their bias.
But damitalltohell, Ed, that's Colorado.
It's certainly not Texas - not by a country mile.

Dallas, despite all the yankee influx over the years, is still Texas
at heart.

Arguing gun control in absolute terms is not going to get you anywhere.

Here, gun control is using BOTH hands. Hit what you are aiming at.

And yeah, I know about Gunner and his links too.


Ok, here.... Dallas News - Today

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2013/02/rick-perry-quick-to-invite-co-gun-parts-maker-to-tx.html/

quote

As the Colorado Legislature was poised to consider a ban on high
capacity ammunition magazines, Gov. Rick Perry sprang into action.

The Daily Caller posted a letter from the governor to a Colorado
manufacturer of high-capacity magazines inviting him to move his company
to Texas.

In the Feb. 7 letter to Magpul founder and CEO Richard Fitzpatrick,
Perry seemed to lament that some states “are seriously considering
restrictive laws impacting firearms manufacturers.”

“While I support the efforts of law enforcement to identify, apprehend,
prosecute and punish criminals who use firearms in the commission of
crimes, I do not believe that imposing additional requirements or
restrictions on businesses is the correct approach,” Perry wrote.

The letter that touted Texas as a business-friendly state was penned
just a few days before Perry left for California to entice business
owners in the Golden State to relocate to Texas.

Perry apparently beat other states to the draw. Since the Colorado gun
control legislation was announced, Wyoming, Utah and South Carolina also
have begun courting Magpul and its 200-employees, according to the Daily
Caller.

Magpul has said on its Facebook page that it is focused on fighting the
legislation and that no decision has been made about leaving Colorado.
But it didn’t rule out that possibility, saying the company is looking
at various areas that “would be suitable to our new home, should it come
to that.”

On Feb 20, 8:46*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:08:54 -0800 (PST), "



wrote:
On Feb 20, 6:58*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:

54% of gun owners in America want to ban semi-automatic firearms

Ed Huntress

I strongly suspect the poll did not use neutral statements. *I find it
hard to believe that 54% of the gun owners want to ban semi automatic
shotguns, pistols, or .22 caliber rimfire. *Much easier to believe
that 54 % of gun owners have a semi automatic of some type. A Ruger
10/22 *is probably the most popular .22 rifle *The Remington 1100 is
probably the most popular shotgun. *And the .22 Ruger pistol is
probably the most popular .22 pistol.

Suspecting is one thing. Checking methodology is another.

Check the methodology. Then consider what many people understand to be
a "semi-automatic firearm." Then be alarmed.

--
Ed Huntress


The quote was about gun owners. I have not checked but gun owners
generally understand what a semi automatic is. De you really think
that 54% of gun owners want to ban semi automatic firearms?

Dan

On 2/20/2013 7:54 PM, wrote:
On Feb 20, 8:46 pm, Ed wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:08:54 -0800 (PST), "



wrote:
On Feb 20, 6:58 pm, Ed wrote:

54% of gun owners in America want to ban semi-automatic firearms

Ed Huntress

I strongly suspect the poll did not use neutral statements. I find it
hard to believe that 54% of the gun owners want to ban semi automatic
shotguns, pistols, or .22 caliber rimfire. Much easier to believe
that 54 % of gun owners have a semi automatic of some type. A Ruger
10/22 is probably the most popular .22 rifle The Remington 1100 is
probably the most popular shotgun. And the .22 Ruger pistol is
probably the most popular .22 pistol.

Suspecting is one thing. Checking methodology is another.

Check the methodology. Then consider what many people understand to be
a "semi-automatic firearm." Then be alarmed.

--
Ed Huntress


The quote was about gun owners. I have not checked but gun owners
generally understand what a semi automatic is. De you really think
that 54% of gun owners want to ban semi automatic firearms?

Dan


In New Jersey? Absolutely!

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:54:08 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Feb 20, 8:46*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:08:54 -0800 (PST), "



wrote:
On Feb 20, 6:58*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:

54% of gun owners in America want to ban semi-automatic firearms

Ed Huntress

I strongly suspect the poll did not use neutral statements. *I find it
hard to believe that 54% of the gun owners want to ban semi automatic
shotguns, pistols, or .22 caliber rimfire. *Much easier to believe
that 54 % of gun owners have a semi automatic of some type. A Ruger
10/22 *is probably the most popular .22 rifle *The Remington 1100 is
probably the most popular shotgun. *And the .22 Ruger pistol is
probably the most popular .22 pistol.

Suspecting is one thing. Checking methodology is another.

Check the methodology. Then consider what many people understand to be
a "semi-automatic firearm." Then be alarmed.

--
Ed Huntress


The quote was about gun owners. I have not checked but gun owners
generally understand what a semi automatic is. De you really think
that 54% of gun owners want to ban semi automatic firearms?

Dan

It's possible. The echoes in here give everyone a warped perspective.
Between the NRA, the gun nutz' sites, and echo chambers like this,
anyone can get an upside-down view of American opinion, gun owners or
not.

The only thing that's worth listening to is the legitimate polls. Pew
is good; Gallup is good; NBC/Wall Street Journal polls are good. Fox
actually is pretty good -- I followed their political polls before the
last election, and they were within reasonable range of the center of
opinion.

I suggested that you read the methodology. Apparently you did not, or
you would have brought up something else: the "gun owners" could be
anyone in a household where there is a gun. That's what NRA frequently
counts in their "gun owners" figure, so there is some basis for it.
But that sounds like a Dan Caster invitation to contrarianism. d8-)

As with any polls, you have to read the methodology to understand what
you're looking at. What you're looking at with ANY recent polls,
though, is that public sentiment, even among gun owners, strongly
favors several measures, especially universal background checks and
national registration with a database. Strongly.

Larry's original "10%" figure of people who favor gun control, which
started this, is blindingly ignorant. No surprise.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 19:52:40 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/20/2013 6:50 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:41:28 -0600,

http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/...ority-support/


People's Press?

Ed, could that maybe possible be skewed just a little bit?

Go look at it, Richard. That's Pew Research, for which Gunner just
posted some right-wing stuff that praised Pew (he didn't realize it,
but he never reads his links, anyway.)


Because that's not what the Dallas News says at all.

And what does the Dallas News say?

Did you look at the Fox News poll that I quoted, and to which I posted
a link, or is Fox just too left-wing for you?


No, Ed, I'm afraid I didn't.

There were 21 scripts running on that page.

I temporarily enabled the top four, and still got nothing, but that's
about as far as I'll go.

And it IS People's Press, so WTF?

It's a hard core right wing rag in Colorado.
We already KNOW about their bias.
But damitalltohell, Ed, that's Colorado.
It's certainly not Texas - not by a country mile.

Dallas, despite all the yankee influx over the years, is still Texas
at heart.

Arguing gun control in absolute terms is not going to get you anywhere.

Here, gun control is using BOTH hands. Hit what you are aiming at.

And yeah, I know about Gunner and his links too.


Ok, here.... Dallas News - Today

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2013/02/rick-perry-quick-to-invite-co-gun-parts-maker-to-tx.html/

quote

As the Colorado Legislature was poised to consider a ban on high
capacity ammunition magazines, Gov. Rick Perry sprang into action.

The Daily Caller posted a letter from the governor to a Colorado
manufacturer of high-capacity magazines inviting him to move his company
to Texas.

In the Feb. 7 letter to Magpul founder and CEO Richard Fitzpatrick,
Perry seemed to lament that some states “are seriously considering
restrictive laws impacting firearms manufacturers.”

“While I support the efforts of law enforcement to identify, apprehend,
prosecute and punish criminals who use firearms in the commission of
crimes, I do not believe that imposing additional requirements or
restrictions on businesses is the correct approach,” Perry wrote.

The letter that touted Texas as a business-friendly state was penned
just a few days before Perry left for California to entice business
owners in the Golden State to relocate to Texas.

Perry apparently beat other states to the draw. Since the Colorado gun
control legislation was announced, Wyoming, Utah and South Carolina also
have begun courting Magpul and its 200-employees, according to the Daily
Caller.

Magpul has said on its Facebook page that it is focused on fighting the
legislation and that no decision has been made about leaving Colorado.
But it didn’t rule out that possibility, saying the company is looking
at various areas that “would be suitable to our new home, should it come
to that.”

How does that contradict either the Pew or the Fox News polls? I
thought that's what you were saying, that the Dallas News said
something contradictory.

We already know about Governor Oops. g

--
Ed Huntress

To whom are you referring to as Governor Oops, sir?

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 21:10:48 -0600, Richard
wrote:

To whom are you referring to as Governor Oops, sir?

This guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kiu65reVQjI

--
Ed Huntress

On 2/20/2013 9:16 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 21:10:48 -0600,
wrote:

To whom are you referring to as Governor Oops, sir?

This guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kiu65reVQjI



mmm hmm... thought so.


I'll gladly keep Governor Perry.


You can _have_ Chris Christie.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 21:29:52 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/20/2013 9:16 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 21:10:48 -0600,
wrote:

To whom are you referring to as Governor Oops, sir?

This guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kiu65reVQjI



mmm hmm... thought so.


I'll gladly keep Governor Perry.


You can _have_ Chris Christie.

No problem there.

--
Ed Huntress