On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 12:48:59 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , markem618
says...

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 09:49:56 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , markem618
says...

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 22:48:05 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , markem618
says...

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 13:33:07 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:



"Markem" wrote in message
.. .


I am not
going to define this anymore it is really just a fact.

You seem to have trouble telling the difference between something that is
fact and something that is just your opinion--they are not interchangeable.
However many millions of people have the same problem.

You also haven't addressed the issue of why someone who in your opinion
doesn't "need" to own a gun is therefore "nuts".

Of course you have the right to express whatever opinion you please, but in
future it might be worth thinking it through a bit before posting.

So everyone who owns a gun legally should?

If they should not what do you propose to do about it?

If your answer is yes you are blinded by having to be right.

And you are blinded by having no real point to make.

No but you are blinded just to be arguing, whats a matter your wife
always wins?

I'm sorry, but asking you what action you propose with regard to your
hypothesis is not "arguing". And there is nothing to "win". Either you
have some action in mind or you don't. If you don't have any action in
mind then why should anyone care whether your hypothesis is correct? If
you do have action in mind what action is it?

Sorry I do not have to fit within any of what you seem to think.

So you are saying that there is a third alternative? That you neither
have an action in mind nor do you not have an action in mind? If so
then what do you have in mind?

Yes no where in my TOS or AUP of my ISP does it say that I have to
conform to what you want.

Mark

On Mar 6, 1:20*pm, Markem wrote:
On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 12:48:59 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:





In article , markem618
says...

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 09:49:56 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , markem618
says...

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 22:48:05 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , markem618
says...

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 13:33:07 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:

"Markem" *wrote in message
.. .

I am not
going to define this anymore it is really just a fact.

You seem to have trouble telling the difference between something that is
fact and something that is just your opinion--they are not interchangeable.
However many millions of people have the same problem.

You also haven't addressed the issue of why someone who in your opinion
doesn't "need" to own a gun is therefore "nuts".

Of course you have the right to express whatever opinion you please, but in
future it might be worth thinking it through a bit before posting.

So everyone who owns a gun legally should?

If they should not what do you propose to do about it?

If your answer is yes you are blinded by having to be right.

And you are blinded by having no real point to make.

No but you are blinded just to be arguing, whats a matter your wife
always wins?

I'm sorry, but asking you what action you propose with regard to your
hypothesis is not "arguing". *And there is nothing to "win". *Either you
have some action in mind or you don't. *If you don't have any action in
mind then why should anyone care whether your hypothesis is correct? *If
you do have action in mind what action is it?

Sorry I do not have to fit within any of what you seem to think.

So you are saying that there is a third alternative? *That you neither
have an action in mind nor do you not have an action in mind? *If so
then what do you have in mind?

Yes no where in my TOS or AUP of my ISP does it say that I have to
conform to what you want.

Mark

DNFTFT

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

And just why are they "entitled" to a fair hearing?

If an employer agrees to a contract in which employees can only be dismissed
with cause, by what legal mechanism would you propose to ignore that?
Should people or organizations you sign contracts with be able to violate
those agreements at will?

IMO it should be easier and faster to get rid of teachers who just aren't
suitable for the job. But a school administrator should not be able to pay
off a grudge by firing a teacher for no good reason. This is a public
institution, not a 19th century sweatshop, we should at least strive for
fairness.

My state is an "employment at will" state which means a private employer
may dismiss any employee for any (or no) reason.

And this applies to public schools exactly how?

In the case of teachers, if they can quit without a "fair hearing" why
should the school district not be entitled to the same discretion?

Let me get this straight, you figure an employee should need the employer's
permission to quit?

Or do you think teachers who discipline disruptive
students should just be fired if the parents file a complaint?

That's a tough call.

On the one hand, "It's my school and if I want to whip a student, it's my
right to do so!"

Nobody said anything about whipping, try to keep both feet on this planet.

On the other hand, parents generally have no choice as to which school
they can send their kids - the government school is the only one
available. Further, the law mandates school attendance.

So let's apply Texas logic: i.e. if you don't like labor law in Texas, move
to another state where workers have rights. Or in this case, if you don't
like the way the local public school is run, move someplace else. Seems
fair.

"Markem" wrote in message
...

Actually no I do not have to articulate any more, some people should
not own firearms.

Nobody has disputed that. The problem is your definition of who that
should
be is arbitrary and nonsensical.

BTW, "they're toys" means "they are toys". You seem to routinely
substitute
"they're" for "their".

Aw gee now you have fallen low

Think of it as a public service announcement, like don't shake your baby or
fasten your seatbelt. Everybody makes typos or spells a word wrong now and
then, but this appeared to be a regular habit I thought you might like to
know about.

, I have not defined anything. It was
you how sought to define what and whom.

Ummm, no, actually. You offered the example of people who want a gun
without (in your opinion) needing one being people who shouldn't own guns.
People keep quoting your own words to you, it's odd that they keep slipping
your memory.

Now that we have established that some who own firearms should not.

Again, nobody ever denied that. The issue has always been that arbitrary
rules on who "needs" to own a firearm are unacceptable. The Constitution
does not say only people who hunt or are target shooters or live in
dangerous areas have a right to be armed, does it.

By the way I have an FIOD card, now the fight over releasing that
information per a FOI request for all statewide is a more pressing
issue.

I would be opposed to public release of such information just as I would
with any other government information on individuals without a compelling
public purpose in so doing. One has to wonder if this a way to discourage
firearms ownership without being slapped down by the Supreme Court again--of
course it would only impact law-abiding citizens.

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 12:32:25 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:

I would be opposed to public release of such information just as I would
with any other government information on individuals without a compelling
public purpose in so doing. One has to wonder if this a way to discourage
firearms ownership without being slapped down by the Supreme Court again--of
course it would only impact law-abiding citizens.

It is happening now!

Mark

"Markem" wrote in message
...

So everyone who owns a gun legally should?

Is that what I wrote? No? Then why are you responding to a point I did not
make?

"Markem" wrote in message
...

Sorry I do not have to fit within any of what you seem to think.

It would be refreshing if you could express what you think in terms that
suggest at least you understand it. Nobody is asking for your agreement, it
would just be nice to see you explain your views in a rational fashion.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

How does registering anything make its use more safe?

Automobile registration has a primary purpose of enabling the state to tax
automobile ownership. As a secondary purpose it aids the recovery of stolen
automobiles. Safety? Not so much.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...


Fine, I have hissy fits and you're still an ass. I'll take the hissy fits
thanks.

You could at least make up your mind and stick to it. You theatrically
stomp off in indignation, then you trail along like a lost puppy whining for
attention. If you don't like being checked then stay off the rink, just
stop sniveling about getting jammed into the boards, wimp.

On Mar 6, 3:37*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:


Is that what I wrote? *No?

I think you and Clarke should move in together. You two are so...
alike?
Unfortunately, it would not be long before the two of you would be
slapping each other with your undies...then involuntary admission to
the Funny Farm? Mmm?

Funny how you're both always getting tangled up in bull**** minutiae,
clambering for even the slightest hope for that day that somebody
tells you you might be right about something.

How insecure is that?

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...

I think you and Clarke should move in together. You two are so...
[snip]

You still carry grudges against kids who picked on you in grade school,
don't you. Poor little fella, pixels on a screen and he still can't get
over it.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
The thing is that anything you do with a gun, to a person such as
Upscale, is some kind of symbolic killing. Even using it for a
paperweight would be symbolic killing of papers to such people.

Really feeble troll. Is that the best you can do? The only thing symbolic
would be if you tripped and accidentally shot yourself in the foot during
your rush to post one of your assinine comments.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
You could at least make up your mind and stick to it. You theatrically
stomp off in indignation, then you trail along like a lost puppy whining
for attention. If you don't like being checked then stay off the rink,
just stop sniveling about getting jammed into the boards, wimp.

Very good. As usual, your lack of confidence combined with your
Last-Word-Itis affliction account for your regular outbursts. You feel safe
writing things here you'd never have the guts to say to someone in person.
Quite the sorry life you lead. I'd say I felt sorry for you, but I don't
want to further damage your confidence problem.

On Mar 6, 8:19*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"Robatoy" *wrote in message

...

I think you and Clarke should move in together. You two are so...

[snip]

You still carry grudges against kids who picked on you in grade school,
don't you. *Poor little fella, pixels on a screen and he still can't get
over it.

Whatever. You just keep putting your spin on it to suit yourself,
mmmk?
Even if I don't participate in a thread, you're still getting into all
kinds of confrontations with other people here.
Just like Clarke. Always looking for trouble.
You see Devvy, I don't give a **** who you are, I just don't care for
assholes and you're just one of them. With a weak underbelly.
I don't carry grudges because assholes just aren't worth the effort.
When I log off, I forget about you and your ilk.
I pop up to say hello to guys like you... just to **** you off.. and
****ed off you are... I can tell when you're losing it....
Have a nice day. And if you start behaving around here, I will stop
getting you all into a lather. *S*
Mmmmk?

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 10:46:23 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
wrote:

On Mar 6, 1:20Â*pm, Markem wrote:
On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 12:48:59 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:
On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 13:33:07 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:

DNFTFT

I've plonked every one of those names. I suggest to everyone to do
that, as well. Peace Through Plonking. Filter on, Brother!

--
Life is full of little surprises.
--Pandora

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...


You still carry grudges against kids who picked on you in grade school,
don't you. Poor little fella, pixels on a screen and he still can't get
over it.

Whatever. You just keep putting your spin on it to suit yourself,
mmmk?

LOL, no spin required. I said some dumbass joke you told wasn't funny, and
you've been hissing and spitting at me ever since. What's really funny is
that I don't have to lift a finger, your own actions show you're carrying a
grudge--how many times is it now you've jumped into a thread just to bitch
at me?

Even if I don't participate in a thread, you're still getting into all
kinds of confrontations with other people here.

This is Usenet, sunshine, arguments and flaming have sustained the system
for a couple of decades. Oh, another hint, it isn't about you--sorry about
that.

I don't carry grudges because assholes just aren't worth the effort.

Riiiiight, I'll try to remember that every time you pop up in a thread to
tell me what an asshole I am. At some level even you should be able to
understand that claiming you don't care and then following someone around to
whine and snivel at him are mutually exclusive positions.

When I log off, I forget about you and your ilk.
I pop up to say hello to guys like you... just to **** you off.. and
****ed off you are... I can tell when you're losing it....

Following the script line by line. Clowns like you invariably claim they
can cause other posters to pound their fist on the desk in anger. That
delusion seems to be important to you guys for some reason.

Have a nice day. And if you start behaving around here, I will stop
getting you all into a lather. *S*

Knock yourself out sonny, contrary to your self-image you're about as
threatening as a one-eyed, three-legged hamster, so your childish vendetta
is no problem at all. Flame me or killfile me, all the same to me,
tinkerbell. But like I said, it's kind of amusing watching you carrying on
while claiming not to be. My goodness, what an easily bruised ego you have.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
while claiming not to be. My goodness, what an easily bruised ego you
have.

Is that anything like your juvenile need to have the last word at any cost?
Your life revolves around how may trolling replies you can place. Obviously,
you're incapable of making a woodworking contribution, so you make a fool of
yourself instead.

On Mar 7, 2:31*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"Robatoy" *wrote in message

...

You still carry grudges against kids who picked on you in grade school,
don't you. *Poor little fella, pixels on a screen and he still can't get
over it.
Whatever. You just keep putting your spin on it to suit yourself,
mmmk?

LOL, no spin required. *I said some dumbass joke you told wasn't funny, and
you've been hissing and spitting at me ever since. *What's really funny is
that I don't have to lift a finger, your own actions show you're carrying a
grudge--how many times is it now you've jumped into a thread just to bitch
at me?

Even if I don't participate in a thread, you're still getting into all
kinds of confrontations with other people here.

This is Usenet, sunshine, arguments and flaming have sustained the system
for a couple of decades. *Oh, another hint, it isn't about you--sorry about
that.

I don't carry grudges because assholes just aren't worth the effort.

Riiiiight, I'll try to remember that every time you pop up in a thread to
tell me what an asshole I am. *At some level even you should be able to
understand that claiming you don't care and then following someone around to
whine and snivel at him are mutually exclusive positions.

When I log off, I forget about you and your ilk.
I pop up to say hello to guys like you... just to **** you off.. and
****ed off you are... I can tell when you're losing it....

Following the script line by line. *Clowns like you invariably claim they
can cause other posters to pound their fist on the desk in anger. *That
delusion seems to be important to you guys for some reason.

Have a nice day. And if you start behaving around here, I will stop
getting you all into a lather. *S*

Knock yourself out sonny, contrary to your self-image you're about as
threatening as a one-eyed, three-legged hamster, so your childish vendetta
is no problem at all. *Flame me or killfile me, all the same to me,
tinkerbell. *But like I said, it's kind of amusing watching you carrying on
while claiming not to be. *My goodness, what an easily bruised ego you have.

No vendetta. I just like jerking your chain. Why? Because you insist
it doesn't bother you and I, like most here, know it does.
And I only jump in when it becomes obvious you are trying to sustain
your bull**** with somebody else.... screaming for some kind of
acknowledgement. Big long dissertations, lofty brags about how many
books you have... I have found your soft underbelly, and it ****es you
off... and I chuckle every time you reply. I will let you stew in your
illusions of grandeur... until I feel like jerking your chain some
more.

Geez I wish I'd put down a cash bet on this. One cast, three bites, and it
is exactly the three whiners I would have predicted too--Josepi, Upscale and
Robotboy--1, 2, 3 like they were standing in line waiting. Of course
they're suitable only for use as bait, nobody would cook these
bottom-dwellers. Too easy.

On Mar 7, 4:31*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
Geez I wish I'd put down a cash bet on this. *One cast, three bites, and it
is exactly the three whiners I would have predicted too--Josepi, Upscale and
Robotboy--1, 2, 3 like they were standing in line waiting. *Of course
they're suitable only for use as bait, nobody would cook these
bottom-dwellers. *Too easy.

Nice try, but weak.
We all know better than to give you credit for being the better troll.
You've lost this one, Devvy. Victory is mine.

On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 16:27:59 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
wrote:

On Mar 7, 4:31Â*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
Geez I wish I'd put down a cash bet on this. Â*One cast, three bites, and it
is exactly the three whiners I would have predicted too--Josepi, Upscale and
Robotboy--1, 2, 3 like they were standing in line waiting. Â*Of course
they're suitable only for use as bait, nobody would cook these
bottom-dwellers. Â*Too easy.

Nice try, but weak.
We all know better than to give you credit for being the better troll.
You've lost this one, Devvy. Victory is mine.

When you continue to fall prey to trolls, every post is a win for
them, you fidiot. sigh

--
Life is full of obstacle illusions.
-- Grant Frazier

On Mar 7, 7:47*pm, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 16:27:59 -0800 (PST), Robatoy

wrote:
On Mar 7, 4:31*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
Geez I wish I'd put down a cash bet on this. *One cast, three bites, and it
is exactly the three whiners I would have predicted too--Josepi, Upscale and
Robotboy--1, 2, 3 like they were standing in line waiting. *Of course
they're suitable only for use as bait, nobody would cook these
bottom-dwellers. *Too easy.

Nice try, but weak.
We all know better than to give you credit for being the better troll.
You've lost this one, Devvy. Victory is mine.

When you continue to fall prey to trolls, every post is a win for
them, you fidiot. *sigh

--
Life is full of obstacle illusions.
* * * * * * * * * -- Grant Frazier

THAT is why I won. Devvy is putty in my hands...a bit smelly, but

This is the guy that loaded in Doug Miller's troll filter but now he only
sees Doug's posts.


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
When you continue to fall prey to trolls, every post is a win for
them, you fidiot. sigh

--
Some philosophical statement that makes the nastiness seem right.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Upscale wrote:

We keep getting back to the same argument and I keep saying the same
thing without you acknowledging my view. A gun has one purpose only.
You can't realistically compare it to anything else. I know that many
Americans see a gun as just another simple possession. I do
understand that, but you have to see I don't. I accord it a different
perspective and I always will. And, that's where our opinions will
always clash. The only thing to do is agree to disagree. Can't offer
you anything else.

And just what is that one, single, purpose? Investment? Historical
artifact? Collecting? Psychological comfort?

The first firearm I ever owned was designed specifically for one
purpose--making little holes in paper targets with a high degree of
repeatability. Like a framing hammer, or a carving knife, or a baseball bat
it could have been used as a weapon, but that wasn't what it was designed or
made for. My dad owned a couple of firearms too, designed to kill ducks and
deer. Again, they could have been used as weapons against people, but that
wasn't what the companies that made them intended. And yet once again we
hear that all guns have only one purpose--killing people. Do you suppose
that the folks who beat that drum ever stop to think that the guy who owns a
deer rifle and a couple of shotguns is unlikely to be persuaded by a claim
he knows on its face is simply not true?

Upscale wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
The thing is that anything you do with a gun, to a person such as
Upscale, is some kind of symbolic killing. Even using it for a
paperweight would be symbolic killing of papers to such people.

Really feeble troll. Is that the best you can do? The only thing
symbolic would be if you tripped and accidentally shot yourself in
the foot during your rush to post one of your assinine comments.

Sorry, but we'll never agree. With regard to self-protection, the fervent
advocates are of two camps: Those who alarmed by the possibility of
criminals more than guns and those who fear guns more than criminals.

The fear of guns per se is irrational - like fear of heights or spiders -
but it exists and cannot be dismissed. I'm not even sure it can be treated.

They have to live with that fear, and I have no problem with their burden.
But for them to agitate against MY endeavors to allay their consternation is
equivalent to them wanting to prohibit tall buildings or exterminate all the
spiders in the country.

They own the problem and it's up to them to deal with it on their own terms.
It is unconsciousable for them to impose a solution on the rest of us just
so they can sleep easier at night.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
Sorry, but we'll never agree. With regard to self-protection, the fervent
advocates are of two camps: Those who alarmed by the possibility of
criminals more than guns and those who fear guns more than criminals.

I don't fear guns and never have. What I don't like is that it's too damned
easy for most anyone to get a gun. And, that's where my preference for
registration and licensing comes in. Buy as many guns as you want, just make
sure they're registered, licensed and safely stored.

What your camp fears is that the act of registration will somewhere and at
sometime, permit the authorities to find you and remove your guns. Tell me
that's not true.

Bingo.

-----

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
I don't fear guns and never have. What I don't like is that it's too damned
easy for most anyone to get a gun. And, that's where my preference for
registration and licensing comes in. Buy as many guns as you want, just make
sure they're registered, licensed and safely stored.

What your camp fears is that the act of registration will somewhere and at
sometime, permit the authorities to find you and remove your guns. Tell me
that's not true.

Sorry guys. Not my post Not my work.
I must have ****ed somebody off about seven years ago and he is
still stalking me???
-----

"Josepi" did not wroted in message
...

Bingo.

-----

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
I don't fear guns and never have. What I don't like is that it's too damned
easy for most anyone to get a gun. And, that's where my preference for
registration and licensing comes in. Buy as many guns as you want, just make
sure they're registered, licensed and safely stored.

What your camp fears is that the act of registration will somewhere and at
sometime, permit the authorities to find you and remove your guns. Tell me
that's not true.

Upscale wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
Sorry, but we'll never agree. With regard to self-protection, the
fervent advocates are of two camps: Those who alarmed by the
possibility of criminals more than guns and those who fear guns more
than criminals.

I don't fear guns and never have. What I don't like is that it's too
damned easy for most anyone to get a gun. And, that's where my
preference for registration and licensing comes in. Buy as many guns
as you want, just make sure they're registered, licensed and safely
stored.

Ah, okay. You fear PEOPLE with guns. The fix for that is to get plenty of
guns for yourself. Then you need not fear anyone.


What your camp fears is that the act of registration will somewhere
and at sometime, permit the authorities to find you and remove your
guns. Tell me that's not true.

It's sorta true. Many countries have done exactly that. Here at home, both
New York and California used their list of registered guns and gun owners to
confiscate and prosecute gun owners when they changed the laws on gun
ownership.

It could happen again.

Just last week, the Illinois AG ordered the list of registered gun owners in
the state to be released to the media. Some fear that release could make gun
owners a specific target for burglars. Obvously, if the state doesn't HAVE
such a list, it can't make it public.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
Ah, okay. You fear PEOPLE with guns. The fix for that is to get plenty of
guns for yourself. Then you need not fear anyone.

You're putting words in my mouth. What I object to is truly screwed up ideas
like the one above. There's always somone bigger and stronger than you, more
well prepared or a bigger fish so to speak. Thought you were intelligent,
but if you truly believe what you've said above, then you're something else
entirely.

Just last week, the Illinois AG ordered the list of registered gun owners
in the state to be released to the media. Some fear that release could
make gun owners a specific target for burglars. Obvously, if the state
doesn't HAVE such a list, it can't make it public.

And your proposed "get plenty of guns for yourself" is going to dissuade
anyone from attacking you? The only reason to have more guns for yourself is
if a potential enemy KNOWS you are so protected. In which case, you're
already a target. And if you're already a target, then you will come to the
attention of someone more determined and more powerful than you're able to
make yourself. Quite the messed up world you propose.

At this point, I can only guess that you're pulling my chain. Bye.

In article ,
says...

Upscale wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
Sorry, but we'll never agree. With regard to self-protection, the
fervent advocates are of two camps: Those who alarmed by the
possibility of criminals more than guns and those who fear guns more
than criminals.

I don't fear guns and never have. What I don't like is that it's too
damned easy for most anyone to get a gun. And, that's where my
preference for registration and licensing comes in. Buy as many guns
as you want, just make sure they're registered, licensed and safely
stored.

Ah, okay. You fear PEOPLE with guns. The fix for that is to get plenty of
guns for yourself. Then you need not fear anyone.

What I've never gotten is what good all this "registration and
licensing" are supposed to do. There are two kinds of people in the
world, the law abiding and criminals. The law abiding will dutifully
license and register, but they aren't the ones who would cause a problem
in the first place. The criminals will ignore the law and go on doing
whatever it is that they are doing. So all that is really accomplished
is that people who wouldn't cause a problem in the first place are
required to jump through a hoop.

People who think that such laws will ever disarm criminals live in a
dream world. We can't keep drugs out, what makes them think we can keep
anything else out?

What your camp fears is that the act of registration will somewhere
and at sometime, permit the authorities to find you and remove your
guns. Tell me that's not true.

It's sorta true. Many countries have done exactly that. Here at home, both
New York and California used their list of registered guns and gun owners to
confiscate and prosecute gun owners when they changed the laws on gun
ownership.

It could happen again.

Just last week, the Illinois AG ordered the list of registered gun owners in
the state to be released to the media. Some fear that release could make gun
owners a specific target for burglars. Obvously, if the state doesn't HAVE
such a list, it can't make it public.

Yep. Sometimes gun control advocates are their own worst enemy. One
bunch of 'em says "Oh, registration could never lead to confiscation
_here_". Meanwhile another bunch is making liars out of 'em.

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 22:55:48 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Just last week, the Illinois AG ordered the list of registered gun owners in
the state to be released to the media. Some fear that release could make gun
owners a specific target for burglars. Obvously, if the state doesn't HAVE
such a list, it can't make it public.

Wrong, the AG ordered the State Police to release the list of those
having an FOID card, per an Associated Press freedom of information
act request. It will now be contested within the courts as to privacy
concerns.

I have a FOID card and nary a firearm in the house. The reason to have
a FOID card, relative whom I am on the will has firearms, you can not
sell them if you do not have a card.

Mark

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
What I've never gotten is what good all this "registration and
licensing" are supposed to do. There are two kinds of people in the
world, the law abiding and criminals.

I'll answer your question and then I'm done. Obviously, nobody is going to
change their minds at this point.

There's three kinds of people, not two in your scenario - the law abiding,
the criminals and all those in between. How many times have you read about
someone who gets into a fight, goes home and gets his gun, comes back and
shoots the original opponent dead? They aren't criminals until the gun is
used. What might have happened if a gun hadn't been easily available? People
don't have to be criminals to shoot someone. All they need do is to really
lose their temper at some point, (something we've ALL done, likely more than
once) and in the wrong circumstance a gun is used. This is more common than
some may think. And before you suggest it, a gun does not really compare to
a knife. A gun can easily kill from a distance, is viewed much more
seriously than a knife and is handled and considered differently.

How many bars or pubs are there in the US? How many experience fights
between patrons on a regular basis? In the heat of a fight, it's pretty
damned easy to pull your gun and shoot someone. It's just as easy to miss
and shoot a bystander. When you're fighting and your adrenalin is pumping,
logical, reasoned thought generally goes out the window.

Forty years ago, people would get into a fight and usually go home
afterwards. There were no guns pulled, no knives used and only once did I
see someone grab a bottle at which point the bystanders started to advance
on the bottle holder. He then dropped the bottle. Now, it's different and
public attitudes have changed. That change in attitude is intensified and
easy access to a gun only intensifies it futher.

Those people who get a gun "just because they can" and put it aside are at
real risk of using it at the wrong moment. My suggestion of licensing and
registration, includes training. These three things (at least in my Canadian
society and in my perspective) imbed additional respect for a gun and the
privilege of ownership. It also means that more consideration goes into the
act of grabbing a gun on the spur of the moment. If it's more costly, time
consuming or requires more effort to get the gun in the first place, people
aren't going to so easily risk that gun ownership. Just being able to walk
into some store, plunk your money down and get a gun does not do those
things.

Yup, most certainly I get upset when some new regulation comes into effect
and it affects me personally in some way. I objected when the Canadian
F.A.C. process came into effect. Then I eventually accept it. Considering
the amount of gun owners in the US and the power they yield, it may well be
impossible for any authority to affect gun ownership much. Or at the very
least, they'd be afraid to seriously legislate gun ownership because of the
backlash. But, whether it's liked or not, it's gradually happening. More and
more states are legislating gun control. And as long as the US has a
functioning society, that gun control will increase. Attrition does work, as
long as it doesn't back off. And yes, I most certainly undertand that's a
big concern to many Americans, because gun culture has been an important
part of your society for many, many years.

Post a response if you want. I'll read it, but I probably won't reply.

Upscale wrote:


I'll answer your question and then I'm done. Obviously, nobody is
going to change their minds at this point.

And that's ok - different opinions is part of what makes the world go round,
and it's also what keeps any one opinion from developing disproportionate
weight.


There's three kinds of people, not two in your scenario - the law
abiding, the criminals and all those in between. How many times have
you read about someone who gets into a fight, goes home and gets his
gun, comes back and shoots the original opponent dead? They aren't
criminals until the gun is used. What might have happened if a gun
hadn't been easily available? People don't have to be criminals to
shoot someone. All they need do is to really lose their temper at
some point, (something we've ALL done, likely more than once) and in
the wrong circumstance a gun is used. This is more common than some
may think. And before you suggest it, a gun does not really compare
to a knife. A gun can easily kill from a distance, is viewed much
more seriously than a knife and is handled and considered
differently.

I don't have the statistics, but I have looked at them in the past.
According to FBI (I think...) records keeping, this is a statistically low
number. I think it is an easy enough thing to think about, but using the US
as an example, it does not prove out that these things happen with any
regularity enough, to make them a real concern. There are plenty of states
in the US that have very lax gun laws which result large percentages of the
population being gun owners. These states just don't exhibit your fear
being born out.

How many bars or pubs are there in the US? How many experience fights
between patrons on a regular basis? In the heat of a fight, it's
pretty damned easy to pull your gun and shoot someone. It's just as
easy to miss and shoot a bystander. When you're fighting and your
adrenalin is pumping, logical, reasoned thought generally goes out
the window.

Correct, but you just don't see this thing happening.

Forty years ago, people would get into a fight and usually go home
afterwards. There were no guns pulled, no knives used and only once
did I see someone grab a bottle at which point the bystanders started
to advance on the bottle holder. He then dropped the bottle. Now,
it's different and public attitudes have changed. That change in
attitude is intensified and easy access to a gun only intensifies it
futher.

Fair concern, but again - not statistically supported.

Those people who get a gun "just because they can" and put it aside
are at real risk of using it at the wrong moment.

I can understand that as a concern, but I don't think you can make that as
an outright statement.

My suggestion of
licensing and registration, includes training. These three things (at
least in my Canadian society and in my perspective) imbed additional
respect for a gun and the privilege of ownership. It also means that
more consideration goes into the act of grabbing a gun on the spur of
the moment.

In the case of the emotionally charged individual you mention above, I don't
believe the fact that a gun is registered (or the owner trained in proper
gun handling) is going to be affected by those things. It's more a matter
that most people just do not behave that way for other reasons than gun
registration - they simply do not resort to extremes like grabbing a gun,
because life just does not operate that way.

If it's more costly, time consuming or requires more
effort to get the gun in the first place, people aren't going to so
easily risk that gun ownership. Just being able to walk into some
store, plunk your money down and get a gun does not do those things.


You are right in the second half of your point - it is a moral standing that
prevents people from behaving in certain ways. That has nothing to do with
registrations, etc.

But, whether it's
liked or not, it's gradually happening. More and more states are
legislating gun control.

You are correct, and for gun owners, that presents some concerns. In the
US, anti-gun owners are openly stating that their agenda is to remove all
guns. They make no bones that increasing legislation, etc. is part of how
they hope to circumvent the 2nd Ammendment. Why would gun owners not be
concerned about this approach?

And as long as the US has a functioning
society, that gun control will increase. Attrition does work, as long
as it doesn't back off. And yes, I most certainly undertand that's a
big concern to many Americans, because gun culture has been an
important part of your society for many, many years.
Post a response if you want. I'll read it, but I probably won't reply.

Your choice. For me, this is a dialog and if you care to reply, that's
fine... we'll continue the dialog. If you don't - equally fine. We have
our different opinions and like I said in the beginning - having those
different opinions is important.

--

-Mike-

``Honest officer, I was in the bar minding my own business and this guy
started beating me up. I went to my car, opened the trunk and got a tire
iron to defend myself, when I went back into the bar.``

A cop told me that from a real occurrence.

ROFLMAO.

----------------

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

I don't have the statistics, but I have looked at them in the past.
According to FBI (I think...) records keeping, this is a statistically low
number. I think it is an easy enough thing to think about, but using the US
as an example, it does not prove out that these things happen with any
regularity enough, to make them a real concern. There are plenty of states
in the US that have very lax gun laws which result large percentages of the
population being gun owners. These states just don't exhibit your fear
being born out.

How many bars or pubs are there in the US? How many experience fights
between patrons on a regular basis? In the heat of a fight, it's
pretty damned easy to pull your gun and shoot someone. It's just as
easy to miss and shoot a bystander. When you're fighting and your
adrenalin is pumping, logical, reasoned thought generally goes out
the window.

Correct, but you just don't see this thing happening.

Forty years ago, people would get into a fight and usually go home
afterwards. There were no guns pulled, no knives used and only once
did I see someone grab a bottle at which point the bystanders started
to advance on the bottle holder. He then dropped the bottle. Now,
it's different and public attitudes have changed. That change in
attitude is intensified and easy access to a gun only intensifies it
futher.

Fair concern, but again - not statistically supported.

Those people who get a gun "just because they can" and put it aside
are at real risk of using it at the wrong moment.

I can understand that as a concern, but I don't think you can make that as
an outright statement.

My suggestion of
licensing and registration, includes training. These three things (at
least in my Canadian society and in my perspective) imbed additional
respect for a gun and the privilege of ownership. It also means that
more consideration goes into the act of grabbing a gun on the spur of
the moment.

In the case of the emotionally charged individual you mention above, I don't
believe the fact that a gun is registered (or the owner trained in proper
gun handling) is going to be affected by those things. It's more a matter
that most people just do not behave that way for other reasons than gun
registration - they simply do not resort to extremes like grabbing a gun,
because life just does not operate that way.

If it's more costly, time consuming or requires more
effort to get the gun in the first place, people aren't going to so
easily risk that gun ownership. Just being able to walk into some
store, plunk your money down and get a gun does not do those things.


You are right in the second half of your point - it is a moral standing that
prevents people from behaving in certain ways. That has nothing to do with
registrations, etc.

But, whether it's
liked or not, it's gradually happening. More and more states are
legislating gun control.

You are correct, and for gun owners, that presents some concerns. In the
US, anti-gun owners are openly stating that their agenda is to remove all
guns. They make no bones that increasing legislation, etc. is part of how
they hope to circumvent the 2nd Ammendment. Why would gun owners not be
concerned about this approach?

And as long as the US has a functioning
society, that gun control will increase. Attrition does work, as long
as it doesn't back off. And yes, I most certainly undertand that's a
big concern to many Americans, because gun culture has been an
important part of your society for many, many years.
Post a response if you want. I'll read it, but I probably won't reply.

Your choice. For me, this is a dialog and if you care to reply, that's
fine... we'll continue the dialog. If you don't - equally fine. We have
our different opinions and like I said in the beginning - having those
different opinions is important.

--

-Mike-