On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 05:03:26 -0800 (PST), True North wrote:

On Saturday, January 12, 2013 11:45:45 PM UTC-4, Earl wrote:
wrote:

On Monday, December 31, 2012 8:58:58 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,



says...



Looks like things are getting crazier by the minute down there...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity...-shooting.html





What is YOUR solution?

Disarm the population...with an exception for shotguns and legitimate hunting rifles.

My hunting rifle carries a much larger payload than my Colt AR15. My

Benneli M4 shotgun could be even more of a menace.

You're the menace...those firearms would be just fine in the hands of a balanced stable person.

Thank you, Donnie. You've just made the case.

*Any* gun is just fine in the hands of a balanced, stable person.

That's the point.

Glad to see you finally figured it out.

The problem is the determination of who is not a balanced, stable person, then recording the
information, then publicizing the information, and then acting on the information by denying the
purchase of a firearm.

Of course, that's not to say that the mother of the individual in question couldn't purchase the
firearm.

What we need is a big government agency to do all the above. That'll work until some liberal begins
to wonder about all the 'privacy' issues they've been addressing for years.

And y'all thought the Patriot Act was bad.

Salmonbait

--

**Those who think they can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government
take care of them better take a closer look at the American Indian.**