The long guns you're talking about have folding stocks and flash
suppressors.
There is no good reason for "honest citizens" to own these things without a
permit.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:27:09 -0400, "Vito" said:

Mr. Poodle is clearly the ignorant one. He thinks that it's ok to put
more guns on the streets.

It's not only OK, it is better to have more guns on the streets so long as
they are in the hands of competent law abiding citizens. Cities and states
with the most restrictive anti-gun laws have the worst crime rates and
vice
versa. Meanwhile, states that passed versions of the Florida law allowing
concealed carry saw a drop in crime.

Call me an agnostic on this one. The above argument is less than
compelling.
Correlation is not the same as causation, and one might as persuasively
argue that high crime rates made the citizens of those cities and states
more amenable to gun control. I think the best you can say is that current
gun control laws don't seem to have much impact one way or the other.

So far as the assault weapons ban goes, that's not surprising since as you
say the objective of the law was not to ban assault weapons but to ban
weapons that look like assault weapons. And despite a small number of
highly
publicized events involving rifles, I'm not at all persuaded that long
guns
are a major problem.

Does this make any sense to anyone besides Max?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Violent crime dropped under the Clinton administration. It's now on
the rise again... thanks to Bu**** and company.

I know, dammit. Look at all those hurricanes, thanks to Bush and company.

Max

This one

http://community.webshots.com/photo/73345252/76569411zLxjAQ

It was nice of Billy Jean King to come paint your boat.

RB

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:49:31 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

So, what you're saying is that either Fox is right all the time or that
ABC (Rather is on another network) are dishonest and biases. I
think I'll go with ABC over Fox.

I don't think I said anything at all about Fox, but you're welcome to try to
show otherwise.

I may be welcome, but I'm not interested in your TV watching
habits. That's television Horass, not transvestites.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:53:31 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Does this make any sense to anyone besides Max?

Of course. It's called metaphor. He's suggesting that correlation is not
causation. You do understand that concept, don't you?

So, you're saying that Pat Robertson has nothing to do with diverting
the path of hurricanes??


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Vito wrote:
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote

Mr. Poodle is clearly the ignorant one. He thinks that it's ok to put
more guns on the streets.

Remember, if there had been one armed person on each highjacked plane, 9/11
could never have happened and police would still have to get warrants to
search our homes.

Actually, that's not necessarily true, since the hijackers were
trained to deal with air marshalls. In any case, that's not equivalent
to butting guns on the streets, unless you're advocating regular citizens
to carry guns on planes.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:52:51 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

The long guns you're talking about have folding stocks and flash
suppressors.
There is no good reason for "honest citizens" to own these things without a
permit.

I believe those two items are among the long laundry list of items that the
Congress critters' staffs decided make a gun look "scary." It all boils down
to one's approach. If you subscribe to the philosophy that everything should
be forbidden unless it is specifically authorized by the guvmint, then you
ask (as you do) whether there is a reason to allow honest citizens to own
such things. If you subscribe to the philosophy that individuals should be
able to do as they wish unless there is a good reason for the guvmint's
forbidding it, then you ask whether there is a good reason to forbid honest
citizens from owning such things for whatever their reason might be. I find
it hard to believe that your average criminal out to slaughter children on
playgrounds is going to be affected much one way or the other by whether his
gun has a flash suppressor.

Well, the laundry list includes not allowing abortions in any
circumstances. That's certainly of great interest to the Bu****
administration.

Are you suggesting there is a good reason for regular citizens to own
guns like this?

Also, this has nothing to do with the "average" criminal. It does have
to do with wackos who can walk into a store and get a semi-auto rifle
and 1000 rounds without much effort. Or, it's about the bank robbers
like those in LA who stood down 350 cops.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote
The long guns you're talking about have folding stocks and flash
suppressors.
There is no good reason for "honest citizens" to own these things without
a permit.

A "permit" to own a paramilitary weapon? WTF? First you say there is no
good reason for them, then you want to issue permits for people to do so?

Frankly, I think you've got it exactly backwards... there is no reason
for the gov't to restrict their ownership. A citizen should be allowed
to buy & own whatever he wants & can afford... from motorcycles to
electric guitars. It is the misuse of these items that is a problem for
the community and thus becomes an issue for the gov't to address.

I have no problem with banning convicted felons, or ex-wife stalkers,
from owning firearms. Makes good sense to me. However, I have a big
problem with the gov't telling me what I can and can't do, when I have a
lifelong record of good citizenship.

Considering the number of fatalities & severe injuries around the home,
perhaps you'd advocate banning, or requiring permits, to own such things
as lawn mowers & certain types of cleaning supplies?

Cars kill far more people than guns, and yet we make little or no effort
to restrict their use.



Vito wrote:
.... The only differences between a pre-ban AR-15 and
a new (legal) AR-15 is that the former has a bayonet lug and the latter does
not - and oh yes, the latter comes with a 5 round magazine but literally
millions of pre ban magazines are available.

I think you'd agree that neither a bayonet lug nor a flash suppressor make
the gun any more or less deadly.

Oh, no. The flash supressor makes the gun much more deadly because it
makes it difficult to return fire. The bayonet lug makes it more deadly
because with a bayonet, you can finish off the wounded & kill people
when you're out of bullets...

DSK

On 10 Sep 2004 11:28:03 -0700, (Jonathan
Ganz) wrote:

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:53:31 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Does this make any sense to anyone besides Max?

Of course. It's called metaphor. He's suggesting that correlation is not
causation. You do understand that concept, don't you?

So, you're saying that Pat Robertson has nothing to do with diverting
the path of hurricanes??

Actually that might be true. With all the hot air he can put out, I
wouldn't be surprised if he can't create some sort of high pressure
that might influence the weather. I know he can influence my blood
pressure if I watch his program:)

"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...
|
| "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
|
| Good Advice Gilligan..... but no armory is complete without a .Barnet
..50
| cal.
|
| Jesus, Mooron--what are you anticipating?? Or is that a "hunting gun?"
:-)

Long Distance, Calling...... :-)

CM