How many more?
 

Exactly. Therefore, prudent regulation of the PEOPLE who want to own
guns is justified and necessary.

Maybe we should tattoo barcodes on thier forheads and treat them like
they did something wrong. Okay I'm going to say it one more time.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY REGULATING THE PEOPLE? You have not given
anything solid to stand behind. You are being very vague which makes
me think you are only holding this viewpoint because you listen to all
of the liberal explanation for why we need mre gun control. Nobody
seems to have anything good to say for that side so they just argue
nothing to waste time and energy hoping that enough people like you
will think they know what they are talking about.

How many more?
 

In article om,
Bill wrote:
Exactly. Therefore, prudent regulation of the PEOPLE who want to own
guns is justified and necessary.

Maybe we should tattoo barcodes on thier forheads and treat them like
they did something wrong. Okay I'm going to say it one more time.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY REGULATING THE PEOPLE? You have not given
anything solid to stand behind. You are being very vague which makes
me think you are only holding this viewpoint because you listen to all
of the liberal explanation for why we need mre gun control. Nobody
seems to have anything good to say for that side so they just argue
nothing to waste time and energy hoping that enough people like you
will think they know what they are talking about.

I like the tattoos, except that it kinda has a bad connotion.

See my previous post. I have been very specific, but you can claim
otherwise.


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

How many more?
 

I like the tattoos, except that it kinda has a bad connotion.


Can you say Hitler youth? I knew you could. Of course it has a bad
conotation, liberalization promotes socialization. This is basically
the idea that the government knows whats best for you and should
regulate every part of your life including your right to keep and bear
arms. Historical practices of socialization are Nazism, Communism,
and Facsism. Yeah lets do that sounds good to me.

How many more?
 

In article .com,
Bill wrote:
I like the tattoos, except that it kinda has a bad connotion.


Can you say Hitler youth? I knew you could. Of course it has a bad
conotation, liberalization promotes socialization. This is basically
the idea that the government knows whats best for you and should
regulate every part of your life including your right to keep and bear
arms. Historical practices of socialization are Nazism, Communism,
and Facsism. Yeah lets do that sounds good to me.

You brought it up. I was attempting to help you.




--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

How many more?
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
katy wrote:

Polls? You believe polls? How about Santa CLause, the Easter Bunny and
the Tooth Fairy, too, while you're at it? No, I have no belief in
polls. They are slanted to the poll developers slant. And I am not an
innocent...I am well aware of what goes on in the world.


How do you propose we find out what the public wants if we don't use
polls? Are all the polls wrong or just the ones you don't like?


The majority of polls are slanted and biased...I suggest rather than
polls we vote...I've listened to people taking polls...half of them
don't even understand what they're being asked...I even doubt that more
than 50% of those that go to the voting booth vote with anything but a
gut feeling or a biased belief founded more on peer pressure, familial
history, or the 30 minute nightly news interspersed with commercials for
Burger King...I do not believe the average American is an informed
voter...and yet, they do their "patriotic" duty and parade off to the
voting booth uninformed or unable to dicipher facts, figures, and
opinions...

How many more?
 

OzOne wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:58:54 -0400, katy
scribbled thusly:



Why not start putting insane people back in the institutions where they
belong so they don't jeopardize the lives and welfare of others? Turns
out the guy was clincally diagnosed and was referred by the university
for counseling becasue his creative writing assignments were so
disturbing that the instructor was concerned. And it is the
Constitution, Jon...obviously the American people have not come to a
different conclusion about that or they'd make the quorum to change it...


Cool init...he was being treated for depression yet was able to walk
into the local gunship and buy a Glock .........

Anyone for effective gun control?


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,
We've been expecting you.

I doubt very seriously that he did that...BTW, using a medical reason to
deny gun ownership would flip the livs off here since they were the ones
sooooo happy to put in the HIPAA laws...that would violate a whole
system they worked 10 years to get into place....The question I rasie is
if he did purtchase the gun, why was a non-citizen allowed to do such a
thing? That means any Iraqui or Iranian with a clean record and a
driver's klicense could buy one..somehow, I don't think so...we extend
far too many rights of citizenship to those who linger about in our
country...I would hope that gun ownership was not one of those...

How many more?
 

On Apr 17, 5:06 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:
In article . com,

Joe wrote:
The point is guns do not kill people, people kill people.
No one is forcing you to own a gun.

Exactly. Therefore, prudent regulation of the PEOPLE who want to own
guns is justified and necessary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:B...Museumflag.jpg
No guns there....44 children murdered at school.

1927?

They had guns in 1927. Point is the mass murder took place without
guns.

Keep at it. Maybe you should claim Hillary did it.

Why would I blame Hillary?
The only one to blame is the Seung-hui Cho. Thats something you
liberal seems to not understand, people are responsible for their own
actions.

Joe

--
Capt. JG

How many more?
 

OzOne wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:02:58 -0400, katy
scribbled thusly:


OzOne wrote:

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:58:54 -0400, katy
scribbled thusly:




Why not start putting insane people back in the institutions where they
belong so they don't jeopardize the lives and welfare of others? Turns
out the guy was clincally diagnosed and was referred by the university
for counseling becasue his creative writing assignments were so
disturbing that the instructor was concerned. And it is the
Constitution, Jon...obviously the American people have not come to a
different conclusion about that or they'd make the quorum to change it...


Cool init...he was being treated for depression yet was able to walk
into the local gunship and buy a Glock .........

Anyone for effective gun control?


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,
We've been expecting you.

I doubt very seriously that he did that...BTW, using a medical reason to
deny gun ownership would flip the livs off here since they were the ones
sooooo happy to put in the HIPAA laws...that would violate a whole
system they worked 10 years to get into place....The question I rasie is
if he did purtchase the gun, why was a non-citizen allowed to do such a
thing? That means any Iraqui or Iranian with a clean record and a
driver's klicense could buy one..somehow, I don't think so...we extend
far too many rights of citizenship to those who linger about in our
country...I would hope that gun ownership was not one of those...



Just going on this statement reported here
"uthorities found a receipt for a Glock 9 millimetre handgun, bought
last month, in Cho's backpack which also contained two knives and a
cache of bullets, ABC reported.

He bought his second weapon, a .22 calibre pistol, within the last
week.

According to the AP news agency, Cho walked into a Virginia gun shop,
put down a credit card and walked out with a Glock and a box of
ammunition. He paid $US571 ($687).

The serial number had been scratched off the weapon, but police traced
it to the store, Roanoke Firearms, using the receipt found in Cho's
backpack.

"It was a very unremarkable sale," owner John Markell, who did not
handle the sale personally, told AP. "He was a nice, clean-cut college
kid. We won't sell a gun if we have any idea at all that a purchase is
suspicious." "


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,
We've been expecting you.

I just read that...IMO , whether someone is a permanent resident or not,
non-citizens have no right to have a gun....that needs to be rectified...

How many more?
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
And, they have easy access to guns, especially handguns. If you remove
that easy access, then they might have a chance to get help before 33
people die needlessly. Why don't you tell us it's "in the
Constitution" again if it makes you feel better.

Easy access to handguns is an American fact of life--now and forever. Do
you honestly believe that legislating tougher restrictions will control the
black market on guns? Case in point: during the so-called "assault weapon
ban" there were more so-called "assault weapons" bought and sold in this
country than in the entire time before the ban, or after it was allowed to
lapse. Many were legally sold, but many were under-the-table sales. It is
estimated that over 20 million handguns are illegally possessed in this
country today, and if banned or made tougher to obtain that number would
likely increase due to perceived demand. The demented student who shot 32
others plus himself at VT would likely have been able to obtain a handgun or
two despite tougher restrictions on them.

Did Prohibition stop the sale and use of alcoholic beverages? Has the
illegality of recreational drugs been effective in limiting their sale and
use?

My point: logistically the horses are out of the barn. Closing the barn
door now will accomplish nothing.

Max

How many more?
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
katy wrote:
Why not... good idea. Too bad Reagan didn't think so. Someone
clinically depressed certainly should be restricted from easy access
to guns. Hate to tell you, but the majority of Americans favor more
strick gun control...

Obviously, you don't have the facts...

Some polls:

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLI...uns/index.html



If that were really so, then there would be legislation...after all, we
are goventment by the people for the people...if what you say was RALLY
true, then the people would rise up and do something about it...if a
person says they're against something, but does nothing to change it and
sits in apathy, then they are really not agaisnt it...they just like to
blat their mouths off with an opinion...I think the more valid statistic
would be that most Americans just don't give a crap...if they did,
they'd do something...

I know you're a very innocent person, but do you dispute the polls? Do
you think the NRA is just going to lie down and let Congress regulate
their business without a fight? They pour millions into their hands
everytime a piece of legislation that would restrict their business
shows up.

Your statement here should answer any questions you have about why gun
control efforts have continually failed. Gun control is a hot-button issue
in any political campaign. Even the liberal Democrats are reluctant to
touch it with a ten-foot pole. It's political suicide, except, perhaps, in
Vermont or Massachusetts. The NRA will indeed fight tooth and nail for
gun-owners' rights, and they do so with the medium that gets results:
money. Politics is always about money.

Max