Sounds like you're not a big fan of Bush then, since the war in Iraq
was supposed to make us feel safer, even though it's having the
opposite effect.

When did this become about Bush and Iraq? Are you just trying to
throw more things in so that you don't have to make any sense?

Limit easy access to guns... how many fewer deaths will that get us? A
lower number than died in 9/11?

No actually more people would die as shown in other countries that
have banned guns and seen an increase in violent crimes.

Correct. So, in order to help solve this obvious problem, make gun
ownership a priviledge that has to be earned not a claimed right that
doesn't actually exist.

Earned how? we all have the right to own guns just not the right to
hurt people with it unless it is absolutely necessary. What other
right do you have to earn? If it is seen as a priveledge then how do
you have to earn it? by taking classes and passing a safety test?
guess what you already have to take a test to buy a gun and most gun
owners, including the politacl arguments made by the NRA, advocate
mandatory safety classes to be able to purchase a gun.

Never advocated nor do I advocate banning gun ownership. That's just a
red herring to obfuscate the effort to regulate gun ownership.

Then what are you advocating? You are claiming that guns are
dangerous and shouldn't be allowed but now you say that people should
be able to own them. What exactly is your stance now?

Five minutes is not enough time to do a proper check, at least not
yet. When we get to that point, fine. Until then, we need to give law
enforcement time to do a proper check and we need to let them keep the
records long enough to have a chance of following up.

There is a federally kept list of everyone that is not allowed to
purchase or own a gun in this country. The check is done with you in
the store at the time of purchase where the vendor looks up your
information in a computer or calls a phone number and puts in your
info. If any of about 100 criteria are met to get you on that list
they don't sell to you. The list is maintained with the idea that if
you are even suspected of meeting one of these criteria you are put on
the list and not taken off until they are cleared for whatever reason.

Nevertheless...

Oh come on. Heston went on a rant right after Columbine. Totally
wrong-headed, pig-headed view that undermines people's right in a
civil society.

Heston was put into place to increase exposure and popularity but when
te NRA saw how extreme and nuts he is had him step down and now have a
different president. What his view is is no longer relevant to the
NRA or any of the gun owners out there.

All the liberal?? Holy generalization batman...

Politically speaking yes. There may be a few that are not that way
but the vast majority are advocating banning guns which until this
thread you were to. And besides you would have to generalize because
I can not give a case by case account of what every person in the US
thinks.

I've made them, you haven't. Still waiting...

maybe I have been reading a different thread but I missed any actual
argument that wasn't emotionally based in fantasy that contradicts
actual reality or historical evidence.

Just to clerify, what do you think needs to be done becasue you seem
to have changed you stance here. Maybe I misunderstood so as to be
sure that we are discussing the same thing why don't you spell it out.

In article .com,
Bill wrote:

Sounds like you're not a big fan of Bush then, since the war in Iraq
was supposed to make us feel safer, even though it's having the
opposite effect.

When did this become about Bush and Iraq? Are you just trying to
throw more things in so that you don't have to make any sense?

Just now. I made a comparison. I don't see you disputing it.

Limit easy access to guns... how many fewer deaths will that get us? A
lower number than died in 9/11?

No actually more people would die as shown in other countries that
have banned guns and seen an increase in violent crimes.

Huh? Where are you getting these "facts"? From Mars?

Correct. So, in order to help solve this obvious problem, make gun
ownership a priviledge that has to be earned not a claimed right that
doesn't actually exist.

Earned how? we all have the right to own guns just not the right to
hurt people with it unless it is absolutely necessary. What other
right do you have to earn? If it is seen as a priveledge then how do

Just like the privilege of driving a car. It needs to be earned.

you have to earn it? by taking classes and passing a safety test?
guess what you already have to take a test to buy a gun and most gun
owners, including the politacl arguments made by the NRA, advocate
mandatory safety classes to be able to purchase a gun.

Completely untrue... not even in liberal California. You plunk down
your cash, and you get the gun in a few days. Been there, did that.

Never advocated nor do I advocate banning gun ownership. That's just a
red herring to obfuscate the effort to regulate gun ownership.

Then what are you advocating? You are claiming that guns are
dangerous and shouldn't be allowed but now you say that people should
be able to own them. What exactly is your stance now?

Registration, thorough background check, education, and the limits on
how many can be purchased in a given period.

Five minutes is not enough time to do a proper check, at least not
yet. When we get to that point, fine. Until then, we need to give law
enforcement time to do a proper check and we need to let them keep the
records long enough to have a chance of following up.

Heston was put into place to increase exposure and popularity but when
te NRA saw how extreme and nuts he is had him step down and now have a
different president. What his view is is no longer relevant to the
NRA or any of the gun owners out there.

Sure. Especially because you say so.

All the liberal?? Holy generalization batman...

Politically speaking yes. There may be a few that are not that way
but the vast majority are advocating banning guns which until this
thread you were to. And besides you would have to generalize because
I can not give a case by case account of what every person in the US
thinks.

You can't? Wow. Amazing. But, it sounded so good.

I've made them, you haven't. Still waiting...

maybe I have been reading a different thread but I missed any actual
argument that wasn't emotionally based in fantasy that contradicts
actual reality or historical evidence.

Maybe you have.

Just to clerify, what do you think needs to be done becasue you seem
to have changed you stance here. Maybe I misunderstood so as to be
sure that we are discussing the same thing why don't you spell it out.

See previous.




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

Just now. I made a comparison. I don't see you disputing it.

I'm not disputing it because it is completely irrelevant.

No actually more people would die as shown in other countries that
have banned guns and seen an increase in violent crimes.

Huh? Where are you getting these "facts"? From Mars?

No from England, Australia and Canada. They aren't on Mars. By the
way where are you getting the facts that less people will die. No
country that has banned firearms has seen a decread in crime.

Just like the privilege of driving a car. It needs to be earned.

you mean taking a test? http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/hscinfo.php This is
the california handgun safety certificate test. Not only do you ahve
to pass this test but you also are not allowed to purchase more than
one handgun in a 30 day period. Also there is a 10 day waiting period
and the background check.

Completely untrue... not even in liberal California. You plunk down
your cash, and you get the gun in a few days. Been there, did that.

See above.

Registration, thorough background check, education, and the limits on
how many can be purchased in a given period.

See above.

Sure. Especially because you say so.

So if an orginization realizes that they made a mistake by appointing
the wrong person then rectifies this mistake you only look at that act
to judge the entire orginizations history? That sounds like good
reasoning. It's not just that I say so, it is the official point of
view of the NRA. The NRA newsletter never mentions Heston nor is he
in any way part of making any decisions for the orginization so why
are you bringing him up.

maybe I have been reading a different thread but I missed any actual
argument that wasn't emotionally based in fantasy that contradicts
actual reality or historical evidence.

Maybe you have.

Are you incapable of giving a straight answer? Do you have no idea
what it is you even discussing because you just give a short
irrelevant answer and dodge the question.

Just to clerify, what do you think needs to be done becasue you seem
to have changed you stance here. Maybe I misunderstood so as to be
sure that we are discussing the same thing why don't you spell it out.

See previous.

Good spelling. You said mandatory waiting periods, education and time
limits between purchases. How is that differnt what we have? you
keep saying that we need more regulation but then you say that the
regulations you want are the same as what we have. You say that we
should ban more guns but then say we shouldn't. If you can't actually
say what you thinkt hen i don't want to play anymore.

In article . com,
Bill wrote:
Good spelling. You said mandatory waiting periods, education and time
limits between purchases. How is that differnt what we have? you
keep saying that we need more regulation but then you say that the
regulations you want are the same as what we have. You say that we
should ban more guns but then say we shouldn't. If you can't actually
say what you thinkt hen i don't want to play anymore.

Fine with me... I'm going sailing, without my guns.




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