How many more?
 

Before proper gun control is instituted.....or are you really that
afraid of everything?

Yes lets blame the gun. it's the guns fault those people are dead,
not the person who knowingly killed them. Nope if holding that gun
was illegal he would have never done it I mean KILLING people isn't
illegal or anything. Plus it's always a good idea to restrict the
freedoms of people out of fear and control. It really doen't help
make people safer just gives that illusion. Do you know who were huge
supporters of gun control? Hitler, Stalin, Polpot and Mussilini. The
people thought just like you, that it would make them safer and give
them a better more civilized country. But that's somehow different.
Robbing you of freedoms is okay if the people are to stupid to realize
it like in your country. Most Americans are to and that really
bothers me. You shouldn't have to justify the desire to own a gun.
You shouldn't have to justify anything here that does not harm
others. My gun has never killed or harmed another person. I own it
legally and I shouldn't have to tell you why. I own many things that
I don't "need" but i still have them. I have some kitchen knives that
could kill someone but I don't have to register those.

Oh and byt he way assult rifles are illegal. The definition of an
assault rifle keeps changing bbut any fully automatic machine gun has
been illegal since 1934 here. To me that's more than enough
regulation but sadly there are plenty of other laws. The liberal
dip****s don't care about helping people they only care about passing
useless laws to make it look like they are doing something important
when they are doing nothing. In California, the gun control laws are
aimed at the apperance of the gun. They don't want someone to be shot
with something that looks scary. In the mean tim ethey are making
prison sentences shorter and letting a lot more murderers go free.
Yep it's the guns fault not the person that did the act. hey maybe
gun is out robbing a bank right now without me even knowing it.

How many more?
 

In article .com,
Bill wrote:
Before proper gun control is instituted.....or are you really that
afraid of everything?

Yes lets blame the gun. it's the guns fault those people are dead,

Not blaming the gun any more than the automobile. I'm advocating what
the majority of Americans want... a safer enviroment.

not the person who knowingly killed them. Nope if holding that gun

Hate to tell you, but he probably had mental problems. Are you
advocating locking those people up before they do anything?

legally and I shouldn't have to tell you why. I own many things that
I don't "need" but i still have them. I have some kitchen knives that
could kill someone but I don't have to register those.

Tell me why?? That's not what you do when you register your gun or you
need to supply ID and wait a couple of weeks while the authorities
verify you are who you say you are and that you are a stable person.

Oh and byt he way assult rifles are illegal. The definition of an
assault rifle keeps changing bbut any fully automatic machine gun has
been illegal since 1934 here. To me that's more than enough

Yes, for you. Rifles that are easy to modify to fully automatic are
easily available.

when they are doing nothing. In California, the gun control laws are
aimed at the apperance of the gun. They don't want someone to be shot
with something that looks scary. In the mean tim ethey are making
prison sentences shorter and letting a lot more murderers go free.

We need to do more in California. Talk to the NRA. They didn't want
anything. Ever hear of three strikes? Prison populations are on the
rise, not declining.

Rant away... guns, guns, guns... sounds like a Monty Python script.

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

How many more?
 

Not blaming the gun any more than the automobile. I'm advocating what
the majority of Americans want... a safer enviroment.

Yes but it is not a safer environment only the illusion of one at the
cost of our personal freedoms.

Hate to tell you, but he probably had mental problems. Are you
advocating locking those people up before they do anything?

No but it is illegal for people with a mental illness to purchase a
gun. He was just never diagnosed. I haven't seen anything that says
he obtained the gun legally so I couldn't tell you how he got it or
the cicumstances involved. Someone stated earlier that the serial
numbers were filed off meaning that particular gun was already
illegal since you are not allowed to own a gun that has altered
numbers in any way.

Tell me why?? That's not what you do when you register your gun or you
need to supply ID and wait a couple of weeks while the authorities
verify you are who you say you are and that you are a stable person.

I am not saying that there should be no check but advocating banning
the sale/ownership of a gun is a whole other story plus the check is
done in about five minutes. The justification fro the wait is so you
don't legally buy it then run out and kill someone in a crime of
passion. Crimes of passion done with firearms has not gone down since
this was put into place. As I said before kitchen knives, pillows,
rope, a car all dangerous.

Yes, for you. Rifles that are easy to modify to fully automatic are
easily available.

Yes and I can make a shotgun out of a peice f pipe with a nail in it.
My Dad was a cop for 30 years and he showed me a bunch of homemade
guns they confiscated. Modifying the gun to fully auto is illegal as
well. Making "more illegal" isn't going to do anything.

We need to do more in California. Talk to the NRA. They didn't want
anything. Ever hear of three strikes? Prison populations are on the
rise, not declining.

Yes the NRA has to act on the extreme opossite just get a middle
ground result. The NRA is the biggest advocate for using firearm
education and safety training as gun control where all the liberals
say that learning isn't the important part we should just take them
away. The NRA sponsors more safety and education classes than anyone
else when it comes to firearms but nobody talks about that side do
they?

Rant away... guns, guns, guns... sounds like a Monty Python script.

Oh so because you have no real logical argument you have to start
making personal shots against me. That's fine it doesn't bother me.

How many more?
 

Bill wrote:
Before proper gun control is instituted.....or are you really that
afraid of everything?


Yes lets blame the gun. it's the guns fault those people are dead,
not the person who knowingly killed them. Nope if holding that gun
was illegal he would have never done it I mean KILLING people isn't
illegal or anything. Plus it's always a good idea to restrict the
freedoms of people out of fear and control. It really doen't help
make people safer just gives that illusion. Do you know who were huge
supporters of gun control? Hitler, Stalin, Polpot and Mussilini. The
people thought just like you, that it would make them safer and give
them a better more civilized country. But that's somehow different.
Robbing you of freedoms is okay if the people are to stupid to realize
it like in your country. Most Americans are to and that really
bothers me. You shouldn't have to justify the desire to own a gun.
You shouldn't have to justify anything here that does not harm
others. My gun has never killed or harmed another person. I own it
legally and I shouldn't have to tell you why. I own many things that
I don't "need" but i still have them. I have some kitchen knives that
could kill someone but I don't have to register those.

Oh and byt he way assult rifles are illegal. The definition of an
assault rifle keeps changing bbut any fully automatic machine gun has
been illegal since 1934 here. To me that's more than enough
regulation but sadly there are plenty of other laws. The liberal
dip****s don't care about helping people they only care about passing
useless laws to make it look like they are doing something important
when they are doing nothing. In California, the gun control laws are
aimed at the apperance of the gun. They don't want someone to be shot
with something that looks scary. In the mean tim ethey are making
prison sentences shorter and letting a lot more murderers go free.
Yep it's the guns fault not the person that did the act. hey maybe
gun is out robbing a bank right now without me even knowing it.

It's the gun's faiult..it's the school's fault..it's the Board's
fault..it's the cops fault...of course it can't be a 23 year old psycho,
not even a citizen's fault..my God...what is the world coming to that we
would blame him?

How many more?
 

In article . com,
Bill wrote:
Not blaming the gun any more than the automobile. I'm advocating what
the majority of Americans want... a safer enviroment.

Yes but it is not a safer environment only the illusion of one at the
cost of our personal freedoms.

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.

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

Hate to tell you, but he probably had mental problems. Are you
advocating locking those people up before they do anything?

No but it is illegal for people with a mental illness to purchase a
gun. He was just never diagnosed. I haven't seen anything that says

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.

Tell me why?? That's not what you do when you register your gun or you
need to supply ID and wait a couple of weeks while the authorities
verify you are who you say you are and that you are a stable person.

I am not saying that there should be no check but advocating banning
the sale/ownership of a gun is a whole other story plus the check is
done in about five minutes. The justification fro the wait is so you
don't legally buy it then run out and kill someone in a crime of
passion. Crimes of passion done with firearms has not gone down since
this was put into place. As I said before kitchen knives, pillows,
rope, a car all dangerous.

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

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.

Yes, for you. Rifles that are easy to modify to fully automatic are
easily available.

Yes and I can make a shotgun out of a peice f pipe with a nail in it.
My Dad was a cop for 30 years and he showed me a bunch of homemade
guns they confiscated. Modifying the gun to fully auto is illegal as
well. Making "more illegal" isn't going to do anything.

Nevertheless...

We need to do more in California. Talk to the NRA. They didn't want
anything. Ever hear of three strikes? Prison populations are on the
rise, not declining.

Yes the NRA has to act on the extreme opossite just get a middle
ground result. The NRA is the biggest advocate for using firearm

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.

education and safety training as gun control where all the liberals
say that learning isn't the important part we should just take them
away. The NRA sponsors more safety and education classes than anyone
else when it comes to firearms but nobody talks about that side do
they?

All the liberal?? Holy generalization batman...

Rant away... guns, guns, guns... sounds like a Monty Python script.

Oh so because you have no real logical argument you have to start
making personal shots against me. That's fine it doesn't bother me.

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




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

How many more?
 

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.

How many more?
 

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

How many more?
 

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 17 Apr 2007 12:46:29 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz) said:

I'm advocating what
the majority of Americans want

Hurry!!! Jump on the band wagon.!

Hurry!!! Who gives a sh*t what the people actually want! Not the gun, oil,
insurance, tobacco lobbies...


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

How many more?
 

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.

How many more?
 

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

How many more?
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
Dave wrote:

On 17 Apr 2007 12:46:29 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz) said:


I'm advocating what
the majority of Americans want

Hurry!!! Jump on the band wagon.!


Hurry!!! Who gives a sh*t what the people actually want! Not the gun, oil,
insurance, tobacco lobbies...


Once again, which people Where are they? Why aren't there petitions? WHy
aren't there amendments? Why isn't Congress forcing it through? Tell you
why...your supposition is incorrect...

How many more?
 

Nope, blame a system which allows someone who is under treatment for
depression yet can walk up to the counter in a gunshop, slap down a
credit card and walk out with a pistol and ammunition...no check, no
wait...

Doesn't work that way. People under treatment for severe psychiactric
treatment are not allowed to purchase firearms. Handguns have a
mandatory waiting list and non-residents can't buy them anyways. And
everyone is suppossed to get checked.

How many more?
 

OzOne wrote:
On 17 Apr 2007 12:24:24 -0700, Bill
scribbled thusly:


Before proper gun control is instituted.....or are you really that
afraid of everything?

Yes lets blame the gun. it's the guns fault those people are dead,
not the person who knowingly killed them. Nope if holding that gun
was illegal he would have never done it I mean KILLING people isn't
illegal or anything. Plus it's always a good idea to restrict the
freedoms of people out of fear and control. It really doen't help
make people safer just gives that illusion. Do you know who were huge
supporters of gun control? Hitler, Stalin, Polpot and Mussilini. The
people thought just like you, that it would make them safer and give
them a better more civilized country. But that's somehow different.
Robbing you of freedoms is okay if the people are to stupid to realize
it like in your country. Most Americans are to and that really
bothers me. You shouldn't have to justify the desire to own a gun.
You shouldn't have to justify anything here that does not harm
others. My gun has never killed or harmed another person. I own it
legally and I shouldn't have to tell you why. I own many things that
I don't "need" but i still have them. I have some kitchen knives that
could kill someone but I don't have to register those.

Oh and byt he way assult rifles are illegal. The definition of an
assault rifle keeps changing bbut any fully automatic machine gun has
been illegal since 1934 here. To me that's more than enough
regulation but sadly there are plenty of other laws. The liberal
dip****s don't care about helping people they only care about passing
useless laws to make it look like they are doing something important
when they are doing nothing. In California, the gun control laws are
aimed at the apperance of the gun. They don't want someone to be shot
with something that looks scary. In the mean tim ethey are making
prison sentences shorter and letting a lot more murderers go free.
Yep it's the guns fault not the person that did the act. hey maybe
gun is out robbing a bank right now without me even knowing it.



Nope, blame a system which allows someone who is under treatment for
depression yet can walk up to the counter in a gunshop, slap down a
credit card and walk out with a pistol and ammunition...no check, no
wait...


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

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

Huh? Not in any state I've lived in....some gun shows, maybe but not at
gun shops...

How many more?
 

"katy" wrote in message
...
Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
Dave wrote:

On 17 Apr 2007 12:46:29 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
said:


I'm advocating what
the majority of Americans want

Hurry!!! Jump on the band wagon.!


Hurry!!! Who gives a sh*t what the people actually want! Not the gun,
oil,
insurance, tobacco lobbies...


Once again, which people Where are they? Why aren't there petitions? WHy
aren't there amendments? Why isn't Congress forcing it through? Tell you
why...your supposition is incorrect...

This is the same 'vast majority' of Americans who believe global warming is
going to put us in the deep freeze within a year or so, at least according
to Jon.

Max

How many more?
 

OzOne wrote in message ...
On 17 Apr 2007 12:24:24 -0700, Bill
scribbled thusly:

Before proper gun control is instituted.....or are you really that
afraid of everything?

Yes lets blame the gun. it's the guns fault those people are dead,
not the person who knowingly killed them. Nope if holding that gun
was illegal he would have never done it I mean KILLING people isn't
illegal or anything. Plus it's always a good idea to restrict the
freedoms of people out of fear and control. It really doen't help
make people safer just gives that illusion. Do you know who were huge
supporters of gun control? Hitler, Stalin, Polpot and Mussilini. The
people thought just like you, that it would make them safer and give
them a better more civilized country. But that's somehow different.
Robbing you of freedoms is okay if the people are to stupid to realize
it like in your country. Most Americans are to and that really
bothers me. You shouldn't have to justify the desire to own a gun.
You shouldn't have to justify anything here that does not harm
others. My gun has never killed or harmed another person. I own it
legally and I shouldn't have to tell you why. I own many things that
I don't "need" but i still have them. I have some kitchen knives that
could kill someone but I don't have to register those.

Oh and byt he way assult rifles are illegal. The definition of an
assault rifle keeps changing bbut any fully automatic machine gun has
been illegal since 1934 here. To me that's more than enough
regulation but sadly there are plenty of other laws. The liberal
dip****s don't care about helping people they only care about passing
useless laws to make it look like they are doing something important
when they are doing nothing. In California, the gun control laws are
aimed at the apperance of the gun. They don't want someone to be shot
with something that looks scary. In the mean tim ethey are making
prison sentences shorter and letting a lot more murderers go free.
Yep it's the guns fault not the person that did the act. hey maybe
gun is out robbing a bank right now without me even knowing it.


Nope, blame a system which allows someone who is under treatment for
depression yet can walk up to the counter in a gunshop, slap down a
credit card and walk out with a pistol and ammunition...no check, no
wait...

The scenario you state isn't possible. The federal government mandates a
wait and background check. But what difference does it make. He could walk
into any of a thousand sectors of virtually any city in the country and walk
out with a handgun that's not traceable to anyone. And he'll probably pay a
fraction for it compared with the legally-obtained one.

Max

How many more?
 

"katy" wrote in message
...
OzOne wrote:
On 17 Apr 2007 12:24:24 -0700, Bill
scribbled thusly:


Before proper gun control is instituted.....or are you really that
afraid of everything?

Yes lets blame the gun. it's the guns fault those people are dead,
not the person who knowingly killed them. Nope if holding that gun
was illegal he would have never done it I mean KILLING people isn't
illegal or anything. Plus it's always a good idea to restrict the
freedoms of people out of fear and control. It really doen't help
make people safer just gives that illusion. Do you know who were huge
supporters of gun control? Hitler, Stalin, Polpot and Mussilini. The
people thought just like you, that it would make them safer and give
them a better more civilized country. But that's somehow different.
Robbing you of freedoms is okay if the people are to stupid to realize
it like in your country. Most Americans are to and that really
bothers me. You shouldn't have to justify the desire to own a gun.
You shouldn't have to justify anything here that does not harm
others. My gun has never killed or harmed another person. I own it
legally and I shouldn't have to tell you why. I own many things that
I don't "need" but i still have them. I have some kitchen knives that
could kill someone but I don't have to register those.

Oh and byt he way assult rifles are illegal. The definition of an
assault rifle keeps changing bbut any fully automatic machine gun has
been illegal since 1934 here. To me that's more than enough
regulation but sadly there are plenty of other laws. The liberal
dip****s don't care about helping people they only care about passing
useless laws to make it look like they are doing something important
when they are doing nothing. In California, the gun control laws are
aimed at the apperance of the gun. They don't want someone to be shot
with something that looks scary. In the mean tim ethey are making
prison sentences shorter and letting a lot more murderers go free.
Yep it's the guns fault not the person that did the act. hey maybe
gun is out robbing a bank right now without me even knowing it.



Nope, blame a system which allows someone who is under treatment for
depression yet can walk up to the counter in a gunshop, slap down a
credit card and walk out with a pistol and ammunition...no check, no
wait...


Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,
We've been expecting you.

Huh? Not in any state I've lived in....some gun shows, maybe but not at
gun shops...

Gun shows are regulated by the same laws as gun dealers. More to the point,
the vast majority of sellers at gun shows ARE gun dealers. They have to
have FFLs and are bound by state and federal laws.

Max

How many more?
 

OzOne wrote in message ...
On 17 Apr 2007 16:03:25 -0700, Bill
scribbled thusly:

Nope, blame a system which allows someone who is under treatment for
depression yet can walk up to the counter in a gunshop, slap down a
credit card and walk out with a pistol and ammunition...no check, no
wait...

Doesn't work that way. People under treatment for severe psychiactric
treatment are not allowed to purchase firearms. Handguns have a
mandatory waiting list and non-residents can't buy them anyways. And
everyone is suppossed to get checked.


Yes, I did say "effective" gun control.


"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).

I'm not buying any of that. Federal law requires a background check and a
waiting period for same. This smacks of liberal media distortion of the
facts.

Max

How many more?
 

OzOne wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 02:51:59 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


OzOne wrote in message ...

On 17 Apr 2007 12:24:24 -0700, Bill
scribbled thusly:


Before proper gun control is instituted.....or are you really that
afraid of everything?

Yes lets blame the gun. it's the guns fault those people are dead,
not the person who knowingly killed them. Nope if holding that gun
was illegal he would have never done it I mean KILLING people isn't
illegal or anything. Plus it's always a good idea to restrict the
freedoms of people out of fear and control. It really doen't help
make people safer just gives that illusion. Do you know who were huge
supporters of gun control? Hitler, Stalin, Polpot and Mussilini. The
people thought just like you, that it would make them safer and give
them a better more civilized country. But that's somehow different.
Robbing you of freedoms is okay if the people are to stupid to realize
it like in your country. Most Americans are to and that really
bothers me. You shouldn't have to justify the desire to own a gun.
You shouldn't have to justify anything here that does not harm
others. My gun has never killed or harmed another person. I own it
legally and I shouldn't have to tell you why. I own many things that
I don't "need" but i still have them. I have some kitchen knives that
could kill someone but I don't have to register those.

Oh and byt he way assult rifles are illegal. The definition of an
assault rifle keeps changing bbut any fully automatic machine gun has
been illegal since 1934 here. To me that's more than enough
regulation but sadly there are plenty of other laws. The liberal
dip****s don't care about helping people they only care about passing
useless laws to make it look like they are doing something important
when they are doing nothing. In California, the gun control laws are
aimed at the apperance of the gun. They don't want someone to be shot
with something that looks scary. In the mean tim ethey are making
prison sentences shorter and letting a lot more murderers go free.
Yep it's the guns fault not the person that did the act. hey maybe
gun is out robbing a bank right now without me even knowing it.


Nope, blame a system which allows someone who is under treatment for
depression yet can walk up to the counter in a gunshop, slap down a
credit card and walk out with a pistol and ammunition...no check, no
wait...

The scenario you state isn't possible. The federal government mandates a
wait and background check. But what difference does it make. He could walk
into any of a thousand sectors of virtually any city in the country and walk
out with a handgun that's not traceable to anyone. And he'll probably pay a
fraction for it compared with the legally-obtained one.

Max



Can you explain how this person under treatment for depression managed
to buy a gun from a gunshop if your system works?



Oz1...of the 3 twins.

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

Becasue the liberals passed the HIPPA (Hralth Insurance Portability and
Protection Act) laaws which disallow any release of medical information
if not specifically permitted by the patient...to release medical
information without the express permission of the subject is a breach of
privacy under this act and is prosecutable...hey...the libs wrote
it...talk to them...kid should have been in an institution...libs got
rid of those too so the mentally ill could mainstream with the rest of
society...

How many more?
 

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:
Gun shows are regulated by the same laws as gun dealers. More to the point,
the vast majority of sellers at gun shows ARE gun dealers. They have to
have FFLs and are bound by state and federal laws.

Not that I'm using my last experience at a gun show to make the claim
that this is common place, but I had three dealers offer to sell me a
Dan Wesson without a waiting period.

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

How many more?
 

In article ,
katy wrote:
Becasue the liberals passed the HIPPA (Hralth Insurance Portability and
Protection Act) laaws which disallow any release of medical information
if not specifically permitted by the patient...to release medical
information without the express permission of the subject is a breach of
privacy under this act and is prosecutable...hey...the libs wrote
it...talk to them...kid should have been in an institution...libs got
rid of those too so the mentally ill could mainstream with the rest of
society...

Ah, the liberals. Ok, so then what you're really saying is that the
Federal law is toothless.

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

How many more?
 

In article ,
katy wrote:
Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
Dave wrote:

On 17 Apr 2007 12:46:29 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz) said:


I'm advocating what
the majority of Americans want

Hurry!!! Jump on the band wagon.!


Hurry!!! Who gives a sh*t what the people actually want! Not the gun, oil,
insurance, tobacco lobbies...


Once again, which people Where are they? Why aren't there petitions? WHy
aren't there amendments? Why isn't Congress forcing it through? Tell you
why...your supposition is incorrect...

See previous list of big money interests.

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

How many more?
 

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:
Once again, which people Where are they? Why aren't there petitions? WHy
aren't there amendments? Why isn't Congress forcing it through? Tell you
why...your supposition is incorrect...

This is the same 'vast majority' of Americans who believe global warming is
going to put us in the deep freeze within a year or so, at least according
to Jon.

Yeah, the same people who went to college and actually learned
something.

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

How many more?
 

OzOne wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:57:43 -0400, katy
scribbled thusly:



Becasue the liberals passed the HIPPA (Hralth Insurance Portability and
Protection Act) laaws which disallow any release of medical information
if not specifically permitted by the patient...to release medical
information without the express permission of the subject is a breach of
privacy under this act and is prosecutable...hey...the libs wrote
it...talk to them...kid should have been in an institution...libs got
rid of those too so the mentally ill could mainstream with the rest of
society...


OK, so you have a set of loose gun control regulations which will
allow mentally unstable people to purchase a pistol because their
illness is only their affair.
Great!


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

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

As a former HR person who had to deal with the massive bulk of the HIPPA
Privacy law on both the employee and the patient side, I agree. Another
amazing fact: Many of the nurses working in hospital and nursing homes
are diagnosed bi-polars...they do not have to disclose that on a job
application and work while medicated...trying to get rid of them once
hired is a horrendous legal process, even when they make med errors,
etc. I realize that there are many people who are controlled to a lvel
where they can lead a normal life and carry on their careers
succesfully, but there are also a number that take their meds
sporadically, are on the wrong med, or are just that bad off that their
meds aren't enough...and they're out there...we do so much to "protect"
individuals here, but who protects us from them when things go wrong?

How many more?
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
katy wrote:

Becasue the liberals passed the HIPPA (Hralth Insurance Portability and
Protection Act) laaws which disallow any release of medical information
if not specifically permitted by the patient...to release medical
information without the express permission of the subject is a breach of
privacy under this act and is prosecutable...hey...the libs wrote
it...talk to them...kid should have been in an institution...libs got
rid of those too so the mentally ill could mainstream with the rest of
society...


Ah, the liberals. Ok, so then what you're really saying is that the
Federal law is toothless.


What I'm saying is that laws clash with each other and take away the
teeth of each other...they bite themselves in the butt...an attorney
friend of mine, about as liberal as they come, worked on the HIPPA laws
when in development and is a lobbyist for the health care industry...she
is proud of the HIPPA Act, but does not understand the ramifications of
what it does in the workplace. Privacy laws on health care were already
in place..didn't need more...it's overkill and detrimental...and you
want to make gun laws (over the top of other gun laws) that in effect,
are the same...

How many more?
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
katy wrote:

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

In article ,
Dave wrote:


On 17 Apr 2007 12:46:29 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz) said:



I'm advocating what
the majority of Americans want

Hurry!!! Jump on the band wagon.!


Hurry!!! Who gives a sh*t what the people actually want! Not the gun, oil,
insurance, tobacco lobbies...



Once again, which people Where are they? Why aren't there petitions? WHy
aren't there amendments? Why isn't Congress forcing it through? Tell you
why...your supposition is incorrect...


See previous list of big money interests.

And there are just as many big money interests funded by liberals to
lobby for their side of things. It's only bad when it's not your side,
right?

How many more?
 

Did they release those Brit hostages yet?

SV

How many more?
 

OzOne wrote in message news:

OK, so you have a set of loose gun control regulations
which will
allow mentally unstable people to purchase a pistol
because their
illness is only their affair.
Great!


Yes, we are.

How many more?
 

OzOne wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:19:58 -0400, "Scotty"
scribbled thusly:


OzOne wrote in message news:

OK, so you have a set of loose gun control regulations
which will
allow mentally unstable people to purchase a pistol
because their
illness is only their affair.
Great!


Yes, we are.

Yes, I can see that you honestly believe that....


look it up.

How many more?
 

OzOne wrote in message ...
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 02:51:59 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


OzOne wrote in message
. ..
On 17 Apr 2007 12:24:24 -0700, Bill
scribbled thusly:

Before proper gun control is instituted.....or are you really that
afraid of everything?

Yes lets blame the gun. it's the guns fault those people are dead,
not the person who knowingly killed them. Nope if holding that gun
was illegal he would have never done it I mean KILLING people isn't
illegal or anything. Plus it's always a good idea to restrict the
freedoms of people out of fear and control. It really doen't help
make people safer just gives that illusion. Do you know who were huge
supporters of gun control? Hitler, Stalin, Polpot and Mussilini. The
people thought just like you, that it would make them safer and give
them a better more civilized country. But that's somehow different.
Robbing you of freedoms is okay if the people are to stupid to realize
it like in your country. Most Americans are to and that really
bothers me. You shouldn't have to justify the desire to own a gun.
You shouldn't have to justify anything here that does not harm
others. My gun has never killed or harmed another person. I own it
legally and I shouldn't have to tell you why. I own many things that
I don't "need" but i still have them. I have some kitchen knives that
could kill someone but I don't have to register those.

Oh and byt he way assult rifles are illegal. The definition of an
assault rifle keeps changing bbut any fully automatic machine gun has
been illegal since 1934 here. To me that's more than enough
regulation but sadly there are plenty of other laws. The liberal
dip****s don't care about helping people they only care about passing
useless laws to make it look like they are doing something important
when they are doing nothing. In California, the gun control laws are
aimed at the apperance of the gun. They don't want someone to be shot
with something that looks scary. In the mean tim ethey are making
prison sentences shorter and letting a lot more murderers go free.
Yep it's the guns fault not the person that did the act. hey maybe
gun is out robbing a bank right now without me even knowing it.


Nope, blame a system which allows someone who is under treatment for
depression yet can walk up to the counter in a gunshop, slap down a
credit card and walk out with a pistol and ammunition...no check, no
wait...

The scenario you state isn't possible. The federal government mandates a
wait and background check. But what difference does it make. He could
walk
into any of a thousand sectors of virtually any city in the country and
walk
out with a handgun that's not traceable to anyone. And he'll probably pay
a
fraction for it compared with the legally-obtained one.

Max


Can you explain how this person under treatment for depression managed
to buy a gun from a gunshop if your system works?

I didn't imply the system works--only that the scenario you related was
impossible.

But to belabor the point, why would you expect such information--treatment
for depression--to surface on a background check here? Hell, our FBI and
CIA still don't effectively communicate with each other 6 years after
9/11/01. It's our government that is broken. And it's that same government
you want to administer gun control? That's laughable.

Max

How many more?
 

"katy" wrote in message
...
OzOne wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 02:51:59 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


OzOne wrote in message
...

On 17 Apr 2007 12:24:24 -0700, Bill
scribbled thusly:


Before proper gun control is instituted.....or are you really that
afraid of everything?

Yes lets blame the gun. it's the guns fault those people are dead,
not the person who knowingly killed them. Nope if holding that gun
was illegal he would have never done it I mean KILLING people isn't
illegal or anything. Plus it's always a good idea to restrict the
freedoms of people out of fear and control. It really doen't help
make people safer just gives that illusion. Do you know who were huge
supporters of gun control? Hitler, Stalin, Polpot and Mussilini. The
people thought just like you, that it would make them safer and give
them a better more civilized country. But that's somehow different.
Robbing you of freedoms is okay if the people are to stupid to realize
it like in your country. Most Americans are to and that really
bothers me. You shouldn't have to justify the desire to own a gun.
You shouldn't have to justify anything here that does not harm
others. My gun has never killed or harmed another person. I own it
legally and I shouldn't have to tell you why. I own many things that
I don't "need" but i still have them. I have some kitchen knives that
could kill someone but I don't have to register those.

Oh and byt he way assult rifles are illegal. The definition of an
assault rifle keeps changing bbut any fully automatic machine gun has
been illegal since 1934 here. To me that's more than enough
regulation but sadly there are plenty of other laws. The liberal
dip****s don't care about helping people they only care about passing
useless laws to make it look like they are doing something important
when they are doing nothing. In California, the gun control laws are
aimed at the apperance of the gun. They don't want someone to be shot
with something that looks scary. In the mean tim ethey are making
prison sentences shorter and letting a lot more murderers go free.
Yep it's the guns fault not the person that did the act. hey maybe
gun is out robbing a bank right now without me even knowing it.


Nope, blame a system which allows someone who is under treatment for
depression yet can walk up to the counter in a gunshop, slap down a
credit card and walk out with a pistol and ammunition...no check, no
wait...

The scenario you state isn't possible. The federal government mandates a
wait and background check. But what difference does it make. He could
walk into any of a thousand sectors of virtually any city in the country
and walk out with a handgun that's not traceable to anyone. And he'll
probably pay a fraction for it compared with the legally-obtained one.

Max


Can you explain how this person under treatment for depression managed
to buy a gun from a gunshop if your system works?



Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,
We've been expecting you.

Becasue the liberals passed the HIPPA (Hralth Insurance Portability and
Protection Act) laaws which disallow any release of medical information if
not specifically permitted by the patient...to release medical information
without the express permission of the subject is a breach of privacy under
this act and is prosecutable...hey...the libs wrote it...talk to
them...kid should have been in an institution...libs got rid of those too
so the mentally ill could mainstream with the rest of society...

Good point, Katy, and one I overlooked.

Let's not forget the threat of litigation that pervades nearly everything
dealing with people with problems in today's US climate. Several professors
knew the Cho kid had serious problems, but were advised by the university to
keep it low-profile lest the kid or his family sue the school for meddling.

Max

How many more?
 

OzOne wrote in message ...
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:57:43 -0400, katy
scribbled thusly:


Becasue the liberals passed the HIPPA (Hralth Insurance Portability and
Protection Act) laaws which disallow any release of medical information
if not specifically permitted by the patient...to release medical
information without the express permission of the subject is a breach of
privacy under this act and is prosecutable...hey...the libs wrote
it...talk to them...kid should have been in an institution...libs got
rid of those too so the mentally ill could mainstream with the rest of
society...

OK, so you have a set of loose gun control regulations which will
allow mentally unstable people to purchase a pistol because their
illness is only their affair.
Great!

That pretty well sums it up. Of course it's wrong, but it's the way our
government works. But your professed alternative is completely without
merit as well. How would you expect our seriously-flawed government to do a
gun-grab or gun control correctly? Your faith in our government is not
shared by most Americans.

Max

How many more?
 

OzOne wrote in message ...
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:19:58 -0400, "Scotty"
scribbled thusly:


OzOne wrote in message news:

OK, so you have a set of loose gun control regulations
which will
allow mentally unstable people to purchase a pistol
because their
illness is only their affair.
Great!


Yes, we are.

Yes, I can see that you honestly believe that....

Scotty excepted, those of us in health care despise HIPPA. It was strictly
a knee-jerk reaction by liberals to insure protection of medical privacy,
something that wasn't needed. Health care professionals already maintained
an extremely high degree of ethics across the board. Of course there were
holes in the system, but they were miniscule compared with the expense and
inconvenience brought about by HIPPA. For example, I cannot reveal anything
about my 18 and older patients to their parents without first obtaining
permission from the patient. Mom brings her kid to the office, pays for his
care, and I still have to ask the kid if its okay to answer Mom's questions.
It makes for constrained, uneasy relationships between doctors and families.
Another example: it cost our group over $140K to modify our two offices in
order to comply with new, unnecessary HIPPA regulations. Many small
practices simply closed their doors, unable to comply.

Just another isolated example of a government that is broken and no fix in
sight. And you want this government to control the proliferation of guns.
LOL.

Max

How many more?
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
katy wrote:
Becasue the liberals passed the HIPPA (Hralth Insurance Portability and
Protection Act) laaws which disallow any release of medical information
if not specifically permitted by the patient...to release medical
information without the express permission of the subject is a breach of
privacy under this act and is prosecutable...hey...the libs wrote
it...talk to them...kid should have been in an institution...libs got
rid of those too so the mentally ill could mainstream with the rest of
society...

Ah, the liberals. Ok, so then what you're really saying is that the
Federal law is toothless.

Most laws are, Jon. And the ones with teeth are seldom enforced. Our
"great" government in action.

Max

How many more?
 

"katy" wrote in message
...
Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
katy wrote:

Becasue the liberals passed the HIPPA (Hralth Insurance Portability and
Protection Act) laaws which disallow any release of medical information
if not specifically permitted by the patient...to release medical
information without the express permission of the subject is a breach of
privacy under this act and is prosecutable...hey...the libs wrote
it...talk to them...kid should have been in an institution...libs got rid
of those too so the mentally ill could mainstream with the rest of
society...


Ah, the liberals. Ok, so then what you're really saying is that the
Federal law is toothless.


What I'm saying is that laws clash with each other and take away the teeth
of each other...they bite themselves in the butt...an attorney friend of
mine, about as liberal as they come, worked on the HIPPA laws when in
development and is a lobbyist for the health care industry...she is proud
of the HIPPA Act, but does not understand the ramifications of what it
does in the workplace. Privacy laws on health care were already in
place..didn't need more...it's overkill and detrimental...and you want to
make gun laws (over the top of other gun laws) that in effect, are the
same...

For a liberal, passing a new law invokes a warm and fuzzy feeling, whether
the law is effective or not.
For a libertarian, passing a law that 1) won't affect anything or 2) won't
be enforced, is meaningless and not worth the time or trouble.

It's all about feelings with liberals. It's all about reality with
libertarians.

Max

How many more?
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:
Gun shows are regulated by the same laws as gun dealers. More to the
point,
the vast majority of sellers at gun shows ARE gun dealers. They have to
have FFLs and are bound by state and federal laws.

Not that I'm using my last experience at a gun show to make the claim
that this is common place, but I had three dealers offer to sell me a
Dan Wesson without a waiting period.

Unless you possess a permit to own/carry a handgun, you should have turned
them in. I would have.

Max

How many more?
 

OzOne wrote in message
...


Can you explain how this person under treatment for
depression managed
to buy a gun from a gunshop if your system works?


He must have washed off the big red 'D' that the Dr. put on
his forehead.

SV

How many more?
 

* katy wrote, On 4/17/2007 11:57 PM:

Can you explain how this person under treatment for depression managed
to buy a gun from a gunshop if your system works?

Oz1...of the 3 twins.
I welcome you to crackerbox palace,
We've been expecting you.

Becasue the liberals passed the HIPPA (Hralth Insurance Portability and
Protection Act) laaws which disallow any release of medical information
if not specifically permitted by the patient...to release medical
information without the express permission of the subject is a breach of
privacy under this act and is prosecutable...hey...the libs wrote
it...talk to them...kid should have been in an institution...libs got
rid of those too so the mentally ill could mainstream with the rest of
society...

The Privacy and Security provisions of HIPPA were passed by a
Republican Congress and signed by a Republican President.

And are you seriously saying that the NRA (or anyone else) would
support a law that encouraged a psychiatrist to put a note in your FBI
file that you're being treated for depression and therefore cannot be
trusted?

How many more?
 

Jeff wrote:
* katy wrote, On 4/17/2007 11:57 PM:


Can you explain how this person under treatment for depression managed
to buy a gun from a gunshop if your system works?

Oz1...of the 3 twins.
I welcome you to crackerbox palace,
We've been expecting you.


Becasue the liberals passed the HIPPA (Hralth Insurance Portability
and Protection Act) laaws which disallow any release of medical
information if not specifically permitted by the patient...to release
medical information without the express permission of the subject is a
breach of privacy under this act and is prosecutable...hey...the libs
wrote it...talk to them...kid should have been in an
institution...libs got rid of those too so the mentally ill could
mainstream with the rest of society...


The Privacy and Security provisions of HIPPA were passed by a Republican
Congress and signed by a Republican President.

And are you seriously saying that the NRA (or anyone else) would support
a law that encouraged a psychiatrist to put a note in your FBI file that
you're being treated for depression and therefore cannot be trusted?

No..I'm not supporting that at all...and HIPPA is a much larger and long
running act than just the final passage...it started out hand in hand
with the COBRA Act...yes, Republicans passed it..at that point they had
little chpoice but to pass it...OZ asked why someone who purchased a gun
could do so with a mental condition...I explained how that was possible
here...I do, however, think that there are some things we go way
overboard on, to wit, I know a foster care parent who takes care of
psychiatric foster care children...these kids are abused by parents with
psychiatric problems that were then perpetuated on their
children...those parents are protected by society...there is one parent
who sexually abused his child repeatedly, in heinous ways, yet he is out
on the streets..he has committed these acts on various children time and
time again but becasue he suffers from a very low IQ and has a mental
condition he is protected...so he spends 2 weeks in a facility and then
is let out to do it all over again..and because he is a mental illness
case he is not on a sexual predator list! We do things backwards
here...we protect the wrong innocents...used to be that if a person,
like Cho, wrote or spoke about the things he did, that those things
would have been enough to demand a 3 day visit for evaluation at some
mental health institution...now we have to wait until they actually
commit some ded of physicality, rather than of intent...I feel sortry
for the Professor that tried to do something and was thwarted by a
system...I feel sorry for an institution that fears prosecution and
lawsuits becasue of our legal system protecting those that would harm
them...I feel sorry for a police force that cannot act because they are
bound from taking any action or at least being able to remand such a
person to a psychiatrist for evaluation...

How many more?
 

Maxprop wrote:. Many small


Just another isolated example of a government that is broken and no fix in
sight. And you want this government to control the proliferation of guns.
LOL.

HIPPA was enacted Aug. 1996, you've had a Replican House, Senate and
President for something over half the time the Act has been in effect.
If it's so bad why hasn't it been repealled or amended?

Cheers
Marty

How many more?
 

In article ,
katy wrote:
See previous list of big money interests.

And there are just as many big money interests funded by liberals to
lobby for their side of things. It's only bad when it's not your side,
right?

Care to name them? Nope... didn't think so. I don't think there are
many that can compete with the industries I mentioned.


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