We need to ban all handguns in America NOW

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 19:54:06 -0600, Notan notan@ddressthatcanbespammed
wrote:

Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:40:38 -0600, Notan
notan@ddressthatcanbespammed wrote:

Stuart Grey wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:34:03 -0600, Notan wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On 27 Apr 2007 09:25:01 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Apr 18, 11:17 pm, "G.I. Cho" wrote:
How many more tragedies is it going to take before we wake up? We have
a serious gun problem in this country and it's time to take a stand.
Let the farmers and hunters keep the rifles and shotguns. Get rid of
the pistols and the assault rifles unless you want to go over and
fight in Iraq.
While I would not go that far, I do believe that requiring psych
testing as a requirement for gun ownership and purchase would serve to
solve the problem we now have.
The right to own guns is a constitutionally protected right.
While the right to own a gun is protected, does the store *have to* sell
a gun to someone they feel is unstable?

Don't they have a "We reserve the right..." clause, just like virtually
every business?
They'd be exposed to a lawsuit. The right to associate was eliminated by
the communist in congress in the 1960s and 70s, via the "civil rights"
laws which outlawed many constitutionally recognized rights, like the
right to free association.

If they had refused to sell to Cho, he could have sued as being
discriminated against because he was Korean. History shows he would have
won this case.
OK, to take it to an extreme...

Someone enters a gun store, screaming threats, jumping up and down, etc.

Did Cho do that?

No, hence "OK, to take it to an extreme..."

Does the store have the right to refuse to sell the person a gun?

It does. Then Cho would have bought in the unregulated
market. Result = no different from what happened.

I agree.

My question was in response to Stuart's absurd statement, "If they had refused
to sell to Cho, he could have sued..."


Stus comment was hardly "extreme". It was quite realisitc, though a bit
cynical.

Actually the store likely would have settled out of court.

Gunner

"I don't want to abolish government.
I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can
drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.
-- Grover Norquist

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:10:22 -0600, Notan notan@ddressthatcanbespammed
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:47:26 -0600, Notan
notan@ddressthatcanbespammed wrote:

Jer wrote:
Notan wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

snip

Correct.....psych testing of gun owners and want to be owners would
weed out those who should not have gunes....as the case of Cho
definitely shows.

And creating new laws that take mental health in consideration before
any sale is allowed to occur are required.

To say no new laws are needed is foolish...we have 32 more reasons why
they are required.
News laws? Maybe not.

How 'bout getting institutions, like the American Psychiatric
Association,
to better document their findings?

Or getting rid of institutions, like the ACLU, that fight for the privacy
of citizens whose private lives shouldn't be private!


Sounds good... we'll let them start with your life.
I'm quite capable of representing myself.

Are you here for nothing more than an argument?

Representing? OK.
I know very few people over the age of 10 who would like to have their
lives scrutinized in court.
Are you one of the very few?

Huh?

I said the ACLU fights for the rights of citizens, but I'm quite capable
of fighting for my own rights. IOW, when it comes to the ACLU, stay the
**** out of *my* business.

"I'm quite capable of representing myself."


Oddly enough though..the ONLY portion of the Constitution the ACLU
refuses to address...is the 2nd Amendment. And they admit this publicly.

Gunner

"I don't want to abolish government.
I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can
drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.
-- Grover Norquist

On Apr 27, 5:01 am, Gunner wrote:
On 26 Apr 2007 21:37:56 -0700, Bushzilla wrote:



exactly, and that is the problem, because, a Virginia judge in
December 2005 deemed Cho "an imminent danger to himself because of
mental illness" and ordered outpatient treatment for him, according to
court documents, and Cho was still legally entitled to buy them, we
need better laws so this does not happen anymore..

= actually...no..CHo was NOT legally entitled to buy them.

RICHMOND, Va. - Virginia Tech senior Seung-Hui Cho walked into a
Roanoke gun shop five weeks ago, put down a credit card and walked out
with a Glock 19 handgun and a box of ammunition. He paid $571.

The Glock was one of two guns found with Cho's fingerprints after he
fatally shot 32 people and then himself at the university in the
deadliest shooting rampage in modern U.S. history.

Roanoke Firearms owner John Markell said his shop sold the Glock to
Cho in March. The serial number had been scratched off, but federal
agents traced it to the store using a receipt found in Cho's backpack.

"It was a very unremarkable sale," said Markell, who did not handle
the sale personally. "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."

Markell said it's not unusual for college students to make purchases
at his shop as long as they are old enough.

Cho held a green card, meaning he was a legal, permanent resident,
according to federal officials. That meant he was eligible to buy a
handgun unless he had been convicted of a felony.

"To find out the gun came from my shop is just terrible," Markell
said.

'Easy access to high firepower weapons'
Authorities also found a Walther .22-caliber handgun in Cho's
possession, according to a search warrant filed in Montgomery County.

Virginia State Police Superintendent Col. W. Steven Flaherty said
Tuesday afternoon that both guns were purchased legally in Virginia.

Because he killed and injured so many victims in a short span of time,
some people speculated that Cho used high-capacity magazines
containing as many as 33 rounds in each clip.

Under the federal assault-weapons ban enacted in 1994, magazines were
limited to 10 rounds. But that ban was allowed to expire in 2004.

"The key thing that we have seen in all of these school shootings is
easy access to high firepower weapons," said Daniel Vice, an attorney
with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "These killings can't
be done with baseball bats and knives."

Under Virginia law, state police keep records of gun purchases from
licensed dealers for only 30 days. After that, police destroy the
records.

= And if the
= mental health system or that judge had not dropped the ball so
= badly..and the data had been properly entered into the InstaCheck
data
= base..he would never have been able to buy one through a store.

good, so you are finally admitting the system we have in place ins not
enough..

= Now on the other hand..this seldom stops a criminal or other
individual
= who wants a firearm. They simply procure one illegally. After
all..they
= are criminals.

and that once again, is why they need to go to jail for a very long
time when they do, now they get a slap on the writs and they are right
back at until they finally kill a large group of people.


= Seems the UK has the same problem..a total ban on them..yet they
seem to
= be readily available. Even with draconian penalties attached.

The UK has a small fraction of gun related deaths and crimes compared
to the USA, there is no comparison.




Gunner Asch

"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it commits suicide"
- James Burnham

On Apr 27, 5:11 am, Gunner wrote:
On 26 Apr 2007 22:07:03 -0700, Bushzilla wrote:



On Apr 24, 12:21 pm, Gunner wrote:
On 24 Apr 2007 06:17:46 -0700, Bushzilla wrote:

On Apr 24, 5:21 am, Gunner wrote:
On 24 Apr 2007 01:16:19 -0700, Bushzilla wrote:

This *sounds* real good; just like saying anyone posessing cocaine
will be immediately arrested. The problems are determining who is in
posession, and in having the wherewithall to effectthe arrests.

You try the stupid argument that because a ban on guns cannot prevent
ALL guns then it cannot prevent ANY guns.

= And it will make what difference? Other than ****ing off armed
= individuals?

So you are saying all armed individuals will be ****ed, and that is
what matters more, that it is better to allow people to have guns and
kill each other than it is to do something to secure our safety that
****es them off.. this is your argument for why guns should not be
banned? anyone with such a mentality a this should never have been
trusted to own a firearm in the first place..

= If you try to take away the means of protection used by armed
= individuals, in violation of the guarantees of the 2nd
Amendment..yes
= indeed they will be ****ed off. YOu will be violating their civil
rights
= in the worst possible way.

Listen whiner, the Second Amendment that you are twisting to fit your
needs was not written to guarantee your "right" to personally own
guns. It clearly states it was to arm a well organized militia, and
that is all, it does not mean anything more, stop making it out to be
more than it is so you have an excuse. Again, because you are ****ing
too stupid to read and comprehend, you are placing some angry people
who have to make a sacrifice to save lives, above the security and
safety of innocent people like the students at VT and the rest of the
civilized peaceful population.

Sorry buffoon..but it was written to EXACTLY guarantee the individual
right to keep and bear arms. And the Supreme Court of the United States
has So Ruled at least 35 times. Btw buffoon..the term is "well
regulated" which according to the usage of the time the Constitution was
written..means "trained and in good working order" You also seem to be
missing that little comma that separates the verbage..and establishes
the second half as a stand alone.."the right of the People to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed"

Btw..if you are older than 17 and in the US..you are ALREADY in the
milita.

Your ignorance of the subject is astounding for someone who pukes up
their stupidity on Usenet.

= Heads up cupcake..

cupcake? I suppose being a gun owner makes YOU a man? LOL yeah ok
you sissy, hiding behind a gun because you are too much of a pussy to
grow up and act like an adult and join the civilized world.

Snicker..here is another fine example of the neurotic Libtard somehow
equating firearms with "steel penis" and manhood. Have you no shame?
Seek out a mental health professional immediately. Perhaps after half a
lifetime of theropy..you can resume normalicy.

= if you wanted to :secure your safety..you would be
= hiding in your basement and would not be on the roadways or out in
= public, gun free zones or not.

Tell you what sissy hiding behind your gun pretending to be a real
man, you do that, I'll continue to support and work toward a civilized
culture putting people who own guns that should not, in jail where
they belong, It is time for serious gun control reform.

Thank you very much for further demonstrating the mental illness you and
your kind so pitiably demonstrate. Bravo Sir! Bravo indeed! Well
done!

= Hence its simply your fear of weapons that is so obviously puking
from
= your lips.

Awwww I touched a nerve, don't pop a vein now weirdo.

Snicker....I think "I" hit a nerve....snicker...

= It should further be noted that you would demand that cops be
= disarmed, as they shoot innocent individuals at 20x the rate that
CCW
= holders do.

No actually the worst thing we could do is disarm the police, they
should be the ones who have the guns so they can continue to protect
the population from weirdos like you.

So you want police to continue to shoot innocent people? Your slavish
appeal to authority is noted. It fits with your demonstrated neurotic
world view. You evidently need a strong father figure in your life. Did
your dad abandon you as an infant?

= Its gratifying to see that someone as neurotic as you are, has no
= interest in owning a gun. Its likely you would suddenly run amok and
= shoot up a preschool, after massacring your entire family.

My my you have some very demented fantasies, see a shrink soon, you
really should, and I think deep down inside you know you should.

Chuckle..Ive been through all the tests..and have passed with a clean
bill of mental health. It was part of several job requirements Ive had
over the years. And of course I pass the FBI, and state and local
requirements to allow me to to carry a concealed weapon daily.

Im quite sure we cannot say the same about you. Which means the system
works nicely.

= Its because of deranged nut cases like you..I carry a concealed
weapon
= every day, all nice and legally.

Let's see weirdo, I feel we should stiffen our gun laws to protect us
from people who have sick fantasies of "shooting children and their
entire family", excuse me but those are YOUR words, not mine, and you
call me deranged? yeah ok, I don't think anyone need to look much
further to see who the deranged freak is here..

I can recognize the mentally ill, and you indeed fit the description.
And yes..you would be a danger to your family and society at large. No

= Yes, it IS America. And Americans tolerate the mensnip snip

what are you doing on the computer? your psychiatrist has been looking
for you, you missed your appointment again..

= Your "transference" is noted and found pitiable.

= So honestly..what time was your appointment?


you really should take your meds before you come online.. you're
hallucinating.




Gunner

"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it commits suicide"
- James Burnham

On Apr 28, 11:44 am, Bill Funk wrote:
On 26 Apr 2007 21:25:02 -0700, Bushzilla wrote:



= It is hard for you to understand that all the bans and legislation
in the
= world will not keep guns out of the hands of those that wish to do
harm with
= them?

Honu

Yes it is hard, because less guns in the wrong hands means less dead
people, absolutely, and to make that happen we need to give the men in
blue and the courts a bigger stick to beat the possessors of illegal
weapons with, and that is done through tougher legislation. Stricter
laws for who can own a gun help too. If someone is deemed 'mentally
unstable' where for example "a Virginia judge in December 2005 deemed
Cho "an imminent danger to himself because of mental illness" and
ordered outpatient treatment for him, according to court documents.."
is this someone we should allow to walk right into a gun stiore and
arm themselves? no, of course not. It take just a few smart and needed
changes in the gun laws though to prevent the Cho's of the world from
such an easy purchase.

= Tougher laws have never worked in this regard, and the social
= consequences are very bad.
= For an example, look at our War on Drugs.

Then whatever laws you are referring too were not tough enough, they
need to be tougher, particularly in carrying long jail sentences. It's
kind of hard to buy illegal weapons or any weapons of any kind for
that matter and shoot up a bunch of people when you are sitting in
jail.


--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

The View on Disney-owned ABC dropped Rosie
O'Donnell, even after she agreed to stop
talking about George Bush. The president
has no leverage over ABC. Disney is not a
defense contractor, unless you count the
war rationales we buy from Fantasyland.

Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but Gunner wrote
on Fri, 27 Apr 2007 08:58:29 GMT in misc.survivalism :


The Glock doesnt use clips to load magazines.

All too easily? How so? Be specific.

Im sure you have read about the Happy Land massacre in NYC.

The perp, who used a gallon of gas to kill 87 people.

I thought it was only a quart. Well, live and learn.

.should have never
had that opportunity. He bought what he needed all too easily.

How do we make sure similar crimes cannot be committed again?

Be specific.

I say we lock up the reporters. If it weren't for their johnny on the
spot live broadcasts, none of this would have come out in all the immediacy
of live photographs.

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
The two oldest cliches in the book are "The Good Old Days were
better." and "After all, these are Modern TImes."

On 28 Apr 2007 23:34:40 -0700, Bushzilla wrote:

= And if the
= mental health system or that judge had not dropped the ball so
= badly..and the data had been properly entered into the InstaCheck
data
= base..he would never have been able to buy one through a store.

good, so you are finally admitting the system we have in place ins not
enough..


Correct. The mental health system dropped the ball. So fix it. But it
will be hell to get anything done..the ACLU and the liberal mental
health establishment has it pretty tightly controlled.

Gunner

"I don't want to abolish government.
I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can
drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.
-- Grover Norquist

On 28 Apr 2007 23:36:16 -0700, Bushzilla wrote:


= Yes, it IS America. And Americans tolerate the mensnip snip

what are you doing on the computer? your psychiatrist has been looking
for you, you missed your appointment again..

= Your "transference" is noted and found pitiable.

= So honestly..what time was your appointment?


you really should take your meds before you come online.. you're
hallucinating.


Again your transference is noted. So tell us..are the "voices" telling
you what to type?

Gunner

"I don't want to abolish government.
I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can
drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.
-- Grover Norquist

On 28 Apr 2007 23:55:06 -0700, Bushzilla wrote:


= Tougher laws have never worked in this regard, and the social
= consequences are very bad.
= For an example, look at our War on Drugs.

Then whatever laws you are referring too were not tough enough, they
need to be tougher, particularly in carrying long jail sentences. It's
kind of hard to buy illegal weapons or any weapons of any kind for
that matter and shoot up a bunch of people when you are sitting in
jail.


We did increase the penalties for drugs. In fact..3 Strikes is involved
and drug crimes continue unabated.

So you still in your utter buffoonish and twisted world view, think that
more laws, that have been proven to be ineffectual, will somehow work?

Ill bet you are one of those morons that insists that throwing more and
more money at the problem will someday win the War on Poverty too?

Thank you very much..but Ill keep carrying my legal CCW, because I know
my well proven method works..and yours, like Communism..is an utter
failure.

Gunner

"I don't want to abolish government.
I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can
drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.
-- Grover Norquist

On Apr 29, 6:53 am, Gunner wrote:
On 28 Apr 2007 23:36:16 -0700, Bushzilla wrote:



= Yes, it IS America. And Americans tolerate the mensnip snip

what are you doing on the computer? your psychiatrist has been looking
for you, you missed your appointment again..

= Your "transference" is noted and found pitiable.

= So honestly..what time was your appointment?

you really should take your meds before you come online.. you're
hallucinating.

= Again your transference is noted. So tell us..are the "voices"
telling
= you what to type?

Hey you're the psychopath with visions of in your own words "killing
my whole family" and "shooting up a pre-school" those are your impure,
mentally deranged thoughts, your words, and you talk about
transference? you are a certified weirdo alright, your sickness is
quite obvious.



Gunner

"I don't want to abolish government.
I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can
drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.
-- Grover Norquist