We need to ban all handguns in America NOW

On Apr 29, 6:56 am, Gunner wrote:
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.

only a stupid ass like you would think when you pass new laws suddenly
no one will ever commit a crime ever again.

= 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?

The only utter buffoon posting on this thread so far is you, along
with the fact you are a psychopath with some serious anger issues, no
doubt.

= 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?

Oh there is no question in my mind you -are- a moron who thinks the
poor are poor by choice and it's all their own fault.

= 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.

You can shove your legal CCW up your ignorant ass for all I care
weirdo.


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 19:47:12 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

I am a gun owner, a NRA member and an American citizen and I am saying
that the gun community that I am a member of and the NRA who I am a
member of is partially responsible for preventing the enforcement of
current gun laws.

Why don't you say how this is being done?

--
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.

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:34:03 -0600, Notan
notan@ddressthatcanbespammed 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?

No, but it would be very bad for business.
While you and I can do things based on our "feelings", businesses are
legally enjoined from doing so in many cases, and in other cases, it
makes no business sense.
What gives a store the expertise to determine just who is unstable? Do
you think they hire shrinks to man the counter? Do you think these
shrinks do analysis right there?
Do you think your ideas through?

Don't they have a "We reserve the right..." clause, just like virtually
every business?

Probably.
But the fact that you have a right to do something doesn't mean doing
it is right.
Never ran a business, did you?

--
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.

On 28 Apr 2007 19:36:55 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

No...unless you believe that gun sales should be regulated.

Gun sales *ARE* regulated.

--
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.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 04:11:22 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

OK, to take it to an extreme...

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

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

Oh yes..and the moral duty to not sell. However..the store may well be
sued out of business for NOT selling the weapon to the individual

I don't think the store could be successfully sued for this.
In fact, the store would be entirely within its rights to call the
police.
I also don't think the ACLU would get involved in this particular
case.

--
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.

On 28 Apr 2007 19:31:57 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Apr 28, 11:19 am, 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.
Do you advocate such testing for voters?



It certainly would have prevented the VT shootings.

That is what's called a "theory".
Cho was a man on a mission; the idea that another law that would have
made it impossible for Cho to buy legally would have kept him from
buying illegally is just dumb. The idea that a person who is bent on
murder will worry about another law is worse than dumb.



Any gun owner who would hesitate to undergo testing has to ask
why....and what are you hiding?

Ah, the "what have you got to hide?" line.
Would you like ot submit to sucvh a terst in order to vote? Or to
drive? Or have children?
No? Why not? What have you got to hide?



TMT

--
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.

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.
Do you advocate such testing for voters?


Are you saying that everybody should own guns...crazy people and
felons?

Did you see me say that?

Society regulates gun ownership now...I am advocating enforcement of
current laws and checking to see if an owner or buyer is
qualified...i.e. testing mental health before the sale.

No one here is arguing with that particular sentiment.

It certainly would have prevented the VT shootings.

That is what's called a "theory".

No that is a fact. If Cho's mental health had been tested before the
sales of the guns, the sales would not have been completed.

You are saying that people should be tested before they are allowed to
buy a gun?
How about a car?
BTW, he was evaluated, by court order.
You really need to think through what you want to say.

Any gun owner who would hesitate to undergo testing has to ask
why....and what are you hiding?

Ah, the "what have you got to hide?" line.
Would you like ot submit to sucvh a terst in order to vote? Or to
drive? Or have children?
No? Why not? What have you got to hide?

Please stay on subject...we are talking about the condition of the
mental health of a gun owner being a condition of gun sales.

You didn't notice the "and what are you hiding?" line?
As a gun
owner, NRA member and American citizen I would have NO PROBLEM with
submitting to a psych test to confirm that I was mentally competent to
own and buy guns.

You'd probably lose your right to own.
Those who would willingly give up their rights, and recommend that
others do the same, are despicable.

(For those with reading comprehension problems, I said "give up", not
"not exercise".)

--
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.

Bill Funk wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:34:03 -0600, Notan
notan@ddressthatcanbespammed 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?

No, but it would be very bad for business.
While you and I can do things based on our "feelings", businesses are
legally enjoined from doing so in many cases, and in other cases, it
makes no business sense.
What gives a store the expertise to determine just who is unstable? Do
you think they hire shrinks to man the counter? Do you think these
shrinks do analysis right there?
Do you think your ideas through?

I *never* said any of the above, and if your reading comprehension was
comparable to your mouth, you'd know that.

Don't they have a "We reserve the right..." clause, just like virtually
every business?

Probably.
But the fact that you have a right to do something doesn't mean doing
it is right.
Never ran a business, did you?

For the past 15 years, and very successfully.

--
Notan

Bill Funk wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:34:03 -0600, Notan
notan@ddressthatcanbespammed 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?

No, but it would be very bad for business.

Bad for business?

"Yeah, we thought the guy was a bit off center, but we sold him a gun,
anyway."

"After all, if we didn't, it would have been bad for business."

Good one, Bill!

--
Notan

Gunner wrote:
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?

They do in much of the rest of the world.

--
Ray Fischer

On 29 Apr 2007 04:36:06 -0700, 9 Trillion Dollar Republican National
Debt wrote:

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.


Geeze son...are you claiming that the voices are telling you to kill
your whole family and then go shoot up a pre-school?

Seek a mental health professional IMMEDIATELY!!!

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