XPost: uk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns, aus.politics
XPost: talk.politics.guns
From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
news:atev54Fkl0sU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 4/20/2013 3:53 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
>> news:atec94Fgv0lU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 4/20/2013 11:19 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
>>>> news:ate4m7Ffj68U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> On 4/20/2013 9:44 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
>>>>>> news:ate2shFf89pU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>> On 4/20/2013 9:27 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:ate000Fek8tU2@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2013 8:39 AM, Dechucka wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "RD Sandman" wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:XnsA1A782B5E82D8hopewell@216.196.121.131...
>>>>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> news:atc1j0F11bvU1@mid.individual.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2013 7:56 AM, Dechucka wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> .... something as simple as universal background checks
>>>>>>>>>>>>> couldn't be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> passed. Maybe the US is just a sick and violent society
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> **Not so much. The US is saddled with a bunch of gutless
>>>>>>>>>>>> politicians,
>>>>>>>>>>>> who value the opinions of the NRA more than their constituents.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>> majority of Americans are probably disgusted with their elected
>>>>>>>>>>>> senators. They need to be reminded of just how weak these
>>>>>>>>>>>> creatures
>>>>>>>>>>> are.
>>>>>>>>>>>> They're not interested in the well-being of the American
>>>>>>>>>>>> people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> They are interested in re-election.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> sad, so election is more important than dead Americans
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **It would seem so. Except to a tiny handful of Republican
>>>>>>>>> senators
>>>>>>>>> and the majority of Democrat senators. Americans should keep those
>>>>>>>>> names in mind. Both the brave ones and the gutless ones.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yep, the ones that voted for it need to go,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Why do you support a criminal's right to obtain firearms?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who said I do?
>>>>>
>>>>> **You object to good, sane controls on guns.
>>>>
>>>> I do? Where did I do so?
>>>
>>> **In every single discussion you and I have had regarding gun control
>>> laws.
>>
>> In every single discussion there was no good, sane gun control being
>> proposed.
>
> **That would your opinion. As shown by events, a wrong opinion.
If it's a matter of opinion then that means you can't really define exactly
what a good sane gun control law is other than it's something YOU approve
of.
Kind of like those people who can't tell you want an assault weapon is, but
they will know it when they see it.
>>>>> Therefore, you support a criminal's right to easily obtain firearms.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, one doesn't follow from the other, particularly when I haven't
>>>> objected to good, sane controls on guns.
>>>
>>> **You have objected to good sane gun control laws. In every single
>>> discussion you and I have had.
>>
>> Point out a single good sane gun control law that I objected to.
>
> **I'll point out several:
>
> * ALL gun sales must be registered with government authorities. EVERY
> SINGLE gun sale.
It's insanity to assume criminals are going to register their illegal sales
on the black market.
Next?
> * EVERY SINGLE gun purchase must be subject to government approval.
Not good law, since we specifically have a protected right to keep and bear
arms, and thus don't need to ask for, or obtain permission.
> * Semi-automatic firearms to be banned.
Not good law since there is no reasonable basis for doing so, and of course
that all right to keep arms is still there.
> * Magazines holding more than 10 bullets to be declared illegal and
> subject to severe punishmenrt, if found to be used.
Not good law since there is no reasonable basis for doing so, and of course
that all right to keep arms is still there.
> * ALL firearms thefts to be reported to police.
It's insanity to assume criminals are going to report that their illegal
firearms have been stolen.
Sort of like a crack dealer complaining that someone has stolen his stock 'n
trade.
> * ALL firearms to be properly stored in appropriate, approved locked
> containers when not in use.
Insanity to assume such a law would suddenly make irresponsible people
responsible, and we're back to that whole getting permission from the
government on what containers are appropriate and approved.
> * Appropriate checking to be implemented to ensure all legal requirements
> are adhered to.
Insanity to assume criminals will be preforming any such checks.
See what I mean? No good sane gun control laws being proposed.
>> After all, since we discussed it so much that should make it really easy
>> for you.
>
> **Indeed. Very easy.
And still waiting on just one example.
>>>>>>> and the ones the opposed it
>>>>>>>> need to stay unless we have someone better.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **You already have someone better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who would that be?
>>>>>
>>>>> **A tiny handful of Republicans and most of the Democrats.
>>>>
>>>> IOW, you have no idea.
>>>
>>> **I have a very good idea. I stated who that would be.
>>
>> Who?
>
> **Asked and answered.
No it wasn't since it identifies no candidate running for US senate in my
state.
>> Sorry, but I don't see a single person's name listed.
>
> **I accept your apology.
So you can't read and comprehend English either.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
