8badec7b
XPost: alt.politics, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.art-bell
From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net
Matt wrote:
> On Oct 31, 10:58 am, "RD (The Sandman)" @comcast.net> wrote:
>> Matt wrote
>> innews:e5c6e48b-b2b6-4bb8-b0cd-519bf40a4191@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 30, 2:34 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" >> @comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> "leg@sea" wrote innews:hcfe6s$aeg$1@news.eternal-
>>>> september.org:
>>
>>>>> Matt wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 29, 8:29 pm, "leg@sea" wrote:
>>>>>>> Matt wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Oct 28, 7:09 pm, "leg@sea" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Matt Telles felches spaniels in the break room.
>>>>>>>> Blah blah blah, Spammy is the 12 year old that rapes little
>>>>>>>> boys. Point proven.
>>>>>>>> Matt
>>>>>>> How's life by the reservoir, shall we up the ante?
>>
>>>>>> Wow, you mean you are going to reveal my (*gasp*) name and
>>>>>> address, Spammy? Gee, anyone with a PHONE BOOK can do that.
>>
>>>>> I _sure hope_ none of those 'crazed' gun owners you're always
>>>>> trying to disenfranchise finds there was over to Lakewood,
>>>>> Colorado, Matty...
>>
>>>> They probably won't pay any attention to his address.....after all,
>>>> the vast majority of them are adult enough to realize that
>>>> differences of opinion exist....and always will.
>>
>>>>>> Done raping the 12 year old boys, Spammy?
>>
>>>>> Done trying to take away peoples' rights to own guns Matty?
>>
>>>> He hasn't tried to take mine away.....or yours if you have one. He
>>>> simply has different ideas on gun control.
>>
>>> Eh, Spammy and I go way back to his Uncle Sam days on co.general.
>>> Allegedly, he lives here. He doesn't like being shown up.
>>
>>> As for gun control, I do have different ideas. I think that what
>>> works in
>>> one place won't work in another. In other words, I like the concept
>>> of local control over matters. Does anyone truly disagree?
>>
>> Yep. I believe in state control but not city by city. Why should
>> someone doing something perfectly legal where he lives be thrown in
>> jail
>> while seeing his brother a few blocks over?
>
> My easy answers to that would be the states of NY, CA and TX.
>
> Consider:
>
> Upstate NY is generally rural, very few very large cities,
> considerable wild life,
> no urban areas at all to speak of. Downstate, on the other hand, is
> mostly
> urban. Do you think the same rules would apply to both?
Generally, yes.
because ownership and carry are irrelevent to where you live. Now if you
want to talk USE.....like setting up a shooting range in your back yard, you
might have something. However, to prohibit ownership or carry simply because
one lives in a city, that makes no sense.
> Then look at, say, Sacramento and LA, or Houston and Lubbock.
> There are good reasons why rules should be different on a city
> by city basis.
Such as?
>I agree that it makes no sense to differentiate
> between,
> say, Denver and Lakewood (sorry if the reference means nothing,
> Lakewood is about 7 miles west of Denver, and about two times the
> size with less population).
Why should you differentiate between any city within a state?
> This isn't about ideology, it is about common sense. That which works
> in the country doesn't work in the city.
Ok, please list for me typical laws that you feel don't work in the city,
but work in the country and list exactly WHY you think they don't work in
the city.
> I grew up in NYC, I live in a
> fairly
> small town in Colorado (and have lived in towns as small as 200). The
> rules here won't work there and vice versa.
Which rules?
> So, tell me which of us is being difficult?
That remains to be seen. After you provide some examples and explainations
to support your contention that the rules need to be different, and which
rules need to be different, then we can see who is being difficult, and who
isn't.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
