859c9c16   
   XPost: alt.politics, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.art-bell   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   Matt wrote:   
   > On Oct 31, 11:39 am, "Scout"   
   >  wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Sorry, I wasn't referring to ownership. I simply meant that the rules   
   > that apply   
   > in one place don't always work in another. I think you'd refer to that   
   > as 'use'.   
      
   Then you have no problem with gun ownership, and legal carry in any city?   
      
      
   >>> 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?   
   >   
   > If you don't understand the reference, I'll be happy to explain. If   
   > you   
   > simply disagree, that's your opinion. I can't figure out which you   
   > mean.   
      
   I'm give you a chance to explain, if you chose not to do so, then I will   
   assume what I like.   
      
      
   >>> 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?   
   >   
   > As I said, look at upstate and downstate NY. Completely different, yet   
   > the   
   > same state.   
      
   Yep, and why should the rules be different between them unless there really   
   is a valid and logical reason for it?   
      
   Already you have told us the NYC prohibition on guns is illogical, so what's   
   next?   
      
      
      
   >>> 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'm not sure I can explain to your satisfaction. I do know that   
   > handguns do   
   > not work well in a city like Manhattan.   
      
   Why?   
      
   Are you not backpedaling on your claims that you weren't talking ownership   
   and legal carry?   
      
      
   >I've lived there, I know the   
   > culture, I   
   > know the people.   
      
   Which changes, what exactly?   
      
      
   > Yet, Albany, a city in the same state, would have   
   > very different   
   > needs and culture.   
      
   And yet, you seem to suggest the rules for gun ownership in one should be   
   different than the other. Didn't you just tell me this wasn't what you were   
   proposing?   
      
   Need to make up your mind there. If ownership isn't the issue, then it   
   shouldn't matter what city you are in.   
      
      
   >>> 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?   
   >   
   > Simple example: The city of Denver does not allow handguns. Why?   
   > Because   
   > they are primarily used by gangs (their opinion, not mine, I don't   
   > feel qualified to   
   > argue). The city of, say, Paonia, which is in the corner of the state,   
   > needs guns   
   > of all sorts to defend against wild animals, against prowlers (the   
   > nearest sheriff   
   > is 40 miles away) and so forth. Different needs, different rules.   
      
   Oh, so when you said it wasn't about ownership you weren't being exactly   
   honest with me, and now you is about ownership and how you think cities   
   should be able to make different rules.   
      
   Tell you what, I will stop right here, and once you figure out exactly what   
   your position is we can try it again. However, if you tell me that you   
   weren't refering to ownership, then I'm going to hold you to that and accept   
   that you feel the ownership laws should be consistent across the entire   
   state or nation.   
      
   Otherwise, ownership is what you are refering to and you are going to need   
   to explain what it is about gun ownership which you think doesn't work in a   
   city.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)