55a7ffe3   
   XPost: alt.politics, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.art-bell   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   Matt wrote:   
   > On Oct 31, 12:32 pm, "RD (The Sandman)"  @comcast.net> wrote:   
   >> Matt  wrote   
   >> innews:ff39ad91-8585-4434-a3ab-8d7ceca380dd@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> On Oct 31, 10:58 am, "RD (The Sandman)" >> @comcast.net> wrote:   
   >>>> Matt  wrote   
   >>>> innews:e5c6e48b-b2b6-4bb8-b0cd-519bf4   
   >>> 0a4...@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?   
   >>   
   >> NYC is made up of five buroughs. Do you believe the same rules should   
   >> apply to all five? If they don't the dividing line is a street or   
   >> neighborhood.   
   >   
   > Dunno. In general, the 5 boroughs I would say yes. They are mostly the   
   > same, with the possible exception of Staten Island. As to the dividing   
   > line?   
   > I haven't a clue, RD. I'm not that good.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> 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. 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).   
   >>   
   >> I was familiar with Denver and Lakewood as separate entities. I was   
   >> assigned to Lousy Air Farce base twice.   
   >   
   > I'm so sorry. You will be happy to know Lowery is more or less shut   
   > down   
   > and being converted into condos.   
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> This isn't about ideology, it is about common sense.   
   >>   
   >> Is it? Or is it about the fear of common sense being lacking in some   
   >> folks versus others?   
   >   
   > Maybe. I don't really know.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> That which works   
   >>   
   >>> in the country doesn'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 should be different? Ones about murder? Robbery? Drugs?   
   >> Ownership of a firearm? Being able to carry one? Which firearms can   
   >> be   
   >> owned? Should those rules also vary for automobiles?   
   >   
   > Murder *is* in fact different in the city as opposed to the country.   
   > Robbery is   
   > quite different, look at water laws. Drugs are completely differently   
   > handled in   
   > the urban areas as opposed to the rural areas. So, yes, they are quite   
   > different.   
   > Which firearms? I have no idea. I know that handguns and large city   
   > areas do   
   > not work out well, from personal experience. I know that long guns and   
   > suburbia   
   > work fine, for the most part.   
      
   Ok, please tell me why you think a person in a city shouldn't be able to own   
   a handgun, but someone in suburbia should.   
      
   Oh, and I will note that you ARE refering to ownership despite your claim   
   that this isn't what you were refering to.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)