XPost: alt.politics, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.art-bell
From: leg@sea
Lookout wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 13:57:28 -0800 (PST), Matt
> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 31, 10:18 pm, "Scout"
>> wrote:
>>> 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.
ooglegroups.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?
>> Legal OWNERSHIP, no. Legal carry is a different issue. Carrying a gun
>> on
>> a subway is a disaster waiting to happen. THis is my opinion, of
>> course, yours
>> can and will vary. I'm not pushing for laws to remove your right to
>> carry a gun,
>> I'm simply asking that my rights be covered as well.
>
> You're forgetting that conservatives don't care about your rights.
You're lying as you always do, you pantywaist son of a bitch.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
