On 7/17/2011 2:42 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".
> No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
> inaliable human right of self defense.



So who is denying you your rights to own a gun? Since Obama came into
office, gun ownership hasn't had any significant changes. In fact, the
Prez signed a law making it permissible to carry a weapon in many
federal parks.

I remember the before the election the hue and cry was that Obama was
going to "take away our guns".. and then there was the big "no ammo"
scare. Neither happened.

The single most heinous government act that denies people their
constitutional rights is the Patriot Act... initiated by Bush... and
extended by Obama.

So exactly which of your "constitutional rights" have been taken away
since the last election?

(BTW - I am in favor of people being allowed to own guns, but I want
them registered)

George L

George Leppla wrote:
>
> On 7/17/2011 2:42 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".
> > No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
> > inaliable human right of self defense.
>
> So who is denying you your rights to own a gun?

Ask the folks in CA, IL, NY, CT, NJ and a few other states where peoples
constitutional rights are indeed being trampled. Ask folks who's rights
were trampled by the now expired ugly gun ban. When the second amendment
was written it wasn't about "sporting" guns, or antique guns, it was
about guns that were the then state of the art and defensive use was
very much what was being considered.

> Since Obama came into
> office, gun ownership hasn't had any significant changes.

Due only to the fact that Obama isn't out at the left wing like the rest
of his party, and due to the fact that gun owners have representation to
fend off the constant attacks from the left wing.

> In fact, the
> Prez signed a law making it permissible to carry a weapon in many
> federal parks.

As I've noted Obama isn't out on the left wing like most of his party
is.

>
> I remember the before the election the hue and cry was that Obama was
> going to "take away our guns"..

There certainly was well warranted concern until it became apparent that
Obama wasn't as left as his party wanted him to be.

> and then there was the big "no ammo"
> scare. Neither happened.

Sorry, this once certainly did happen. I clearly remember having to
search around to find ammunition for my normal range outing and hunting,
and I don't do either all that frequency. I recall months of zero
availability of certain calibers of ammunition. Fortunately the supply
has caught up with demand and metals prices have come down a bit as well
bringing ammunition prices down a bit as well.

>
> The single most heinous government act that denies people their
> constitutional rights is the Patriot Act... initiated by Bush... and
> extended by Obama.

While there are some concerns with the Patriot Act, have you ever
stopped to consider that both Bush and Obama have supported it based on
the classified information that they receive on the threats to the US
that you never hear about? I had hoped that when Obama extended it, the
left wing might have picked up on that hint and realized that there was
a good reason for it. Of course it seems that they just cling to their
ideology without any reflection on such realities.

>
> So exactly which of your "constitutional rights" have been taken away
> since the last election?

The right to choose who I do or don't do business with (Obummercare
mandate)? As for the second amendment, or just as easily the first
amendment, if you ignore the attacks on it until the right is taken
away, it's too late.

>
> (BTW - I am in favor of people being allowed to own guns, but I want
> them registered)

And exactly what to you believe registration would accomplish? Certainly
it has nothing whatsoever to do with crime, since criminals are not
allowed to own guns.

On 7/17/2011 4:25 PM, Pete C. wrote:

>
> When the second amendment
> was written it wasn't about "sporting" guns, or antique guns, it was
> about guns that were the then state of the art and defensive use was
> very much what was being considered.
>



No, it was about being able to arm a MILITIA after the Revolution, but
you gun folk always leave that part out. It was never about a citizen
being able to walk down the street and blow someone's head off because
he felt vulnerable (or being given a bad deal by his drug dealer.)

gloria p

"gloria.p" wrote:
>
> On 7/17/2011 4:25 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> >
> > When the second amendment
> > was written it wasn't about "sporting" guns, or antique guns, it was
> > about guns that were the then state of the art and defensive use was
> > very much what was being considered.
> >
>
> No, it was about being able to arm a MILITIA after the Revolution, but
> you gun folk always leave that part out. It was never about a citizen
> being able to walk down the street and blow someone's head off because
> he felt vulnerable (or being given a bad deal by his drug dealer.)
>

Sorry, the Supreme Court doesn't agree with your interpretation of the
second amendment. As for your wild west fantasy, that has never been
reality. Concealed carry has been law in a great many states, including
ones you probably don't expect, for literally decades and your fantasy
of law abiding citizens having gunfights on the street have never
materialized anywhere. Criminals and gangs have been known to have
gunfights, but guess what, they can't legally have guns. Armed law
abiding citizens have however successfully defended themselves against
criminals many millions of times.

"Pete C." > wrote:
> "gloria.p" wrote:
>>
>> On 7/17/2011 4:25 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>> >
>>> When the second amendment
>>> was written it wasn't about "sporting" guns, or antique guns, it was
>>> about guns that were the then state of the art and defensive use was
>>> very much what was being considered.
>>>
>>
>> No, it was about being able to arm a MILITIA after the Revolution, but
>> you gun folk always leave that part out. It was never about a citizen
>> being able to walk down the street and blow someone's head off because
>> he felt vulnerable (or being given a bad deal by his drug dealer.)
>>
>
> Sorry, the Supreme Court doesn't agree with your interpretation of the
> second amendment. As for your wild west fantasy, that has never been
> reality. Concealed carry has been law in a great many states, including
> ones you probably don't expect, for literally decades and your fantasy
> of law abiding citizens having gunfights on the street have never
> materialized anywhere. Criminals and gangs have been known to have
> gunfights, but guess what, they can't legally have guns. Armed law
> abiding citizens have however successfully defended themselves against
> criminals many millions of times.

In a democratic society do believe the majority should rule?

If the two thirds majority of the people votes to put limits on the second
amendment. Would you still be a law abiding citizen?

Crime is getting so high in this country, it would not surprise me to such
limits put in place. I will also be voting for the politicians that put in
those gun law restrictions.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

Nad R wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote:
> > "gloria.p" wrote:
> >>
> >> On 7/17/2011 4:25 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >>> When the second amendment
> >>> was written it wasn't about "sporting" guns, or antique guns, it was
> >>> about guns that were the then state of the art and defensive use was
> >>> very much what was being considered.
> >>>
> >>
> >> No, it was about being able to arm a MILITIA after the Revolution, but
> >> you gun folk always leave that part out. It was never about a citizen
> >> being able to walk down the street and blow someone's head off because
> >> he felt vulnerable (or being given a bad deal by his drug dealer.)
> >>
> >
> > Sorry, the Supreme Court doesn't agree with your interpretation of the
> > second amendment. As for your wild west fantasy, that has never been
> > reality. Concealed carry has been law in a great many states, including
> > ones you probably don't expect, for literally decades and your fantasy
> > of law abiding citizens having gunfights on the street have never
> > materialized anywhere. Criminals and gangs have been known to have
> > gunfights, but guess what, they can't legally have guns. Armed law
> > abiding citizens have however successfully defended themselves against
> > criminals many millions of times.
>
> In a democratic society do believe the majority should rule?

No, that is mob rules.

>
> If the two thirds majority of the people votes to put limits on the second
> amendment. Would you still be a law abiding citizen?

If a two thirds majority of people were to vote to require you to go to
church would you still be a law abiding citizen?

>
> Crime is getting so high in this country

Crime increases in areas with "gun control" and decreases in areas that
support gun rights. Look it up on the FBI's site yourself.

>, it would not surprise me to such
> limits put in place. I will also be voting for the politicians that put in
> those gun law restrictions.

You will be contributing to the increase in crime. Do some research on
the FBIs site and learn the truth.

"Pete C." > wrote:
> Nad R wrote:

>> If the two thirds majority of the people votes to put limits on the second
>> amendment. Would you still be a law abiding citizen?
>
> If a two thirds majority of people were to vote to require you to go to
> church would you still be a law abiding citizen?

As an atheist, yes I would go to church if the laws required it. I would
not want to go to jail.

And you still did not answer the question!

>> Crime is getting so high in this country
>
> Crime increases in areas with "gun control" and decreases in areas that
> support gun rights. Look it up on the FBI's site yourself.
>
>> , it would not surprise me to such
>> limits put in place. I will also be voting for the politicians that put in
>> those gun law restrictions.
>
> You will be contributing to the increase in crime. Do some research on
> the FBIs site and learn the truth.

Like this one that states the higher the gun ownership in a country the
higher the murder rate.

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 21:16:11 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> Nad R wrote:
>>
>>
>> Crime is getting so high in this country
>
> Crime increases in areas with "gun control" and decreases in areas that
> support gun rights. Look it up on the FBI's site yourself.

if it's so cut and dried, provide the cite. prove us wrong.

blake

On 7/17/2011 9:36 PM, Nad R wrote:
> "Pete > wrote:
>> "gloria.p" wrote:
>>>
>>> On 7/17/2011 4:25 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>>> When the second amendment
>>>> was written it wasn't about "sporting" guns, or antique guns, it was
>>>> about guns that were the then state of the art and defensive use was
>>>> very much what was being considered.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, it was about being able to arm a MILITIA after the Revolution, but
>>> you gun folk always leave that part out. It was never about a citizen
>>> being able to walk down the street and blow someone's head off because
>>> he felt vulnerable (or being given a bad deal by his drug dealer.)
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, the Supreme Court doesn't agree with your interpretation of the
>> second amendment. As for your wild west fantasy, that has never been
>> reality. Concealed carry has been law in a great many states, including
>> ones you probably don't expect, for literally decades and your fantasy
>> of law abiding citizens having gunfights on the street have never
>> materialized anywhere. Criminals and gangs have been known to have
>> gunfights, but guess what, they can't legally have guns. Armed law
>> abiding citizens have however successfully defended themselves against
>> criminals many millions of times.
>
> In a democratic society do believe the majority should rule?
>
> If the two thirds majority of the people votes to put limits on the second
> amendment. Would you still be a law abiding citizen?
>
> Crime is getting so high in this country, it would not surprise me to such
> limits put in place. I will also be voting for the politicians that put in
> those gun law restrictions.
>
Don't hold your breath. I was just over an old friends house the other
day. Guy is left leaning and anti gun. We were watching the moon rise on
their deck and he said "what kind of gun should I buy for personal
defense in the house?" and "can I go shooting with you?" He is a well
educated very sensible person who finally realized the usual police
involvement in a home invasion is to use that fancy chalk to outline the
body(s). It is NOT the usual idea that some folks seem to have that
there is an invisible police helicopter over their house that will
immediately respond when there is a problem.

On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 08:28:16 -0400, George >
wrote:

> Don't hold your breath. I was just over an old friends house the other
> day. Guy is left leaning and anti gun. We were watching the moon rise on
> their deck and he said "what kind of gun should I buy for personal
> defense in the house?" and "can I go shooting with you?" He is a well
> educated very sensible person who finally realized the usual police
> involvement in a home invasion is to use that fancy chalk to outline the
> body(s). It is NOT the usual idea that some folks seem to have that
> there is an invisible police helicopter over their house that will
> immediately respond when there is a problem.

You reap what you sow. It sounds like your friend is living in an
area where services are being cut back and that's what happens when
there are no taxes to pay for them. Soon no one will be filling
potholes in the streets either and then you can slowly regress back to
the dirt roads of old, while the rest of us have to listen to how bad
it is in your poverty stricken part of the country.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

George wrote:
>
> On 7/17/2011 9:36 PM, Nad R wrote:
> > "Pete > wrote:
> >> "gloria.p" wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 7/17/2011 4:25 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>>> When the second amendment
> >>>> was written it wasn't about "sporting" guns, or antique guns, it was
> >>>> about guns that were the then state of the art and defensive use was
> >>>> very much what was being considered.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> No, it was about being able to arm a MILITIA after the Revolution, but
> >>> you gun folk always leave that part out. It was never about a citizen
> >>> being able to walk down the street and blow someone's head off because
> >>> he felt vulnerable (or being given a bad deal by his drug dealer.)
> >>>
> >>
> >> Sorry, the Supreme Court doesn't agree with your interpretation of the
> >> second amendment. As for your wild west fantasy, that has never been
> >> reality. Concealed carry has been law in a great many states, including
> >> ones you probably don't expect, for literally decades and your fantasy
> >> of law abiding citizens having gunfights on the street have never
> >> materialized anywhere. Criminals and gangs have been known to have
> >> gunfights, but guess what, they can't legally have guns. Armed law
> >> abiding citizens have however successfully defended themselves against
> >> criminals many millions of times.
> >
> > In a democratic society do believe the majority should rule?
> >
> > If the two thirds majority of the people votes to put limits on the second
> > amendment. Would you still be a law abiding citizen?
> >
> > Crime is getting so high in this country, it would not surprise me to such
> > limits put in place. I will also be voting for the politicians that put in
> > those gun law restrictions.
> >
> Don't hold your breath. I was just over an old friends house the other
> day. Guy is left leaning and anti gun. We were watching the moon rise on
> their deck and he said "what kind of gun should I buy for personal
> defense in the house?" and "can I go shooting with you?" He is a well
> educated very sensible person

Yes, I know several folks who are quite left leaning and *used* to be
anti gun who now own guns. Similarly I helped introduce most of them to
guns once they expressed interest.

> who finally realized the usual police
> involvement in a home invasion is to use that fancy chalk to outline the
> body(s).

No chalk outlines, never have been either, they would contaminate the
crime scene. They just take pictures, measurements, notes, samples, etc.

It is correct of course that the police do not protect the population
from such crimes, they only investigate the crimes after the fact and
try to track down the criminals. The victims are still
dead/raped/whatever.

> It is NOT the usual idea that some folks seem to have that
> there is an invisible police helicopter over their house that will
> immediately respond when there is a problem.

It's strange how some people will have smoke detectors and fire
extinguishers in their homes because they realize that the fire
department won't be there instantly in the event of an emergency, but
are blind to the fact that the police won't be there instantly either.

There was a case a couple years back just over the line in the next
state that made the local news here, a home invasion by a criminal armed
with a dreaded AK47 assault rifle. The criminal was shot and killed by
the homeowners, with one homeowner sustaining a minor wound to their arm
(treated by EMTs at the scene I believe, no hospital required).

On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:53:28 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> Armed law
> abiding citizens have however successfully defended themselves against
> criminals many millions of times.

bullshit. i would like to see a cite for 'many millions of times.'

oh, right - you don't provide cites for your bullshit claims.

blake

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:53:28 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > Armed law
> > abiding citizens have however successfully defended themselves against
> > criminals many millions of times.
>
> bullshit. i would like to see a cite for 'many millions of times.'
>
> oh, right - you don't provide cites for your bullshit claims.
>
> blake

The FBI stats have it, some have even been reported in "mainstream"
media.

On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:28:38 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:53:28 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>>> Armed law
>>> abiding citizens have however successfully defended themselves against
>>> criminals many millions of times.
>>
>> bullshit. i would like to see a cite for 'many millions of times.'
>>
>> oh, right - you don't provide cites for your bullshit claims.
>>
>> blake
>
> The FBI stats have it, some have even been reported in "mainstream"
> media.

*then provide a ****ing cite*. put up or shut up.

blake

blake murphy wrote:
> Pete C. wrote:
>
>> Armed law
>> abiding citizens have however successfully defended themselves against
>> criminals many millions of times.
>
> bullshit. i would like to see a cite for 'many millions of times.'

There are reporting services that search for such reports, such as the
magazines from the NRA. Of course their editorials and other articles
are biased and sometimes not verifiable but their incident reports are
carefully verifed. They need to be because plenty of people would be
quick to condemn them for false reporting.

They report multiple incidents per month. The vast majority of reported
incidents are preventive. The law abiding citizen shows the weapon and
the criminal flees.

Millions of times is an exaggeration. Per year country wide in the US
would be in the hundreds using reported events, with a reasonable guess
of thousands of unreported events.

Use of a gun by a law abiding citizen is very rare. Most who own them
never use them except in practice. Most who carry them never even show
them. Never in their entire lives. Which is of course what gun
ownership is supposed to be like. Preventive and rare. But if you ever
do need it there's a high chance of dying without it.

On 2011-07-18, Doug Freyburger > wrote:

> incidents are preventive. The law abiding citizen shows the weapon and
> the criminal flees.

My two favorite stories includes an eighty year old widow who drove
off a garage burglar with an ancient single-action Colt. She needed
two hands to even hold the gun up, but the burglar thought better of
testing her resolve and skee-daddled. When the news asked this crusty
old granny what she would have done if the burglar hadn't run off, she
replied, "Ida shot the sonofabitch!"

The other involves two armed men robbing a family owned liquor store
in a small mid-western town. The perps had the husband and son at
gunpoint in the front of the store. The wife, who'd recently finished
a gun handling course, came out of the back room with pistols
a-blazing, a semi-auto in one hand and a .357 in the other. She shot
both dirtbags dead. The local sheriff had nothing but praise for her
actions.

Protection is not always against threatening humans. My recent pistol
purchase was for protection against bears. We've had bears on our
deck every year for the last 3 yrs, one bear returning twice within 12
hrs. The CO DOW trapped one rogue bear in my drive-way and another
attacked a young boy less than 5 miles from here, only last week.

nb

On 7/18/2011 6:12 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
> blake murphy wrote:
>> Pete C. wrote:
>>
>>> Armed law
>>> abiding citizens have however successfully defended themselves against
>>> criminals many millions of times.
>>
>> bullshit. i would like to see a cite for 'many millions of times.'
>
> There are reporting services that search for such reports, such as the
> magazines from the NRA. Of course their editorials and other articles
> are biased and sometimes not verifiable but their incident reports are
> carefully verifed. They need to be because plenty of people would be
> quick to condemn them for false reporting.
>
> They report multiple incidents per month. The vast majority of reported
> incidents are preventive. The law abiding citizen shows the weapon and
> the criminal flees.
>
> Millions of times is an exaggeration. Per year country wide in the US
> would be in the hundreds using reported events, with a reasonable guess
> of thousands of unreported events.
>
> Use of a gun by a law abiding citizen is very rare. Most who own them
> never use them except in practice. Most who carry them never even show
> them. Never in their entire lives. Which is of course what gun
> ownership is supposed to be like. Preventive and rare. But if you ever
> do need it there's a high chance of dying without it.

Exactly, you would never know I carry. I believe I can say that for
everyone else I know who carries. It is a quite different picture that
the usual anti gun hysterical view that everyone is waving their guns
around just looking for an excuse to use them.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:25:00 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

> Ask the folks in CA, IL, NY, CT, NJ and a few other states where peoples
> constitutional rights are indeed being trampled. Ask folks who's rights
> were trampled by the now expired ugly gun ban. When the second amendment
> was written it wasn't about "sporting" guns, or antique guns, it was
> about guns that were the then state of the art and defensive use was
> very much what was being considered.

The gun laws in California are the way voters want them, and we're
working on making them even more restrictive. We need better
background checks and we shouldn't be selling automatic and
semi-automatic weapons. They are not necessary to shoot game, but
they are very good for shooting people which is what thugs, criminals
and lunatics do.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

sf wrote:
>
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:25:00 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> > Ask the folks in CA, IL, NY, CT, NJ and a few other states where peoples
> > constitutional rights are indeed being trampled. Ask folks who's rights
> > were trampled by the now expired ugly gun ban. When the second amendment
> > was written it wasn't about "sporting" guns, or antique guns, it was
> > about guns that were the then state of the art and defensive use was
> > very much what was being considered.
>
> The gun laws in California are the way voters want them, and we're
> working on making them even more restrictive.

The courts may have something to say about your attempts to infringe on
peoples constitutional rights. Indeed, I recently read that there have
been significant increases in issuing CHLs in parts of CA this year.

> We need better
> background checks

Can you cite a single case where the existing background checks failed?
What do you think needs to be better about them?

> and we shouldn't be selling automatic and

You aren't selling automatic weapons, and neither is anyone else
essentially, but you are too ignorant of guns to actually know that/

> semi-automatic weapons. They are not necessary to shoot game, but
> they are very good for shooting people which is what thugs, criminals
> and lunatics do.

They are good for shooting criminals, something which many law abiding
citizens do defending themselves. They are also good for many other
activities, but with your ignorance of guns you can't comprehend that.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:48:17 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> sf wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:25:00 -0500, "Pete C." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ask the folks in CA, IL, NY, CT, NJ and a few other states where peoples
>>> constitutional rights are indeed being trampled. Ask folks who's rights
>>> were trampled by the now expired ugly gun ban. When the second amendment
>>> was written it wasn't about "sporting" guns, or antique guns, it was
>>> about guns that were the then state of the art and defensive use was
>>> very much what was being considered.
>>
>> The gun laws in California are the way voters want them, and we're
>> working on making them even more restrictive.
>
> The courts may have something to say about your attempts to infringe on
> peoples constitutional rights. Indeed, I recently read that there have
> been significant increases in issuing CHLs in parts of CA this year.

ooh, sounds like their rights are being trampled, all right. or would you
prefer 'must carry' laws?

blake

blake murphy > wrote:

>ooh, sounds like their rights are being trampled, all right. or would you
>prefer 'must carry' laws?

Why stop at "must carry"? The tea party could enact a constitutional
amendment providing that every citizen must discharge their firearm
in the direction of an Enemy of the State at least once per year.


S.

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:48:17 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > sf wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:25:00 -0500, "Pete C." >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ask the folks in CA, IL, NY, CT, NJ and a few other states where peoples
> >>> constitutional rights are indeed being trampled. Ask folks who's rights
> >>> were trampled by the now expired ugly gun ban. When the second amendment
> >>> was written it wasn't about "sporting" guns, or antique guns, it was
> >>> about guns that were the then state of the art and defensive use was
> >>> very much what was being considered.
> >>
> >> The gun laws in California are the way voters want them, and we're
> >> working on making them even more restrictive.
> >
> > The courts may have something to say about your attempts to infringe on
> > peoples constitutional rights. Indeed, I recently read that there have
> > been significant increases in issuing CHLs in parts of CA this year.
>
> ooh, sounds like their rights are being trampled, all right. or would you
> prefer 'must carry' laws?

"Must issue" (with clean background check) is just fine thank you.

On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:30:28 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:48:17 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>>> sf wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:25:00 -0500, "Pete C." >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ask the folks in CA, IL, NY, CT, NJ and a few other states where peoples
>>>>> constitutional rights are indeed being trampled. Ask folks who's rights
>>>>> were trampled by the now expired ugly gun ban. When the second amendment
>>>>> was written it wasn't about "sporting" guns, or antique guns, it was
>>>>> about guns that were the then state of the art and defensive use was
>>>>> very much what was being considered.
>>>>
>>>> The gun laws in California are the way voters want them, and we're
>>>> working on making them even more restrictive.
>>>
>>> The courts may have something to say about your attempts to infringe on
>>> peoples constitutional rights. Indeed, I recently read that there have
>>> been significant increases in issuing CHLs in parts of CA this year.
>>
>> ooh, sounds like their rights are being trampled, all right. or would you
>> prefer 'must carry' laws?
>
> "Must issue" (with clean background check) is just fine thank you.

sissy.

blake

On 7/17/2011 5:25 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> George Leppla wrote:
>>
>> On 7/17/2011 2:42 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>>>> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".
>>> No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
>>> inaliable human right of self defense.
>>
>> So who is denying you your rights to own a gun?
>
> Ask the folks in CA, IL, NY, CT, NJ and a few other states where peoples
> constitutional rights are indeed being trampled.

Specifically, who is denying YOU your right to own a gun? What specific
federal law has been enacted that prevents YOU from owning a gun?


>
>> Since Obama came into
>> office, gun ownership hasn't had any significant changes.
>
> Due only to the fact that Obama isn't out at the left wing like the rest
> of his party, and due to the fact that gun owners have representation to
> fend off the constant attacks from the left wing.

So you agree that your right to own a gun has NOT been impeded, is that
correct?



>> I remember the before the election the hue and cry was that Obama was
>> going to "take away our guns"..
>
> There certainly was well warranted concern until it became apparent that
> Obama wasn't as left as his party wanted him to be.

So you agree that the rank and file gun owners we acting out of fear,
not out of any rational, direct knowledge>

>
>> and then there was the big "no ammo"
>> scare. Neither happened.
>
> Sorry, this once certainly did happen. I clearly remember having to
> search around to find ammunition for my normal range outing and hunting,

It happened because the rank and file gun owners were so SURE that
"OBAMA IS GOING TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS AND AMMO" that they created a huge
spike in sales, stockpiling guns and ammo so they would be ready to
"exercise our Second Amendment Rights and "take our country back".

They created a shortage then then blamed it on Obama... and that is a
fact. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=102851807
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-05-04/u...-ammo?_s=PM:US


>
> While there are some concerns with the Patriot Act, have you ever
> stopped to consider that both Bush and Obama have supported it based on
> the classified information that they receive on the threats to the US
> that you never hear about?

Yeah, right. I've heard all about the threaths that we were protected
from... and so sorry that we can't disclose what those threats were, but
trust us, we are protecting you. You really believe that?


>> So exactly which of your "constitutional rights" have been taken away
>> since the last election?
>
> The right to choose who I do or don't do business with (Obummercare
> mandate)? As for the second amendment, or just as easily the first
> amendment, if you ignore the attacks on it until the right is taken
> away, it's too late.

Sorry, but Obama care hasn't changed the way you buy medical insurance.
Please cite exactly how YOU have been affected.

Oh, I see.... you haven't had any of YOUR constitutional rights taken
away... you are just afraid that they are GOING to be taken way someday,
somewhere, somehow. Congratulations for buying into the politics of fear.

>> (BTW - I am in favor of people being allowed to own guns, but I want
>> them registered)
>
> And exactly what to you believe registration would accomplish? Certainly
> it has nothing whatsoever to do with crime, since criminals are not
> allowed to own guns.

So you agree that criminals should not be allowed to own guns. How
about flame throwers? Grenades? Atomic bombs. You did say that the
Founding Fathers wanted people to have state of the art weapons for self
defense, no?

George L

George Leppla wrote:
>
> On 7/17/2011 5:25 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > George Leppla wrote:
> >>
> >> On 7/17/2011 2:42 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >>>> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".
> >>> No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
> >>> inaliable human right of self defense.
> >>
> >> So who is denying you your rights to own a gun?
> >
> > Ask the folks in CA, IL, NY, CT, NJ and a few other states where peoples
> > constitutional rights are indeed being trampled.
>
> Specifically, who is denying YOU your right to own a gun? What specific
> federal law has been enacted that prevents YOU from owning a gun?

The now expired ugly gun ban was one. The existing ugly gun bans in some
of the noted states also affect me as I have property in some of them.

>
> >
> >> Since Obama came into
> >> office, gun ownership hasn't had any significant changes.
> >
> > Due only to the fact that Obama isn't out at the left wing like the rest
> > of his party, and due to the fact that gun owners have representation to
> > fend off the constant attacks from the left wing.
>
> So you agree that your right to own a gun has NOT been impeded, is that
> correct?

No, that is not correct, and I have cited how my rights were both
previously infringed and are currently infringed in some locations.

>
> >> I remember the before the election the hue and cry was that Obama was
> >> going to "take away our guns"..
> >
> > There certainly was well warranted concern until it became apparent that
> > Obama wasn't as left as his party wanted him to be.
>
> So you agree that the rank and file gun owners we acting out of fear,
> not out of any rational, direct knowledge>

No, they were acting on the stated intentions of his party members, and
those party members were just as surprised as the rest of us when Obama
did not go along with their plans once he was elected.

>
> >
> >> and then there was the big "no ammo"
> >> scare. Neither happened.
> >
> > Sorry, this once certainly did happen. I clearly remember having to
> > search around to find ammunition for my normal range outing and hunting,
>
> It happened because the rank and file gun owners were so SURE that
> "OBAMA IS GOING TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS AND AMMO" that they created a huge
> spike in sales, stockpiling guns and ammo so they would be ready to
> "exercise our Second Amendment Rights and "take our country back".
>
> They created a shortage then then blamed it on Obama... and that is a
> fact. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=102851807
> http://articles.cnn.com/2009-05-04/u...-ammo?_s=PM:US

As noted in your links:

"Ammunition suppliers say the shortage is due to several factors,
including the sheer volume of ammunition heading overseas to fight wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan."

>
> >
> > While there are some concerns with the Patriot Act, have you ever
> > stopped to consider that both Bush and Obama have supported it based on
> > the classified information that they receive on the threats to the US
> > that you never hear about?
>
> Yeah, right. I've heard all about the threaths that we were protected
> from... and so sorry that we can't disclose what those threats were, but
> trust us, we are protecting you. You really believe that?

Based on some of the information that I have, yes.

>
> >> So exactly which of your "constitutional rights" have been taken away
> >> since the last election?
> >
> > The right to choose who I do or don't do business with (Obummercare
> > mandate)? As for the second amendment, or just as easily the first
> > amendment, if you ignore the attacks on it until the right is taken
> > away, it's too late.
>
> Sorry, but Obama care hasn't changed the way you buy medical insurance.
> Please cite exactly how YOU have been affected.

There have already been changes to my medical insurance for the 2011
year that resulted from Obummercare. Obummer care isn't due to go into
full effect for a few more years, but there has been a notable shift in
the predictions from even the various liberal think tanks in stories on
left leaning NPR which are taking a more negative view of what will
happen. We won't know for sure until 2014 or at least the benefit
enrollment period for 2014 in the fall of 2013.

>
> Oh, I see.... you haven't had any of YOUR constitutional rights taken
> away... you are just afraid that they are GOING to be taken way someday,
> somewhere, somehow. Congratulations for buying into the politics of fear.

Sorry, that is your false claim. My constitutional rights have indeed
been infringed and I provided the examples. There is no "fear", there is
valid concern based on current and prior infringement.


>
> >> (BTW - I am in favor of people being allowed to own guns, but I want
> >> them registered)
> >
> > And exactly what to you believe registration would accomplish? Certainly
> > it has nothing whatsoever to do with crime, since criminals are not
> > allowed to own guns.
>
> So you agree that criminals should not be allowed to own guns.

You did not answer the question. Criminals own guns illegally, and
registration would have no effect whatsoever on them.

> How
> about flame throwers? Grenades? Atomic bombs. You did say that the
> Founding Fathers wanted people to have state of the art weapons for self
> defense, no?

Yes, I did indeed, and I have no problem whatsoever with non criminals
owning pretty much any type of weapon. I am not paranoid like the
anti-gun kooks.

On 7/17/2011 9:08 PM, Pete C. wrote:

>> Specifically, who is denying YOU your right to own a gun? What specific
>> federal law has been enacted that prevents YOU from owning a gun?
>
> The now expired ugly gun ban was one. The existing ugly gun bans in some
> of the noted states also affect me as I have property in some of them.

Translation: Under the Obama administration, I now have more freedom to
own a gun than I did before.

>> So you agree that your right to own a gun has NOT been impeded, is that
>> correct?
>
> No, that is not correct, and I have cited how my rights were both
> previously infringed and are currently infringed in some locations.

TRANSLATION: Under the Obama administration, I now have more freedom to
own a gun than I did before. Somewhere, some local places might be
trying to impose laws that might affect someone else, but MY ability to
own a gun has NOT been changed.

>> So you agree that the rank and file gun owners we acting out of fear,
>> not out of any rational, direct knowledge>
>
> No, they were acting on the stated intentions of his party members, and
> those party members were just as surprised as the rest of us when Obama
> did not go along with their plans once he was elected.

Translation: We were so afraid of what MIGHT happen that we ran around
like Chicken Little crying "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!"

>> It happened because the rank and file gun owners were so SURE that
>> "OBAMA IS GOING TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS AND AMMO" that they created a huge
>> spike in sales, stockpiling guns and ammo so they would be ready to
>> "exercise our Second Amendment Rights and "take our country back".
>>
>> They created a shortage then then blamed it on Obama... and that is a
>> fact. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=102851807
>> http://articles.cnn.com/2009-05-04/u...-ammo?_s=PM:US
>
> As noted in your links:
>
> "Ammunition suppliers say the shortage is due to several factors,
> including the sheer volume of ammunition heading overseas to fight wars
> in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Translation: I delibegrately left out the following:

"It started the day that Obama got elected," Johnny Dury, who owns
Dury's Gun Shop in San Antonio, tells NPR's Michele Norris. "It is when
everything just went crazy in the gun business."

Dury says people are buying guns as well as ammunition, creating a
shortage of both. He says people are buying the guns to protect
themselves because they perceive Obama's policies as socialist and
rewarding those "people who are not working hard." They are also afraid,
he says, of more restrictive gun laws.

"Everybody was scared he was going to take the ammo away or he was going
to tax it out of sight on the prices," Dury says. "So people started
stocking up, buying half a lifetime to a lifetime supply of ammo all at
one time."




>> Yeah, right. I've heard all about the threaths that we were protected
>> from... and so sorry that we can't disclose what those threats were, but
>> trust us, we are protecting you. You really believe that?
>
> Based on some of the information that I have, yes.

Translation: "Yes, there were lots of threats but I'm not at liberty to
talk about them in public."

I moved into my neighborhood 4 years ago and began to protect this
sub-division from lion attacks. It worked... not a single lion attack
happened on my watch. I went tot he Neighborhood Association and told
them about all the lion attacks I prevented, but I didn't give them
specifics because I didn't want to scare them or let the other lions out
there know how vigilant I am. They thanked me and now I am a big hero.

>> Sorry, but Obama care hasn't changed the way you buy medical insurance.
>> Please cite exactly how YOU have been affected.
>
> There have already been changes to my medical insurance for the 2011
> year that resulted from Obummercare.

Translation: I can't give you a specific example of how my insurance
has been changed. But I'm telling you, it has been... or it will be
sometimes... and I bet I'm not going to like it if and when it does happen."

>> Oh, I see.... you haven't had any of YOUR constitutional rights taken
>> away... you are just afraid that they are GOING to be taken way someday,
>> somewhere, somehow. Congratulations for buying into the politics of fear.
>
> Sorry, that is your false claim. My constitutional rights have indeed
> been infringed and I provided the examples. There is no "fear", there is
> valid concern based on current and prior infringement.

Translation: "While I have not given you one SPECIFIC example of how MY
constitutional rights have been infringed on, I know for sure in my
heart that they have been... and down the road, someday, somewhere, some
way... some one else is going to infringe even more... and by golly,
I'm afraid of all this so I"m stockpiling my guns and ammo so when the
Socialists take over, me and my friends can rise up and "exercise our
Second Amendment Rights".

I WAAANT MY COUNTRY BAAAAAAACK!!!

>
> Yes, I did indeed, and I have no problem whatsoever with non criminals
> owning pretty much any type of weapon. I am not paranoid like the
> anti-gun kooks.

Your whole idea of what is happening in the world is based on paranoia.
Not based on anything that actually happens, but based on fear of what
MIGHT happen.

George L

George Leppla wrote:
>
> On 7/17/2011 9:08 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> >> Specifically, who is denying YOU your right to own a gun? What specific
> >> federal law has been enacted that prevents YOU from owning a gun?
> >
> > The now expired ugly gun ban was one. The existing ugly gun bans in some
> > of the noted states also affect me as I have property in some of them.
>
> Translation: Under the Obama administration, I now have more freedom to
> own a gun than I did before.

Translation: My second amendment rights are still being infringed. Obama
letting the ugly gun ban expire was certainly a step in the correct
direction, but the other infringements still exist.

>
> >> So you agree that your right to own a gun has NOT been impeded, is that
> >> correct?
> >
> > No, that is not correct, and I have cited how my rights were both
> > previously infringed and are currently infringed in some locations.
>
> TRANSLATION: Under the Obama administration, I now have more freedom to
> own a gun than I did before. Somewhere, some local places might be
> trying to impose laws that might affect someone else, but MY ability to
> own a gun has NOT been changed.

Translation: My second amendment rights are still being infringed in
places that I have a presence. That infringement directly affect me, not
just someone else.

>
> >> So you agree that the rank and file gun owners we acting out of fear,
> >> not out of any rational, direct knowledge>
> >
> > No, they were acting on the stated intentions of his party members, and
> > those party members were just as surprised as the rest of us when Obama
> > did not go along with their plans once he was elected.
>
> Translation: We were so afraid of what MIGHT happen that we ran around
> like Chicken Little crying "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!"

Translation: Just like people who "run around like chicken little"
preparing for an approaching hurricane only to have it change course at
the last minute, they rationally assessed the threat and prepared.

>
> >> It happened because the rank and file gun owners were so SURE that
> >> "OBAMA IS GOING TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS AND AMMO" that they created a huge
> >> spike in sales, stockpiling guns and ammo so they would be ready to
> >> "exercise our Second Amendment Rights and "take our country back".
> >>
> >> They created a shortage then then blamed it on Obama... and that is a
> >> fact. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=102851807
> >> http://articles.cnn.com/2009-05-04/u...-ammo?_s=PM:US
> >
> > As noted in your links:
> >
> > "Ammunition suppliers say the shortage is due to several factors,
> > including the sheer volume of ammunition heading overseas to fight wars
> > in Iraq and Afghanistan."
>
> Translation: I delibegrately left out the following:
>
> "It started the day that Obama got elected," Johnny Dury, who owns
> Dury's Gun Shop in San Antonio, tells NPR's Michele Norris. "It is when
> everything just went crazy in the gun business."
>
> Dury says people are buying guns as well as ammunition, creating a
> shortage of both. He says people are buying the guns to protect
> themselves because they perceive Obama's policies as socialist and
> rewarding those "people who are not working hard." They are also afraid,
> he says, of more restrictive gun laws.
>
> "Everybody was scared he was going to take the ammo away or he was going
> to tax it out of sight on the prices," Dury says. "So people started
> stocking up, buying half a lifetime to a lifetime supply of ammo all at
> one time."

And this is different from the shortage of plywood, bottled water, etc.
when people are preparing for an approaching hurricane exactly how?

>
> >> Yeah, right. I've heard all about the threaths that we were protected
> >> from... and so sorry that we can't disclose what those threats were, but
> >> trust us, we are protecting you. You really believe that?
> >
> > Based on some of the information that I have, yes.
>
> Translation: "Yes, there were lots of threats but I'm not at liberty to
> talk about them in public."

Yes, that's pretty much the correct translation. Sorry if you are so
blinded that you want to believe there can't be any truth to it.

>
> I moved into my neighborhood 4 years ago and began to protect this
> sub-division from lion attacks. It worked... not a single lion attack
> happened on my watch. I went tot he Neighborhood Association and told
> them about all the lion attacks I prevented, but I didn't give them
> specifics because I didn't want to scare them or let the other lions out
> there know how vigilant I am. They thanked me and now I am a big hero.

False analogy. The US has experienced multiple attacks from known
enemies, this is not some phantom theoretical threat that has never
actually materialized.

>
> >> Sorry, but Obama care hasn't changed the way you buy medical insurance.
> >> Please cite exactly how YOU have been affected.
> >
> > There have already been changes to my medical insurance for the 2011
> > year that resulted from Obummercare.
>
> Translation: I can't give you a specific example of how my insurance
> has been changed. But I'm telling you, it has been... or it will be
> sometimes... and I bet I'm not going to like it if and when it does happen."

Translation: I noted that my insurance already changed, and I'm not
going to dig out and transcribe the exact details from my insurance
paperwork. Suffice it to say that I work for a very large company, with
insurance through Aetna and the 2011 enrollment paperwork noted specific
changes in coverages and co-pays to comply with Obummercare.

>
> >> Oh, I see.... you haven't had any of YOUR constitutional rights taken
> >> away... you are just afraid that they are GOING to be taken way someday,
> >> somewhere, somehow. Congratulations for buying into the politics of fear.
> >
> > Sorry, that is your false claim. My constitutional rights have indeed
> > been infringed and I provided the examples. There is no "fear", there is
> > valid concern based on current and prior infringement.
>
> Translation: "While I have not given you one SPECIFIC example of how MY
> constitutional rights have been infringed on, I know for sure in my
> heart that they have been... and down the road, someday, somewhere, some
> way... some one else is going to infringe even more... and by golly,

Yes, I did provide several specific examples of both previous (federal
ugly gun ban) and ongoing infringement (state ugly gun ban in states
where I have a presence).

> I'm afraid of all this so I"m stockpiling my guns and ammo so when the
> Socialists take over, me and my friends can rise up and "exercise our
> Second Amendment Rights".

I'm not stockpiling anything. I continue to buy guns and ammo as extra
funds are available for my normal recreational, hunting and personal
defense use. No mountains of guns or lifetime supplies of ammo.

> >
> > Yes, I did indeed, and I have no problem whatsoever with non criminals
> > owning pretty much any type of weapon. I am not paranoid like the
> > anti-gun kooks.
>
> Your whole idea of what is happening in the world is based on paranoia.
> Not based on anything that actually happens, but based on fear of what
> MIGHT happen.

My whole idea is based on documented facts, and ones that can be
validated at credible .gov site, not kooky .org sites.

I suppose in your warped view, the two WTC attacks never happened, or
the failed bomb in NYC, or the Ft. Hood attack. I suppose in your warped
view the federal ugly gun ban never existed, and the various state ugly
gun bans, mag bans, etc don't exist.

On 7/18/2011 9:54 AM, Pete C. wrote:

> Translation: My second amendment rights are still being infringed.

Once again, you still don't answer the question. HOW have YOUR rights
to own guns been infringed upon by the Obama administration?


> Translation: My second amendment rights are still being infringed in
> places that I have a presence. That infringement directly affect me, not
> just someone else.

Once again, you still don't answer the question. HOW have YOUR rights
to own guns been infringed upon by the Obama administration?


> Translation: Just like people who "run around like chicken little"
> preparing for an approaching hurricane only to have it change course at
> the last minute, they rationally assessed the threat and prepared.

Rational? You really thing buying a lifetime supply of guns and ammo
are the acts of rational people? Were these rational people?

>> "Everybody was scared he was going to take the ammo away or he was going
>> to tax it out of sight on the prices," Dury says. "So people started
>> stocking up, buying half a lifetime to a lifetime supply of ammo all at
>> one time."



>> Translation: "Yes, there were lots of threats but I'm not at liberty to
>> talk about them in public."
>
> Yes, that's pretty much the correct translation. Sorry if you are so
> blinded that you want to believe there can't be any truth to it.

If it is true... please enlighten us. You have the floor... use your
rights of free speach to tell us about the dangers that were averted.
Provide some first hand info... or maybe a cite. We'll wait.


> Translation: I noted that my insurance already changed, and I'm not
> going to dig out and transcribe the exact details from my insurance
> paperwork. >

In other words, you can't prove a single instance where your medical
insurance was changed due to Obama's health care legislation. What you
can do is keep repeating over and over that "things are going to Hell"
and hope that by saying it often enough, someone will believe you. Long
on rhetoric, short on facts

> Yes, I did provide several specific examples of both previous (federal
> ugly gun ban) and ongoing infringement (state ugly gun ban in states
> where I have a presence).

I must have missed that... let me go back and look.... Talk among
yourself while I am gone.... looking.... looking.... looking... nope.
Can't find a single cite that you posted.

Again, just because you repeat things over and over again doesn't make
it true. Provide some facts or citations.

>> Your whole idea of what is happening in the world is based on paranoia.
>> Not based on anything that actually happens, but based on fear of what
>> MIGHT happen.
>
> My whole idea is based on documented facts, and ones that can be
> validated at credible .gov site, not kooky .org sites.

Again... citations, please... or shall we just sit here watching you run
in circles yelling "The sky is falling"?

George L.

George Leppla wrote:
>
> Translation: Under the Obama administration, I now have more freedom to
> own a gun than I did before.

Correct.

> Dury says people are buying guns as well as ammunition, creating a
> shortage of both. He says people are buying the guns to protect
> themselves because they perceive Obama's policies as socialist and
> rewarding those "people who are not working hard." They are also afraid,
> he says, of more restrictive gun laws.

He came out of Illinois so people did expect him to pass Illinois style
restrictive gun laws. Illinois gun laws keep getting overturned by the
Supreme Court. Chicago based Illinois state, county and city
politicians don't like that so they keep passing variations that stay in
effect while the battle reuns up the the Supreme Court.

What people don't seem to get is the President doesn't have all that
much ability to push laws through nor does he have all that much
influence on the Supreme Court. Whether he wanted to or not Obama could
not push such laws through. He hasn't tried.

On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:57:24 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger wrote:

> George Leppla wrote:
>>
>> Translation: Under the Obama administration, I now have more freedom to
>> own a gun than I did before.
>
> Correct.
>
>> Dury says people are buying guns as well as ammunition, creating a
>> shortage of both. He says people are buying the guns to protect
>> themselves because they perceive Obama's policies as socialist and
>> rewarding those "people who are not working hard." They are also afraid,
>> he says, of more restrictive gun laws.
>
> He came out of Illinois so people did expect him to pass Illinois style
> restrictive gun laws. Illinois gun laws keep getting overturned by the
> Supreme Court. Chicago based Illinois state, county and city
> politicians don't like that so they keep passing variations that stay in
> effect while the battle reuns up the the Supreme Court.
>
> What people don't seem to get is the President doesn't have all that
> much ability to push laws through nor does he have all that much
> influence on the Supreme Court. Whether he wanted to or not Obama could
> not push such laws through. He hasn't tried.

all true. yet it's an article of faith among 'winger gun nuts that obama's
fondest wish is to take their guns and ammo. they just *know* it.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 21:08:08 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> George Leppla wrote:
>>
>> On 7/17/2011 5:25 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>>>
>>> George Leppla wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 7/17/2011 2:42 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>>>>>> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".
>>>>> No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
>>>>> inaliable human right of self defense.
>>>>
>>>> So who is denying you your rights to own a gun?
>>>
>>> Ask the folks in CA, IL, NY, CT, NJ and a few other states where peoples
>>> constitutional rights are indeed being trampled.
>>
>> Specifically, who is denying YOU your right to own a gun? What specific
>> federal law has been enacted that prevents YOU from owning a gun?
>
> The now expired ugly gun ban was one. The existing ugly gun bans in some
> of the noted states also affect me as I have property in some of them.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Since Obama came into
>>>> office, gun ownership hasn't had any significant changes.
>>>
>>> Due only to the fact that Obama isn't out at the left wing like the rest
>>> of his party, and due to the fact that gun owners have representation to
>>> fend off the constant attacks from the left wing.
>>
>> So you agree that your right to own a gun has NOT been impeded, is that
>> correct?
>
> No, that is not correct, and I have cited how my rights were both
> previously infringed and are currently infringed in some locations.

you haven't cited jack shit.

blake

On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:25:00 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> George Leppla wrote:
>>
>> On 7/17/2011 2:42 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>>>> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".
>>> No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
>>> inaliable human right of self defense.
>>
>> So who is denying you your rights to own a gun?
>
> Ask the folks in CA, IL, NY, CT, NJ and a few other states where peoples
> constitutional rights are indeed being trampled.

what the **** are you talking about?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29#Calif ornia>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29#Illin ois>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29#New_Y ork>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29#Conne cticut>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29#New_J ersey>

i see no bans on guns. once again, you are full of shit.


>Ask folks who's rights
> were trampled by the now expired ugly gun ban.

if you're talking about the automatic weapons ban, boo ****ing hoo. you
can't own a gun enabling you to kill thirty people in thirty seconds. just
who are you defending yourself from?

blake

On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 15:01:47 -0500, George Leppla wrote:

> On 7/17/2011 2:42 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>>> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".
>> No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
>> inaliable human right of self defense.
>
> So who is denying you your rights to own a gun? Since Obama came into
> office, gun ownership hasn't had any significant changes. In fact, the
> Prez signed a law making it permissible to carry a weapon in many
> federal parks.
>
> I remember the before the election the hue and cry was that Obama was
> going to "take away our guns".. and then there was the big "no ammo"
> scare. Neither happened.
>
> The single most heinous government act that denies people their
> constitutional rights is the Patriot Act... initiated by Bush... and
> extended by Obama.
>
> So exactly which of your "constitutional rights" have been taken away
> since the last election?
>
> (BTW - I am in favor of people being allowed to own guns, but I want
> them registered)
>
> George L

what are you, some kind of commie? i suppose you support a ban on private
ownership of bazookas, too!

your pal,
blake

On 18/07/2011 2:15 PM, blake murphy wrote:

>
> what are you, some kind of commie? i suppose you support a ban on private
> ownership of bazookas, too!
>
Sign me up. I must be one of them too. When I read about some of those
weird militias and their need for weapons to rise up against the
government and its assault on constitutional rights, I have to say that
they aren't the type of people I want fighting on my behalf and ending
up in charge.