OT Are you on the list ?

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
.com...
Tom Gibson wrote:

I could have guessed that you would be an anti-gun kind of guy. ...

Yeah, you could have, but you'd be wrong. I own several guns myself,
and I'm a card-carrying member of Pheasants Unlimited, but I've never
needed an Uzi to kill a pheasant and neither do you.


When we going hunting? I've got a virgin AYA side by side just begging to be
shot.

Precisely - the "Ugly Gun Ban". True assault weapons are already controlled
under the National Firearms Act. If you want one of those and aren't
military/police, then you pay $500 in transfer taxes if approved.

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
.com...
George Adams wrote:
From: Ken Fortenberry

If you are in favor of enforcing the Assault Weapons Ban, a law we
already have, you agree with salient point #1.

Define "assault weapons". ...

http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Wayne Knight" wrote in message
...

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
.com...
Tom Gibson wrote:

I could have guessed that you would be an anti-gun kind of guy. ...

Yeah, you could have, but you'd be wrong. I own several guns myself,
and I'm a card-carrying member of Pheasants Unlimited, but I've never
needed an Uzi to kill a pheasant and neither do you.


When we going hunting? I've got a virgin AYA side by side just begging to
be
shot.

Call that hunting?! Hell, just set the damned thing on the floor, pull out
the Glock, and shoot it!

Wolfgang
now, if someone were to hide it out in the cornfield........

In article ,
says...

"Wayne Knight" wrote in message

When we going hunting? I've got a virgin AYA side by side just begging to
be
shot.

Call that hunting?! Hell, just set the damned thing on the floor, pull out
the Glock, and shoot it!

Wolfgang
now, if someone were to hide it out in the cornfield........


Well, if Wayne ships the AyA to me, I promise that I will hide
it where none of y'all will ever find it.

Kevin

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
.com...
Tom Gibson wrote:

I could have guessed that you would be an anti-gun kind of guy. ...

Yeah, you could have, but you'd be wrong. I own several guns myself,
and I'm a card-carrying member of Pheasants Unlimited, but I've never
needed an Uzi to kill a pheasant and neither do you.


I've never needed an uzi to kill pheasants, nor for any hunting for that
matter, but that's not the point of the Second Amendment, is it Kenny? In
fact, I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't guarantee my right to hunt of
fish. But it does guarantee me my right to protect myself from a tyrannical
government, and it does allow me to be 'well-armed'. Luckily, we've not yet
needed to actually express this right, regardless of what you whackos on the
Right thought about Clinton and what you other whackos on the Left think
about Bush. Neither could be considered 'tyrannical'; but simply our young
country has been somewhat of a historical anomaly, hasn't it? We could
easily get into the definition of 'well-armed' if you like as well, but I
suspect that even a fully automatic rifle is kinda like bringing a knife to
a gun fight when compared to the military's access to Abrams tanks, A10's,
nuclear missiles, and the like.

You know, Kenny, I've not seen much posted from you but asshole comments to
people and OT posts. Clearly your only value to this group is that of
functioning as the Village Idiot.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
.com...
slenon wrote:

Pass. Enforce the laws we already have. ...

In other words, you weren't able to comprehend the two salient points
of that website, even though they were clearly marked #1 and #2.

If you are in favor of enforcing the Assault Weapons Ban, a law we
already have, you agree with salient point #1. If you agree that gun
dealers who break the law should be liable in civil suits, a law we
already have, you agree with salient point #2.

Geezus, unlike some of the whackos around here you really are as dumb
as you look.

While the website you reference poses item #2 in an inocuous light, and you
also ignorantly perpetuate the misunderstanding, item #2 does not refer to
dealers simply 'breaking the law'. There have been numerous lawsuits of
late attempting to sue dealers and gun manufacturers for simply selling
their product which later is used in a crime or accident. This has been
done in an attempt to replicate some of the successes of the tobacco
lawsuits. However, for the logic of the lawsuits to be the same, gun
manufacturers would have to have claimed their products don't kill people
and convenient stores, grocery stores and other outlets of tobacco products
should have been targeted as well.



--
Ken Fortenberry

"Tim Carter" wrote in message
...



I've never needed an uzi to kill pheasants, nor for any hunting for that
matter, but that's not the point of the Second Amendment, is it Kenny? In
fact, I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't guarantee my right to hunt
of
fish. But it does guarantee me my right to protect myself from a
tyrannical
government, and it does allow me to be 'well-armed'. Luckily, we've not
yet
needed to actually express this right, regardless of what you whackos on
the
Right thought about Clinton and what you other whackos on the Left think
about Bush. Neither could be considered 'tyrannical'; but simply our
young
country has been somewhat of a historical anomaly, hasn't it? We could
easily get into the definition of 'well-armed' if you like as well, but I
suspect that even a fully automatic rifle is kinda like bringing a knife
to
a gun fight when compared to the military's access to Abrams tanks, A10's,
nuclear missiles, and the like.

You know, Kenny, I've not seen much posted from you but asshole comments
to
people and OT posts. Clearly your only value to this group is that of
functioning as the Village Idiot.


I wasn't aware that any legal body, at any level, has managed to determine
precisely what the 2nd amendment intended. And for that matter, I'm quite
certain the words "well-armed" are not in there. So don't be so quick to
brush off the validity of the debate.

--riverman

"Tim Carter" wrote in message
...


While the website you reference poses item #2 in an inocuous light, and
you
also ignorantly perpetuate the misunderstanding, item #2 does not refer to
dealers simply 'breaking the law'. There have been numerous lawsuits of
late attempting to sue dealers and gun manufacturers for simply selling
their product which later is used in a crime or accident. This has been
done in an attempt to replicate some of the successes of the tobacco
lawsuits. However, for the logic of the lawsuits to be the same, gun
manufacturers would have to have claimed their products don't kill
people...

You mean like; "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"?

If they aren't trying to say that their products don't kill people, then
what are they saying?

--riverman

Tim Carter wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
... I've never
needed an Uzi to kill a pheasant and neither do you.

I've never needed an uzi to kill pheasants, nor for any hunting for that
matter, but that's not the point of the Second Amendment, is it Kenny? ...

If you want to shoot at people you need to join a well-regulated militia.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Tim Carter wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
... If you agree that gun
dealers who break the law should be liable in civil suits, a law we
already have, you agree with salient point #2. ...

While the website you reference poses item #2 in an inocuous light, and you
also ignorantly perpetuate the misunderstanding, item #2 does not refer to
dealers simply 'breaking the law'. There have been numerous lawsuits of
late attempting to sue dealers and gun manufacturers for simply selling
their product which later is used in a crime or accident. ...

If the problem is frivolous lawsuits, then deal with frivolous lawsuits.
Granting a blanket immunity would have the effect of making gun dealers
who break the law not liable in civil suits. The law proposed by the NRA
whackos is a bad one and I'm against it.

--
Ken Fortenberry