OT Are you on the list ?

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

Would you mind suggesting language that would cover the entire realm of
'frivolous lawsuit'? Even if you could, which I doubt without blanket
immunity, the political realities make it such that that it makes sense for
the NRA to propose just such legislation as it has...likely any proposal
will get watered down, making it important to ask for more than you might
even wish for in hopes of landing where you want to be. Stupid? Yes, and
it seems a good time to launch into a diatribe against politicians and
lawyers, but I suspect it's really just a good time to bitch about humanity.
But then, what would be the point?


--
Ken Fortenberry

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

Well, if and when the horrible time comes that I would want to shoot people,
I probably would join a militia, as should all Americans with any strength
and courage -- just as our forefathers did. Unfortunately, the laws you
condone would hamstring my efforts to protect my family, my way of life and
this country. With friends like that....


--
Ken Fortenberry

Tim Carter wrote:
... Unfortunately, the laws you
condone would hamstring my efforts to protect my family, my way of life and
this country. ...

Yeah, I can sympathize with your need to have military grade weapons to
protect your way of life. I mean you'd hate to be caught without your
missile launcher when the black helicopters come.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Oh... so only those with enough MONEY should have the guns. Hey, that's
democracy US style!

"JohnR" wrote in message
hlink.net...
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

"Mark" wrote in message
. ..
Oh... so only those with enough MONEY should have the guns. Hey, that's
democracy US style!



No, no. The people with money have entire ARMIES.
THAT'S democracy, US style.

--riverman
(and where the hell is Wayne Hart for all this?? We could use a good laugh.)

"riverman" wrote (and where the hell is Wayne Hart for
all this?? We could use a good laugh.)

just got mine.

yfitons
wayno

riverman wrote:

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.

Good point. The meaning of the 2nd Amendment is obscure, at best. One
thing I'm sure of is that the gun nuts are really ****ed at the Founding
Fathers for putting that annoying "militia" **** in there. :-)

I think the phrase is "well regulated," not "well armed."

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Ken Fortenberry wrote in message y.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.

Sorry for the faulty perception. After reading various posts in this
thread, perhaps you have a point. The NRA can be a tad extreme at
times, OTOH, so can their opponents. Hangun Control Inc. is *at
least* as bad as the NRA.

OTOH, I'll agree with Mr. Carter, too. The 2nd Amendment has little
to do with pheasants. You may choose to pooh-pooh the concept of an
armed citizenry as the best defense against tyranny, but I do not.
IMO, anyone who thinks that the gov't is their friend has bought The
Big Lie.

As for your 'if you want to shoot at people you have to join a well
regulated militia' comment, I believe that the various governments of
these United States have more or less outlawed (or at least given up
on) the concept of a well-regulated militia other than the National
Guard--which is a far cry from what the 2nd Amendment refers to.
Frankly, I doubt that any of us actually *want* to shoot at
people--but I wonder which of us *would* if the situation called for
it?

I'll also agree with Wolfgang that the list of organizations whose
blacklist I'd like to be on is long indeed, and the groups he mentions
specifically are a good start.

Tom G
hunting rabbits in the AM

"riverman" wrote in message
...

"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?

If you've ever purchased a new firearm, you'd know that there are plenty of
warnings that come with it. My shotgun came with a instructional video
emphasizing safety. And yes, if I used my gun to kill someone, it would be
me doing the killing. Would be interesting to see that statistics of the
number of Italian over/unders on deathrow vs. just a cheap 'ole Remington
like mine.

Tim
-you can tell a society's worth by how well they treat their firearm
prisoners.


--riverman

"rw" wrote in message
m...
riverman wrote:

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.

Good point. The meaning of the 2nd Amendment is obscure, at best. One
thing I'm sure of is that the gun nuts are really ****ed at the Founding
Fathers for putting that annoying "militia" **** in there. :-)

I think the phrase is "well regulated," not "well armed."



My fault, it doesn't say 'well-armed'. But I also suspect the Founding
Fathers meant 'inadequately armed'
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.



--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.