🚀 go-pugleaf

--------------2BC515DF44DD6110659E8E59
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Fine, back to my original argument, since nobody seems to be able to
follow a thread .......

1) a gun that's advertised by its manufacturer as being able to shoot
down an aircraft should NOT be classified as having a sporting purpose,
as the NRA is trying to do in the state of Illinois, for example.

2) there's no reason you can't defend yourself with a shotgun or a
hunting rifle or a handgun ..... you don't need a gun with a giant clip;
if you do, then you're too stupid to own a gun in the first place

3) there is NO record of police or any other authorities using gun
purchase records to harass honest citizens, only to track down those who
buy huge amounts of guns to resell to criminals, therefore there's no
reason we can't keep gun purchase / background check records around for
more than 24 hours

As far as you missing something, YEAH ...... assault style weapons are
highly favored by gangs ...... they're not designed for sport, only for
killing humans, therefore they don't belong in civilian hands.

http://www.correctopinions.com


Scout wrote:

>      "Whizbang" <whizbang@correctopinions.com> wrote in message
>      news:429944C8.F32955FF@correctopinions.com...Amateur
>      Cichlids wrote:
>
>     >      "Whizbang" <whizbang@correctopinions.com> wrote
>     >      in message
>     >      news:429529F0.53B16823@correctopinions.com...Gun
>     >      grabbers? C'mon.
>     >
>     >      Gun nuts all want all types of guns available
>     >      all the time, with any kind of ammo, even when
>     >      it's of a brand that should rightfully (as even
>     >      Bush admitted before his balls shrivelled on
>     >      him) be available to the military only.
>     >
>     > The term gun nuts already sets up a bias that really
>     > taints your entire argument. From where I sit, it seems
>     > you are saying anyone that would own a gun is a nut. Those
>     > like Michael Moore who speak against owning guns but make
>     > sure their bodyguards have them, where do they fall?
>     >
>      No, I don't believe that all guns have to disappear. When I
>      say gun nuts, I mean those who favor no reasonable limits
>      whatsoever. Military style weapons have no place in civilian
>      life, no self-defense purposes, and no sporting purpose.
>
>      Please define what YOU consider reasonable limits.
>
>      And what exactly do YOU mean by military style weapons? Most
>      guns are either used by one military or another, were used
>      by one military or another, or derived from guns used by one
>      military or another. So what do you consider to be military
>      style weapons, and explain to me why they have no purpose in
>      civilian life. You claim they have no self defense purpose,
>      but it seems to me a military style weapon will defend
>      someone's life just as well if not better than any other
>      sort of weapon. You claim they have no sporting purpose as
>      if military style weapons aren't just as effective at target
>      practice, varmint hunting, hunting, plinking, and other
>      sporting purposes as other guns. Sorry, but I must be one of
>      your gun nuts, because I just can't seem to see how what the
>      military does with it has any bearing on whether it has a
>      place in civilian life, particularly when it can and does
>      fulfill functions which are entirely suitable for civilian
>      life. So explain it to me, maybe I'm missing something.
>
>

--------------2BC515DF44DD6110659E8E59
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Fine, back to my original argument, since nobody seems to be able to follow
a thread .......
<p>1) a gun that's advertised by its manufacturer as being able to shoot
down an aircraft should NOT be classified as having a sporting purpose,
as the NRA is trying to do in the state of Illinois, for example.
<p>2) there's no reason you can't defend yourself with a shotgun or a hunting
rifle or a handgun ..... you don't need a gun with a giant clip; if you
do, then you're too stupid to own a gun in the first place
<p>3) there is NO record of police or any other authorities using gun purchase
records to harass honest citizens, only to track down those who buy huge
amounts of guns to resell to criminals, therefore there's no reason we
can't keep gun purchase / background check records around for more than
24 hours
<p>As far as you missing something, YEAH ...... assault style weapons are
highly favored by gangs ...... they're not designed for sport, only for
killing humans, therefore they don't belong in civilian hands.
<p><A HREF="http://www.correctopinions.com">http://www.correctopinions.com</A>
<br>&nbsp;
<p>Scout wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<blockquote dir=ltr 
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">"Whizbang"
&lt;<a href="mailto:whizbang@correctopinions.com">whizbang@correctopinions.com</a>>
wrote in message <a href="news:429944C8.F32955FF@correctopinions.com">news:429944C8.F32955FF@correctopinions.com</a>...Amateur
Cichlids wrote:
<blockquote TYPE="CITE"><style></style>

<blockquote dir=ltr 
    style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">"Whizbang"
&lt;<a href="mailto:whizbang@correctopinions.com">whizbang@correctopinions.com</a>>
wrote in message <a href="news:429529F0.53B16823@correctopinions.com">news:429529F0.53B16823@correctopinions.com</a>...Gun
grabbers? C'mon.
<p>Gun nuts all want all types of guns available all the time, with any
kind of ammo, even when it's of a brand that should rightfully (as even
Bush admitted before his balls shrivelled on him) be available to the military
only.</blockquote>

<div dir=ltr>The term gun nuts already sets up a bias that really taints
your entire argument. From where I sit, it seems you are saying anyone
that would own a gun is a nut. Those like Michael Moore who speak against
owning guns but make sure their bodyguards have them, where do they fall?</div>
</blockquote>

<div dir=ltr>No, I don't believe that all guns have to disappear. When
I say gun nuts, I mean those who favor no reasonable limits whatsoever.
Military style weapons have no place in civilian life, no self-defense
purposes, and no sporting purpose.</div>

<div dir=ltr>&nbsp;</div>

<div dir=ltr><font color="#FF0000"><font size=-1>Please define what YOU
consider reasonable limits.</font></font></div>

<div dir=ltr>&nbsp;</div>

<div dir=ltr><font color="#FF0000"><font size=-1>And what exactly do YOU
mean by military style weapons? Most guns are either used by one military
or another, were used by one military or another, or derived from guns
used by one military or another. So what do you consider to be military
style weapons, and explain to me why they have no purpose in civilian life.
You claim they have no self defense purpose, but it seems to me a military
style weapon will defend someone's life just as well if not better than
any other sort of weapon. You claim they have no sporting purpose as if
military style weapons aren't just as effective at target practice, varmint
hunting, hunting, plinking, and other sporting purposes as other guns.
Sorry, but I must be one of your gun nuts, because I just can't seem to
see how what the military does with it has any bearing on whether it has
a place in civilian life, particularly when it can and does fulfill functions
which are entirely suitable for civilian life. So explain it to me, maybe
I'm missing something.</font></font>
<br><font color="#FF0000"><font size=-1></font></font>&nbsp;</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>

</body>
</html>

--------------2BC515DF44DD6110659E8E59--