Ron

At least you will admit that it was a violent act. So who gets to decide which is justifiable? Only you? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

That is only if you hold the flawed belief that one Amendment is more important than another. The fact is that the founding fathers had just revolted from an oppressive Govt. So the 2 most important items at that time were freedom to speak out against Govt actions and the ability to defend your rights. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Like I said before, get a copy of his DL and write the serial number down...If you want, he can sign it. YOU want to add more steps that everyone will have to follow. And the Hughes Amendment? You said: And you are not correct. You have had to fill out a Form 4 since the NFA act of 1934. So, FA weapons are not allowed to be made after May 86 and sold to citizens even though only TWO have EVER been used in a crime. Still think the Govt does not want to take away your guns? Just look at England's history All "reasonable": The British Gun Control Act of 1920 allowed the purchase of pistols if you could prove a "good reason" and could get a police permit. They banned shotguns and machine guns using the same logic..."Civilians don't need these things" so no one could have a "good reason" to own one. In 1946, the Home Secretary announced a policy change: henceforth, self-defense would not be considered a "good reason" for being granted a Firearms Certificate 1953 they passed a ban on any "offensive weapon". In 1959 thy banned "flick knives"...Quick opening knifes...Of course no data actually found they were more dangerous than any other knife, but they *sounded* evil. 1966 three cops were killed by revolvers....So Home Secretary Roy Jenkins told Parliament that controls on SHOTGUNS were needed. The Criminal Justice Act of 1967 required a license for the purchase of shotguns now. Firearms Act of 1982 made certain toy guns illegal. In 1987 after Hungerford Semi-automatic center fire rifles were banned. 1996 Dunblane. a guy that had been reported to the police several times went on a killing spree. Feb 1997 all but .22 cal handguns were banned. Blair removed the .22 exemptions from the ban making all handguns illegal. The anti gun people do not want ANY guns. They just want to take away what they see as the most dangerous at the time...Then they will want to take away what they now see as the most dangerous...Then they will want to take away what they now see as most dangerous. They will continue to try and remove the "most dangerous" weapons they find. Look at the new AWB...Last time the DOJ said that less than 4% of crimes were committed with a weapon that would be banned, but they banned them anyway. Look at the 1934 NFA and Huges Amendment, only TWO people have EVER been killed by a legal weapon banned by those two. They will go after the "dangerous ones" till the only guns left are single shot shotguns....Their logic will be, "Who needs more than one shot? Trap and Skeet can change the rules so that it is more single shot friendly...Look, we are not taking away your right to your sports, but multi shot shotguns are too dangerous and criminals will use them to prey on innocents." My last class II purchase was a weapon that was made in 86. New it cost about 200 bucks. They now cost 3,500.00. Want an M16? Dealer samples and LEO's can get them for about 600-700. YOU want one? You can buy a 22 year old one for between 10,000 and 20,000. There are current lawmakers working on making the transfer of those weapons illegal. It should be noted that FDR wanted the 1934 NFA. It put a 200.00 dollar tax on an item that costs less than 10 dollars. You think that was not a "prohibitive tax" meant to preclude people from buying these things? A lower court upheld that in the case of Miller, the SC overturned it. U.S. v. Miller 1939: A guy was arrested for having a shotgun that was sawed off. The SC :"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less that eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that is use could contribute to the common defense." But Miller and his lawyer did not show up, and sawed off shotguns WERE used in the military in WW1, WW2, and I was even issued one in 1999. Plus, machine guns ARE issued today, and have been since WW1. The only other case that the SC has heard on 2nd amendment rights Justice Roberts said: "What is reasonable about a ban?" Fact is, public perception is that these weapons are bad never mind that since 1934 they have only been used TWICE in a crime. As recently as after Katrina citizens had their legally owned weapons confiscated. You STILL think that the Govt does not want you disarmed? After what you have seen in England, Australia, New Orleans? After the 1934 NFA, The Hughes Amendment, the 1994 AWB? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

There is no test, there is no registration. There are reasonable limits on the 2nd as well. Felons are not allowed to own firearms, children are not allowed to own firearms, most States you can't carry a firearm without passing a test. There are PLENTY of reasonable restrictions on the 2nd. You and others who do not know a single thing about firearms ideas of reasonable are not. Until you show that all of those were committed by the weapon...There is the flaw in your argument. People get stabbed each year, you gonna blame the knife? Ho about going after the criminal, and not the item? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Both are protected in the Constitution. The 2nd was in the original. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

What limits will you allow on the 1st? The 4th? The 14th, 15th? I guess you want to have background checks to vote then? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Sure and then any 16 year old can carry a gun after passing a simple test. Then he can carry a gun anywhere in the US. I guess you are for background checks to buy cars then? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Try answering the simple question asked of you without changing the context. Again you FAIL "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Find one instance where I said it was "inexcusable" Go ahead..find one. I am amazed people like you who opposed the war against SH, who was a violent dictator that gassed his own people, are supporting another violent act. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

I asked: You answered: You failed to answer the question. Care to ACTUALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED? I am going to answer like you do: Well if my family members were part of a terrorist drug cartel and running a kiddy porn slave trade while building a nuke in the pantry, and the "someone" was from the ATF, FBI, CIA, and local LEO's....I guess I'd applaud them. You know...Just answering anyway you want and ignoring the question is kinda fun! But I bet you would fail a student that did that in your class. So I give you an "F". Care to try and actually answer the question asked? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Because it is not the problem. If you had a skydiving rig I wanted to buy....Should that transaction go through a rigger? Name one other thing that requires govt approval for individuals to sell to each other. Incorrect. Anyone can BUY an airplane whenever they want one, license or not, medical or not. It is not a loophole, it is one of the last remaining freedoms. You see it as a "loophole" I see it as a part of legal ownership that the govt has not regulated, but anti gunners do want regulated. In that manner it is the same as some non jumpers would be perfectly fine in requiring all gear sales through a rigger....They don't care, but it would step all over your rights. Just copy his DL# and write the serial number on it...Done. If you want to get anal, you could have him sign it. Name one other item that requires the fed to approve the sale from P2P? OK so tho fix that you think each car purchase should have to be done through a dealer? That is what you are proposing. Do me a favor...Read up on the 1934 NFA act. And then read up on the 1986 Huges amendment. Then come back and tell me you still think that registration will not lead to something else. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

If the intent was to harm, yes. How is that difficult to grasp? If the intent was to play, then no. You don't think he intended to harm him? If he didn't want to harm him he could have written a strongly worded letter. Throwing things at people *is* a violent act. You make think it is OK, you may rationalize or attempt to justify it...But none of that changes the simple fact that it is a violent act. I am amazed you approve of it...Would you approve of it if the target were Obama over say gun rights? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

I did AFTER *YOU* wrote this: So care to back up that claim? Or at least admit YOU made it up? You know the difference between accused and convicted, don't you? No, maybe you don't. Stop avoiding the question...What would YOU do if a student threw a shoe at you. What would your school do? Simple question, try to give a simple answer that actually answers it. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Sure ya did, right here: Care to show where I made that claim you said I did? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

1. Violent criminals go to jail and stay in jail. Use violence? Get locked up. Have a gun with you during a crime? You *serve* 10 years. Use a gun to commit the crime? You do 20. Shoot it? Life, no parole. 2. Allow carry in all 50 States plus DC with a permit from any one State just like a drivers license. The carry permit will require an actual practical test but one that cannot be more difficult than the police test for the State of issue. 3. Keep NICS and keep the data private. Improve reporting to the system. Mandate that people diagnosed with violent tendencies are reported by care providers, but provide a real method to have your name removed from the list. 4. Remove "Gun Free" zones...How many shootings have happened at schools where guns are not allowed, vs how many have happened at gun shows where they are everywhere? 5. Remove Bans, one gun a mth BS...ect. Basically punish actions, not items. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Then you need to control the criminals, not the objects. Criminals get guns in many ways. One of them is stealing them. Drugs are illegal, yet I bet on any given weekend at a DZ we all know where we could get some. Yes, we have had gun laws that have only made it more difficult for legal owners...Criminals have had no such problems getting weapons. So if we keep trying to make it harder to legally own a weapon, we will "get what we have always had"....Which is more criminals with weapons. Criminals will not register, criminals have no issue converting a semi auto to full auto, criminals have no issue stealing a firearm. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Appeal to emotion. My point is simple really: You claimed that 80 criminals admitted to buying guns at a gun show. If it is 80 out of 85...then you would be correct that it is a problem. But if it is 80 out of 8 million, then it is not such a big deal. Trying to dodge that simple fact is nothing but being intellectually dishonest. I guess then you agree that all skydiving gear should only be sold through riggers then? All cars should be sold through dealers then? I guess you are OK with the restrictions on rocket fuels then as well? Again, more intellectual dishonesty from you. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

What you described is NOT registration. It is a NICS instant background check. BIG difference. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

80 out of? You know that other number is quite important and leaving it out is just an attempt to mislead. AND? A large majority of ANY item transactions are not through a dealer. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

And we can't help it if you make up things and then go off about them. If you can prove such claims...Present them, or at least man up and admit you made them up. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

You mean like yours? Simple, because they are not, and I never claimed they were. But YOU support and in fact encourage violence against someone when it fits YOUR desires, and bemoan it when it does not fit your PERSONAL values. All this is just more emotional babel from you. I would not support throwing something in anger at either Bush NOR Obama....You can't say the same....THAT is the measure of your hypocrisy. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Reasonable is not justifying the act of a person only due to you not liking the target. Maybe YOU need to look up some definitions? I know reasonable...You might want to look up hypocrisy. Your hypocrisy is so strong it just shows how your life is ruled by emotion. Really, is this the best a person as educated as you can do? Rely on emotional discharges? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

You assume that the Govt has no control. But in reality govt has control over many things that do affect the economy; Spending and taxation for starters. You cannot run an effective organization if you spend more than you take in....That is a sure fire way to bankrupt a company and Congress getting a pay raise when the economy is headed South is a perfect example of such unaligned actions. Besides, even if you want to claim that Congress has no control over the economy then I don't think you would be asking for more regulations on business. I don't like regulations on business, I agree with Adam Smith's "invisible hand." But, I do recognize that Congress is doing a terrible job controlling spending and that does impact the health of an economy. So either way you want to look at it: Congress *should* have put regulations in place, or they *should* have controlled spending, or they *should* have raised taxes to pay for the extra programs. I don't see how anyone can claim Congress has no control over the economy...Care to explain your reasoning? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Your own posts prove you incorrect. Really...Is this the best you can do? You keep claiming to be a Professor, but you are guilty of fallacy after fallacy. And you are MUCH more reasonable in person. In fact, the difference is so night and day that I can not help but wonder if your sole intent is to just push buttons and not have actual discussions on important topics. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

The thing is some see the automatic pay raises as part of the issue. Govt spending is out of control and these folks just get automatic raises out of the public coffers. Pay for performance...IMO. The economy does well, they get raises, it goes south, they take pay cuts. My whole organization just took a pay cut, CEO down...All but the hourly employees which I think was the right move. Plus the 401k match has been removed. I make good choices that puts my company on the right road, I get raises and bonuses. I make incorrect choices to position the company for the future, I take a pay cut. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334