Ron

Only you would be so confused to see that we are discussing the issue and that YOU are back peddling and your best argument is to argue with a DOCTOR about what life is and when it starts... "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Only you would argue with a DR on a question of life. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

A canidate that was not going to be able to beat Ryan. And don't forget Obama is a "rising star". Now why should the local media be allowed to get SEALED records when BOTH parties don't want them released? Also notice who sued to get the records: Or maybe its fringe groups in the party pushing thier agenda to put Obama the first black man to be in that position? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Ah, good point "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

The divorce records were SEALED in both cases...But they still got released. You can get the information (Who, Date ect.) but not the details. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Thats a BIG if, and at any rate subject to opinion about if JFK was a good President. He was made into a legend after his death. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TRAVEL/08/01/cruise.ship.ap/index.html Eco-tourist boat crash spills fuel "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

I think he has the countires best interest at heart. As opposed to Kerry having HIS own best interests at heart...Kerry is trying so hard to be JFK II that he has and will continue to do all he can to get power. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

I find it funny that Obamma is on the ticket due to TWO divorce records eliminating canidates... Last I checked it was ileagal to release divorce records... Some how the Dems got them released huh? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Still it is saying that its murder to kill a child in the womb....Which goes against his stance. For the record...I am pro-choice and for the death penalty. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

And with all your ramble...you still didn't answer this question: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

He was pretty high, but his numbers DROPPED "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Check the "Petterson" law where you can charge a person for doing harm to an unborn child. So you still contend that a child is not alive until it is out on its own? The law disagrees. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

OK... 1. Durring an attack you don't know what level the attacker is willing to go. It is your right to defend yourself. So if durring a robbery I pull a gun and the attacker charges me, or goes for a weapon...And then I shoot him. I am justified. This is QUITE different than situation #2. Where a criminal has been arrested and is NO LONGER A THREAT. In situation #2 it would be foolish to kll someone for trying to steal a 20.00 bill from my wallet. But in situation #1 where I could be in danger and he is in the ACT of robbing me that is a different story. If I wasa CROOK and was STEALING from him yes, it would be his right. I am still waiting for you to say something smart about this. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Who is discrediting it? I just said don't put suicide in there. Really, Guns only have ONE purpose? Funny I have had guns for years, and NEVER KILLED ANYTHING. Guns are a lot of fun, and I have never had to kill anything to have fun. Guns also protect....I HAVE been in a situation where I was getting harassed and had a knife pulled on me. Just pulling the gun was enough to make them run..notice I didn't kill him? He was running, so I didn't see the need. Without the gun...I might be dead. If he came at me...I would have killed him. There are laws about gun locks, child welfare laws...Last I checked the NRA TELLS people to use gun locks and not hand loaded pistols to toddlers. You said guns are dangerous and kill people....That makes it so I can point out that more people are killed by blunt force trama than gun shot. No, not SENTANCED TO DIE...But if you get killed in the ACT of COMMITING the crime thats different. Its about protecting yourself. If a guy attacks me and I can, I will end the threat. If that means killing him...OK. If it means getting ready to kill him and he runs like hell even better. The best bet? don't be in a place to NEED the gun, but have it incase you do. Its one reason I don't start fights. Have I been in them? Yes. Did I try to avoid them as much as possible? Yes. And if shot I would most likely say "OW!!!! This sucks!" Would I deserve it? Did I start it? Then, Yes. That does not mean I would like it...But fair is fair. And like I said its one reason I don't start fights, or go places where violence is likely. Or it could be thats just the way the world goes...40 years ago you could not say "toilet" on TV and Husband and Wife had to sleep in seperate beds. Today you can say about anything, and we show nudity and sex scenes. Don't forget Video games that encourage violence...There is more violence today than in the 60's.....We had guns in the 60's. Guns didn't cause the increase in violence...That happend naturally. Maybe in the 60's. But today they carry cause they can. Its not the guns fault...It is society that changed. Oh I agree...Today Liberals have made it so you don't have to take responsibility for your actions...For example they blame the gun instead of blaming the guy who pulled the trigger. They blame society for teen pregnancy instead of blaming the teens. They blame Bush for not having a job instead of getting one. You don't need an Amendment to do that. You simply "crush the nuts" of anyone that is violent...but liberals will say we are to hard on the criminals, and that it's society's fault they went bad...ect. Big difference between the two. 1. Most can afford a gun. 2. The level of training is different. 3. You can't use a defibrilation machine when you are having a hart attack. You can use a gun to defend your home. Another solution would be to sentance to death anyone that uses a gun to commit a crime. That way you don't have to fed them, or house them long. And they don't learn in prison how to be better crooks. I think the real answer is somewhere in the middle. Make it harder for just anyone to get a handgun without training, and "crush the nuts" of anyone that uses a gun in a crime. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

No I got it you are just off. I didn;t bring feelings into it. You said that a baby that can't function on its own is not "human". And by those "logical" objectives anyone that needs a resparator to breathe is also not "Human" due to a dependance on a machine. Your definition, not mine. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Cause you can't. You see with your logic anyone on life support is not "human". Man thats kinda cold. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

You said: So should we unplug Christofer Reeves? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Same could be said for you and your "logic" I'll let it slide and put it on the pain meds you are on. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

This is some of the worst logic I have ever seen you use. If you take a 6mth old and put them on a table....They will not survive. You are debating the EXTENT of the care. But both are nothing without support. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

So they go to say that they are unable to judge Bush on the same criteria that they used for the others... Lets see different information, different sources....But you can campare them? NOT. Besides while I could buy Carter as a smart man, Clinton...Come on. And Ronnie was 105? Please. So let me get this part right....They commissioned this and delivered it while "W" was only in the WH 9 mths? So: A. They had at least 4 years of the guy being President for eveyone, but only 9 mths TOPS for Bush? B. This was commissioned right after Bush took office?...Anyone else think this was politically motivated? Anyone, anyone...Buller? Edit to add...I see it has been snoped already... "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

I would not put suicides in there. I know more people who have attempted suicide by pills than by gunshot. And of the gunshot deaths only 1 was a pistol. Hell, I know more no pull suicides than gunshot suicides. A person who wants to commit suicide, just like a guy that wants to commit murder is going to do it....Gun or not. Now accidents...I can see people getting pissed about gun accidents. But more kids die from drowning than gunshot wounds. You want to save more lives? Ban pools. What gun problem? You only care about ONE form of murder? My opinion....When someone breaks the law they loose many rights. If I get mugged and I can do it. Expect me to draw and kill him. It's not like Sudia Arabia in the fact that his death would be while he was IN THE ACT, and in the act of stopping it. Not a punishment carried out after the fact. So he can be in a position of power if he has an encounter...You seem to think that he will not carry a gun if he thinks the homeowner does not have one...I disagree. I think he will carry one either way if he is so inclined to want to be able to control the situation. All you want to do is remove the chance of the victim being able to defend himself. If he is in my house and does not leave when he knows I am there...YES. I don't cry for a criminal trying to break the law. I am ALL about tests to prove you can CARRY. But owning a gun is in the Constitution. So to make it clear...To own a gun. Nothing. It is a right. To carry a gun a detailed back ground check and realistic practical test. Now as for what TYPES of guns. Well I don't think most law abiding Americans need a full auto machine gun. Semi auto is fine by me. Pistols are fine also. Again I am all for education....I don't think it should be manditory to own one...Only carry. It's as valid today as it was 200 years ago. Even if it is not the most POPULAR reason...It is a valid one. And it is the reason that it is in the Constitution. Nope, I don't think I will NEED to. Nor do I hope I would HAVE to. But it is one of the reasons it is in the Constitution. And if I give up my gun rights, now.....What will my children's children do if ever the day DOES come? Also...I was talking to a guy yesturday. He lived down South when the hurricane hit and the National Guard was called out...It took three days for the NG to be able to start security. Durring that time many people had their belongings ransacked by looters. He didn't. You know why? Because he sat on his rubble of a house with a rifle. Others had to sit and watch while people looted their property...The looters went around his house. There is a very real application for owning a gun. There is legislation, and it is enforced. I know a guy that his ex wife called the police on him. When the police showed up he had a loaded gun next to the sofa. He told the police and they unloaded it. He had his 11 year old in the house. The DA pressed charges on him for child endangerment. What a load of crap. That kid has his own pistol (Under lock and key), reloads his own shells, and knows more about guns than some cops. He is not interested in guns at all. He HAS one, so when you show him one he says "Oh, nice" and continues to play playstation. Just like if I walked up to you and showed you my new Stiletto 107. That kid is safer than most adults....But the DA is being an ass. Oh, so "drinking" and shooting is OK then? That is a dangerous attitude you have, and it reflects poorly on your "training" if you think its OK to mix alcohol and guns. So my knowledge of your training before you told me was: 1. I know you hunted when you lived in Canada. 2. I saw an event that you were a part of, on property that you were manager of, when people were shooting while drinking. That is not saying much for your training, and I suggest that THOSE type of situations (that you let happen and participated in) are breeding grounds for the very accidents that you scream about. You are right about a few things: 1. It is attitudes about guns that are the problem. (But also the Anti-gun crowds attitudes as well). 2. Education is needed for an owner to be responsible. 3. Children should not have unrestricted access to fire arms. 4. The current gun laws need to be enforced stronger (Within reason and with common sense). However we disagree on: 1. Fire arms themselves are not the problem, and restrictions on them are not the answer. 2. You seem to think removing guns will reduce crime...I don't. And we both can find source after source that show our side....So in truth, no one KNOWS. TK, you are a smart guy and on MANY topics I agree with you....Just not this one. It might be due to the fact I was rasied in the US and you were raised in Canada. My family is not "gun crazy". But my Father did teach me to shoot, about gun saftey and he taught me about being a responsible person. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

You think he is as proficient as a SF guy? I don't. Yes you need to be able to look around in a shooting situation. I CAN buy him not looking down range, but to have his finger on the trigger? Thats just stupid, and shows that he has no clue. The #1 saftey is your mind. The extension of that is as you said keeping your finger on the trigger guard, not the trigger. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

You were Army right? Well I was told two things... 1. Look where the weapon is pointed. 2. Don't have your finger on the trigger until you are ready to pull the trigger. (I did push up for that one and burned my hand on my weapon). Hot range or not. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Got any proof that over 3,000 people were killed by guns in the US in 6 mths? And if so how many of those were ACCIDENTS? That I don't agree with. Have any kind of proof? Most serial killers don't use guns. Most crimes of passion don't use guns. I say if they guy breaking in has a gun...He is up to no good. If you want to take away the home owners right to carry and have a gun...Well now the intruder can be more aggressive without repercussions. Take away the guns from the good guys and now the good guys become easier targets. Do you LIKE being kicked and beat up while being robbed? And agin if you take away the means to defend yourself, you become an easier target. Thats an education issue, not regulation...What is it the canopy folks tell me? You should not regulate what you can educate. Hey, I am FOR responsible ownership. I am FOR training, I am FOR gun safes. I don't like the idea of an untrained idiot with a gun. But I like the idea of a trained law abiding citizen with a gun. Do you deserve to be mugged? If he was not breaking the law...then there would be no problem. When you break the law, you risk the repercusions. It's clear that jail time is not enough of a deterant. And I disagree. People have been killing other people since man has been around. Yep, but it is as logical as "If no one skydived, no one would die from skydiving." They are both facts, but both are stupid arguments. Not in denial. But your side thinks the solution is to ban anything that can hurt you....And that has been proven to not work. Plus the Constitution grants us the right to have weapons. Like it or not, it was the fore thought of our fore fathers to give us that right for many reasons. An armed man is a free man. An unarmed man has no recourse other than what the powers that be GIVE him. And the powers that behave a tendency to TAKE rights. It would suck, but I would blame the friend, not the gun. Just as I would not balme the car that killed my friend. You want to blame the gun. Ok for the sake of argument lets say you didn't drink...I don't agree, but lets just say. You are telling me that NO ONE was drinking? That is utter bull shit. Good for you..And its your RIGHT to not want a weapon for defense...But why do you insist on taking away MY RIGHT to have one? As for my training...Well you know I have a large chunk of training via Uncle Sam. Why should I not be allowed a weapon? Have you ever even SEEN me with a weapon? I don't treat them like toys...You don't see me shooting at the DZ EVER. And you never see me with weapons and alcohol at the same time. Dogs are a GREAT alarm, and a deterant..However, I can't take my Lab everywhere I go...I can take my Glock. As is mine. I agree. I am FOR training. But I am also FOR the right of a trained guy to carry a weapon. If he treats it like a toy, YES...But if he treats it like atool, NO. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334