And the madness continues

[tvguy]

https://youtu.be/cnNa-vLg89c

The hypocrisy of Wonky.

 Whatever. 
Keep your guns. All of 'em.
I hope you have all the ammo you feel you need.
Becaue the Supreme Court of the United States of America has given you the right to arm yourself to the teeth. 
We don't have a problem with people getting shot with semi-automatic weapons in this country. We just have too many peope who mouth off and piss off good responsbile gun owners like yourself. 
People who don't want to get shot should just stop bunching up. Dummies. 

Hypocrisy my ass.

Nice accusation.  LOT'S of people piss me off.  Name ONE I have shot.  WHAT?  That's right, RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS' LIKE MYSELF don't do that.  You ARE an ass.

And as a PS:  Are you ready to go on record as saying you don't own a gun?  Remember you and I have had conversations.....

Yet again, I think you missed my point. 
Of course I know you would never be guilty of using guns to shoot innocents or otherwise act out in irresponsible ways. 
Read it again please: I never suggested that.
What I DID suggest is that there are people, like you, that have guns, often semi-automatic, and DO kill innocent people. As I pointed out, the Supreme Court allows these nut jobs to have the guns. That is just a down home fact. 
I KNOW you are responsible. (At least I'll continue to hope so). 
SOME are not. 
And they shoot people. Using guns bought legally. That's why I made the kind fo goofy remark that people who don't want to get shot should just stop bunching up in large groups. (At least ONE way to protect ourselves from "nut jobs") 

And so you misread my post and feel the need (again) to call me an ass. Really? We need to do that? 

PS: True, I don't have gun. But, I like that fact that if I wanted one I'm free to go buy one. I just don't feel the need. (I don't enjoy hunting, for one thing). Hard for me to understand why you included that comment. I simply don't CHOOSE to have a gun.

Wonky...What I DID suggest is that there are people, like you, that have guns, often semi-automatic, and DO kill innocent people. As I pointed out, the Supreme Court allows these nut jobs to have the guns. That is just a down home fact.

You just included Hugo with "nut jobs". You have also commented something to the affect that it worries you that Hugo has guns.


Just saying.

[Cuzz]

https://youtu.be/cnNa-vLg89c

The hypocrisy of Wonky.

 Whatever. 
Keep your guns. All of 'em.
I hope you have all the ammo you feel you need.
Becaue the Supreme Court of the United States of America has given you the right to arm yourself to the teeth. 
We don't have a problem with people getting shot with semi-automatic weapons in this country. We just have too many peope who mouth off and piss off good responsbile gun owners like yourself. 
People who don't want to get shot should just stop bunching up. Dummies. 

Hypocrisy my ass.

Nice accusation.  LOT'S of people piss me off.  Name ONE I have shot.  WHAT?  That's right, RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS' LIKE MYSELF don't do that.  You ARE an ass.

And as a PS:  Are you ready to go on record as saying you don't own a gun?  Remember you and I have had conversations.....

Yet again, I think you missed my point. 
Of course I know you would never be guilty of using guns to shoot innocents or otherwise act out in irresponsible ways. 
Read it again please: I never suggested that.
What I DID suggest is that there are people, like you, that have guns, often semi-automatic, and DO kill innocent people. As I pointed out, the Supreme Court allows these nut jobs to have the guns. That is just a down home fact. 
I KNOW you are responsible. (At least I'll continue to hope so). 
SOME are not. 
And they shoot people. Using guns bought legally. That's why I made the kind fo goofy remark that people who don't want to get shot should just stop bunching up in large groups. (At least ONE way to protect ourselves from "nut jobs") 

And so you misread my post and feel the need (again) to call me an ass. Really? We need to do that? 

PS: True, I don't have gun. But, I like that fact that if I wanted one I'm free to go buy one. I just don't feel the need. (I don't enjoy hunting, for one thing). Hard for me to understand why you included that comment. I simply don't CHOOSE to have a gun.

Wonky...What I DID suggest is that there are people, like you, that have guns, often semi-automatic, and DO kill innocent people. As I pointed out, the Supreme Court allows these nut jobs to have the guns. That is just a down home fact.

You just included Hugo with "nut jobs". You have also commented something to the affect that it worries you that Hugo has guns.


Just saying.

I don't see any problem with that.  

[Wonky3]

https://youtu.be/cnNa-vLg89c

The hypocrisy of Wonky.

 Whatever. 
Keep your guns. All of 'em.
I hope you have all the ammo you feel you need.
Becaue the Supreme Court of the United States of America has given you the right to arm yourself to the teeth. 
We don't have a problem with people getting shot with semi-automatic weapons in this country. We just have too many peope who mouth off and piss off good responsbile gun owners like yourself. 
People who don't want to get shot should just stop bunching up. Dummies. 

Hypocrisy my ass.

Nice accusation.  LOT'S of people piss me off.  Name ONE I have shot.  WHAT?  That's right, RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS' LIKE MYSELF don't do that.  You ARE an ass.

And as a PS:  Are you ready to go on record as saying you don't own a gun?  Remember you and I have had conversations.....

Yet again, I think you missed my point. 
Of course I know you would never be guilty of using guns to shoot innocents or otherwise act out in irresponsible ways. 
Read it again please: I never suggested that.
What I DID suggest is that there are people, like you, that have guns, often semi-automatic, and DO kill innocent people. As I pointed out, the Supreme Court allows these nut jobs to have the guns. That is just a down home fact. 
I KNOW you are responsible. (At least I'll continue to hope so). 
SOME are not. 
And they shoot people. Using guns bought legally. That's why I made the kind fo goofy remark that people who don't want to get shot should just stop bunching up in large groups. (At least ONE way to protect ourselves from "nut jobs") 

And so you misread my post and feel the need (again) to call me an ass. Really? We need to do that? 

PS: True, I don't have gun. But, I like that fact that if I wanted one I'm free to go buy one. I just don't feel the need. (I don't enjoy hunting, for one thing). Hard for me to understand why you included that comment. I simply don't CHOOSE to have a gun.

Wonky...What I DID suggest is that there are people, like you, that have guns, often semi-automatic, and DO kill innocent people. As I pointed out, the Supreme Court allows these nut jobs to have the guns. That is just a down home fact.

You just included Hugo with "nut jobs". You have also commented something to the affect that it worries you that Hugo has guns.


Just saying.

No, I didn't include Hugo among the "nut jobs". I simply pointed out that Hugo has guns and so do some "nut jobs", like Hugo, legally own guns. Parse that I you see that I didn't call Hugo a nut job, but that both Hugo and some nut jobs both have legal rights to own guns. So it's not about the guns, but who owns them. 
(But to be candid and honest, I did once suggest in a post that I "worry" about Hugo having the guns because of some of his more vitriolic posts here. I think I may have gone over the line with that, and regret it. Not enoght to say sorry, but still...  ) 

Hugo and I will never "be clear" about the gun thing. Nor, will you and I, TVg. You guys think I'm anti-gun. I'm not. I am concerned about automatic and semi-automic guns be so widly available making it possible for people with dangerous motives to have them, but I know "down deep" that it's a lost cause and those guns will continue to be widely available. 
Still, I don't have to like it and can express my concerns about it without being seen as "anti-gun". I hope.

[tvguy]

 Whatever. 
Keep your guns. All of 'em.
I hope you have all the ammo you feel you need.
Becaue the Supreme Court of the United States of America has given you the right to arm yourself to the teeth. 
We don't have a problem with people getting shot with semi-automatic weapons in this country. We just have too many peope who mouth off and piss off good responsbile gun owners like yourself. 
People who don't want to get shot should just stop bunching up. Dummies. 

Hypocrisy my ass.

Nice accusation.  LOT'S of people piss me off.  Name ONE I have shot.  WHAT?  That's right, RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS' LIKE MYSELF don't do that.  You ARE an ass.

And as a PS:  Are you ready to go on record as saying you don't own a gun?  Remember you and I have had conversations.....

Yet again, I think you missed my point. 
Of course I know you would never be guilty of using guns to shoot innocents or otherwise act out in irresponsible ways. 
Read it again please: I never suggested that.
What I DID suggest is that there are people, like you, that have guns, often semi-automatic, and DO kill innocent people. As I pointed out, the Supreme Court allows these nut jobs to have the guns. That is just a down home fact. 
I KNOW you are responsible. (At least I'll continue to hope so). 
SOME are not. 
And they shoot people. Using guns bought legally. That's why I made the kind fo goofy remark that people who don't want to get shot should just stop bunching up in large groups. (At least ONE way to protect ourselves from "nut jobs") 

And so you misread my post and feel the need (again) to call me an ass. Really? We need to do that? 

PS: True, I don't have gun. But, I like that fact that if I wanted one I'm free to go buy one. I just don't feel the need. (I don't enjoy hunting, for one thing). Hard for me to understand why you included that comment. I simply don't CHOOSE to have a gun.

Wonky...What I DID suggest is that there are people, like you, that have guns, often semi-automatic, and DO kill innocent people. As I pointed out, the Supreme Court allows these nut jobs to have the guns. That is just a down home fact.

You just included Hugo with "nut jobs". You have also commented something to the affect that it worries you that Hugo has guns.


Just saying.

No, I didn't include Hugo among the "nut jobs". I simply pointed out that Hugo has guns and so do some "nut jobs", like Hugo, legally own guns. Parse that I you see that I didn't call Hugo a nut job, but that both Hugo and some nut jobs both have legal rights to own guns. So it's not about the guns, but who owns them. 
(But to be candid and honest, I did once suggest in a post that I "worry" about Hugo having the guns because of some of his more vitriolic posts here. I think I may have gone over the line with that, and regret it. Not enoght to say sorry, but still...  ) 

Hugo and I will never "be clear" about the gun thing. Nor, will you and I, TVg. You guys think I'm anti-gun. I'm not. I am concerned about automatic and semi-automic guns be so widly available making it possible for people with dangerous motives to have them, but I know "down deep" that it's a lost cause and those guns will continue to be widely available. 
Still, I don't have to like it and can express my concerns about it without being seen as "anti-gun". I hope.

No, I didn't include Hugo among the "nut jobs". I simply pointed out that Hugo has guns and so do some "nut jobs", like Hugo, legally own guns. Parse that I you see that I didn't call Hugo a nut job, but that both Hugo and some nut jobs both have legal rights to own guns. So it's not about the guns, but who owns them.
Fair enough but what you wrote could be taken either way.


You keep "wondering" or you are "concerned" about the "need" of people owning semi automatic weapons

So heck no you aren't anti gun. You are just anti guns that YOU wonder or are concerned about.
Which is semi automatic guns. And just about every single person I know who owns a gun has at least one semi automatic.

[Wonky3]

Nice accusation.  LOT'S of people piss me off.  Name ONE I have shot.  WHAT?  That's right, RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS' LIKE MYSELF don't do that.  You ARE an ass.

And as a PS:  Are you ready to go on record as saying you don't own a gun?  Remember you and I have had conversations.....

Yet again, I think you missed my point. 
Of course I know you would never be guilty of using guns to shoot innocents or otherwise act out in irresponsible ways. 
Read it again please: I never suggested that.
What I DID suggest is that there are people, like you, that have guns, often semi-automatic, and DO kill innocent people. As I pointed out, the Supreme Court allows these nut jobs to have the guns. That is just a down home fact. 
I KNOW you are responsible. (At least I'll continue to hope so). 
SOME are not. 
And they shoot people. Using guns bought legally. That's why I made the kind fo goofy remark that people who don't want to get shot should just stop bunching up in large groups. (At least ONE way to protect ourselves from "nut jobs") 

And so you misread my post and feel the need (again) to call me an ass. Really? We need to do that? 

PS: True, I don't have gun. But, I like that fact that if I wanted one I'm free to go buy one. I just don't feel the need. (I don't enjoy hunting, for one thing). Hard for me to understand why you included that comment. I simply don't CHOOSE to have a gun.

Wonky...What I DID suggest is that there are people, like you, that have guns, often semi-automatic, and DO kill innocent people. As I pointed out, the Supreme Court allows these nut jobs to have the guns. That is just a down home fact.

You just included Hugo with "nut jobs". You have also commented something to the affect that it worries you that Hugo has guns.


Just saying.

No, I didn't include Hugo among the "nut jobs". I simply pointed out that Hugo has guns and so do some "nut jobs", like Hugo, legally own guns. Parse that I you see that I didn't call Hugo a nut job, but that both Hugo and some nut jobs both have legal rights to own guns. So it's not about the guns, but who owns them. 
(But to be candid and honest, I did once suggest in a post that I "worry" about Hugo having the guns because of some of his more vitriolic posts here. I think I may have gone over the line with that, and regret it. Not enoght to say sorry, but still...  ) 

Hugo and I will never "be clear" about the gun thing. Nor, will you and I, TVg. You guys think I'm anti-gun. I'm not. I am concerned about automatic and semi-automic guns be so widly available making it possible for people with dangerous motives to have them, but I know "down deep" that it's a lost cause and those guns will continue to be widely available. 
Still, I don't have to like it and can express my concerns about it without being seen as "anti-gun". I hope.

No, I didn't include Hugo among the "nut jobs". I simply pointed out that Hugo has guns and so do some "nut jobs", like Hugo, legally own guns. Parse that I you see that I didn't call Hugo a nut job, but that both Hugo and some nut jobs both have legal rights to own guns. So it's not about the guns, but who owns them.
Fair enough but what you wrote could be taken either way.


You keep "wondering" or you are "concerned" about the "need" of people owning semi automatic weapons

So heck no you aren't anti gun. You are just anti guns that YOU wonder or are concerned about.
Which is semi automatic guns. And just about every single person I know who owns a gun has at least one semi automatic.

Yeah, TVg. I'm a registed voter. I pay taxes. I get a voice. So, while I respect your RIGHT to own any legal firearm you want, it does not necessary follow that I have to be HAPPY about it. I think the things are unnecessary, but hells bells, it's only my PERSONAL opinion, not one I want to force on you or anyone else.

[tvguy]

Yet again, I think you missed my point. 
Of course I know you would never be guilty of using guns to shoot innocents or otherwise act out in irresponsible ways. 
Read it again please: I never suggested that.
What I DID suggest is that there are people, like you, that have guns, often semi-automatic, and DO kill innocent people. As I pointed out, the Supreme Court allows these nut jobs to have the guns. That is just a down home fact. 
I KNOW you are responsible. (At least I'll continue to hope so). 
SOME are not. 
And they shoot people. Using guns bought legally. That's why I made the kind fo goofy remark that people who don't want to get shot should just stop bunching up in large groups. (At least ONE way to protect ourselves from "nut jobs") 

And so you misread my post and feel the need (again) to call me an ass. Really? We need to do that? 

PS: True, I don't have gun. But, I like that fact that if I wanted one I'm free to go buy one. I just don't feel the need. (I don't enjoy hunting, for one thing). Hard for me to understand why you included that comment. I simply don't CHOOSE to have a gun.

Wonky...What I DID suggest is that there are people, like you, that have guns, often semi-automatic, and DO kill innocent people. As I pointed out, the Supreme Court allows these nut jobs to have the guns. That is just a down home fact.

You just included Hugo with "nut jobs". You have also commented something to the affect that it worries you that Hugo has guns.


Just saying.

No, I didn't include Hugo among the "nut jobs". I simply pointed out that Hugo has guns and so do some "nut jobs", like Hugo, legally own guns. Parse that I you see that I didn't call Hugo a nut job, but that both Hugo and some nut jobs both have legal rights to own guns. So it's not about the guns, but who owns them. 
(But to be candid and honest, I did once suggest in a post that I "worry" about Hugo having the guns because of some of his more vitriolic posts here. I think I may have gone over the line with that, and regret it. Not enoght to say sorry, but still...  ) 

Hugo and I will never "be clear" about the gun thing. Nor, will you and I, TVg. You guys think I'm anti-gun. I'm not. I am concerned about automatic and semi-automic guns be so widly available making it possible for people with dangerous motives to have them, but I know "down deep" that it's a lost cause and those guns will continue to be widely available. 
Still, I don't have to like it and can express my concerns about it without being seen as "anti-gun". I hope.

No, I didn't include Hugo among the "nut jobs". I simply pointed out that Hugo has guns and so do some "nut jobs", like Hugo, legally own guns. Parse that I you see that I didn't call Hugo a nut job, but that both Hugo and some nut jobs both have legal rights to own guns. So it's not about the guns, but who owns them.
Fair enough but what you wrote could be taken either way.


You keep "wondering" or you are "concerned" about the "need" of people owning semi automatic weapons

So heck no you aren't anti gun. You are just anti guns that YOU wonder or are concerned about.
Which is semi automatic guns. And just about every single person I know who owns a gun has at least one semi automatic.

Yeah, TVg. I'm a registed voter. I pay taxes. I get a voice. So, while I respect your RIGHT to own any legal firearm you want, it does not necessary follow that I have to be HAPPY about it. I think the things are unnecessary, but hells bells, it's only my PERSONAL opinion, not one I want to force on you or anyone else.

I didn't say you were forcing anything on anyone else. NO ONE here is. No one here has that power.


I think if you seriously think the problem is semi automatic weapons then whether you want to admit it or not you ARE anti gun.

[Hugo]

 Whatever. 
Keep your guns. All of 'em.
I hope you have all the ammo you feel you need.
Becaue the Supreme Court of the United States of America has given you the right to arm yourself to the teeth. 
We don't have a problem with people getting shot with semi-automatic weapons in this country. We just have too many peope who mouth off and piss off good responsbile gun owners like yourself. 
People who don't want to get shot should just stop bunching up. Dummies. 

Hypocrisy my ass.

Nice accusation.  LOT'S of people piss me off.  Name ONE I have shot.  WHAT?  That's right, RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS' LIKE MYSELF don't do that.  You ARE an ass.

And as a PS:  Are you ready to go on record as saying you don't own a gun?  Remember you and I have had conversations.....

Yet again, I think you missed my point. 
Of course I know you would never be guilty of using guns to shoot innocents or otherwise act out in irresponsible ways. 
Read it again please: I never suggested that.
What I DID suggest is that there are people, like you, that have guns, often semi-automatic, and DO kill innocent people. As I pointed out, the Supreme Court allows these nut jobs to have the guns. That is just a down home fact. 
I KNOW you are responsible. (At least I'll continue to hope so). 
SOME are not. 
And they shoot people. Using guns bought legally. That's why I made the kind fo goofy remark that people who don't want to get shot should just stop bunching up in large groups. (At least ONE way to protect ourselves from "nut jobs") 

And so you misread my post and feel the need (again) to call me an ass. Really? We need to do that? 

PS: True, I don't have gun. But, I like that fact that if I wanted one I'm free to go buy one. I just don't feel the need. (I don't enjoy hunting, for one thing). Hard for me to understand why you included that comment. I simply don't CHOOSE to have a gun.

Wonky...What I DID suggest is that there are people, like you, that have guns, often semi-automatic, and DO kill innocent people. As I pointed out, the Supreme Court allows these nut jobs to have the guns. That is just a down home fact.

You just included Hugo with "nut jobs". You have also commented something to the affect that it worries you that Hugo has guns.


Just saying.

No, I didn't include Hugo among the "nut jobs". I simply pointed out that Hugo has guns and so do some "nut jobs", like Hugo, legally own guns. Parse that I you see that I didn't call Hugo a nut job, but that both Hugo and some nut jobs both have legal rights to own guns. So it's not about the guns, but who owns them. 
(But to be candid and honest, I did once suggest in a post that I "worry" about Hugo having the guns because of some of his more vitriolic posts here. I think I may have gone over the line with that, and regret it. Not enoght to say sorry, but still...  ) 

Hugo and I will never "be clear" about the gun thing. Nor, will you and I, TVg. You guys think I'm anti-gun. I'm not. I am concerned about automatic and semi-automic guns be so widly available making it possible for people with dangerous motives to have them, but I know "down deep" that it's a lost cause and those guns will continue to be widely available. 
Still, I don't have to like it and can express my concerns about it without being seen as "anti-gun". I hope.

Crock. Of. Shit.

[Wonky3]

Wonky...What I DID suggest is that there are people, like you, that have guns, often semi-automatic, and DO kill innocent people. As I pointed out, the Supreme Court allows these nut jobs to have the guns. That is just a down home fact.

You just included Hugo with "nut jobs". You have also commented something to the affect that it worries you that Hugo has guns.


Just saying.

No, I didn't include Hugo among the "nut jobs". I simply pointed out that Hugo has guns and so do some "nut jobs", like Hugo, legally own guns. Parse that I you see that I didn't call Hugo a nut job, but that both Hugo and some nut jobs both have legal rights to own guns. So it's not about the guns, but who owns them. 
(But to be candid and honest, I did once suggest in a post that I "worry" about Hugo having the guns because of some of his more vitriolic posts here. I think I may have gone over the line with that, and regret it. Not enoght to say sorry, but still...  ) 

Hugo and I will never "be clear" about the gun thing. Nor, will you and I, TVg. You guys think I'm anti-gun. I'm not. I am concerned about automatic and semi-automic guns be so widly available making it possible for people with dangerous motives to have them, but I know "down deep" that it's a lost cause and those guns will continue to be widely available. 
Still, I don't have to like it and can express my concerns about it without being seen as "anti-gun". I hope.

No, I didn't include Hugo among the "nut jobs". I simply pointed out that Hugo has guns and so do some "nut jobs", like Hugo, legally own guns. Parse that I you see that I didn't call Hugo a nut job, but that both Hugo and some nut jobs both have legal rights to own guns. So it's not about the guns, but who owns them.
Fair enough but what you wrote could be taken either way.


You keep "wondering" or you are "concerned" about the "need" of people owning semi automatic weapons

So heck no you aren't anti gun. You are just anti guns that YOU wonder or are concerned about.
Which is semi automatic guns. And just about every single person I know who owns a gun has at least one semi automatic.

Yeah, TVg. I'm a registed voter. I pay taxes. I get a voice. So, while I respect your RIGHT to own any legal firearm you want, it does not necessary follow that I have to be HAPPY about it. I think the things are unnecessary, but hells bells, it's only my PERSONAL opinion, not one I want to force on you or anyone else.

I didn't say you were forcing anything on anyone else. NO ONE here is. No one here has that power.


I think if you seriously think the problem is semi automatic weapons then whether you want to admit it or not you ARE anti gun.

Okay. Let's try this another way. 
I don't want a gun. Any gun really, but especialy a semi-automatic capable of firing lots of lead real fast. I simply don't understand the need for a gun like this for ordinary private citizens. 
But..
That's just me. 
I understand your right to have whatever you want, and as many as you afford. And I NEVER want anyone to unlawfully take your guns(s) away from you. 

So, if I am anti-gun, it's only for ME. After all, whle the law allows me to have guns, it does REQURIE tha I own one. (My son has guns...I don't try to sneak them out of his house. ) 

Think what you want but don't suggest I'm expressing views that I don't.

[orygunluvr]

No, I didn't include Hugo among the "nut jobs". I simply pointed out that Hugo has guns and so do some "nut jobs", like Hugo, legally own guns. Parse that I you see that I didn't call Hugo a nut job, but that both Hugo and some nut jobs both have legal rights to own guns. So it's not about the guns, but who owns them. 
(But to be candid and honest, I did once suggest in a post that I "worry" about Hugo having the guns because of some of his more vitriolic posts here. I think I may have gone over the line with that, and regret it. Not enoght to say sorry, but still...  ) 

Hugo and I will never "be clear" about the gun thing. Nor, will you and I, TVg. You guys think I'm anti-gun. I'm not. I am concerned about automatic and semi-automic guns be so widly available making it possible for people with dangerous motives to have them, but I know "down deep" that it's a lost cause and those guns will continue to be widely available. 
Still, I don't have to like it and can express my concerns about it without being seen as "anti-gun". I hope.

No, I didn't include Hugo among the "nut jobs". I simply pointed out that Hugo has guns and so do some "nut jobs", like Hugo, legally own guns. Parse that I you see that I didn't call Hugo a nut job, but that both Hugo and some nut jobs both have legal rights to own guns. So it's not about the guns, but who owns them.
Fair enough but what you wrote could be taken either way.


You keep "wondering" or you are "concerned" about the "need" of people owning semi automatic weapons

So heck no you aren't anti gun. You are just anti guns that YOU wonder or are concerned about.
Which is semi automatic guns. And just about every single person I know who owns a gun has at least one semi automatic.

Yeah, TVg. I'm a registed voter. I pay taxes. I get a voice. So, while I respect your RIGHT to own any legal firearm you want, it does not necessary follow that I have to be HAPPY about it. I think the things are unnecessary, but hells bells, it's only my PERSONAL opinion, not one I want to force on you or anyone else.

I didn't say you were forcing anything on anyone else. NO ONE here is. No one here has that power.


I think if you seriously think the problem is semi automatic weapons then whether you want to admit it or not you ARE anti gun.

Okay. Let's try this another way. 
I don't want a gun. Any gun really, but especialy a semi-automatic capable of firing lots of lead real fast. I simply don't understand the need for a gun like this for ordinary private citizens. 
But..
That's just me. 
I understand your right to have whatever you want, and as many as you afford. And I NEVER want anyone to unlawfully take your guns(s) away from you. 

So, if I am anti-gun, it's only for ME. After all, whle the law allows me to have guns, it does REQURIE tha I own one. (My son has guns...I don't try to sneak them out of his house. ) 

Think what you want but don't suggest I'm expressing views that I don't.

You do realize there were semi automatic weapons when the constitution was written, don't you?

[Cuzz]

No, I didn't include Hugo among the "nut jobs". I simply pointed out that Hugo has guns and so do some "nut jobs", like Hugo, legally own guns. Parse that I you see that I didn't call Hugo a nut job, but that both Hugo and some nut jobs both have legal rights to own guns. So it's not about the guns, but who owns them.
Fair enough but what you wrote could be taken either way.


You keep "wondering" or you are "concerned" about the "need" of people owning semi automatic weapons

So heck no you aren't anti gun. You are just anti guns that YOU wonder or are concerned about.
Which is semi automatic guns. And just about every single person I know who owns a gun has at least one semi automatic.

Yeah, TVg. I'm a registed voter. I pay taxes. I get a voice. So, while I respect your RIGHT to own any legal firearm you want, it does not necessary follow that I have to be HAPPY about it. I think the things are unnecessary, but hells bells, it's only my PERSONAL opinion, not one I want to force on you or anyone else.

I didn't say you were forcing anything on anyone else. NO ONE here is. No one here has that power.


I think if you seriously think the problem is semi automatic weapons then whether you want to admit it or not you ARE anti gun.

Okay. Let's try this another way. 
I don't want a gun. Any gun really, but especialy a semi-automatic capable of firing lots of lead real fast. I simply don't understand the need for a gun like this for ordinary private citizens. 
But..
That's just me. 
I understand your right to have whatever you want, and as many as you afford. And I NEVER want anyone to unlawfully take your guns(s) away from you. 

So, if I am anti-gun, it's only for ME. After all, whle the law allows me to have guns, it does REQURIE tha I own one. (My son has guns...I don't try to sneak them out of his house. ) 

Think what you want but don't suggest I'm expressing views that I don't.

You do realize there were semi automatic weapons when the constitution was written, don't you?

Do tell! And was it commonly available, mass producible or even common knowledge that it existed?

[SFLiberal]

 Whatever. 
Keep your guns. All of 'em.
I hope you have all the ammo you feel you need.
Becaue the Supreme Court of the United States of America has given you the right to arm yourself to the teeth. 
We don't have a problem with people getting shot with semi-automatic weapons in this country. We just have too many peope who mouth off and piss off good responsbile gun owners like yourself. 
People who don't want to get shot should just stop bunching up. Dummies. 

Hypocrisy my ass.

Nice accusation.  LOT'S of people piss me off.  Name ONE I have shot.  WHAT?  That's right, RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS' LIKE MYSELF don't do that.  You ARE an ass.

And as a PS:  Are you ready to go on record as saying you don't own a gun?  Remember you and I have had conversations.....

Yet again, I think you missed my point. 
Of course I know you would never be guilty of using guns to shoot innocents or otherwise act out in irresponsible ways. 
Read it again please: I never suggested that.
What I DID suggest is that there are people, like you, that have guns, often semi-automatic, and DO kill innocent people. As I pointed out, the Supreme Court allows these nut jobs to have the guns. That is just a down home fact. 
I KNOW you are responsible. (At least I'll continue to hope so). 
SOME are not. 
And they shoot people. Using guns bought legally. That's why I made the kind fo goofy remark that people who don't want to get shot should just stop bunching up in large groups. (At least ONE way to protect ourselves from "nut jobs") 

And so you misread my post and feel the need (again) to call me an ass. Really? We need to do that? 

PS: True, I don't have gun. But, I like that fact that if I wanted one I'm free to go buy one. I just don't feel the need. (I don't enjoy hunting, for one thing). Hard for me to understand why you included that comment. I simply don't CHOOSE to have a gun.

Wonky...What I DID suggest is that there are people, like you, that have guns, often semi-automatic, and DO kill innocent people. As I pointed out, the Supreme Court allows these nut jobs to have the guns. That is just a down home fact.

You just included Hugo with "nut jobs". You have also commented something to the affect that it worries you that Hugo has guns.


Just saying.

No, I didn't include Hugo among the "nut jobs". I simply pointed out that Hugo has guns and so do some "nut jobs", like Hugo, legally own guns. Parse that I you see that I didn't call Hugo a nut job, but that both Hugo and some nut jobs both have legal rights to own guns. So it's not about the guns, but who owns them. 
(But to be candid and honest, I did once suggest in a post that I "worry" about Hugo having the guns because of some of his more vitriolic posts here. I think I may have gone over the line with that, and regret it. Not enoght to say sorry, but still...  ) 

Hugo and I will never "be clear" about the gun thing. Nor, will you and I, TVg. You guys think I'm anti-gun. I'm not. I am concerned about automatic and semi-automic guns be so widly available making it possible for people with dangerous motives to have them, but I know "down deep" that it's a lost cause and those guns will continue to be widely available. 
Still, I don't have to like it and can express my concerns about it without being seen as "anti-gun". I hope.

Shall not be infringed.   Pretty simple.  You can't arbituary take away a right without due process, but that's what the libs want to do.

[SFLiberal]

No, I didn't include Hugo among the "nut jobs". I simply pointed out that Hugo has guns and so do some "nut jobs", like Hugo, legally own guns. Parse that I you see that I didn't call Hugo a nut job, but that both Hugo and some nut jobs both have legal rights to own guns. So it's not about the guns, but who owns them. 
(But to be candid and honest, I did once suggest in a post that I "worry" about Hugo having the guns because of some of his more vitriolic posts here. I think I may have gone over the line with that, and regret it. Not enoght to say sorry, but still...  ) 

Hugo and I will never "be clear" about the gun thing. Nor, will you and I, TVg. You guys think I'm anti-gun. I'm not. I am concerned about automatic and semi-automic guns be so widly available making it possible for people with dangerous motives to have them, but I know "down deep" that it's a lost cause and those guns will continue to be widely available. 
Still, I don't have to like it and can express my concerns about it without being seen as "anti-gun". I hope.

No, I didn't include Hugo among the "nut jobs". I simply pointed out that Hugo has guns and so do some "nut jobs", like Hugo, legally own guns. Parse that I you see that I didn't call Hugo a nut job, but that both Hugo and some nut jobs both have legal rights to own guns. So it's not about the guns, but who owns them.
Fair enough but what you wrote could be taken either way.


You keep "wondering" or you are "concerned" about the "need" of people owning semi automatic weapons

So heck no you aren't anti gun. You are just anti guns that YOU wonder or are concerned about.
Which is semi automatic guns. And just about every single person I know who owns a gun has at least one semi automatic.

Yeah, TVg. I'm a registed voter. I pay taxes. I get a voice. So, while I respect your RIGHT to own any legal firearm you want, it does not necessary follow that I have to be HAPPY about it. I think the things are unnecessary, but hells bells, it's only my PERSONAL opinion, not one I want to force on you or anyone else.

I didn't say you were forcing anything on anyone else. NO ONE here is. No one here has that power.


I think if you seriously think the problem is semi automatic weapons then whether you want to admit it or not you ARE anti gun.

Okay. Let's try this another way. 
I don't want a gun. Any gun really, but especialy a semi-automatic capable of firing lots of lead real fast. I simply don't understand the need for a gun like this for ordinary private citizens. 
But..
That's just me. 
I understand your right to have whatever you want, and as many as you afford. And I NEVER want anyone to unlawfully take your guns(s) away from you. 

So, if I am anti-gun, it's only for ME. After all, whle the law allows me to have guns, it does REQURIE tha I own one. (My son has guns...I don't try to sneak them out of his house. ) 

Think what you want but don't suggest I'm expressing views that I don't.

The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting or even protecting your home.  It never was.  It was all about protecting citizens from a tyrannical government such a Britian.  We had just fought a Revoluntary War.  Tyranny was on their minds and the top of their list, hence the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  And you can't say the Founding Fathers couldn't envision weapons evolving and being more deadly.  They were evolving even back then.  Stop trying to re-write history.

[Cuzz]

The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting or even protecting your home.  It never was.  It was all about protecting citizens from a tyrannical government such a Britian.  We had just fought a Revoluntary War.  Tyranny was on their minds and the top of their list, hence the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  And you can't say the Founding Fathers couldn't envision weapons evolving and being more deadly.  They were evolving even back then.  Stop trying to re-write history.

This isn't directly related to your ongoing discussion but I'd like to ask....

Is hunting and protecting your home with a gun not protected by the Constitution? Or just not by the 2nd Amendment?

[Wonky3]

The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting or even protecting your home.  It never was.  It was all about protecting citizens from a tyrannical government such a Britian.  We had just fought a Revoluntary War.  Tyranny was on their minds and the top of their list, hence the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  And you can't say the Founding Fathers couldn't envision weapons evolving and being more deadly.  They were evolving even back then.  Stop trying to re-write history.

This isn't directly related to your ongoing discussion but I'd like to ask....

Is hunting and protecting your home with a gun not protected by the Constitution? Or just not by the 2nd Amendment?

Don't know Cuzz. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I'd bet we are protected in securing our homes from intrusion and hostilities. 
And it cracks me up to read all the comments here about the 2nd amendment. Scholars have been debating the language for over a hundred years and can only agree that is was hastily and poorly written. So, the Supreme Court had no choice but to except it "as is" and rule as such. 
And there is not a chance in hell that it will ever be rewritten or amended in any way as long as the NRA is alive and well.

[Cuzz]

The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting or even protecting your home.  It never was.  It was all about protecting citizens from a tyrannical government such a Britian.  We had just fought a Revoluntary War.  Tyranny was on their minds and the top of their list, hence the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  And you can't say the Founding Fathers couldn't envision weapons evolving and being more deadly.  They were evolving even back then.  Stop trying to re-write history.

This isn't directly related to your ongoing discussion but I'd like to ask....

Is hunting and protecting your home with a gun not protected by the Constitution? Or just not by the 2nd Amendment?

Don't know Cuzz. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I'd bet we are protected in securing our homes from intrusion and hostilities. 
And it cracks me up to read all the comments here about the 2nd amendment. Scholars have been debating the language for over a hundred years and can only agree that is was hastily and poorly written. So, the Supreme Court had no choice but to except it "as is" and rule as such. 
And there is not a chance in hell that it will ever be rewritten or amended in any way as long as the NRA is alive and well.

I was asking SFl, who seems to claim knowledge of the subject.

[Wonky3]

The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting or even protecting your home.  It never was.  It was all about protecting citizens from a tyrannical government such a Britian.  We had just fought a Revoluntary War.  Tyranny was on their minds and the top of their list, hence the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  And you can't say the Founding Fathers couldn't envision weapons evolving and being more deadly.  They were evolving even back then.  Stop trying to re-write history.

This isn't directly related to your ongoing discussion but I'd like to ask....

Is hunting and protecting your home with a gun not protected by the Constitution? Or just not by the 2nd Amendment?

Don't know Cuzz. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I'd bet we are protected in securing our homes from intrusion and hostilities. 
And it cracks me up to read all the comments here about the 2nd amendment. Scholars have been debating the language for over a hundred years and can only agree that is was hastily and poorly written. So, the Supreme Court had no choice but to except it "as is" and rule as such. 
And there is not a chance in hell that it will ever be rewritten or amended in any way as long as the NRA is alive and well.

I was asking SFl, who seems to claim knowledge of the subject.

Really?   
You think maybe SFI has knowledge on this subject? Any subject? I wonder if you have been follow his posts. 
(Yes, I know that's snarky and offensive. About SFI, I really don't care or reget making the comment)

But sorry if I stepped on the post and got in the way of the discussion.

[Cuzz]

The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting or even protecting your home.  It never was.  It was all about protecting citizens from a tyrannical government such a Britian.  We had just fought a Revoluntary War.  Tyranny was on their minds and the top of their list, hence the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  And you can't say the Founding Fathers couldn't envision weapons evolving and being more deadly.  They were evolving even back then.  Stop trying to re-write history.

This isn't directly related to your ongoing discussion but I'd like to ask....

Is hunting and protecting your home with a gun not protected by the Constitution? Or just not by the 2nd Amendment?

Don't know Cuzz. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I'd bet we are protected in securing our homes from intrusion and hostilities. 
And it cracks me up to read all the comments here about the 2nd amendment. Scholars have been debating the language for over a hundred years and can only agree that is was hastily and poorly written. So, the Supreme Court had no choice but to except it "as is" and rule as such. 
And there is not a chance in hell that it will ever be rewritten or amended in any way as long as the NRA is alive and well.

I was asking SFl, who seems to claim knowledge of the subject.

Really?   
You think maybe SFI has knowledge on this subject? Any subject? I wonder if you have been follow his posts. 
(Yes, I know that's snarky and offensive. About SFI, I really don't care or reget making the comment)

But sorry if I stepped on the post and got in the way of the discussion.

I never thought anything of the sort. And yes, you do butt in sometimes.

[Wonky3]

This isn't directly related to your ongoing discussion but I'd like to ask....

Is hunting and protecting your home with a gun not protected by the Constitution? Or just not by the 2nd Amendment?

Don't know Cuzz. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I'd bet we are protected in securing our homes from intrusion and hostilities. 
And it cracks me up to read all the comments here about the 2nd amendment. Scholars have been debating the language for over a hundred years and can only agree that is was hastily and poorly written. So, the Supreme Court had no choice but to except it "as is" and rule as such. 
And there is not a chance in hell that it will ever be rewritten or amended in any way as long as the NRA is alive and well.

I was asking SFl, who seems to claim knowledge of the subject.

Really?   
You think maybe SFI has knowledge on this subject? Any subject? I wonder if you have been follow his posts. 
(Yes, I know that's snarky and offensive. About SFI, I really don't care or reget making the comment)

But sorry if I stepped on the post and got in the way of the discussion.

I never thought anything of the sort. And yes, you do butt in sometimes.

I'll take note of the critical remark and try to correct that. Sorry if any of my post have "knocked you off track" in the topic discussions.

[GPnative]

This isn't directly related to your ongoing discussion but I'd like to ask....

Is hunting and protecting your home with a gun not protected by the Constitution? Or just not by the 2nd Amendment?

Don't know Cuzz. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I'd bet we are protected in securing our homes from intrusion and hostilities. 
And it cracks me up to read all the comments here about the 2nd amendment. Scholars have been debating the language for over a hundred years and can only agree that is was hastily and poorly written. So, the Supreme Court had no choice but to except it "as is" and rule as such. 
And there is not a chance in hell that it will ever be rewritten or amended in any way as long as the NRA is alive and well.

I was asking SFl, who seems to claim knowledge of the subject.

Really?   
You think maybe SFI has knowledge on this subject? Any subject? I wonder if you have been follow his posts. 
(Yes, I know that's snarky and offensive. About SFI, I really don't care or reget making the comment)

But sorry if I stepped on the post and got in the way of the discussion.

I never thought anything of the sort. And yes, you do butt in sometimes.

Its a public forum. Wonky, butt in whenever you want, you have my permission.  See how easy it is, I just did it.

[Cuzz]

I never thought anything of the sort. And yes, you do butt in sometimes.

Its a public forum. Wonky, butt in whenever you want, you have my permission.  See how easy it is, I just did it.

Yep, that's true. However, Wonky's all growed up and doesn't need anyones permission.