Doc

I determined that I spent all my time in the wrong place. After watching 7 deer grazing in my front yard in the afternoon, and after doing some version of hop-scotch trying to avoid the deer poop when walking down to the barn, I figured I should have been hunting somewhere in the yard instead of almost a mile up on top of the hill.

Is that a lower case i that I see there ..... 3 times? Sorry, I just couldn't help myself. ..... lol.

Well, if you guys are going to begin a campaign on correcting grammer and spelling, you had better get busy, because Robinson's errors pale in the face of many of the posts that I have seen. What the heck, we can fill this whole forum with just correcting each other's presentations of opinions. That sounds like a good use of forum space. Look, if the sole purpose was some overwhelming need to save this kid from his life-threatening language deficiencies it definitely would have been much better to have done it in a PM instead of trying to do it in the most embarrassing fashion possible.

I appreciate the list, although it seems that only one person here has given a whole lot of thought as to what new laws would "do the trick". So I am guessing that the rest have simply signed onto the line that we just need more laws ..... any laws ..... and the heck with whether they even make any sense or have any effect. I'm surprised that the author of this thread did not have a laundry-list of new laws and reasons why they would work. I don't have a lot of time to respond this morning. I can say that I have no problem with the national registry and laws regarding handguns. Although the disputes from one state to another may cause more crazy fighting between the states than anything the NRA could throw at it. I'm sure each state believes that they have it exactly right. My feeling is that states like NYS would abstain from any such plan because they surely would lose a lot of their precious gun laws during negotiations. So, there may be an element of practicality that has to be dealt with. See, there's two sides to that one. And from my experience buying a rifle recently, it looks like background checks for all firearms (including long guns) is already in effect (at least for some stores). Whether that is a law or just their idea, I don't know. But I could live with that. I have no idea whether this would have a significant effect on anything. I'm surprised that the famous ban of modern sporting rifles was not first on the list. And then there was the question of why you think these new laws would be a solution. I don't recall reading a lot of that when I first scanned the response. I'll have to go back and look again later. I would have to go back and look at the other suggestions you had, and I don't have time for that now. To me the list looks suspiciously small. But then that may be because there is only one person responding.

Lol ...... at 3:30 yesterday afternoon, I had 7 deer grazing on my front lawn. A couple of them were some mighty fine does (no bucks). They all know the score ..... ha-ha.

Well, you know what they say about people who live in glass houses ..... lol. If we are going to equate mis-spelling (or politely referred to as "typos") to intelligence then I think we all just took a slap to the face.

Good morning. My goodness you certainly went on a roll after I signed off yesterday .... lol. I guess Grow was just the next in line .... eh? Look, I have no idea what your problem is, but coincidentally your little episode began right after I had just gotten off the thread that was asking why people can't seem to keep things civil on this site anymore. The first thing I read when I got back to this thread was somebody not really commenting on the topic at all, but simply laying down a little one-liner insult, clearly for no other purpose than blowing up the thread and pissing someone off. How appropriate! I considered copying your little outbreak as a series of quotes posted over there to illustrate how one person typically can take a pretty good discussion and turn it into a pissing contest if they have a mind to do so. It was great the way you demonstrated that so perfectly. What I don't understand is what a person like you gets out of that kind of thing. I guess that's what they mean by "it takes all kinds". But anyway, for anyone that wonders why threads so often spiral downward, they might want to re-read any or all parts of your participation on this thread and they will see exactly the reason and exactly how it is done. So anyway, you can chalk up another one. I hope it made your day complete. As for this thread, we'll see if it comes back or whether you have successfully killed it.

Are you telling me you disagree with any of that? How far are you willing to let the government into your personal life? No limits?

So I guess this is the point where when you run out of substantive arguments you start with the attacks. That's ok. What ever you need to get through the day. I guess I have heard enough anyway.

Is it impossible for you to reference any specifics at all so I can get a clue what the heck you are referring to or is this just some kind of random generic "bust on Doc for no real reason" kind of post. Honestly, you are making no sense at all. I can't find anything in this thread that even possibly represents anything you are talking about. I'm serious. I searched the thread for any indication of "doomsday" anything and it's not there. I looked for anything that could possibly be interpreted as "extreme" ..... nothing. Now you are flailing around with something about giving an inch and somebody taking a mile. And finally you seemed to have found something in my replies that say that the mentally ill should have guns, or that something indicating that I don't believe that mental illness should be a part of the background check. Again, there is none of that anywhere in this thread that I can find. Look, it's hard enough to keep all these things straight without somebody making up things that I haven't said. So, if you have a real legitimate complaint, let's hear it because right now you are not making a bit of sense. To me it just sounds like a lot of crazy talk designed to just arbitrarily piss me off for no reason. And I've got to tell you that really is confusing because I don't think we have had hardly any conversation at all, so I don't know where this is all coming from.

What the hell are you talking about? You're not making any sense.

Ok ..... Can you supply a list of new laws that you believe would have prevented any of the tragedies that you mentioned. I'm willing to listen, but I want to hear detailed specifics, not just that we need to tighten up gun controls. If you are serious about needing new laws, you must have some kind of list in mind. I never get a chance to hear the full extent of what gun control advocates really want as an all inclusive list along with the reasons why they believe they would put a dent in the mindless mass killings that we seem to be plagued with. I'm serious. Here is a chance to lay out your vision of the perfect gun control plan along with explanations of why they would each work. Keep in mind that gun owners are a multi-faceted group that have different needs and interests when it comes to firearms ownership. 1 Some are hunters, but we may even be in the minority among gun owners. 2 Some want sufficient home and personal protection. 3 Some are into target shooting (all kinds). 4 Some are into collecting. 5 And some are into criminal use. Let's see if your list can eliminate the last group while protecting the rights of the previous groups. Try to list new laws that really have substance and are not designed to simply make everybody feel good or have emotional appeal with no real and measureable effect.

What is with the mindless outburst. You got some kind of problem that makes you just jump in here with stupid comments like that? You want to talk about something that you think is extreme or are you just flailing around here trying to make some kind of worthless comment to piss somebody off?

911 and Oklahoma were not devastating enough for you? How about a few Mosque and church bombings? How long a list do you need before you understand that guns are really quite inefficient at mass murder and that more efficient methods of mayhem are on their way. It may comfort you to call it BS, but while you and others are working at depriving us all of firearms, you are ignoring the lessons these "fleabag nations" are providing for the wackos of the future. Oh and by the way that is no great prophecy that you are spouting about how things are going to change. There is no doubt that you and the other anti-gunners will be able to whip up enough fervor and mindless paranoia to convince yourselves that that piece of steel is totally evil and that the elimination of that piece of steel will result in a world of peace and serenity. Kind of sounds like a Disney movie doesn't it? The real shock will come after you have successfully disarmed the citizenry and see the next generation and tools of violence and mayhem.

But is it right to lump in the thousands (millions?) of divorced people with the few that went wacky? And divorce does not automatically = craziness. In fact it seldom does. How much of the governments decisions about you do you want determined by few wackos among us? Oh, and by the way these incidents of people going goofy over romantic difficulties are not limited to just those that are married. There are people that go nuts over being fired. There are people that go crazy over problems at work. There are people that go coo-coo over financial set-backs. Just about every aspect of our lives can become the trigger that sets off some people. Where are you going to draw the line. I mean just how far into your personal life are you willing to let the government wallow into in the name of having a firearm. Yes indeed, go far enough in this direction and you will accomplish defacto gun elimination because at some point the privacy invasion gets to be more than most people will ever tolerate. Well, ok .... getting a bit far away from your question .... lol. Anyway, do you see my point? When we start having the government deciding things for everybody based on the very few misfits, I think they may be getting close to an abuse of power condition.

How many people were killed with a few airplanes in NYC? How many people were killed with diesel fuel and fertilizer in Oklahoma? Want to check out the overseas situation? What is the weapon of choice these days over there? .... A nice self detonated explosive vest. They have figured out that guns are just too slow, individualized and inneffective if you want to create the maximum mayhem. I think you are getting a bit behind the times .... lol. You haven't seen anything yet. Wait until some of these wackos start reading newspapers and seeing how it's done in some of these"civilized nations". But anyway, what are you arguing? .... That all guns should be made illegal for private ownership? I mean I haven't heard a more impassioned speech for elimination of private firearms ownership since the last Fienstien speech.

lol .... there is this thing they call cutting of your nose to spite your face. Having read the article, I didn't see anywhere that Dick's was making any kind of judgement about the modern sporting rifles. They simply recognize that there is a mindless public paranoia at this time and have made what they consider to be a wise business decision .... which is exactly what they are supposed to do. If there had been some kind of negative editorial comment that went along with their decision, perhaps I would take on a different attitude. But I am not expecting any American business to fall on their sword simply to make some political statement. That's not how business is supposed to work. It's when they are trying to make some political statement that I find offensive that I start looking at whether they deserve my business. That's when they are getting into areas that they don't belong in. I don't see that as being the case so far.

Why do they care if you were recently divorced? People get divorced all the time without it being any kind of indication that you are nuts. See, it's not the info that they gather, it's the questions about how they intend to use it. Are there some rather innocent life events that all of a sudden are going to be used in some kind of concocted profile? It sounds like they may be fishing for more innocent activities to base rejections on. Or at least there is the possibility that it could be misused in this fashion. As far as becoming part of somebody else's background check just because you are related, I would say that unless it was with consent, that is investigation techniques that are straying a bit far from the applicant and certainly is an invasion of privacy. Again, depending on the content of the investigation.

But I've got a lifetime supply of very expensive lead bullets that I have to use up before I die. There's no way that I'm going to throw them all out and buy all new no matter what the benefits .....lol.

naw, I'd go over there and poke at him with a stick.

Don't tell me there is somebody that is actually participating too much ..... how dare they .... lol. And they are also pushing their opinions too? Well that is just unacceptable forum behavior. Participation and opinions too ... hard to imagine. But it's nice of you to point that out on a thread about forum civility. It does serve to demonstrate the point of the topic very nicely.

Well, I don't know about that. Apparently you have made an assumption, and perhaps a very wrong one. So far, I haven't exactly seen a pile of replies from all these people that you think are going to boycott Dick's based on their business decision.

I'm not sure how it relates to what I posted here, but you bet I am damned unhappy to see Gander drop it's reloading products. That left one less semi-convenient place to buy reloading supplies. I don't recall saying anything about boycotting the store because of it. I will say that if Gander continues shrinking their stock of everything that they sell, they risk downsizing to the point where it doesn't make sense for me to drive all the way up there. Maybe that is what you mistakenly thought was a "boycott based on something they don't sell". But I am confused about what the point is that you are making. And while unlike some others, I am not giddy over the fact that Dick's is yielding to their perception of irrational public pressure to drop sales of modern sporting rifles, I of course will not be boycotting them either. They have a generous supply of all other kinds of outdoor products. And how they have to deal with illogical public reactions is really of no concern to me. They do what they think they have to do (right or wrong).

Well partner, I reckon you're probably wrong. I have the same policy toward them as I would have toward any business. I cannot and should not dictate what products any store stocks and sells unless I have some moral objection to it. I can't picture a situation where I would boycott a store based on something it doesn't sell. I don't deal with Dicks that much anyhow. But like any other store, if they have a product I want to buy and they have a good price on it, I'll be in there. Not every Walmart store sells a full complement of shooting and hunting equipment, and I haven't boycotted them because of it. That's a pretty silly notion.

Lol ..... Do we really want to start picking on grammar and spelling here?