Joe, you're hurting your credibility. Several posters, including myself, have raised the question of what standards of proof and due process your concept would require. You resort to profanity and crass insults but don't answer the concerns based on historically documented abuse of gun registration laws to disarm minorities (sometimes as a prelude to genocide or "ethnic cleansing").
"To support my point I state this: The guy I was just referring to who stated he would rather kill a police officer (who most likely has a wife and family) or other law enforcement officers than have his gun taken away SHOULD have his license revoked for saying that and have his weapons taken away as he is talking like a potential killer and is clearly a threat to the general public from my perspective."
You want to disarm the man described above simply because he *does not want to be disarmed*, and is willing to fight such oppression. Now do you see why some of us question your motives and goals? Your thinking is a catch-22... you seem to be saying that as long as a person doesn't mind being forcibly disarmed, he may (might?) keep those arms.
You feel that people are misquoting and misrepresenting you. I
quote you verbatim, then point out your logical inconsistency. Can
we discuss this without inflammatory words and rhetoric?
--
Doug Jones, Rocket Plumber
Rotary Rocket Company
Joe E. Dees wrote:
> Can't you FUCKING
> READ??????????????????????????????????????????????????
> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????
>
> I said that I wanted laws passed that would deny gun ownership to:
>
> 1) VIOLENT CRIMINALS
>
> 2) THE MENTALLY DEFICIENT AND/OR DERANGED
>
> 3) SPOUSE AND/OR CHILD ABUSERS
>
> 4) CHILDREN
>
> END OF LIST!
>
> READ IT! SAVE IT TO YOUR HARD DISK! BRONZE IT!
> MEMORIZE IT! STOP MISQUOTING AND MISREPRESENTING
> IT!