All "decent" DUers and Democrats want strong gun control...

[OpSomBlood]

Obviously:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1878635

[brokensymmetry]

1. Only in the sense

of being able to hit the target...

[OpSomBlood]

2. I hope your sarcasm alarm is beeping.

Welcome to the Gungeon.

[brokensymmetry]

9. After I saw the poll you linked to -

the alarm gave a friendly beep.

[benburch]

3. I've been called "Indecent" before.

I can take it.

[OpSomBlood]

4. What a coincidence...

I'm called "indecent" in this forum nearly every day because I believe that the Second Amendment refers to the individual right to own firearms.

[benburch]

5. It does...

but within context. That context is "A well regulated militia."

In my opinion, those of us who own firearms are defacto members of a militia, and it would be perfectly reasonable and legal for a state government to issue regulations. For example, to require registration, to require trigger locks, and other common-sense things.

(Why is registration common-sense? So that ammunition can be supplied in case the militia is called up!)

But the Federal government has no place in this equation...

[CharlesGroce]

6. The truth is....

the founders of our country never envisioned the government having the weapons it does, and thus couldn't properly argue the issue. In the land of the government owns a million rifles, every regular citizen naturally deserves a rifle too. We live in a different world though. Our government has bunker busters. And our rights should be that we don't deserve to be represented by a government hell-bent on building weapons with which to destroy the world.

We will only take THIS government back with nonviolence, boycott, etc. Not with pea shooters against bunker busters.

[OpSomBlood]

8. Bunker busters haven't stopped the Iraqi insurgents.

n/t

[Wickerman]

19. not to drag your thread off topic, but how much damage is

being done to troops with AK47's and the like? Most seems to be roadside bombs (often homemade) and on occasion rocket launcher type stuff (sorry, former AF, don't know nomenclature). And, ultimately, how likely is success?

[brokensymmetry]

10. The problem with registration...

Once upon a time, individuals could go forth and purchase newly manufactured Title II (also known as class 3) weapons. Individuals can still purchase and sell those already registered, but the price has gone up to the point where few can do so.

To register a machine gun or silencer, one has to:

1) fill out papers, get two passport photos, get fingerprinted by a law enforcement agency, pay a $200 tax

2) get a background check by local law enforcement, and their signature on the application

3) get a federal background check through BATF

4) wait for about a year for BATF to finish doing their thing.

So, we have a l-o-n-g waiting period. Registration, both local and federal. Two background checks.

And yet, the powers-that-be decided to prohibit registration of new Title II firearms. This suggests to me that mere registration is not the goal of those powers-that-be.

One can argue that nobody needs such things; personally, I think that nobody needs a Hummer-2, but I see a bunch of them on the road.

[OpSomBlood]

11. We shouldn't have to justify to the government why we choose to own things

n/t

[iverglas]

17. really

I'm called "indecent" in this forum nearly every day because I believe that the Second Amendment refers to the individual right to own firearms.

And could you just refer us to instances in which you have been called "indecent", and specifically to instances in which you have been called "indecent" BECAUSE of this belief of yours?

Do you assume that every time anyone calls you something, it is because you believe that your second amendment refers to the individual right to own firearms? From what you've said, I really must assume that you do.

[MrBenchley]

18. Remember Mr. Dick in "David Copperfield"

Who could not write his grand project without sooner or later beginning to obsess about King Charles' head...

""A poor fellow with a craze, sir," said Mr. Dick, "a simpleton, a weak-minded person - present company, you know!" striking himself again, "may do what wonderful people may not do. I'll bring them together, boy. I'll try. They'll not blame me. They'll not object to me. They'll not mind what I do, if it's wrong. I'm only Mr. Dick. And who minds Dick? Dick's nobody! Whoo!" He blew a slight, contemptuous breath, as if he blew himself away."

Ah well, at least King Charles and his head existed in reality and history...whereas the supposed Second Amendment right to own a gun exists in no court or precedent, but only in dishonest far right wing propaganda...

[OpSomBlood]

22. Right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Of course, we all know that "people" really means "National Guard."

[MrBenchley]

23. Peddle it to the stentorian...

I'm sure you can find right wing loonies there who can pretend the courts haven't ruled as they have...

And they're quick to proclaim themselves "decent Americans" as they peddle their ugly melange of bigotry, ignorance and dishonesty.

[OpSomBlood]

24. Right of the people to keep and bear arms.

There's nothing you can say that denies the existence of these nine words in the Bill of Rights.

[MrBenchley]

27. Peddle it to the stentorian

I'm sure they'll play "let's pretend" with you...

[OpSomBlood]

29. I'll stick with the Bill of Rights.

You can stick with Dianne Feinstein and her claims that metal and plastic cause crime.

[MrBenchley]

31. But you're not--you're sticking with Wayne LaPierre...

and you're welcome to his scummy company...

"Dianne Feinstein and her claims that metal and plastic cause crime"
Gee, op, who is surprised that you have to misrtepresent what she says, just as you had to misrepresent what the Bill of rights says? Me neither.

But you go ahead and stand with the Tom Delays and the like. I'll stand with these people proudly.

[OpSomBlood]

32. Feinstein: springs, tubes and other machined pieces of metal cause crime.

That's the AWB in a nutshell.

Ban them for the children.

[MrBenchley]

33. Without distortion, denial and dishonesty there'd be no RKBA cause

and you've demonstrated that nicely...

And you STILL haven't answered Iverglas' question.

[JayS]

36. I wonder who stood with Capt. Smith as the Titanic went down.

Don't know why I just thought of that....

[MrBenchley]

38. Wonder who stands with the scummy gun lobby

pimping for Republican legislative priorities.

[JayS]

39. Probably not Capt. Smith.

[MrBenchley]

40. Nope, it's our "pro gun democrats"

[JayS]

41. Yup, like Rep. Dingell. Good man.

[hansberrym]

61. Why did the Miller court remand for further procedings?

There are quite a few loonies pretending that the case was not remanded, and pretending that this fact has no bearing on how the opinion of the court should be interpreted. These same loonies see ONLY that the opinion of the lower court (upholding an individual RKBA) was reversed, while denying every other fact about the Miller decision such as the usage or definitions given by the Miller court for each of the key terms of the second amendment: "militia", "keep arms", "bearing arms", and "arms" .



If there were NO indivual right to own ANY firearm as The Collective Rights crowd dishonestly claims, why would the Supreme court have sent the case back for further procedings? There is no point whatever in discussing further whether Mr Miller has a right to "possess or use" a sawed-off shot gun if in fact he had NO right to possess and use ANY firearm.


(from MIller)
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than 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 its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.


(Also from Miller)
The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded. (end quotes from Miller)





Why did the Miller Court equate "possession or use" with "keep and bear"? Didn't they get the memo from the Ministry of Truth that they were supposed deny any knowledge of what the word "keep" meant in the second amendment. The Reinhardt/Walton feigned ignorance of the meaning of "keep" when it is right there in the actual holding of Miller (As well as in dicta of the Miller decision), and in Aymette, demonstrates clearly which side is resorting to obfuscation, denial, and lies.

[MrBenchley]

62. Peddle it elsewhere, hans...

There's a reason why courts use Miller to demonstrate that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right...and despite your claims, it's not because all the judges are dishonest.

And it's the same reason why folks challenging gun control laws hardly ever refer to Miller...and if they do, they're laughed out of court.

[hansberrym]

86. answer the question, if you can ...

If things are as you say, then it should be EASY for you to demonstrate how the Miller Court's remanding of the case for further procedings supports the collective rights argument,

and how the use of "keep and Bear" in the actual holding fits the Collective Rights argument,

and how the Miller court use of the words "bearing arms" fits the Collective Rights argument,

and how the Miller defined the term "militia" fits the Collective Rights arguments.


Reinhardt and Walton feign ignorance rather than address these obvious discrepancies to their Collective Rights argument, but then distortion, feigned ignorance, and outright dishonesty is all they got.


Is that also all you've got?, or are you going to answer the question?

[MrBenchley]

87. It IS easy...

Take a look at any decision where gun control was upheld...

Here's a whole thread on the latest one...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=49341

"Is that also all you've got?"
Really, what else is needed to show what the court decisions say than what the court decisions say?

[hansberrym]

90. Why won't you answer the question?

And why do all of the cases you cite including Judge Sullivan's fail to even acknowledge that the Miller case was remanded for further proceedings?


http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/03-213.pdf



Judge Sullivan cites Judge Walton as an authority on the second amendment, however this so-called authority feigns ignorance of the meaning of the word “keep” though that word is equated with “possession” in the actual holding of Miller. Furthermore the Miller court cites a 1785 Virginia militia act in which each able bodied man was to “keep” a supply of arms.


The Miller decision is only a few pages long and it is not at all plausible that these judges you cite would be unaware the Miller case was remanded, nor how key terms such as “keep” were used by that court.


Those who deny an individual RKBA do so by feigning ignorance of things that they can not plausibly be unaware of.



I will ask you a third time...

Why would the Supreme Court remand the Miller case for further proceedings if there were NO individual RKBA?

[MrBenchley]

91. Already answered it...

"The Miller decision is only a few pages long and it is not at all plausible that these judges you cite would be unaware the Miller case was remanded"
And yet not a one of them seem to think it makes a difference at all, do they? Hmmmm....

[hansberrym]

101. Hmmm......do you think the Supreme Court remands cases for no

reason?

Do you think "remanded for further proceedings" was a frivolous gesture by the Supreme Court and it had no particular meaning?


Maybe they just flipped a coin that said "reversed" on one side and "reversed and remanded for further proceedings" on the other, and it really didn't matter at all which they wrote into thier opinion.



You keep dodging the question because you know that the only plausible explanation that the Supreme Court remanded for further proceeedings is that there was some individual right to be examined further.

[MrBenchley]

102. Do YOU think you're fooling ANYONE?

You can play this silly game without me, hans...

"there was some individual right to be examined further."
Funny how even extremists like Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas haven't "examined it further" then, isn't it? But then who doesn't know how phony this argument is...or what the courts have uniformly decided?

[hansberrym]

103. Answer the question, or run away, ... please do what suits you best.

Question:
If there were NO individual right to own ANY firearm as The Collective Rights crowd dishonestly claims, why would the Supreme court have sent the case back for further proceedings?



(from Miller)
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than 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 its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.


(Also from Miller)
The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded. (end quotes from Miller)

[MrBenchley]

104. Answered it several times, hans...

[houseboy]

92. Miller is a terrible decision

it is not based on law or the constitution. I had this naive idea that judges ruled on statute and, or, the constitution. The Miller decision does neither. Miller just pulls from thin air "18 inches" though I do not have my law degree maybe someone that does, can explain how a court invents an arbitrary standard?

[OpSomBlood]

93. The same place the 10-round magazine standard came from.

Their asses.

[houseboy]

94. when the court shifts

as it is bound to do, I wounder if everyone will be just as happy with the bench inventing law instead of inforcing it? Opps, that is reserved for judges on the correct side of the issue

[OpSomBlood]

95. You bring up an interesting point.

Was the "18-inch shotgun barrel" rule-of-thumb developed in a state legislature, or did the Miller court establish it as a part of the ruling?

[FeebMaster]

96. It's part of the NFA. (nt)

[houseboy]

97. The NFA.. I don't remember electing them?!

That proves that the courts inventing a standard concerning an expressed Right in the constitution regardless of elected representatives input

[FeebMaster]

98. The National Firearms Act was passed by congress

and signed by the president. It required that rifles and shotguns with barrels under 18" (later lowered to 16" for rifles) be registered as short barreled rifles and shotguns. It also required the registrations of rifles and shotguns with an overall length of less than 26".

[houseboy]

99. Nation Fire Arms Act 1971

Must be my bad memory. I thought Miller was previous to that.

Advantage Feebmaster

[FeebMaster]

100. National Firearms Act 1934

which of course predates Miller since Miller and Layton were charged for violating it.

[iverglas]

34. and the reason you didn't answer *my* question would be

...?

[MrBenchley]

35. Perhaps the same reason

that he has to put phony words in Senator Feinstein's mouth....

[OpSomBlood]

42. The reason is that I don't feel like prompting you...

...to write a 9,000 word dissertation in response.

It's easier on me, you, and DU's bandwidth costs if I just disregard you.

[iverglas]

44. hmm........................

............................No, I don't think that's the reason.

[MrBenchley]

43. Well...

Guess I pegged the reason correctly.

[texengland]

46. What?

If "people" means National Guard, then what does the active military translate into? "Super People" or is that for the Reserves?

[OpSomBlood]

47. Don't ask me. I'm not the one arguing against individual RKBA.

n/t

[texengland]

51. Sorry

Wasn't meant to be really directed at one person(you). Just a broad question for those people who do think that way. It's not the first time I've heard that.

[MrBenchley]

52. "Liberal Democrat means never having to take responsibility..."

I see the RKBA crowd's spouted another winner...

[OpSomBlood]

54. The "RKBA Crowd" is everyone here but you and your three friends.

But keep pretending you're the overwhelming majority if it makes you feel better.

[MrBenchley]

55. Gee, op...you're welcome to them, too....

[texengland]

56. Yayyy!!

I'm a winner! Though I'm still figuring out how to use this board.

[MrBenchley]

57. Yeah, a real "winner"

"I'm still figuring out how to use this board"
Hope you're a quick learner....

[texengland]

59. Yeppers

i Dun did Figer it owt Tankes phrand? :)

[Wickerman]

58. Welcome to DU and how is that sorry shithole Shaw AFB?

I left there in 1984 and never looked back over my shoulder.

[texengland]

60. Don't ask

Been here a year now, thought it couldn't get worse than Lakenheath. Well, I was WRONG!. Can't wait to leave in another year.

[T Town Jake]

7. Op, Op, Op....

...they don't count, see, because they haven't run over to every "gun nut" forum in the world and engaged in flame wars for days on end with pro-GOP posters. And speaking of which, by-the-by, I saw nary a single deunciation of the Stentorian in that link you provided. Just what kind of "Democrats" are they? Hmmmm? :shrug: ...snicker...
</sarcasm>

[texengland]

53. WAR!

Who's flaming who? I'm just providing food for thought so to speak. I'm not dragging anybody down, making fun of anybody or even being rude! So again what are you trying to say?

[T Town Jake]

89. I was being sarcastic...

...actually. I'm on the RKBA side down here in the Gungeon. Welcome DU, BTW!
:hi:

ON Edit - and goodbye! That was fast...

[MrBenchley]

12. Funny...

Most people I would call "decent" don't sit around fantasizing about shooting their fellow citizens in some glorious revolution...

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PopeyeII]

14. Just enforce the existing "strong" laws.

Why clutter our lives w/laws that won't be obeyed by criminals?

[CO Liberal]

16. Using That "Logic"...

...we might as well repeal all our laws.

:crazy:

[OpSomBlood]

21. We need to keep bayonets out of the hands of TERRORISTS!

n/t

[CO Liberal]

15. Just Because Someone Owns A Gun....

...does not necessarily mean the oppose gun control. For example, my late father (an ex-Marine and life-long Democrat) owned several guns (a handgun, a shotgun, and some rifles), all of which he voluntarily registed with the local police department back in the '50s. And he favored gun control to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

[skippythwndrdog]

25. And just who decides which hands are the wrong hands?

It seems to me that we have sufficient restrictions on ownership on the books at the present.

[OpSomBlood]

26. It is very difficult for a violent criminal to legally acquire a gun.

But it is ridiculously easy for them to illegally get one on the black market.

So the solution is obviously to clamp down harder on the legal market.

[texengland]

49. Good guys

What ever happened to good vs. evil? You know the simple black and white of it all.

[library_max]

105. They are, of course, one and the same.

Guns on the "black market" get there from the legal market. Where else? Thin air? China? So if you clamp down on the one, you're automatically clamping down on the other.

[CO Liberal]

28. Doesn't Seem That Way To Me

Unless and until we get a nationwide database of everyone who is ineligible for gun ownership (due to factors such as felony convictions, mental illness, or personal histories of violent behavior), we have a problem.

[OpSomBlood]

30. I don't disagree on a solid national background check system.

And making it mandatory to subject private sales to such a check.

[JayS]

37. Yup, like Rep. Dingell's (D) bill would have done. n/t

n/t

[texengland]

48. background check

Ever heard of it? You have to go through it when you legally buy any type of firearm except for pre 1898.

[iverglas]

63. durn

And it would have been such fun to have someone as evidently, um, confused as this one ...

background check
Ever heard of it? You have to go through it
when you legally buy any type of firearm
except for pre 1898.

... around for a little while longer.

I didn't even get a chance to say Excuuuuse me??? to that blatant little bit of, um, inaccuracy.

I notice that none of the "RKBA" crowd hereabouts did, either.

[texengland]

50. .

:nuke:

[Wickerman]

20. ah, I just like the song

Time To Get A Gun

My neighbour's car got stole last night
right out of his driveway
we heard the dogs a barking
we never paid them any mind

and Mary says she's going to lock the door
from now on when we go away
and I been walking around this farm
wondering if it's time

time to get a gun
that's what I been thinking
I could afford one
if I did just a little less drinking

time to put something
between me and the sun
when the talking is over
it's time to get a gun

last week a government man was there
when I walked out of my back door
he said I'm sorry to bother you son
but it don't matter anymore
'cause even while we're talking
well right here where we stand
they're making plans for a four lane highway
and a big old overpass

Mary says she worried about herself and the kids
she's never known anybody had a gun
and her daddy never did

but I think it should be up to me
'cause when it's all said and done
somebody's got to walk into the night
well I'm going to be that one

time to get a gun
that's what I been thinking
I could afford one
if I did just a little less drinking

time to put something
between me and the sun
when the talking is over
it's time to get a gun

www.fredeaglesmith.com

[iverglas]

45. I just posted it on your behalf

up here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1878635&mesg_id=1878635

There was one appreciative audience member, anyhow. ;)

Who opened the gates to the corral, by the way?

[OpSomBlood]

64. 73% as of 9:45 this morning.

73% of those polled in the DU General Forum own or want to own a gun.

Yeah, strict gun control is a fantastic issue for the Democratic platform to hinge on.

[MrBenchley]

65. 133 out of nearly 47,000

Hey, wonder if your new freeper friend voted before he got his ass booted?

"strict gun control is a fantastic issue for the Democratic platform"
Sure is...70% of voters support it, and most of the opposition is from the lunatic fringe, as the gun forums clearly show.

[OpSomBlood]

66. That's almost the same ratio...

...as number of insane, racist right-wing posts you've cherry-picked out of AR15.com, a forum with more than 50,000 members.

[MrBenchley]

67. Not the same ratio, though, as the number

of insane, racist right-wing posts there ARE in that cesspool...which is about all of them.

"a forum with more than 50,000 members."
And you're welcome to the entire wretched lot of those dittomonkey fuckwits.

Now be sure and post a link to your dreary snivel again...it will be a BIG laugh.

[iverglas]

68. lordy, lordy, lordy

73% of those polled in the DU General Forum own or want to own a gun.
Yeah, strict gun control is a fantastic issue for the Democratic platform to hinge on.

Can we bet that somethinglike 73% of respondents to a DU poll would say they own or want to own a car?

Shall we conclude that 73% of DUers, or Democrats, or the general population, or even of the respondents to a DU poll, do not want to see strict automobile pollution controls? Speed limits? Mandatory seatbelts in cars? Laws against drunk driving? Mandatory licensing of drivers and registration of cars?

What?

[MrBenchley]

69. Guess that's more of that "decency"

not to mention adult respect and civility....

[Petemoss]

70. Decency and Respect

With all due respect, Mr. Benchley, you are not anyone to arbritrate the definitions of decency or respect. Your posts are some of the most divisive, contentious and insulting that I have had the pleasure to read.

If you wish to consider the analogy of guns and cars consider the following:

1. To buy a car there is no background check.
   
2. No license is required as long as it is used only on private property.
   
3. Taxes are required only as long as the car is used on public streets.
   
4. You can buy as many cars as you can afford without any time limitations.
   

Should we go on?

[MrBenchley]

71. With all due respect...

I'm not trying to arbitrate a thing, pete...I'm just chortling over the hypocrisy on view from our trigger happy friends...

"Your posts are some of the most divisive, contentious and insulting that I have had the pleasure to read. "
The answer to that is so simple as to seem silly.

"If you wish to consider the analogy of guns and cars"
Now why the fuck would I want to do that?

"No license is required as long as it is used only on private property."
Beep! Beep! Watch out for that flower bed!

[Petemoss]

72. Waste of Effort

Obviously you are someone who makes alot of noise. So much so, you can not hear anything or anyone around you. Conversing with you is as productive as speaking to a brick wall. Thank you for making that so abundantly clear as your posts will require no more of my time.

[MrBenchley]

73. And the downside for me is?

I don't have to hear anymore about "cars on private property".

Vroom! Vroom! The birdbath should have watched where it was going! Vroom!

[CO Liberal]

78. ...as your posts will require no more of my time.

Of course not. Because after only two posts, you earned yourself one of these:



Ta-ta, disruptor. Thanks for playing. And what do we have for him, Don Pardo????

[iverglas]

79. ta for the pic

Even with my nice new netscape, and even if I turn java and javascript on, I *still* can't see the marker on the grave when I look at the profile. But seeing a blank page is almost as satisfying. ;)

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

74. you forgot one!!

1. To buy a car there is no background check.

2. No license is required as long as it is used only on private property.

3. Taxes are required only as long as the car is used on public streets.

4. You can buy as many cars as you can afford without any time limitations.

5. All cars come equipped with cloaking devices that enable them to be driven by anyone, anywhere the driver wishes to go (fuck that "as long as it is used only on private property" noise, and the hell with anybody or anything that's in the way, or that the driver wishes to run down), without anybody being any the wiser.

Remember that one in future, and your argument (?) will make a whole lot more sense.

[MrBenchley]

76. Harry Humvee says jump and roll kids!

Vroom! Vroom!

[iverglas]

75. drivel and risiblub

With all due respect, Mr. Benchley, you are not anyone to arbritrate the definitions of decency or respect.

And there are no faeries at the bottom of my garden.

Now, who wuz saying he was/there are?

[MrBenchley]

77. Oh look! Another newbie

who isn't even trying to pretend he hasn't been here before.

As the great Yogi Berra says "Deja vu, all over again." He even dusted off the old "I don't need a license--I drive on my lawn" roadapple.

[CO Liberal]

80. My Favorite...

...was the real numbnuts who got banned a while ago. I don't remember his user name, so let's use "Numbnuts" in this example. After he was banned he re-registered as "Numbnuts 2", "Numbnuts3", etc. and tried to pick up the arguments right where he had gotten previously banned.

The mods finally canned him once and for all.....

[MrBenchley]

81. Did you catch the freeper last night

who actually put a dittohead slur against "liberal democrats" in his sig?

[CO Liberal]

82. We Had a Bunch Of Them....

...when they added the "DU Welcomes Our Newest Member" featire to the main page. The freepers were climbing over themselves to join, using names like "Dems Suck" and "Bush4Ever"....

:-)

[iverglas]

84. I know a site

... where "smiverglass" was shown as the newest member for a while.

Kept hoping somebody else would register and it would sink into obscurity. ;)

Oops, never could spell my own name (in grade 2, I was the one whose work wasn't up on the wall on parents' night, for that reason): that's shmiverglass.

[CO Liberal]

85. My Ex-Father-In-Law Couldn't Spell

When my second ex-wife was born, they decided to name her "Tina" - not short for anythin, just "Tina". (She had a sister named "Betty", which wasn't short for anything, either.) When Dad went to register her birth, he guessed at how to spell "Tina". That's why my second wife's name was pronounced "TEE-na", but spelled "Tenna".

:-)

[iverglas]

88. heh

I almost got named Tina -- that was my father's choice for his first-born child. Thank the dogs my mother was both opposed and unwavering, no offence to your sister! Instead, I got the same name as 50% of the other girls born in that half-decade, but at least I'm old enough that it wasn't Brittany or even Jessica, and it once the name-ee outgrows the cute version, it's a decent middle-aged name.

Me, I can spell everything else (well, except subsistence and some of its cousins, with that Frenchitis I have), I just never manage to do my name right.