Discussion:
40 REASONS TO SUPPORT GUN CONTROL
(too old to reply)
Webzpider
2003-11-03 02:12:08 UTC
Permalink
40 REASONS TO SUPPORT GUN CONTROL
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need
guns.
2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun
control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the
lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics
showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into
effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates,
which have been declining since 1991.
5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting
spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a
lunatic is paranoid.
6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if
shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a
smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense
--give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete
Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).
10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about
guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart
surgery.
11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil
engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer
programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady [or Sheena Duncan, Adele
Kirsten, Peter Storey, etc.] for firearms expertise.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard,
which was created by an act of Congress in 1917.
13. The National Guard, funded by the federal government, occupying
property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the
federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state
militia.
14. These phrases," right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of
the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of certain
rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,"
and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states
respectively, and to the people," all refer to individuals, but "the right
of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.
15. We don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the
Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all
guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that
Constitution.
16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why
the army has millions of them.
17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they serve no
military purpose, and private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles,"
because they are military weapons.
18. The ready availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background
checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., is responsible for recent
school shootings, compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40's,
50's and 60's, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware
stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, etc.,
etc.
19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling
guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't
touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them
properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical
adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a
gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements
aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering
butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at
gun shows.
25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a
majority of the population supported owning slaves.
26. A self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a
"weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."
27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns,
which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
28. The right of online pornographers to exist cannot be questioned
because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the
use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of
Rights.
29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers,
and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.
30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of
the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of
the Constitution.
31. Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be
ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc.
is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms
control summit.
32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need
larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face
criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns
because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
34. Police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a
year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private
citizens can never hope to obtain.
35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the
police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the
police are not responsible for their protection.
36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police
chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled
with cops, need a gun.
37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of
people, which is why the police need them but "civilians" do not.
38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft
preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government
pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.
39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for
defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their
duty weapon.
40. When Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the
wrong hands," they don't mean you.
--
Yours In Liberty, Melissa - Colorado, U.S.A.
http://tinyurl.com/t1vx
http://www.dimensional.com/~melissa/para.htm
License plate frame - "Guns Defend Life & Liberty"
http://www.cafeshops.com/melissa_photo.7734333
All this whining from a paranoid gun loon just to promote the
selling of fucking licence plate frames?
No wonder you trailer living white trash are monumental losers.

Webzpider
George
2003-11-04 16:30:53 UTC
Permalink
After sending a monumental amount of unneeded forwarded text Webzpider had
Post by Webzpider
All this whining from a paranoid gun loon just to promote the
selling of fucking licence plate frames?
No wonder you trailer living white trash are monumental losers.
Webzpider
To which anyone with any common sense would reply:

TROLL

You should check and see if your socialized health care offers mental heath
benefits. There may be medicine or treatment to help your condition.

George in Las Vegas
pragmatist
2003-11-05 03:15:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
After sending a monumental amount of unneeded forwarded text Webzpider had
Post by Webzpider
All this whining from a paranoid gun loon just to promote the
selling of fucking licence plate frames?
No wonder you trailer living white trash are monumental losers.
Webzpider
TROLL
You should check and see if your socialized health care offers mental heath
benefits. There may be medicine or treatment to help your condition.
George in Las Vegas
There is no help for a narcissist of this magnitude.
He is not from here.
I wonder if they practice euthanaisia where he comes from.
Pragmatist
Webzpider
2003-11-05 21:20:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
After sending a monumental amount of unneeded forwarded text Webzpider had
Post by Webzpider
All this whining from a paranoid gun loon just to promote the
selling of fucking licence plate frames?
No wonder you trailer living white trash are monumental losers.
Webzpider
TROLL
You should check and see if your socialized health care offers mental heath
benefits. There may be medicine or treatment to help your condition.
Apparently you're one of the losers.
DE781
2003-11-23 22:11:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Webzpider
40 REASONS TO SUPPORT GUN CONTROL
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need
guns.
2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun
control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the
lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics
showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into
effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates,
which have been declining since 1991.
5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting
spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a
lunatic is paranoid.
6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if
shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a
smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense
--give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete
Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).
10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about
guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart
surgery.
11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil
engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer
programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady [or Sheena Duncan, Adele
Kirsten, Peter Storey, etc.] for firearms expertise.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard,
which was created by an act of Congress in 1917.
13. The National Guard, funded by the federal government, occupying
property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the
federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state
militia.
14. These phrases," right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of
the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of certain
rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,"
and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states
respectively, and to the people," all refer to individuals, but "the right
of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.
15. We don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the
Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all
guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that
Constitution.
16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why
the army has millions of them.
17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they serve no
military purpose, and private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles,"
because they are military weapons.
18. The ready availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background
checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., is responsible for recent
school shootings, compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40's,
50's and 60's, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware
stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, etc.,
etc.
19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling
guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't
touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them
properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical
adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a
gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements
aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering
butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at
gun shows.
25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a
majority of the population supported owning slaves.
26. A self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a
"weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."
27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns,
which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
28. The right of online pornographers to exist cannot be questioned
because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the
use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of
Rights.
29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers,
and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.
30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of
the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of
the Constitution.
31. Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be
ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc.
is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms
control summit.
32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need
larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face
criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns
because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
34. Police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a
year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private
citizens can never hope to obtain.
35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the
police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the
police are not responsible for their protection.
36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police
chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled
with cops, need a gun.
37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of
people, which is why the police need them but "civilians" do not.
38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft
preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government
pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.
39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for
defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their
duty weapon.
40. When Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the
wrong hands," they don't mean you.
--
Yours In Liberty, Melissa - Colorado, U.S.A.
http://tinyurl.com/t1vx
http://www.dimensional.com/~melissa/para.htm
License plate frame - "Guns Defend Life & Liberty"
http://www.cafeshops.com/melissa_photo.7734333
All this whining from a paranoid gun loon just to promote the
selling of fucking licence plate frames?
No wonder you trailer living white trash are monumental losers.
Webzpider
God damn! I'm vehemently anti-gun, but you're just biased. I can't
deny that the chick has some points that need studying and
controlling. IMO, gun control definitely intially INCREASES the
amount of violent crimes. However, if total, global gun control is
done gradually, over centuries of time, I believe the statistics will
inevitable finally fall lower than they've ever been, as guns are all
either nonexistent or antiques. THIS is what the world needs to
persue as a whole. It's synonymous to the Iraq war. The Iraq war has
definitely increased violence and terror and caused deaths worldwide.
HOWEVER, that does not mean it was not the right thing to do, because
future suffering will be lower than ever in the past in Iraq, IF the
country is rebuilt properly. Ditto for anti-American terror violence.
Funny thing is, I'd like to see how many pro-gun people were actually
against the war in Iraq, and vice-versa. People are such hypocrites!
Anson Macdonald
2003-11-23 23:35:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by DE781
God damn! I'm vehemently anti-gun, but you're just biased. I can't
deny that the chick has some points that need studying and
controlling. IMO, gun control definitely intially INCREASES the
amount of violent crimes. However, if total, global gun control is
done gradually, over centuries of time, I believe the statistics will
inevitable finally fall lower than they've ever been, as guns are all
either nonexistent or antiques.
You're not an average gun prohibitionist, I'll grant you that. Most
aren't that patient. And since you're taking a centuries-long view,
that implies you would tolerate DECADES of increased misery due to "gun
control definitely initially INCREAS[ing] the amount of violent crimes."

Of course, that's assuming that many, many governments and
administrations would stay in power continuously over the course of
centuries to implement your "final solution" to gun crime. I'll think
I'll just nickname it the Fourth Reich, for short.
Bill Weston
2003-11-24 14:15:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anson Macdonald
Post by DE781
God damn! I'm vehemently anti-gun, but you're just biased. I can't
deny that the chick has some points that need studying and
controlling. IMO, gun control definitely intially INCREASES the
amount of violent crimes. However, if total, global gun control is
done gradually, over centuries of time, I believe the statistics will
inevitable finally fall lower than they've ever been, as guns are all
either nonexistent or antiques.
You're not an average gun prohibitionist, I'll grant you that. Most
aren't that patient. And since you're taking a centuries-long view,
that implies you would tolerate DECADES of increased misery due to
"gun control definitely initially INCREAS[ing] the amount of violent
crimes."
Of course, that's assuming that many, many governments and
administrations would stay in power continuously over the course of
centuries to implement your "final solution" to gun crime. I'll think
I'll just nickname it the Fourth Reich, for short.
I really can't understand why people who don't live in America care whether
Americans are allowed to carry guns or not.

Personally as a Englishman I find the American obsession with handguns a
little childish though as I own a shotgun and a Mk4 .303 Enfield rifle I can
hardly be called anti-gun, but if you're not American let them get on with
it.

I spend a lot of time in the US on business and am very grateful when I
return home to the freedom that is a largely unarmed police force, but that
doesn't give me the right to tell other countries what to do.
--
Julian
---------
= Pretentious Sig required =
I hate Keane
2003-11-24 16:44:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Weston
I really can't understand why people who don't live in America care
whether Americans are allowed to carry guns or not.
We don't, mostly the commentors are reacting.

So why do merkins insist on telling others they are
sunbjugated by not carrying guns?
Bill Weston
2003-11-25 22:37:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by I hate Keane
Post by Bill Weston
I really can't understand why people who don't live in America care
whether Americans are allowed to carry guns or not.
We don't, mostly the commentors are reacting.
So why do merkins insist on telling others they are
sunbjugated by not carrying guns?
They have been conditioned by culture and media for many years to believe in
the god that is gun, such that they simply cannot see that the true freedom
is to have no guns at all.
--
Julian
---------
= Pretentious Sig required =
Gary Frank
2003-11-25 23:38:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Weston
Post by I hate Keane
Post by Bill Weston
I really can't understand why people who don't live in America care
whether Americans are allowed to carry guns or not.
We don't, mostly the commentors are reacting.
So why do merkins insist on telling others they are
sunbjugated by not carrying guns?
They have been conditioned by culture and media for many years to believe in
the god that is gun, such that they simply cannot see that the true freedom
is to have no guns at all.
If you had even a minimal grasp on the history of man you would know
how truly idiotic your statement is.


"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are
neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make
things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they
serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed
man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they
be properly armed."
--Alexander Hamilton

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every
one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve
it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are
ruined."
--Patrick Henry


"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop
was landed in my country. I never would lay down my arms - never -
never - NEVER! You cannot conquer America!"
-- William Pitt (former British Prime Minister)

--
Gary

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
-Benjamin Franklin
Bill Weston
2003-11-26 12:34:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Frank
Post by Bill Weston
Post by I hate Keane
Post by Bill Weston
I really can't understand why people who don't live in America care
whether Americans are allowed to carry guns or not.
We don't, mostly the commentors are reacting.
So why do merkins insist on telling others they are
sunbjugated by not carrying guns?
They have been conditioned by culture and media for many years to
believe in the god that is gun, such that they simply cannot see
that the true freedom is to have no guns at all.
If you had even a minimal grasp on the history of man you would know
how truly idiotic your statement is.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are
neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make
things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they
serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed
man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they
be properly armed."
--Alexander Hamilton
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every
one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve
it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are
ruined."
--Patrick Henry
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop
was landed in my country. I never would lay down my arms - never -
never - NEVER! You cannot conquer America!"
-- William Pitt (former British Prime Minister)
A typically conditioned american response. Liken guns to smoking and ask the
question again - which is the greater freedom, the freedom to smoke where I
like or the freedom for my children not to have to breath your smoke?
--
Julian
---------
= Pretentious Sig required =
Morton Davis
2003-11-26 13:10:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Weston
Post by Gary Frank
Post by Bill Weston
Post by I hate Keane
Post by Bill Weston
I really can't understand why people who don't live in America care
whether Americans are allowed to carry guns or not.
We don't, mostly the commentors are reacting.
So why do merkins insist on telling others they are
sunbjugated by not carrying guns?
They have been conditioned by culture and media for many years to
believe in the god that is gun, such that they simply cannot see
that the true freedom is to have no guns at all.
If you had even a minimal grasp on the history of man you would know
how truly idiotic your statement is.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are
neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make
things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they
serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed
man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they
be properly armed."
--Alexander Hamilton
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every
one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve
it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are
ruined."
--Patrick Henry
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop
was landed in my country. I never would lay down my arms - never -
never - NEVER! You cannot conquer America!"
-- William Pitt (former British Prime Minister)
A typically conditioned american response. Liken guns to smoking and ask the
question again - which is the greater freedom, the freedom to smoke where I
like or the freedom for my children not to have to breath your smoke?
False analogy, unless you're trying to claim secondhand gunsmoke causes
cancer.

-*MORT*-
Bill Weston
2003-11-26 16:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Morton Davis
Post by Bill Weston
Post by Gary Frank
Post by Bill Weston
Post by I hate Keane
Post by Bill Weston
I really can't understand why people who don't live in America
care whether Americans are allowed to carry guns or not.
We don't, mostly the commentors are reacting.
So why do merkins insist on telling others they are
sunbjugated by not carrying guns?
They have been conditioned by culture and media for many years to
believe in the god that is gun, such that they simply cannot see
that the true freedom is to have no guns at all.
If you had even a minimal grasp on the history of man you would know
how truly idiotic your statement is.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are
neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make
things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they
serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed
man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that
they be properly armed."
--Alexander Hamilton
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every
one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve
it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are
ruined."
--Patrick Henry
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop
was landed in my country. I never would lay down my arms - never -
never - NEVER! You cannot conquer America!"
-- William Pitt (former British Prime Minister)
A typically conditioned american response. Liken guns to smoking and
ask the question again - which is the greater freedom, the freedom
to smoke where I like or the freedom for my children not to have to
breath your smoke?
False analogy, unless you're trying to claim secondhand gunsmoke
causes cancer.
-*MORT*-
A perfect analogy in fact as your weak response demonstrates. Cigarettes and
guns are very similar in many ways - people want them even though they kill
and neither have any redeeming features other than the fact that those who
love them are statistically the most likely to die by them.
--
Julian
---------
= Pretentious Sig required =
Morton Davis
2003-11-26 16:06:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Weston
Post by Morton Davis
Post by Bill Weston
Post by Gary Frank
Post by Bill Weston
Post by I hate Keane
Post by Bill Weston
I really can't understand why people who don't live in America
care whether Americans are allowed to carry guns or not.
We don't, mostly the commentors are reacting.
So why do merkins insist on telling others they are
sunbjugated by not carrying guns?
They have been conditioned by culture and media for many years to
believe in the god that is gun, such that they simply cannot see
that the true freedom is to have no guns at all.
If you had even a minimal grasp on the history of man you would know
how truly idiotic your statement is.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are
neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make
things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they
serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed
man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that
they be properly armed."
--Alexander Hamilton
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every
one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve
it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are
ruined."
--Patrick Henry
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop
was landed in my country. I never would lay down my arms - never -
never - NEVER! You cannot conquer America!"
-- William Pitt (former British Prime Minister)
A typically conditioned american response. Liken guns to smoking and
ask the question again - which is the greater freedom, the freedom
to smoke where I like or the freedom for my children not to have to
breath your smoke?
False analogy, unless you're trying to claim secondhand gunsmoke
causes cancer.
-*MORT*-
A perfect analogy in fact as your weak response demonstrates. Cigarettes and
guns are very similar in many ways - people want them even though they kill
and neither have any redeeming features other than the fact that those who
love them are statistically the most likely to die by them.
Prove a gun has ever killed. Take all the space you need.

-*MORT*-
I hate Keane
2003-11-26 18:40:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Morton Davis
Prove a gun has ever killed. Take all the space you need.
One paragrgh would do, if I cared to list how many people died
by misfires and backfires, even if the claim that people kill not
guns was ever relevant.
AH#49
2003-11-26 18:52:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by I hate Keane
Post by Morton Davis
Prove a gun has ever killed. Take all the space you need.
One paragrgh would do, if I cared to list how many people died
by misfires and backfires, even if the claim that people kill not
guns was ever relevant.
Then provide these cases how a gun that was in perfectly good working
order, with factory loads designed for the gun, purposely killed
somebody due to a "back fire!"
What did they do? Put the round in upside down and backwards?
I hate Keane
2003-11-26 19:13:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by AH#49
Post by I hate Keane
Post by Morton Davis
Prove a gun has ever killed. Take all the space you need.
One paragrgh would do, if I cared to list how many people died
by misfires and backfires, even if the claim that people kill not
guns was ever relevant.
Then provide these cases how a gun that was in perfectly good
working order, with factory loads designed for the gun, purposely
killed somebody due to a "back fire!"
What did they do? Put the round in upside down and backwards?
'if I cared to list how many people died by misfires and backfires'

You seem to have missed that, in your hurry to reply.
AH#49
2003-11-26 19:24:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by I hate Keane
Post by AH#49
Post by I hate Keane
Post by Morton Davis
Prove a gun has ever killed. Take all the space you need.
One paragrgh would do, if I cared to list how many people died
by misfires and backfires, even if the claim that people kill not
guns was ever relevant.
Then provide these cases how a gun that was in perfectly good
working order, with factory loads designed for the gun, purposely
killed somebody due to a "back fire!"
What did they do? Put the round in upside down and backwards?
'if I cared to list how many people died by misfires and backfires'
You seem to have missed that, in your hurry to reply.
Still waiting for you provide and show your "paragraph."

Oh! That's right! You don't "care" to save yer own ass from the lies
and misinformation that you attempt to provide.
My bad.
I hate Keane
2003-11-26 19:35:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by AH#49
Post by I hate Keane
Post by AH#49
Post by I hate Keane
Post by Morton Davis
Prove a gun has ever killed. Take all the space you need.
One paragrgh would do, if I cared to list how many people died
by misfires and backfires, even if the claim that people kill not
guns was ever relevant.
Then provide these cases how a gun that was in perfectly good
working order, with factory loads designed for the gun, purposely
killed somebody due to a "back fire!"
What did they do? Put the round in upside down and backwards?
'if I cared to list how many people died by misfires and backfires'
You seem to have missed that, in your hurry to reply.
Still waiting for you provide and show your "paragraph."
Oh! That's right! You don't "care" to save yer own ass from the lies
and misinformation that you attempt to provide. My bad.
You knew it was your bad, as soon as you added:

a gun that was in perfectly good working order, etc

Something I did not say, so what better proof do you need, than to
use what you said. guns that was not in perfectly good working order
or with loads not designed for the gun, can kill due to a "back fire.
AH#49
2003-11-26 19:53:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by I hate Keane
Post by AH#49
Post by I hate Keane
Post by AH#49
Post by I hate Keane
Post by Morton Davis
Prove a gun has ever killed. Take all the space you need.
One paragrgh would do, if I cared to list how many people died
by misfires and backfires, even if the claim that people kill not
guns was ever relevant.
Then provide these cases how a gun that was in perfectly good
working order, with factory loads designed for the gun, purposely
killed somebody due to a "back fire!"
What did they do? Put the round in upside down and backwards?
'if I cared to list how many people died by misfires and backfires'
You seem to have missed that, in your hurry to reply.
Still waiting for you provide and show your "paragraph."
Oh! That's right! You don't "care" to save yer own ass from the lies
and misinformation that you attempt to provide. My bad.
a gun that was in perfectly good working order, etc
Something I did not say,
I know that.
Sooooo, I'm still waiting for your "paragraph."
But then again, I'm still waiting for "the List" from Milt.
Post by I hate Keane
so what better proof do you need, than to
use what you said. guns that was not in perfectly good working order
or with loads not designed for the gun, can kill due to a "back fire.
Provide your paragraph, you moron! That's the Proof I await for that
you said you could provide.
I want to see the "list" of people that were killed due a gun that
"back fired!"

But of course, those people have to have been "killed" by guns!
Guns, by the by, that were not altered, not kept in decent shape, and
did not have experimental or hot rodded loads.

I'm still waiting, teeny bop boy blunder.

Yer dodging the issue.
I hate Keane
2003-11-26 19:59:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by AH#49
I'm still waiting, teeny bop boy blunder.
Yer dodging the issue.
There is only one issue.

'Guns can kill, for example by backfire.'

I feel no need to prove that statement. which is another matter.
AH#49
2003-11-26 20:47:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by I hate Keane
Post by AH#49
I'm still waiting, teeny bop boy blunder.
Yer dodging the issue.
There is only one issue.
That indeed you are a liar and a fool?
Yes, that is indeed the issue!
Post by I hate Keane
'Guns can kill, for example by backfire.'
If so, then explain it, and back up your beliefs!
Why can't you show some back bone and stick up for yourself?
Don't you understand that the more you dig yer self into a hole, the
deeper and more stupid you become?
Post by I hate Keane
I feel no need to prove that statement. which is another matter.
You can't disprove that statement, because yer a fibbing little shit
stain that realizes that I am 100 percent correct.
I hate Keane
2003-11-26 19:16:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by I hate Keane
Post by Morton Davis
Prove a gun has ever killed. Take all the space you need.
One paragrgh would do, if I cared to list how many people died
by misfires and backfires, even if the claim that people kill not
guns was ever relevant.
Well, there's your paragraph and yet you proved nothing.
Some people seem to be having a lot of trouble understanding this line:

'if I cared to list how many people died by misfires and backfires'

Does one assume it is a congenital thing?
AH#49
2003-11-26 19:27:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by I hate Keane
Post by I hate Keane
Post by Morton Davis
Prove a gun has ever killed. Take all the space you need.
One paragrgh would do, if I cared to list how many people died
by misfires and backfires, even if the claim that people kill not
guns was ever relevant.
Well, there's your paragraph and yet you proved nothing.
'if I cared to list how many people died by misfires and backfires'
Does one assume it is a congenital thing?
In other words, you lie like a mongrel dog with five legs, and can NOT
provide the one paragraph needed to support your lies, because "you
don't care" that you are seen as a philthy liar?

Bravo, Boy Blunder!
I hate Keane
2003-11-26 19:39:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by AH#49
In other words, you lie like a mongrel dog with five legs, and can NOT
provide the one paragraph needed to support your lies, because "you
don't care" that you are seen as a philthy liar?
Bravo, Boy Blunder!
Backfires kill, therefore guns kill, is what I claimed, and I do not see the
need to prove it, as you have done that adequately for me, listing possible
causes. Of course there are more, but I see not the need to list them
either.
AH#49
2003-11-26 20:05:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by I hate Keane
Post by AH#49
In other words, you lie like a mongrel dog with five legs, and can NOT
provide the one paragraph needed to support your lies, because "you
don't care" that you are seen as a philthy liar?
Bravo, Boy Blunder!
Backfires kill,
My car used to backfire.
But that was due to a weak/bad coil. Nobody was ever harmed, let alone
killed.
Regarding guns, you have YET to explain what a backfire is, let alone
provided your "paragraph."
Post by I hate Keane
therefore guns kill,
No, they can not.
It's an impossibility, AFAIK.
That's why I am so anxious for you to provide substance to your claim
that shows otherwise.
You WILL provide that soon.....won't you?
Post by I hate Keane
is what I claimed, and I do not see the
need to prove it,
In other words, you CAN'T prove that which you claim!
That makes more and perfect sense.
And ya know what?
The moon is NOT made of cheese that is green in color!
Problem is, I can prove what I say.
Post by I hate Keane
as you have done that adequately for me, listing possible
causes. Of course there are more, but I see not the need to list them
either.
I have not listed any causes, so you must be under the influence of
mind altering drugs, again.

But the reason that _you_ can't "list them", is simple!
There are none!
Asmodeus
2003-11-26 19:36:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Weston
and neither have any redeeming features
This is America. Redeeming features are irrelevant.

How's that gruel taste, bedwetter?
--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || Just exactly what part of
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || "Shall Not Be Infringed"
/ \ AND POSTINGS || don't you understand?
Panama Jack
2003-11-27 03:22:20 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:10:27 GMT, "Morton Davis"
Post by Morton Davis
Post by Bill Weston
Post by Gary Frank
Post by Bill Weston
Post by I hate Keane
Post by Bill Weston
I really can't understand why people who don't live in America care
whether Americans are allowed to carry guns or not.
We don't, mostly the commentors are reacting.
So why do merkins insist on telling others they are
sunbjugated by not carrying guns?
They have been conditioned by culture and media for many years to
believe in the god that is gun, such that they simply cannot see
that the true freedom is to have no guns at all.
If you had even a minimal grasp on the history of man you would know
how truly idiotic your statement is.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are
neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make
things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they
serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed
man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they
be properly armed."
--Alexander Hamilton
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every
one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve
it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are
ruined."
--Patrick Henry
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop
was landed in my country. I never would lay down my arms - never -
never - NEVER! You cannot conquer America!"
-- William Pitt (former British Prime Minister)
A typically conditioned american response. Liken guns to smoking and ask
the
Post by Bill Weston
question again - which is the greater freedom, the freedom to smoke where
I
Post by Bill Weston
like or the freedom for my children not to have to breath your smoke?
False analogy,
It's always mens' arses with you, isn't it Mort.
Post by Morton Davis
unless you're trying to claim secondhand gunsmoke causes
cancer.
-*MORT*-
PLONK!
ben
2003-11-26 17:41:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Weston
Post by Gary Frank
Post by Bill Weston
Post by I hate Keane
Post by Bill Weston
I really can't understand why people who don't live in America care
whether Americans are allowed to carry guns or not.
We don't, mostly the commentors are reacting.
So why do merkins insist on telling others they are
sunbjugated by not carrying guns?
They have been conditioned by culture and media for many years to
believe in the god that is gun, such that they simply cannot see
that the true freedom is to have no guns at all.
If you had even a minimal grasp on the history of man you would know
how truly idiotic your statement is.
A typically conditioned american response. Liken guns to smoking and ask
the question again - which is the greater freedom, the freedom to smoke
where I like or the freedom for my children not to have to breath your
smoke?
It is clear to me that your children have the freedom to not be around my
smoke, and this freedom is neither less or greater than my right to smoke.
Your children's freedom to be smoke free is manifested in the fact that the
government does not force your children to be in any one place at any given
time, and if I attempt to do so yo may remove them, with force if
necessary. It is also manifested in the fact that if I smoke on you
provate property you may remove me, by force if necessary.

The only ironic thing is that you believe that ANY of your rights can be
protected against infringement withtout the threat of force. Since you
have allowed yourself to be neutered you are now dependent on the
benevolence of your government's threats of force to protect you from other
citizens, but who will protect you when the bobbies aren't around?

Any other questions?
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
I hate Keane
2003-11-26 18:41:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by ben
Any other questions?
Why is it,
the more cowardly the person,
the bigger the weapon they carry?
I hate Keane
2003-11-26 18:51:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by I hate Keane
Post by ben
Any other questions?
Why is it,
the more cowardly the person,
the bigger the weapon they carry?
AH#49
2003-11-26 19:03:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by I hate Keane
Post by ben
Any other questions?
Why is it,
the more cowardly the person,
the bigger the weapon they carry?
Replying to your self, and forgot to reply with something referencing a
penis again?
I hate Keane
2003-11-26 19:18:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by AH#49
Post by I hate Keane
Post by ben
Any other questions?
Why is it,
the more cowardly the person,
the bigger the weapon they carry?
Replying to your self,
and forgot to reply with something referencing a penis again?
You often manage to find reference to a penis?
Strange, when it is a gun rather than your normal plastic surgery ng.
AH#49
2003-11-26 19:35:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by I hate Keane
Post by AH#49
Post by I hate Keane
Post by ben
Any other questions?
Why is it,
the more cowardly the person,
the bigger the weapon they carry?
Replying to your self,
and forgot to reply with something referencing a penis again?
You often manage to find reference to a penis?
Strange, when it is a gun rather than your normal plastic surgery ng.
All you gun grabbing monkeys think of the male sex organ.
That's why I was wondering why you forgot to post anything at all.
Was your mouth full?
I hate Keane
2003-11-26 19:41:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by AH#49
Post by I hate Keane
Post by AH#49
Post by I hate Keane
Why is it,
the more cowardly the person,
the bigger the weapon they carry?
Replying to your self,
and forgot to reply with something referencing a penis again?
You often manage to find reference to a penis?
Strange, when it is a gun rather than your normal plastic surgery ng.
All you gun grabbing monkeys think of the male sex organ.
That's why I was wondering why you forgot to post anything at all.
Are you impressed by your childish challenges, someone has to be.
Post by AH#49
Was your mouth full?
AH#49
2003-11-26 20:08:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by I hate Keane
Post by AH#49
Post by I hate Keane
Post by AH#49
Post by I hate Keane
Why is it,
the more cowardly the person,
the bigger the weapon they carry?
Replying to your self,
and forgot to reply with something referencing a penis again?
You often manage to find reference to a penis?
Strange, when it is a gun rather than your normal plastic surgery ng.
All you gun grabbing monkeys think of the male sex organ.
That's why I was wondering why you forgot to post anything at all.
Are you impressed by your childish challenges, someone has to be.
That person would be you.
But you're not much of a challenge, as you can't cough up "The
Paragraph"! :)
Post by I hate Keane
Post by AH#49
Was your mouth full?
Silence gives consent.
AH#49
2003-11-26 18:53:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by I hate Keane
Post by ben
Any other questions?
Why is it,
the more cowardly the person,
the bigger the weapon they carry?
Why is that cowards like you always rely on others with guns to protect
you?
I hate Keane
2003-11-26 19:20:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by AH#49
Post by I hate Keane
Post by ben
Any other questions?
Why is it,
the more cowardly the person,
the bigger the weapon they carry?
Why is that cowards like you always rely
on others with guns to protect you?
You mean personaly?
I have hospitalised more than one person, not
bothering to draw the weapon I was paid to carry,
or nationally?
AH#49
2003-11-26 19:43:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by I hate Keane
Post by AH#49
Post by I hate Keane
Post by ben
Any other questions?
Why is it,
the more cowardly the person,
the bigger the weapon they carry?
Why is that cowards like you always rely
on others with guns to protect you?
You mean personaly?
Well, oh course!
Post by I hate Keane
I have hospitalised more than one person, not
bothering to draw the weapon I was paid to carry,
You have no "job" that pay's you to carry a firearm.
After all, pulling sliced-n-diced bits of potato from very hot grease
is not life threatening.
And how you "hopitalized" others, is a matter that you should keep
secret, you aids ridden maggot.
Post by I hate Keane
or nationally?
You must have an IQ that makes your shoe size jealous.
I hate Keane
2003-11-26 19:56:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by AH#49
Post by I hate Keane
Post by AH#49
Post by I hate Keane
Post by ben
Any other questions?
Why is it,
the more cowardly the person,
the bigger the weapon they carry?
Why is that cowards like you always rely
on others with guns to protect you?
You mean personaly?
Well, oh course!
Post by I hate Keane
I have hospitalised more than one person, not
bothering to draw the weapon I was paid to carry,
You have no "job" that pay's you to carry a firearm.
I said past tense. You are quite right I have no "job" that pays me
to carry firearms, only I did in the past. Something else I do not
feel the need to prove. I am not here to play 'yes I did no you
didn't' pantomime with you.
AH#49
2003-11-26 20:39:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by I hate Keane
Post by AH#49
Post by I hate Keane
Post by AH#49
Post by I hate Keane
Post by ben
Any other questions?
Why is it,
the more cowardly the person,
the bigger the weapon they carry?
Why is that cowards like you always rely
on others with guns to protect you?
You still haven't answered the question.
Why is that?
Post by I hate Keane
Post by AH#49
Post by I hate Keane
You mean personaly?
Well, oh course!
Post by I hate Keane
I have hospitalised more than one person, not
bothering to draw the weapon I was paid to carry,
You couldn't draw a picture of a tree with a 64 count box of Crayolas.
Post by I hate Keane
Post by AH#49
You have no "job" that pay's you to carry a firearm.
You still haven't answered the question.
Why is that?
Post by I hate Keane
I said past tense. You are quite right I have no "job" that pays me
to carry firearms,
So you LIED, again?
Post by I hate Keane
only I did in the past.
Ok then.
I say you NEVER "had" a job, let alone one that paid you to carry a
firearm!

Prove me wrong!

You still haven't answered the question.
Why is that?
Post by I hate Keane
Something else I do not
feel the need to prove.
And the reason for that is.....
1) YOU LIE like a rug and
2) You still CAN'T answer the question.
Why is that?
You can't provide anything, just like you can't provide your
"paragraph!"
Post by I hate Keane
I am not here to play 'yes I did no you
didn't' pantomime with you.
Wise choice!
After all, you would lose time and time again!

Yer a pathetic, uneducated child.
Asmodeus
2003-11-26 19:35:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Weston
A typically conditioned american response. Liken guns to smoking and
ask the question again - which is the greater freedom, the freedom to
smoke where I like or the freedom for my children not to have to
breath your smoke?
The answer is obvious, though the analogy is false. Bring
your children to my place, I'll line up some pumpkins and
we'll shoot them. Great fun for kids.
--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || Just exactly what part of
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || "Shall Not Be Infringed"
/ \ AND POSTINGS || don't you understand?
Morton Davis
2003-11-26 00:04:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Weston
Post by I hate Keane
Post by Bill Weston
I really can't understand why people who don't live in America care
whether Americans are allowed to carry guns or not.
We don't, mostly the commentors are reacting.
So why do merkins insist on telling others they are
sunbjugated by not carrying guns?
They have been conditioned by culture and media for many years to believe in
the god that is gun, such that they simply cannot see that the true freedom
is to have no guns at all.
Yeah, Julian, let us go back to those wonderful days when the biggest,
strongest man could take whatever the fuck he wanted and fuck any woman he
wanted. Take a good look at the world the way it was before the gun. That
isn't rose-color on your glasses - it's BLOOD.

-*MORT*-
Panama Jack
2003-11-26 02:23:55 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:04:36 GMT, "Morton Davis"
Post by Bill Weston
Post by Bill Weston
Post by I hate Keane
Post by Bill Weston
I really can't understand why people who don't live in America care
whether Americans are allowed to carry guns or not.
We don't, mostly the commentors are reacting.
So why do merkins insist on telling others they are
sunbjugated by not carrying guns?
They have been conditioned by culture and media for many years to believe
in
Post by Bill Weston
the god that is gun, such that they simply cannot see that the true
freedom
Post by Bill Weston
is to have no guns at all.
Yeah, Julian, let us go back to those wonderful days when the biggest,
strongest man could take whatever the fuck he wanted and fuck any woman he
wanted. Take a good look at the world the way it was before the gun. That
isn't rose-color on your glasses - it's BLOOD.
-*MORT*-
PLONK!
I hate Keane
2003-11-26 08:42:07 UTC
Permalink
let us go back to those wonderful days when the biggest, strongest
man could take whatever the fuck he wanted and fuck any woman
he wanted. Take a good look at the world the way it was before
the gun. That isn't rose-color on your glasses - it's BLOOD.
Nothing has changed.
Intead of being stronge, he is now better armed.
Bill Weston
2003-11-26 12:38:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Morton Davis
Post by Bill Weston
Post by I hate Keane
Post by Bill Weston
I really can't understand why people who don't live in America care
whether Americans are allowed to carry guns or not.
We don't, mostly the commentors are reacting.
So why do merkins insist on telling others they are
sunbjugated by not carrying guns?
They have been conditioned by culture and media for many years to
believe in the god that is gun, such that they simply cannot see
that the true freedom is to have no guns at all.
Yeah, Julian, let us go back to those wonderful days when the biggest,
strongest man could take whatever the fuck he wanted and fuck any
woman he wanted. Take a good look at the world the way it was before
the gun. That isn't rose-color on your glasses - it's BLOOD.
-*MORT*-
I have - then the person with the biggest sword took what he wanted and
before that the biggest club and before that the biggest rock. The quality
of yours and my society is not defined by how many people have guns, but by
the quality of the people holding the guns.

A thousand times as many people are murdered in the US each year as in the
UK for 5 times the population. Clearly this is not a population and murder
rate who can be trusted with guns.
--
Julian
---------
= Pretentious Sig required =
ben
2003-11-26 17:54:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Weston
Post by Morton Davis
Post by Bill Weston
Post by I hate Keane
Post by Bill Weston
I really can't understand why people who don't live in America care
whether Americans are allowed to carry guns or not.
We don't, mostly the commentors are reacting.
So why do merkins insist on telling others they are
sunbjugated by not carrying guns?
They have been conditioned by culture and media for many years to
believe in the god that is gun, such that they simply cannot see
that the true freedom is to have no guns at all.
Yeah, Julian, let us go back to those wonderful days when the biggest,
strongest man could take whatever the fuck he wanted and fuck any
woman he wanted. Take a good look at the world the way it was before
the gun. That isn't rose-color on your glasses - it's BLOOD.
-*MORT*-
A thousand times as many people are murdered in the US each year as in
the UK for 5 times the population. Clearly this is not a population and
murder rate who can be trusted with guns.
Are you a pathological liar, or just misinformed? The per capita murder
rate in the US is 5 times the rate in the UK[1], not 200 times as you
claim. That may sound like a lot, but the respective rates are .005% and
.001%.

You shouldn't feel inadequate though because the UK has more violent crime
and more total crime per capital than the US, and your crime rates are
rising while ours fall.


[1]http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
I hate Keane
2003-11-26 18:47:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by ben
Are you a pathological liar
Better than patholigically stupid.
Post by ben
or just misinformed?
Yes you are misinformed.
Post by ben
The per capita murder rate in the US is 5 times the rate in the UK
As if that is not bad enough.
Post by ben
not 200 times as you claim
You are saying 5 times more is OK, than you are patholigically stupid.
Post by ben
UK has more violent crime
We count people who are in fear of their personal safety as violent crime.

As we measure it, by any person who feared for their safety by violence
where injusry was
Post by ben
and more total crime per capital than the US, and your crime rates
are rising while ours fall.
Oh rigfht, have the justice department done another reclassification
to remove more violent crimes from the count. Last I saw they do
that about every 10 years.
AH#49
2003-11-26 19:01:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by I hate Keane
Post by ben
Are you a pathological liar
Better than patholigically stupid.
Apparently you have experience in both matters, but it's great to hear
you admit that you don't deny being a pathological liar.
Post by I hate Keane
Post by ben
or just misinformed?
Yes you are misinformed.
A IKYABWAI?
How cute
ben
2003-11-26 19:02:38 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:47:44 +0000 (UTC), I hate Keane <i-hate-
Post by I hate Keane
We count people who are in fear of their personal safety as violent crime.
As we measure it, by any person who feared for their safety by violence
where injusry was
I'm sorry, I don't speak the language in which that is written. Can you
please translate that to english?
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
I hate Keane
2003-11-26 19:11:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by ben
I'm sorry, I don't speak the language in which that is written.
Just comtinue playing with your gun and yourself, less strain for you
than a spelling grammer flame, which are immensely boring.
AH#49
2003-11-26 19:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by I hate Keane
Post by ben
I'm sorry, I don't speak the language in which that is written.
Just comtinue playing with your gun and yourself, less strain for you
than a spelling grammer flame, which are immensely boring.
Not to us that are educated!
You DEMAND that you be seen as a moron.
You go, Girl!
I hate Keane
2003-11-26 19:48:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by AH#49
Post by I hate Keane
Post by ben
I'm sorry, I don't speak the language in which that is written.
Just comtinue playing with your gun and yourself, less strain for you
than a spelling grammer flame, which are immensely boring.
Not to us that are educated!
You DEMAND that you be seen as a moron.
You go, Girl!
'philthy liar'

I am clever you are stupid flames are mpre lame than your normal
spelling / grammer flames, followed by prove it flames, especially
when changing what the person originally said. Do try harder.
AH#49
2003-11-26 20:25:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by I hate Keane
Post by AH#49
Post by I hate Keane
Post by ben
I'm sorry, I don't speak the language in which that is written.
Just comtinue playing with your gun and yourself, less strain for you
than a spelling grammer flame, which are immensely boring.
Not to us that are educated!
You DEMAND that you be seen as a moron.
You go, Girl!
'philthy liar'
I am clever
Sez you!
Post by I hate Keane
you are stupid flames are mpre lame than your normal
spelling / grammer flames, followed by prove it flames, especially
when changing what the person originally said. Do try harder.
As soon as you learn how to spell "grammer" and have the ability to
concoct a sentence.

Otherwise, try as I might, you will not be a worthy opponent.
Yer just way to stump stupid to carry on with for any kind of a
reasonable debate regarding the right to keep and bear arms.
I hate Keane
2003-11-26 21:39:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by AH#49
Yer just way to stump stupid to carry on with for any kind of a
reasonable debate regarding the right to keep and bear arms.
There is no reasonable debate,
not while people go around saying guns do not kill.

Guns do kill, either because they fail to work properly or people
use them to kill, and until you admit that, there is no discussion.

As can obviously be seem with your grammer and other flames.
AH#49
2003-11-27 02:34:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by I hate Keane
Post by AH#49
Yer just way to stump stupid to carry on with for any kind of a
reasonable debate regarding the right to keep and bear arms.
There is no reasonable debate,
not while people go around saying guns do not kill.
Only retards like you say that inanimate objects can kill other humans
on pourpose.
Why are you continuing to be willing to be seen as the retard?
Post by I hate Keane
Guns do kill,
Impossible.
And you proved it, by not being able to provide one single instance
where a man made item has ever done that, like you said you would in
"one paragragh."
Why? Because yer a fargen retard!
Post by I hate Keane
either because they fail to work properly or people
use them to kill, and until you admit that, there is no discussion.
I'll discuss your long awaited "paragragh"....as soon as you cough it
up.
But, it seems that yer too chicken shit AND stump stupid to provide
one iota of evidence to support your asinine claims.

Keep in mind that _I_ never said that people can't misuse items or that
any said item can't cause injury or death when not properly manitained
or used properly.
YOU said otherwise.

_You_ however just attempted to twist the knot, so as to change the
subject at hand.
Sorry. But it's YOUR neck in the noose, not mine!
I caught you in the midst of a fabrication and a liberal dance, again!
Post by I hate Keane
As can obviously be seem with your grammer and other flames.
"Grammer [sic]" ?

Grow another chin.

"Flames?"
I'm not flaming you.
YOU'RE ridiculing the bloody snot out of youself!
Morton Davis
2003-11-27 03:19:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by AH#49
Post by I hate Keane
Post by AH#49
Yer just way to stump stupid to carry on with for any kind of a
reasonable debate regarding the right to keep and bear arms.
There is no reasonable debate,
not while people go around saying guns do not kill.
Only retards like you say that inanimate objects can kill other humans
on pourpose.
Why are you continuing to be willing to be seen as the retard?
Post by I hate Keane
Guns do kill,
Impossible.
And you proved it, by not being able to provide one single instance
where a man made item has ever done that, like you said you would in
"one paragragh."
Why? Because yer a fargen retard!
Post by I hate Keane
either because they fail to work properly or people
use them to kill, and until you admit that, there is no discussion.
I'll discuss your long awaited "paragragh"....as soon as you cough it
up.
But, it seems that yer too chicken shit AND stump stupid to provide
one iota of evidence to support your asinine claims.
Keep in mind that _I_ never said that people can't misuse items or that
any said item can't cause injury or death when not properly manitained
or used properly.
YOU said otherwise.
_You_ however just attempted to twist the knot, so as to change the
subject at hand.
Sorry. But it's YOUR neck in the noose, not mine!
I caught you in the midst of a fabrication and a liberal dance, again!
Post by I hate Keane
As can obviously be seem with your grammer and other flames.
"Grammer [sic]" ?
Grow another chin.
"Flames?"
I'm not flaming you.
YOU'RE ridiculing the bloody snot out of youself!
I defy ANYONE to prove a gun has killed.

-*MORT*-
Panama Jack
2003-11-27 03:28:52 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 03:19:14 GMT, "Morton Davis"
Post by Morton Davis
Post by AH#49
Post by I hate Keane
Post by AH#49
Yer just way to stump stupid to carry on with for any kind of a
reasonable debate regarding the right to keep and bear arms.
There is no reasonable debate,
not while people go around saying guns do not kill.
Only retards like you say that inanimate objects can kill other humans
on pourpose.
Why are you continuing to be willing to be seen as the retard?
Post by I hate Keane
Guns do kill,
Impossible.
And you proved it, by not being able to provide one single instance
where a man made item has ever done that, like you said you would in
"one paragragh."
Why? Because yer a fargen retard!
Post by I hate Keane
either because they fail to work properly or people
use them to kill, and until you admit that, there is no discussion.
I'll discuss your long awaited "paragragh"....as soon as you cough it
up.
But, it seems that yer too chicken shit AND stump stupid to provide
one iota of evidence to support your asinine claims.
Keep in mind that _I_ never said that people can't misuse items or that
any said item can't cause injury or death when not properly manitained
or used properly.
YOU said otherwise.
_You_ however just attempted to twist the knot, so as to change the
subject at hand.
Sorry. But it's YOUR neck in the noose, not mine!
I caught you in the midst of a fabrication and a liberal dance, again!
Post by I hate Keane
As can obviously be seem with your grammer and other flames.
"Grammer [sic]" ?
Grow another chin.
"Flames?"
I'm not flaming you.
YOU'RE ridiculing the bloody snot out of youself!
I defy ANYONE to prove a gun has killed.
-*MORT*-
PLONK!
I hate Keane
2003-11-27 05:45:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Morton Davis
Post by AH#49
Post by I hate Keane
Post by AH#49
Yer just way to stump stupid to carry on with for any kind of a
reasonable debate regarding the right to keep and bear arms.
There is no reasonable debate,
not while people go around saying guns do not kill.
Only retards like you say that inanimate objects can kill other humans
on pourpose.
Why are you continuing to be willing to be seen as the retard?
Post by I hate Keane
Guns do kill,
Impossible.
And you proved it, by not being able to provide one single instance
where a man made item has ever done that, like you said you would in
"one paragragh."
Why? Because yer a fargen retard!
Post by I hate Keane
either because they fail to work properly or people
use them to kill, and until you admit that, there is no discussion.
I'll discuss your long awaited "paragragh"....as soon as you cough it
up.
But, it seems that yer too chicken shit AND stump stupid to provide
one iota of evidence to support your asinine claims.
Keep in mind that _I_ never said that people can't misuse items or that
any said item can't cause injury or death when not properly manitained
or used properly.
YOU said otherwise.
_You_ however just attempted to twist the knot, so as to change the
subject at hand.
Sorry. But it's YOUR neck in the noose, not mine!
I caught you in the midst of a fabrication and a liberal dance, again!
Post by I hate Keane
As can obviously be seem with your grammer and other flames.
"Grammer [sic]" ?
Grow another chin.
"Flames?"
I'm not flaming you.
YOU'RE ridiculing the bloody snot out of youself!
I defy ANYONE to prove a gun has killed.
You can make any claim you like, when you do not listen to the answer,
you will continue to be safe in your delusion.
I hate Keane
2003-11-27 05:44:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by AH#49
Post by I hate Keane
Post by AH#49
Yer just way to stump stupid to carry on with for any kind of a
reasonable debate regarding the right to keep and bear arms.
There is no reasonable debate,
not while people go around saying guns do not kill.
Only retards like you say that inanimate objects can kill other humans
on pourpose.
Why are you continuing to be willing to be seen as the retard?
Post by I hate Keane
Guns do kill,
Impossible.
And you proved it, by not being able to provide one single instance
where a man made item has ever done that, like you said you would in
"one paragragh."
Why? Because yer a fargen retard!
Post by I hate Keane
either because they fail to work properly or people
use them to kill, and until you admit that, there is no discussion.
I'll discuss your long awaited "paragragh"....as soon as you cough it
up.
But, it seems that yer too chicken shit AND stump stupid to provide
one iota of evidence to support your asinine claims.
Keep in mind that _I_ never said that people can't misuse items or that
any said item can't cause injury or death when not properly manitained
or used properly.
YOU said otherwise.
_You_ however just attempted to twist the knot, so as to change the
subject at hand.
Sorry. But it's YOUR neck in the noose, not mine!
I caught you in the midst of a fabrication and a liberal dance, again!
Post by I hate Keane
As can obviously be seem with your grammer and other flames.
"Grammer [sic]" ?
Grow another chin.
"Flames?"
I'm not flaming you.
YOU'RE ridiculing the bloody snot out of youself!
As I said, there is no reasoned debate, not with gun nuts.
Morton Davis
2003-11-27 06:01:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by I hate Keane
Post by AH#49
Post by I hate Keane
Post by AH#49
Yer just way to stump stupid to carry on with for any kind of a
reasonable debate regarding the right to keep and bear arms.
There is no reasonable debate,
not while people go around saying guns do not kill.
Only retards like you say that inanimate objects can kill other humans
on pourpose.
Why are you continuing to be willing to be seen as the retard?
Post by I hate Keane
Guns do kill,
Impossible.
And you proved it, by not being able to provide one single instance
where a man made item has ever done that, like you said you would in
"one paragragh."
Why? Because yer a fargen retard!
Post by I hate Keane
either because they fail to work properly or people
use them to kill, and until you admit that, there is no discussion.
I'll discuss your long awaited "paragragh"....as soon as you cough it
up.
But, it seems that yer too chicken shit AND stump stupid to provide
one iota of evidence to support your asinine claims.
Keep in mind that _I_ never said that people can't misuse items or that
any said item can't cause injury or death when not properly manitained
or used properly.
YOU said otherwise.
_You_ however just attempted to twist the knot, so as to change the
subject at hand.
Sorry. But it's YOUR neck in the noose, not mine!
I caught you in the midst of a fabrication and a liberal dance, again!
Post by I hate Keane
As can obviously be seem with your grammer and other flames.
"Grammer [sic]" ?
Grow another chin.
"Flames?"
I'm not flaming you.
YOU'RE ridiculing the bloody snot out of youself!
As I said, there is no reasoned debate, not with gun nuts.
I agree, as your kind are the true gun nuts.

-*MORT*-
AJ
2003-11-27 06:34:08 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 06:01:25 GMT, "Morton Davis"
Post by Morton Davis
Post by I hate Keane
Post by AH#49
Post by I hate Keane
Post by AH#49
Yer just way to stump stupid to carry on with for any kind of a
reasonable debate regarding the right to keep and bear arms.
There is no reasonable debate,
not while people go around saying guns do not kill.
Only retards like you say that inanimate objects can kill other humans
on pourpose.
Why are you continuing to be willing to be seen as the retard?
Post by I hate Keane
Guns do kill,
Impossible.
And you proved it, by not being able to provide one single instance
where a man made item has ever done that, like you said you would in
"one paragragh."
Why? Because yer a fargen retard!
Post by I hate Keane
either because they fail to work properly or people
use them to kill, and until you admit that, there is no discussion.
I'll discuss your long awaited "paragragh"....as soon as you cough it
up.
But, it seems that yer too chicken shit AND stump stupid to provide
one iota of evidence to support your asinine claims.
Keep in mind that _I_ never said that people can't misuse items or that
any said item can't cause injury or death when not properly manitained
or used properly.
YOU said otherwise.
_You_ however just attempted to twist the knot, so as to change the
subject at hand.
Sorry. But it's YOUR neck in the noose, not mine!
I caught you in the midst of a fabrication and a liberal dance, again!
Post by I hate Keane
As can obviously be seem with your grammer and other flames.
"Grammer [sic]" ?
Grow another chin.
"Flames?"
I'm not flaming you.
YOU'RE ridiculing the bloody snot out of youself!
As I said, there is no reasoned debate, not with gun nuts.
I agree, as your kind are the true gun nuts.
-*MORT*-
PLONK!
Asmodeus
2003-11-26 19:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Weston
of yours and my society is not defined by how many people have guns,
but by the quality of the people holding the guns
Freedom is measured by whether people own guns. Tyrannies
prohibit them.
--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || Just exactly what part of
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || "Shall Not Be Infringed"
/ \ AND POSTINGS || don't you understand?
Don Thompson
2003-11-26 03:33:30 UTC
Permalink
Aye, but therein lies the rub. You have left out the most important part of
true freedom. One cannot be called "free" if he is forced to lay down his
guns. In such a circumstance the best he can be called is a "subject" and in
the worse case he is a slave. True freedom is that which allows a man to
have no guns at all by his own choice.
--
Don Thompson

Ex ROMAD
Post by Bill Weston
Post by I hate Keane
Post by Bill Weston
I really can't understand why people who don't live in America care
whether Americans are allowed to carry guns or not.
We don't, mostly the commentors are reacting.
So why do merkins insist on telling others they are
sunbjugated by not carrying guns?
They have been conditioned by culture and media for many years to believe in
the god that is gun, such that they simply cannot see that the true freedom
is to have no guns at all.
--
Julian
---------
= Pretentious Sig required =
Panama Jack
2003-11-26 04:42:43 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 03:33:30 GMT, "Don Thompson"
Post by Don Thompson
One cannot be called "free" if he is forced to lay down his
guns.
And you call it freedom when you have a nation such as the usa
trembling in fear and hiding behind the protection of your guns in
your crime-ridden shithole of a country? You are less free than any
developed nation on the planet.
HTH
Asmodeus
2003-11-26 19:39:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Panama Jack
And you call it freedom when you have a nation such as the usa
trembling in fear and hiding behind the protection of your guns in
your crime-ridden shithole of a country?
Liberals tremble. We don't.
--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || Just exactly what part of
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || "Shall Not Be Infringed"
/ \ AND POSTINGS || don't you understand?
John Chase
2003-11-27 06:23:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Panama Jack
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 03:33:30 GMT, "Don Thompson"
Post by Don Thompson
One cannot be called "free" if he is forced to lay down his
guns.
And you call it freedom when you have a nation such as the usa
trembling in fear and hiding behind the protection of your guns in
your crime-ridden shithole of a country? You are less free than any
developed nation on the planet.
Is that why more people are trying to ENTER the US than to leave it?

-jc-
AJ
2003-11-27 06:36:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Chase
Post by Panama Jack
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 03:33:30 GMT, "Don Thompson"
Post by Don Thompson
One cannot be called "free" if he is forced to lay down his
guns.
And you call it freedom when you have a nation such as the usa
trembling in fear and hiding behind the protection of your guns in
your crime-ridden shithole of a country? You are less free than any
developed nation on the planet.
Is that why more people are trying to ENTER the US than to leave it?
-jc-
The same can be said about the UK, New Zealand, Australia, France,
Germany, etc etc etc. Your point is?
Shark Bite
2003-11-27 07:58:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by AJ
Post by John Chase
Post by Panama Jack
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 03:33:30 GMT, "Don Thompson"
Post by Don Thompson
One cannot be called "free" if he is forced to lay down his
guns.
And you call it freedom when you have a nation such as the usa
trembling in fear and hiding behind the protection of your guns in
your crime-ridden shithole of a country? You are less free than any
developed nation on the planet.
Is that why more people are trying to ENTER the US than to leave it?
-jc-
The same can be said about the UK, New Zealand, Australia, France,
Germany, etc etc etc. Your point is?
You seem to be stumped by the word "more". Perhaps you should consult
a dictionary and come back to us with a report?
Gregory Procter
2003-11-27 08:07:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shark Bite
Post by AJ
Post by John Chase
Post by Panama Jack
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 03:33:30 GMT, "Don Thompson"
Post by Don Thompson
One cannot be called "free" if he is forced to lay down his
guns.
And you call it freedom when you have a nation such as the usa
trembling in fear and hiding behind the protection of your guns in
your crime-ridden shithole of a country? You are less free than any
developed nation on the planet.
Is that why more people are trying to ENTER the US than to leave it?
-jc-
The same can be said about the UK, New Zealand, Australia, France,
Germany, etc etc etc. Your point is?
You seem to be stumped by the word "more". Perhaps you should consult
a dictionary and come back to us with a report?
You seem to be stumped by the word "enter". Perhaps you should consult
a dictionary and come back to us with a report?
Shark Bite
2003-11-27 08:15:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by Shark Bite
Post by AJ
Post by John Chase
Post by Panama Jack
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 03:33:30 GMT, "Don Thompson"
Post by Don Thompson
One cannot be called "free" if he is forced to lay down his
guns.
And you call it freedom when you have a nation such as the usa
trembling in fear and hiding behind the protection of your guns in
your crime-ridden shithole of a country? You are less free than any
developed nation on the planet.
Is that why more people are trying to ENTER the US than to leave it?
-jc-
The same can be said about the UK, New Zealand, Australia, France,
Germany, etc etc etc. Your point is?
You seem to be stumped by the word "more". Perhaps you should consult
a dictionary and come back to us with a report?
You seem to be stumped by the word "enter". Perhaps you should consult
a dictionary and come back to us with a report?
Oooo look! a parrot with a lisp...
AJ
2003-11-27 08:40:40 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 03:15:13 -0500, Shark Bite
Post by Shark Bite
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by Shark Bite
Post by AJ
Post by John Chase
Post by Panama Jack
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 03:33:30 GMT, "Don Thompson"
Post by Don Thompson
One cannot be called "free" if he is forced to lay down his
guns.
And you call it freedom when you have a nation such as the usa
trembling in fear and hiding behind the protection of your guns in
your crime-ridden shithole of a country? You are less free than any
developed nation on the planet.
Is that why more people are trying to ENTER the US than to leave it?
-jc-
The same can be said about the UK, New Zealand, Australia, France,
Germany, etc etc etc. Your point is?
You seem to be stumped by the word "more". Perhaps you should consult
a dictionary and come back to us with a report?
You seem to be stumped by the word "enter". Perhaps you should consult
a dictionary and come back to us with a report?
Oooo look! a parrot with a lisp...
You seem to be stumped by the word "lisp". Perhaps you should consult
a dictionary and come back to us with a report?
Shark Bite
2003-11-27 08:55:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by AJ
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 03:15:13 -0500, Shark Bite
Post by Shark Bite
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by Shark Bite
Post by AJ
Post by John Chase
Post by Panama Jack
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 03:33:30 GMT, "Don Thompson"
Post by Don Thompson
One cannot be called "free" if he is forced to lay down his
guns.
And you call it freedom when you have a nation such as the usa
trembling in fear and hiding behind the protection of your guns in
your crime-ridden shithole of a country? You are less free than any
developed nation on the planet.
Is that why more people are trying to ENTER the US than to leave it?
-jc-
The same can be said about the UK, New Zealand, Australia, France,
Germany, etc etc etc. Your point is?
You seem to be stumped by the word "more". Perhaps you should consult
a dictionary and come back to us with a report?
You seem to be stumped by the word "enter". Perhaps you should consult
a dictionary and come back to us with a report?
Oooo look! a parrot with a lisp...
You seem to be stumped by the word "lisp". Perhaps you should consult
a dictionary and come back to us with a report?
Oh dear, who left the bird cage open?
AJ
2003-11-27 09:12:58 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 03:55:54 -0500, Shark Bite
Post by Shark Bite
Post by AJ
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 03:15:13 -0500, Shark Bite
Post by Shark Bite
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by Shark Bite
Post by AJ
Post by John Chase
Post by Panama Jack
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 03:33:30 GMT, "Don Thompson"
Post by Don Thompson
One cannot be called "free" if he is forced to lay down his
guns.
And you call it freedom when you have a nation such as the usa
trembling in fear and hiding behind the protection of your guns in
your crime-ridden shithole of a country? You are less free than any
developed nation on the planet.
Is that why more people are trying to ENTER the US than to leave it?
-jc-
The same can be said about the UK, New Zealand, Australia, France,
Germany, etc etc etc. Your point is?
You seem to be stumped by the word "more". Perhaps you should consult
a dictionary and come back to us with a report?
You seem to be stumped by the word "enter". Perhaps you should consult
a dictionary and come back to us with a report?
Oooo look! a parrot with a lisp...
You seem to be stumped by the word "lisp". Perhaps you should consult
a dictionary and come back to us with a report?
Oh dear, who left the bird cage open?
<yawn> That's the best you've got? It's not even an auto-flame, you
sad little merkin.
Shark Bite
2003-11-27 09:35:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by AJ
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 03:55:54 -0500, Shark Bite
Post by Shark Bite
Post by AJ
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 03:15:13 -0500, Shark Bite
Post by Shark Bite
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by Shark Bite
Post by AJ
Post by John Chase
Post by Panama Jack
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 03:33:30 GMT, "Don Thompson"
Post by Don Thompson
One cannot be called "free" if he is forced to lay down his
guns.
And you call it freedom when you have a nation such as the usa
trembling in fear and hiding behind the protection of your guns in
your crime-ridden shithole of a country? You are less free than any
developed nation on the planet.
Is that why more people are trying to ENTER the US than to leave it?
-jc-
The same can be said about the UK, New Zealand, Australia, France,
Germany, etc etc etc. Your point is?
You seem to be stumped by the word "more". Perhaps you should consult
a dictionary and come back to us with a report?
You seem to be stumped by the word "enter". Perhaps you should consult
a dictionary and come back to us with a report?
Oooo look! a parrot with a lisp...
You seem to be stumped by the word "lisp". Perhaps you should consult
a dictionary and come back to us with a report?
Oh dear, who left the bird cage open?
<yawn> That's the best you've got? It's not even an auto-flame, you
sad little merkin.
Oh looky! a parrot who an talk.

Fuckin amateur.
AJ
2003-11-27 10:01:17 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 04:35:23 -0500, Shark Bite
Post by Shark Bite
Post by AJ
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 03:55:54 -0500, Shark Bite
Post by Shark Bite
Post by AJ
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 03:15:13 -0500, Shark Bite
Post by Shark Bite
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by Shark Bite
Post by AJ
Post by John Chase
Post by Panama Jack
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 03:33:30 GMT, "Don Thompson"
Post by Don Thompson
One cannot be called "free" if he is forced to lay down his
guns.
And you call it freedom when you have a nation such as the usa
trembling in fear and hiding behind the protection of your guns in
your crime-ridden shithole of a country? You are less free than any
developed nation on the planet.
Is that why more people are trying to ENTER the US than to leave it?
-jc-
The same can be said about the UK, New Zealand, Australia, France,
Germany, etc etc etc. Your point is?
You seem to be stumped by the word "more". Perhaps you should consult
a dictionary and come back to us with a report?
You seem to be stumped by the word "enter". Perhaps you should consult
a dictionary and come back to us with a report?
Oooo look! a parrot with a lisp...
You seem to be stumped by the word "lisp". Perhaps you should consult
a dictionary and come back to us with a report?
Oh dear, who left the bird cage open?
<yawn> That's the best you've got? It's not even an auto-flame, you
sad little merkin.
Oh looky! a parrot who an talk.
Fuckin amateur.
Goodness gracious me, but you're having a hissy-fit now aren't you
Shark Bait.
Take a deep breath, recite some right-wing propaganda and you'll feel
all better, safe in the arms of your second-rate little colony.
PS - be sure to check under the bed for some communists before you go
to sleep.
AJ
2003-11-27 08:26:43 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:58:16 -0500, Shark Bite
Post by Shark Bite
Post by AJ
Post by John Chase
Post by Panama Jack
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 03:33:30 GMT, "Don Thompson"
Post by Don Thompson
One cannot be called "free" if he is forced to lay down his
guns.
And you call it freedom when you have a nation such as the usa
trembling in fear and hiding behind the protection of your guns in
your crime-ridden shithole of a country? You are less free than any
developed nation on the planet.
Is that why more people are trying to ENTER the US than to leave it?
-jc-
The same can be said about the UK, New Zealand, Australia, France,
Germany, etc etc etc. Your point is?
You seem to be stumped by the word "more". Perhaps you should consult
a dictionary and come back to us with a report?
You seem to be stumped yourself by your inability to read and
comprehend a sentence in basic English, son. More people are trying
to enter the UK, New Zealand, Australia, France, Germany, etc etc etc
than are trying to leave those countries. The USa is not unique in
that respect, Shark Bait, and only a fool would try to claim that it
was.
HTH
Shark Bite
2003-11-27 08:52:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by AJ
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:58:16 -0500, Shark Bite
Post by Shark Bite
Post by AJ
Post by John Chase
Post by Panama Jack
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 03:33:30 GMT, "Don Thompson"
Post by Don Thompson
One cannot be called "free" if he is forced to lay down his
guns.
And you call it freedom when you have a nation such as the usa
trembling in fear and hiding behind the protection of your guns in
your crime-ridden shithole of a country? You are less free than any
developed nation on the planet.
Is that why more people are trying to ENTER the US than to leave it?
-jc-
The same can be said about the UK, New Zealand, Australia, France,
Germany, etc etc etc. Your point is?
You seem to be stumped by the word "more". Perhaps you should consult
a dictionary and come back to us with a report?
You seem to be stumped yourself by your inability to read and
comprehend a sentence in basic English, son. More people are trying
to enter the UK, New Zealand, Australia, France, Germany, etc etc etc
than are trying to leave those countries. The USa is not unique in
that respect, Shark Bait, and only a fool would try to claim that it
was.
HTH
Knock knock, retard. No one said anything about people trying to
LEAVE the USA (and the number is infinitesimal of those who would want
to leave and never return, when given a choice). And who gives a shit
about people trying to leave those bastions of socialism you seem
enamored with? Not me - I'll give you that much of a clue, old son.
AJ
2003-11-27 09:11:46 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 03:52:00 -0500, Shark Bite
Post by Shark Bite
Post by AJ
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:58:16 -0500, Shark Bite
Post by Shark Bite
Post by AJ
Post by John Chase
Post by Panama Jack
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 03:33:30 GMT, "Don Thompson"
Post by Don Thompson
One cannot be called "free" if he is forced to lay down his
guns.
And you call it freedom when you have a nation such as the usa
trembling in fear and hiding behind the protection of your guns in
your crime-ridden shithole of a country? You are less free than any
developed nation on the planet.
Is that why more people are trying to ENTER the US than to leave it?
-jc-
The same can be said about the UK, New Zealand, Australia, France,
Germany, etc etc etc. Your point is?
You seem to be stumped by the word "more". Perhaps you should consult
a dictionary and come back to us with a report?
You seem to be stumped yourself by your inability to read and
comprehend a sentence in basic English, son. More people are trying
to enter the UK, New Zealand, Australia, France, Germany, etc etc etc
than are trying to leave those countries. The USa is not unique in
that respect, Shark Bait, and only a fool would try to claim that it
was.
HTH
Knock knock, retard. No one said anything about people trying to
LEAVE the USA
So what do you understand by the words "more people are trying to
ENTER the US than to leave it?". Anybody with a basic grasp of the
English language would see that you've got a little comprehension
problem here.
Post by Shark Bite
(and the number is infinitesimal of those who would want
to leave and never return, when given a choice).
As with the countries that I mentioned, with the possible exception of
New Zealand.
Post by Shark Bite
And who gives a shit
about people trying to leave those bastions of socialism
Well, for example, Australia has a government whose leanings are
somewhere to the right of Adolph Hitler. Bastions of socialism? You
ignorant fool. In any case, it would appear that the hoards of asylum
seekers who are knocking at the doors of those countries that I
mentioned certainly "give a shit", wouldn't it son. I'm pleased to be
in a position to educate a few of you parochial little colonials about
the wider world. You're not the centre of the universe, you're a
nation that is going to go down in the footnotes of history with the
Austro-Hungarian empire as one of the shortest lived world powers to
have existed.
Post by Shark Bite
you seem
enamored with? Not me - I'll give you that much of a clue, old son.
Feel free to keep your clues to yourself, Shark Bait, because you're
in far greater need of them than I.
HTH
Shark Bite
2003-11-27 09:33:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by AJ
You're not the centre of the universe, you're a
nation that is going to go down in the footnotes of history with the
Austro-Hungarian empire as one of the shortest lived world powers to
have existed.
Dream on child, we will see the socialist backwaters of the world turn
into a global free markets, led by the preeminent model - the USA,
which will set billions of people free to make their own destiny.
Your socialist nanny states will be wiped from the planet, just as the
dinosaur was.
AJ
2003-11-27 09:59:28 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 04:33:53 -0500, Shark Bite
Post by Shark Bite
Post by AJ
You're not the centre of the universe, you're a
nation that is going to go down in the footnotes of history with the
Austro-Hungarian empire as one of the shortest lived world powers to
have existed.
Dream on child, we will see the socialist backwaters of the world turn
into a global free markets, led by the preeminent model - the USA,
which will set billions of people free to make their own destiny.
Your socialist nanny states will be wiped from the planet, just as the
dinosaur was.
Congratulations on your regurgitation of the propaganda you've
memorised since you were a child.
And feel free to post here again should you ever have an original
thought of your own - as if that's ever going to happen.
AJ
2003-11-27 08:28:46 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:58:16 -0500, Shark Bite
Post by Shark Bite
Post by AJ
Post by John Chase
Post by Panama Jack
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 03:33:30 GMT, "Don Thompson"
Post by Don Thompson
One cannot be called "free" if he is forced to lay down his
guns.
And you call it freedom when you have a nation such as the usa
trembling in fear and hiding behind the protection of your guns in
your crime-ridden shithole of a country? You are less free than any
developed nation on the planet.
Is that why more people are trying to ENTER the US than to leave it?
-jc-
The same can be said about the UK, New Zealand, Australia, France,
Germany, etc etc etc. Your point is?
You seem to be stumped by the word "more". Perhaps you should consult
a dictionary and come back to us with a report?
You seem to be stumped yourself by your inability to read and
comprehend a sentence in basic English, son. More people are trying
to enter the UK, New Zealand, Australia, France, Germany, etc etc etc
than are trying to leave those countries. The USa is not unique in
that respect, Shark Bait, and only a fool would try to claim that it
was. Are you trying to say that only the USa has a problem with an
overabundance of asylum seekers? It's an indictment on the
parochialism of your funny little country if that's the case, son.
HTH
Gregory Procter
2003-11-27 07:39:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Chase
Post by Panama Jack
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 03:33:30 GMT, "Don Thompson"
Post by Don Thompson
One cannot be called "free" if he is forced to lay down his
guns.
And you call it freedom when you have a nation such as the usa
trembling in fear and hiding behind the protection of your guns in
your crime-ridden shithole of a country? You are less free than any
developed nation on the planet.
Is that why more people are trying to ENTER the US than to leave it?
That would be the lure of money.
Shark Bite
2003-11-27 07:55:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by John Chase
Post by Panama Jack
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 03:33:30 GMT, "Don Thompson"
Post by Don Thompson
One cannot be called "free" if he is forced to lay down his
guns.
And you call it freedom when you have a nation such as the usa
trembling in fear and hiding behind the protection of your guns in
your crime-ridden shithole of a country? You are less free than any
developed nation on the planet.
Is that why more people are trying to ENTER the US than to leave it?
That would be the lure of money.
Or more succinctly - a free market economy. But that's only part of
the reason. The biggest benefit is a "Bill of Rights", that cannot be
overridden by a simple democracy and which applies to all who inhabit
the US.
Gregory Procter
2003-11-27 08:06:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shark Bite
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by John Chase
Post by Panama Jack
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 03:33:30 GMT, "Don Thompson"
Post by Don Thompson
One cannot be called "free" if he is forced to lay down his
guns.
And you call it freedom when you have a nation such as the usa
trembling in fear and hiding behind the protection of your guns in
your crime-ridden shithole of a country? You are less free than any
developed nation on the planet.
Is that why more people are trying to ENTER the US than to leave it?
That would be the lure of money.
Or more succinctly - a free market economy.
LOL.
Post by Shark Bite
But that's only part of
the reason.
Of course!
Post by Shark Bite
The biggest benefit is a "Bill of Rights", that cannot be
overridden by a simple democracy and which applies to all who inhabit
the US.
The Patriot Bill.
Shark Bite
2003-11-27 08:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by Shark Bite
The biggest benefit is a "Bill of Rights", that cannot be
overridden by a simple democracy and which applies to all who inhabit
the US.
The Patriot Bill.
An act that's about to expire and has no bearing on guaranteed rights.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not at all happy with the "PATRIOT act"
<spit>, but the Congress can pass any law it sees fit to, it's up to
the Judiciary to rule on its constitutionality. The PATRIOT act is
currently under judicial review for violations of many of our BOR
amendments.
I hate Keane
2003-11-27 09:19:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Chase
Post by Panama Jack
And you call it freedom when you have a nation such as the usa
trembling in fear and hiding behind the protection of your guns in
your crime-ridden shithole of a country? You are less free than any
developed nation on the planet.
Is that why more people are trying to ENTER the US than to leave it?
There is always a hill billy who think immigration
is the answer to all comments about Merkia.
Shark Bite
2003-11-27 10:08:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by I hate Keane
Post by John Chase
Post by Panama Jack
And you call it freedom when you have a nation such as the usa
trembling in fear and hiding behind the protection of your guns in
your crime-ridden shithole of a country? You are less free than any
developed nation on the planet.
Is that why more people are trying to ENTER the US than to leave it?
There is always a hill billy who think immigration
is the answer to all comments about Merkia.
And there is always a lame troll who has trouble with the spelling of
the word "America". I blame the abhorrent education system in the UK
for this one.

I hate Keane
2003-11-26 08:44:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Thompson
You have left out the most important part of
true freedom. One cannot be called "free" if he is forced to lay down his
guns. In such a circumstance the best he can be called is a "subject" and in
the worse case he is a slave. True freedom is that which allows a man to
have no guns at all by his own choice.
See, what did I tell you
Bill Weston
2003-11-26 12:43:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Thompson
Aye, but therein lies the rub. You have left out the most important
part of true freedom. One cannot be called "free" if he is forced to
lay down his guns. In such a circumstance the best he can be called
is a "subject" and in the worse case he is a slave. True freedom is
that which allows a man to have no guns at all by his own choice.
Indeed what you write is true, but sadly it doesn't work as people do choose
guns when allowed and annually tens of thousands of people pay the ultimate
price of that freedom.

Personally I do not consider a man to be free if his govt stops him buying
cuban cigars, drinking a beer on his 18th birthday or enforces it's laws
with an armed militia, but I guess we all have our own idea of freedom.
--
Julian
---------
= Pretentious Sig required =
John A. Stovall
2003-11-26 12:51:27 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:43:37 -0000, "Bill Weston"
Post by Bill Weston
Post by Don Thompson
Aye, but therein lies the rub. You have left out the most important
part of true freedom. One cannot be called "free" if he is forced to
lay down his guns. In such a circumstance the best he can be called
is a "subject" and in the worse case he is a slave. True freedom is
that which allows a man to have no guns at all by his own choice.
Indeed what you write is true, but sadly it doesn't work as people do choose
guns when allowed and annually tens of thousands of people pay the ultimate
price of that freedom.
And that's a cheap price.
Post by Bill Weston
Personally I do not consider a man to be free if his govt stops him buying
cuban cigars, drinking a beer on his 18th birthday or enforces it's laws
with an armed militia, but I guess we all have our own idea of freedom.
But then he should be free to by that machine gun by mail just like
our Grandfathers could.

And where in the Constitution does it say the "armed militia" if for
enforcing laws? And aren't the laws supposed to be left up to the
States?

Seem you the Federal Government as Government and that the problem.


*******************************************

".......................I believe in my tusks.
Long live freedom and damn the the ideologies,"
Said the gamey black-maned wild boar
Tusking the turf on Mal Paso Mountain.
"Stars Go Over The Lonely Ocean"
Robinson Jeffers
Asmodeus
2003-11-26 19:33:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Weston
They have been conditioned by culture and media for many years to
believe in the god that is gun, such that they simply cannot see that
the true freedom is to have no guns at all
<snort>
--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || Just exactly what part of
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || "Shall Not Be Infringed"
/ \ AND POSTINGS || don't you understand?
Dad
2003-11-24 16:53:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Weston
I really can't understand why people who don't live in America care whether
Americans are allowed to carry guns or not.
Personally as a Englishman I find the American obsession with handguns a
little childish though as I own a shotgun and a Mk4 .303 Enfield rifle I can
hardly be called anti-gun, but if you're not American let them get on with
it.
I spend a lot of time in the US on business and am very grateful when I
return home to the freedom that is a largely unarmed police force, but that
doesn't give me the right to tell other countries what to do.
--
Julian
---------
= Pretentious Sig required =
You state you feeling very well, I felt the same way when I went to England
on business trips. When I got home it was just a more relaxed feeling to
know I was where I could own the guns I wanted. England, a country where you
can't defend yourself for any reason. When I went to England it made me very
nervous to see people walking around with full automatic sub machine guns in
the airport. That was 3 years ago before I retired, now we have those same
people in the airports. I need to thank all of the pussy governments that
allowed the terrorism to spread and proliferate until it is completely out
of control. It was out of control when the first innocent life was taken to
further someone else's agenda.

When I say "people walking around with full automatic sub machine guns" that
is all they are, people. If you look at the "people" that are bombing other
people that's all they are. They are people that think they are right way
past the rights that you have as a human. We, the USA, are fast becoming
another England like society that has subjects and not people to govern.
Those "people walking around with full automatic sub machine guns" will
become our leaders at some point and will assume they are better than you
are because they can carry a machine gun. The machine gun may only be an
icon that fits into their perceived crown to be your master. It is just a
little harder to take over power in this time but someplace out of the ashes
there will rise another Hitler type to test the human courage. Good luck
with your shotgun and your MK4.

It has always been a sad time when the governing bodies were making laws to
benefit themselves and their cronies and not the majority of the people.
Power, the drug that drives little men to do big things, good and bad.
--
Dad

One more gun is just enough, maybe.
Bill Weston
2003-11-25 22:35:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dad
Post by Bill Weston
I really can't understand why people who don't live in America care
whether Americans are allowed to carry guns or not.
Personally as a Englishman I find the American obsession with
handguns a little childish though as I own a shotgun and a Mk4 .303
Enfield rifle I can hardly be called anti-gun, but if you're not
American let them get on with it.
I spend a lot of time in the US on business and am very grateful
when I return home to the freedom that is a largely unarmed police
force, but that doesn't give me the right to tell other countries
what to do.
--
Julian
---------
= Pretentious Sig required =
You state you feeling very well, I felt the same way when I went to
England on business trips. When I got home it was just a more relaxed
feeling to know I was where I could own the guns I wanted. England, a
country where you can't defend yourself for any reason. When I went
to England it made me very nervous to see people walking around with
full automatic sub machine guns in the airport. That was 3 years ago
before I retired, now we have those same people in the airports. I
need to thank all of the pussy governments that allowed the terrorism
to spread and proliferate until it is completely out of control. It
was out of control when the first innocent life was taken to further
someone else's agenda.
I have to agree with you - if your country took airport security as
seriously as we always have, 911 may have been avoided. Of all the govt.s
that have allowed and sponsored terrorism, the US certainly contributed the
most funds. Or, in typical American fashion, are they only terrorists if
they are against you?
Post by Dad
When I say "people walking around with full automatic sub machine
guns" that is all they are, people. If you look at the "people" that
are bombing other people that's all they are. They are people that
think they are right way past the rights that you have as a human.
We, the USA, are fast becoming another England like society that has
subjects and not people to govern. Those "people walking around with
full automatic sub machine guns" will become our leaders at some
point and will assume they are better than you are because they can
carry a machine gun. The machine gun may only be an icon that fits
into their perceived crown to be your master. It is just a little
harder to take over power in this time but someplace out of the ashes
there will rise another Hitler type to test the human courage. Good
luck with your shotgun and your MK4.
As with all paranoid Americans who believe their guns will save them you
forget one inconvenient truth - banning handguns was not forced on the
British people, it was democratically voted for by a large majority in an
open election. It is equally hilarious that you focus on a few specialist
police officers on anti-terrorist duty when every one of your police
officers are armed in order to subdue you when they and your masters choose.
The British police force is a civil and largely unarmed one, unlike your
paramilitary forces.
Post by Dad
It has always been a sad time when the governing bodies were making
laws to benefit themselves and their cronies and not the majority of
the people. Power, the drug that drives little men to do big things,
good and bad.
Very true, but a far better description of the US where money buys you
political power than Britain where the last 5 Prime Ministers have been from
ordinary middle class families. I wonder when the US will have another
president who isn't already a multi-millionaire backed by old money?
--
Julian
---------
= Pretentious Sig required =
ben
2003-11-25 23:20:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Weston
I have to agree with you - if your country took airport security as
seriously as we always have, 911 may have been avoided.
Pray tell, what did the events of September 11, 2001 have to do with
airport security? The hijackings were a succesful exploitation of the then
current hijacking response protocol.
Post by Bill Weston
Of all the govt.s that have allowed and sponsored terrorism, the US
contributed certainly the most funds.
Nice try. Prove it. Supplying arms, or money to buy arms, to foreign
nations or factions for legitimate purposes which are subsequently used by
terrorists is not the same as sponsoring terrorism.
Post by Bill Weston
Or, in typical American fashion, are they only terrorists if they are
against you?
Well, duh. Were the IRA terrorists or revolutionaries? I guess it depends
on who you ask.

BTW, if your country RULES! and our country SUCKS! why do you spend so much
time here on business?
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Bill Weston
2003-11-26 12:30:22 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:35:07 -0000, Bill Weston
Post by Bill Weston
I have to agree with you - if your country took airport security as
seriously as we always have, 911 may have been avoided.
Pray tell, what did the events of September 11, 2001 have to do with
airport security? The hijackings were a succesful exploitation of
the then current hijacking response protocol.
But the protocol as you put it was clearly ineffective as anyone who has got
on an internal flight in the US will testify.
Post by Bill Weston
Of all the govt.s that have allowed and sponsored terrorism, the US
contributed certainly the most funds.
Nice try. Prove it. Supplying arms, or money to buy arms, to foreign
nations or factions for legitimate purposes which are subsequently
used by terrorists is not the same as sponsoring terrorism.
Arms and money were transferred directly to the mujahadeen in afghanistan by
the CIA when they were fighting the russian invasion. There was no afghan
nation or govt at the time, so the stinger missiles, 88mm rockets et al were
given directly to the terrorists/freedom fighters. The same thing happened
with the sandanistas in nicaragua.
Post by Bill Weston
Or, in typical American fashion, are they only terrorists if they are
against you?
Well, duh. Were the IRA terrorists or revolutionaries? I guess it
depends on who you ask.
I'm afraid not - whether you agree with the aims of a particular group or
not, if they use terrorist actions against democratic govts and innocent
civillians, they are terrorists. It is your way of thinking that encourages
terrorism.
BTW, if your country RULES! and our country SUCKS! why do you spend
so much time here on business?
If you learn to read you will find that I have never said such a thing. Your
question is irrelevant anyway as ones does business where the needs of ones
company demands, not in the places one favours.

The only thing I have against america is that there seems to be an
increasing number of people there like you who believe that anyone who does
not exactly share your values and beliefs is clearly wrong. Apart from that
and a tendancy to shoot each other, it's a fine country.
--
Julian
---------
= Pretentious Sig required =
John A. Stovall
2003-11-26 12:53:57 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:30:22 -0000, "Bill Weston"
Post by Bill Weston
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:35:07 -0000, Bill Weston
Post by Bill Weston
I have to agree with you - if your country took airport security as
seriously as we always have, 911 may have been avoided.
Pray tell, what did the events of September 11, 2001 have to do with
airport security? The hijackings were a succesful exploitation of
the then current hijacking response protocol.
But the protocol as you put it was clearly ineffective as anyone who has got
on an internal flight in the US will testify.
Post by Bill Weston
Of all the govt.s that have allowed and sponsored terrorism, the US
contributed certainly the most funds.
Nice try. Prove it. Supplying arms, or money to buy arms, to foreign
nations or factions for legitimate purposes which are subsequently
used by terrorists is not the same as sponsoring terrorism.
Arms and money were transferred directly to the mujahadeen in afghanistan by
the CIA when they were fighting the russian invasion. There was no afghan
nation or govt at the time, so the stinger missiles, 88mm rockets et al were
given directly to the terrorists/freedom fighters. The same thing happened
with the sandanistas in nicaragua.
Don't you know anything about Latin American? We were giving weapons
to the Contra not the Sandanistas. The Contra's were the Freedom
Fighters. The Sandanistas were the Marxists oppressors.


*********************************************************

"...I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility
against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Thomas Jefferson in letters to
Madison (1787) and Rush (1800)
ben
2003-11-26 17:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Weston
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:35:07 -0000, Bill Weston
Post by Bill Weston
I have to agree with you - if your country took airport security as
seriously as we always have, 911 may have been avoided.
Pray tell, what did the events of September 11, 2001 have to do with
airport security? The hijackings were a succesful exploitation of
the then current hijacking response protocol.
But the protocol as you put it was clearly ineffective as anyone who has
got on an internal flight in the US will testify.
Clearly. However your previous post (quoted above in case you lost it)
pretty clearly states it was a failure of "airport security," when in
reality it was a failure of an FAA policy.
Post by Bill Weston
Post by Bill Weston
Of all the govt.s that have allowed and sponsored terrorism, the US
contributed certainly the most funds.
Nice try. Prove it. Supplying arms, or money to buy arms, to foreign
nations or factions for legitimate purposes which are subsequently
used by terrorists is not the same as sponsoring terrorism.
Arms and money were transferred directly to the mujahadeen in afghanistan
by the CIA when they were fighting the russian invasion. There was no
afghan nation or govt at the time, so the stinger missiles, 88mm rockets
et al were given directly to the terrorists/freedom fighters.
"Terrorists/freedom fighters" huh? Either you are saying they are the
same, or you don't know which the mujahdeen were. I think that since they
were as you say, "fighting the russian invasion," most people would
categorize them as the later, but I guess that doesn't support your
bullshit claim of the US sponsoring terrorism.
Post by Bill Weston
Post by Bill Weston
Or, in typical American fashion, are they only terrorists if they are
against you?
Well, duh. Were the IRA terrorists or revolutionaries? I guess it
depends on who you ask.
I'm afraid not - whether you agree with the aims of a particular group or
not, if they use terrorist actions against democratic govts and innocent
civillians, they are terrorists. It is your way of thinking that
encourages terrorism.
My way of thinking? Bwah ha ha. You seem to be the one with the moral
equivalency problem. You call the Mujahdeen terrorists, for fighting off a
totalitarian government in their own land, but you turn around and call the
IRA terrorists as well because they were fighting a democratic government.
I see a difference, do you?
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Little John
2003-11-25 04:29:30 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:15:52 -0000, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity,
once again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
"Bill Weston" <***@computranz.com> two-fingered to all:

|>Anson Macdonald wrote:
|>> DE781 wrote:
|>>
|>>> God damn! I'm vehemently anti-gun, but you're just biased. I can't
|>>> deny that the chick has some points that need studying and
|>>> controlling. IMO, gun control definitely intially INCREASES the
|>>> amount of violent crimes. However, if total, global gun control is
|>>> done gradually, over centuries of time, I believe the statistics will
|>>> inevitable finally fall lower than they've ever been, as guns are all
|>>> either nonexistent or antiques.
|>>
|>> You're not an average gun prohibitionist, I'll grant you that. Most
|>> aren't that patient. And since you're taking a centuries-long view,
|>> that implies you would tolerate DECADES of increased misery due to
|>> "gun control definitely initially INCREAS[ing] the amount of violent
|>> crimes."
|>>
|>> Of course, that's assuming that many, many governments and
|>> administrations would stay in power continuously over the course of
|>> centuries to implement your "final solution" to gun crime. I'll think
|>> I'll just nickname it the Fourth Reich, for short.
|>
|>I really can't understand why people who don't live in America care whether
|>Americans are allowed to carry guns or not.
|>
|>Personally as a Englishman I find the American obsession with handguns a
|>little childish though as I own a shotgun and a Mk4 .303 Enfield rifle I can
|>hardly be called anti-gun, but if you're not American let them get on with
|>it.
|>
|>I spend a lot of time in the US on business and am very grateful when I
|>return home to the freedom that is a largely unarmed police force, but that
|>doesn't give me the right to tell other countries what to do.

You tell 'em, Bill!


jammin1-at-jammin1-dot-com

jammin1's Resources
www.jammin1.com
codemaan
2003-11-24 11:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Weston
Post by Anson Macdonald
Post by DE781
God damn! I'm vehemently anti-gun, but you're just biased. I can't
deny that the chick has some points that need studying and
controlling. IMO, gun control definitely intially INCREASES the
amount of violent crimes. However, if total, global gun control is
done gradually, over centuries of time, I believe the statistics will
inevitable finally fall lower than they've ever been, as guns are all
either nonexistent or antiques.
You're not an average gun prohibitionist, I'll grant you that. Most
aren't that patient. And since you're taking a centuries-long view,
that implies you would tolerate DECADES of increased misery due to
"gun control definitely initially INCREAS[ing] the amount of violent
crimes."
Of course, that's assuming that many, many governments and
administrations would stay in power continuously over the course of
centuries to implement your "final solution" to gun crime. I'll think
I'll just nickname it the Fourth Reich, for short.
I really can't understand why people who don't live in America care whether
Americans are allowed to carry guns or not.
Personally as a Englishman I find the American obsession with handguns a
little childish though as I own a shotgun and a Mk4 .303 Enfield rifle I can
hardly be called anti-gun, but if you're not American let them get on with
it.
What is "chidish" about owning a handgun (or any gun/ tool)? Pleae explain.
It is just another tool.
Post by Bill Weston
I spend a lot of time in the US on business and am very grateful when I
return home to the freedom that is a largely unarmed police force, but that
doesn't give me the right to tell other countries what to do.
If you grateful about not worrying (is this your freedom,, not worrying?)
about being involved in a gun related crime because there are fewer guns in
England and want to be concerned more about being
mugged/robbed/knifed/beaten/assaulted/whatever with another sort of
weapon,,, then good for you. You are in the right place.

The US police are armed, but they are not there to protect the citizens 24/7
anywhere,/anyplace. I doubt that Englands police are any different
(protection 24/7). I don't know how a person can feel fuzzy and safe in this
case. But oh well, if you are happy about it, then I have no complaint.
Post by Bill Weston
--
Julian
---------
= Pretentious Sig required =
Loading...