Why did no civilians use their guns to stop or reduce the severity of
the attacks or were they all carried out in *no carry* states?

I thought that the point of having a gun was for protection.
I think in each case it was the police who had to stop the buggers.

runs and hides behind sofa again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37469757

On 9/26/2016 12:51 PM, Bod wrote:
Why did no civilians use their guns to stop or reduce the severity of
the attacks or were they all carried out in *no carry* states?

I thought that the point of having a gun was for protection.
I think in each case it was the police who had to stop the buggers.

runs and hides behind sofa again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37469757

bug off

On 26/09/2016 17:52, Frank wrote:
On 9/26/2016 12:51 PM, Bod wrote:
Why did no civilians use their guns to stop or reduce the severity of
the attacks or were they all carried out in *no carry* states?

I thought that the point of having a gun was for protection.
I think in each case it was the police who had to stop the buggers.

runs and hides behind sofa again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37469757

bug off

Can you answer the question; were all of those attacks carried out in
no-carry states?

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:02:35 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 26/09/2016 17:52, Frank wrote:
On 9/26/2016 12:51 PM, Bod wrote:
Why did no civilians use their guns to stop or reduce the severity of
the attacks or were they all carried out in *no carry* states?

I thought that the point of having a gun was for protection.
I think in each case it was the police who had to stop the buggers.

runs and hides behind sofa again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37469757

bug off

Can you answer the question; were all of those attacks carried out in
no-carry states?

As Frank said: "bug off"

Do your own research.

On 26/09/2016 18:10, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:02:35 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 26/09/2016 17:52, Frank wrote:
On 9/26/2016 12:51 PM, Bod wrote:
Why did no civilians use their guns to stop or reduce the severity of
the attacks or were they all carried out in *no carry* states?

I thought that the point of having a gun was for protection.
I think in each case it was the police who had to stop the buggers.

runs and hides behind sofa again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37469757

bug off

Can you answer the question; were all of those attacks carried out in
no-carry states?

As Frank said: "bug off"

Do your own research.

I did and I'm not much the wiser. It seems that some can, some can't.
I need one of your knowledgable gun owners to outline the laws.
Something about 'Concealed Licence Holders' can, etc.

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:17:57 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 26/09/2016 18:10, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:02:35 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 26/09/2016 17:52, Frank wrote:
On 9/26/2016 12:51 PM, Bod wrote:
Why did no civilians use their guns to stop or reduce the severity of
the attacks or were they all carried out in *no carry* states?

I thought that the point of having a gun was for protection.
I think in each case it was the police who had to stop the buggers.

runs and hides behind sofa again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37469757

bug off

Can you answer the question; were all of those attacks carried out in
no-carry states?

As Frank said: "bug off"

Do your own research.

I did and I'm not much the wiser. It seems that some can, some can't.
I need one of your knowledgable gun owners to outline the laws.
Something about 'Concealed Licence Holders' can, etc.

Do more research. People get tired of spoon feeding you.

On 26/09/2016 18:36, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:17:57 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 26/09/2016 18:10, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:02:35 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 26/09/2016 17:52, Frank wrote:
On 9/26/2016 12:51 PM, Bod wrote:
Why did no civilians use their guns to stop or reduce the severity of
the attacks or were they all carried out in *no carry* states?

I thought that the point of having a gun was for protection.
I think in each case it was the police who had to stop the buggers.

runs and hides behind sofa again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37469757

bug off

Can you answer the question; were all of those attacks carried out in
no-carry states?

As Frank said: "bug off"

Do your own research.

I did and I'm not much the wiser. It seems that some can, some can't.
I need one of your knowledgable gun owners to outline the laws.
Something about 'Concealed Licence Holders' can, etc.

Do more research. People get tired of spoon feeding you.

Oh ;-)

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 17:51:51 +0100
Bod wrote:

runs and hides behind sofa again
http://imgbox.com/Z5TOMZGU

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:36:03 +0100, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:17:57 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 26/09/2016 18:10, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:02:35 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 26/09/2016 17:52, Frank wrote:
On 9/26/2016 12:51 PM, Bod wrote:
Why did no civilians use their guns to stop or reduce the severity of
the attacks or were they all carried out in *no carry* states?

I thought that the point of having a gun was for protection.
I think in each case it was the police who had to stop the buggers.

runs and hides behind sofa again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37469757

bug off

Can you answer the question; were all of those attacks carried out in
no-carry states?

As Frank said: "bug off"

Do your own research.

I did and I'm not much the wiser. It seems that some can, some can't.
I need one of your knowledgable gun owners to outline the laws.
Something about 'Concealed Licence Holders' can, etc.

Do more research. People get tired of spoon feeding you.

I do laugh when people can't come up with an answer.

--
My ex-wife was temperamental.
90% temper and 10% mental.

On 09/26/2016 09:51 AM, Bod wrote:
Why did no civilians use their guns to stop or reduce the severity of
the attacks or were they all carried out in *no carry* states?

I thought that the point of having a gun was for protection.
I think in each case it was the police who had to stop the buggers.

runs and hides behind sofa again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37469757

Hi Bod,

Here is a better report on the incident:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/26...-shooting.html

And hte answer to your questions are

1) Texas is a carry state

2) no one was carrying.

And to the question you did not ask, These ass holes
seeks out gun free zones and other places where
the can be assured of not being fired back at.
Like what happened in France.

-T

On 09/26/2016 05:41 PM, T wrote:
On 09/26/2016 09:51 AM, Bod wrote:
Why did no civilians use their guns to stop or reduce the severity of
the attacks or were they all carried out in *no carry* states?

I thought that the point of having a gun was for protection.
I think in each case it was the police who had to stop the buggers.

runs and hides behind sofa again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37469757

Hi Bod,

Here is a better report on the incident:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/26...-shooting.html


And hte answer to your questions are

1) Texas is a carry state

2) no one was carrying.

And to the question you did not ask, These ass holes
seeks out gun free zones and other places where
the can be assured of not being fired back at.
Like what happened in France.

-T



Hi Bod,

I think what you are deliberately missing is that
all the laws in the world can not control the illegal
flow of insurrection weapons, any more than they can
control the flow of illegals drugs and duty free cigarettes.

Your solution is to make law the abiding sheep to the
slaughter. And put democracy at risk from despots that
take advantage of the situation where the people can
not fight back.

And you have the balls to say this from the crime capitol
of Europe.

It is no wonder I doubt your intentions.

-T

On 09/26/2016 05:41 PM, T wrote:
And to the question you did not ask

Hi Bod,

The other question you did not ask, is that American Pravda
never will report the lives saved by legal guns. It in not
part of their *political agenda*. So, you are going to
be hard pressed to find a news report on them.

But it is out there if you look. Here is an extremely well
documented report on the matter:

Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives:
https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

Read it over before you post more of American Pravda's
drivel.

More guns, less violence/crime.

-T

American Pravda is not the news. It is agenda driven
political propaganda.

On 09/26/2016 05:02 PM, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:36:03 +0100, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:17:57 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 26/09/2016 18:10, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:02:35 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 26/09/2016 17:52, Frank wrote:
On 9/26/2016 12:51 PM, Bod wrote:
Why did no civilians use their guns to stop or reduce the
severity of
the attacks or were they all carried out in *no carry* states?

I thought that the point of having a gun was for protection.
I think in each case it was the police who had to stop the buggers.

runs and hides behind sofa again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37469757

bug off

Can you answer the question; were all of those attacks carried out in
no-carry states?

As Frank said: "bug off"

Do your own research.

I did and I'm not much the wiser. It seems that some can, some can't.
I need one of your knowledgable gun owners to outline the laws.
Something about 'Concealed Licence Holders' can, etc.

Do more research. People get tired of spoon feeding you.

I do laugh when people can't come up with an answer.


It does get tiring when you answer and they don't
listen then they ask the same question again. Over
and over and over.

If would be different if the one asking the questions responded
to the answers and started a dialog.

But then again, you Brits are all about condescending and not
about dialog.

On 27/09/2016 01:41, T wrote:
On 09/26/2016 09:51 AM, Bod wrote:
Why did no civilians use their guns to stop or reduce the severity of
the attacks or were they all carried out in *no carry* states?

I thought that the point of having a gun was for protection.
I think in each case it was the police who had to stop the buggers.

runs and hides behind sofa again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37469757

Hi Bod,

Here is a better report on the incident:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/26...-shooting.html


And hte answer to your questions are

1) Texas is a carry state

2) no one was carrying.

And to the question you did not ask, These ass holes
seeks out gun free zones and other places where
the can be assured of not being fired back at.
Like what happened in France.

-T

Thanks for your answer.

On 27/09/2016 04:10, T wrote:
On 09/26/2016 05:02 PM, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:36:03 +0100, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:17:57 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 26/09/2016 18:10, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:02:35 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 26/09/2016 17:52, Frank wrote:
On 9/26/2016 12:51 PM, Bod wrote:
Why did no civilians use their guns to stop or reduce the
severity of
the attacks or were they all carried out in *no carry* states?

I thought that the point of having a gun was for protection.
I think in each case it was the police who had to stop the buggers.

runs and hides behind sofa again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37469757

bug off

Can you answer the question; were all of those attacks carried out in
no-carry states?

As Frank said: "bug off"

Do your own research.

I did and I'm not much the wiser. It seems that some can, some can't.
I need one of your knowledgable gun owners to outline the laws.
Something about 'Concealed Licence Holders' can, etc.

Do more research. People get tired of spoon feeding you.

I do laugh when people can't come up with an answer.


It does get tiring when you answer and they don't
listen then they ask the same question again. Over
and over and over.

If would be different if the one asking the questions responded
to the answers and started a dialog.

But then again, you Brits are all about condescending and not
about dialog.

I have been trying to *discuss* these issues with this NG.

On 09/27/2016 01:53 AM, Bod wrote:
On 27/09/2016 04:10, T wrote:

But then again, you Brits are all about condescending and not
about dialog.

I have been trying to *discuss* these issues with this NG.

You do tend to ask the same question over and over.

And at times you avoid answering questions giving
back to you, but not all the time.

But, you do eventually discuss things and explain yourself
somewhat.

On 09/27/2016 01:45 AM, Bod wrote:
On 27/09/2016 01:41, T wrote:
On 09/26/2016 09:51 AM, Bod wrote:
Why did no civilians use their guns to stop or reduce the severity of
the attacks or were they all carried out in *no carry* states?

I thought that the point of having a gun was for protection.
I think in each case it was the police who had to stop the buggers.

runs and hides behind sofa again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37469757

Hi Bod,

Here is a better report on the incident:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/26...-shooting.html



And hte answer to your questions are

1) Texas is a carry state

2) no one was carrying.

And to the question you did not ask, These ass holes
seeks out gun free zones and other places where
the can be assured of not being fired back at.
Like what happened in France.

-T

Thanks for your answer.

You are welcome

On 9/27/2016 4:45 AM, Bod wrote:
On 27/09/2016 01:41, T wrote:
On 09/26/2016 09:51 AM, Bod wrote:
Why did no civilians use their guns to stop or reduce the severity of
the attacks or were they all carried out in *no carry* states?

I thought that the point of having a gun was for protection.
I think in each case it was the police who had to stop the buggers.

runs and hides behind sofa again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37469757

Hi Bod,

Here is a better report on the incident:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/26...-shooting.html



And hte answer to your questions are

1) Texas is a carry state

2) no one was carrying.

And to the question you did not ask, These ass holes
seeks out gun free zones and other places where
the can be assured of not being fired back at.
Like what happened in France.

-T

Thanks for your answer.

My answer is, and has always been to you, that you come to the wrong
group to discuss this. There are plenty of gun groups that would be
glad to discuss this with you but, here, you are mostly an annoyance.

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 20:10:49 -0700, T wrote:

On 09/26/2016 05:02 PM, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:36:03 +0100, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:17:57 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 26/09/2016 18:10, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:02:35 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 26/09/2016 17:52, Frank wrote:
On 9/26/2016 12:51 PM, Bod wrote:
Why did no civilians use their guns to stop or reduce the
severity of
the attacks or were they all carried out in *no carry* states?

I thought that the point of having a gun was for protection.
I think in each case it was the police who had to stop the buggers.

runs and hides behind sofa again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37469757

bug off

Can you answer the question; were all of those attacks carried out in
no-carry states?

As Frank said: "bug off"

Do your own research.

I did and I'm not much the wiser. It seems that some can, some can't.
I need one of your knowledgable gun owners to outline the laws.
Something about 'Concealed Licence Holders' can, etc.

Do more research. People get tired of spoon feeding you.

I do laugh when people can't come up with an answer.


Because you , Willard are ignorant. The answers are in each of the
three state laws and how they apply. Research would provide the
answer. It would only take a little effort to find the answer. So go
fu ck yourself.

It does get tiring when you answer and they don't
listen then they ask the same question again. Over
and over and over.

If would be different if the one asking the questions responded
to the answers and started a dialog.

But then again, you Brits are all about condescending and not
about dialog.

It's a game they play.

On 27/09/2016 19:43, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 20:10:49 -0700, T wrote:

On 09/26/2016 05:02 PM, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:36:03 +0100, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:17:57 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 26/09/2016 18:10, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:02:35 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 26/09/2016 17:52, Frank wrote:
On 9/26/2016 12:51 PM, Bod wrote:
Why did no civilians use their guns to stop or reduce the
severity of
the attacks or were they all carried out in *no carry* states?

I thought that the point of having a gun was for protection.
I think in each case it was the police who had to stop the buggers.

runs and hides behind sofa again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37469757

bug off

Can you answer the question; were all of those attacks carried out in
no-carry states?

As Frank said: "bug off"

Do your own research.

I did and I'm not much the wiser. It seems that some can, some can't.
I need one of your knowledgable gun owners to outline the laws.
Something about 'Concealed Licence Holders' can, etc.

Do more research. People get tired of spoon feeding you.

I do laugh when people can't come up with an answer.


Because you , Willard are ignorant. The answers are in each of the
three state laws and how they apply. Research would provide the
answer. It would only take a little effort to find the answer. So go
fu ck yourself.

It does get tiring when you answer and they don't
listen then they ask the same question again. Over
and over and over.

If would be different if the one asking the questions responded
to the answers and started a dialog.

But then again, you Brits are all about condescending and not
about dialog.

It's a game they play.

That's a bit of a generalisation and happens to be untrue.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:35:18 +0100, Bod wrote:

But then again, you Brits are all about condescending and not
about dialog.

It's a game they play.

That's a bit of a generalisation and happens to be untrue.

You spelled generalization wrong.

You said you did research, but never gave examples of, or looked at
gun laws in three states: TX, WA or MN.

On 09/27/2016 12:35 PM, Bod wrote:
But then again, you Brits are all about condescending and not
about dialog.

It's a game they play.

That's a bit of a generalisation and happens to be untrue.

Hi Bod,

Yes and no. Since I see a lot of your TV on Netflix, whenever
there is a snotty comment about another country, it is about
America. And true, it is usually the one season stinker
shows that get cancelled almost immediately.

Your constant pointing out of every "odd nutter" in our country
is also a bit wearing, especially from the crime capitol
of Europe. And especially since you have been explained
in great detail why we do things the way we do over
and over.

In short, the legal use of insurrection weapons saved
a HUGE amount of lives (something like 17 to 1) over
the illegal use of these weapons.

Our press (American Pravda) does not report the lives
saved by the legal use of insurrection weapons as
they are agenda driven propagandists. But you
can find the statistics, if you look in the right
places, which you don't, as it is not your agenda
either and you don't care about the truth any more than
American Pravda does.

And you could give a ****e about murder weapons.
You only care about those weapons that we will
use to force democracy on our government.

If a despot takes over your government, you guys
are so, so screwed. You won't be able to lift
a finger, as the German people were not
under the National Socialists. Remember
that Germany was a democracy and that Hitler took
power "LEGALLY".

And what is worse, you not only want to decrease
our public safety, you also want to put our
democracy in the same danger as yours. And
when asked why you want to do this,

you
refuse
to
answer.

I think Brits are so use to condescending at
Americans, that you do ever realize you are doing
after a bit.

-T

Okay, I know what you are thinking. Every time
one of your royals gets married, we Americans
LAUGH OUR COLLECTIVE ASSES OFF at the hats.

That is not condescending, that is just plain funny.

On 27/09/2016 20:53, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:35:18 +0100, Bod wrote:

But then again, you Brits are all about condescending and not
about dialog.

It's a game they play.

That's a bit of a generalisation and happens to be untrue.

You spelled generalization wrong.

You said you did research, but never gave examples of, or looked at
gun laws in three states: TX, WA or MN.

One of your fellow posters saved me the search by sending me a link in a
private email, which was very good of him.

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 07:53:02 +0100, Bod wrote:

You said you did research, but never gave examples of, or looked at
gun laws in three states: TX, WA or MN.

One of your fellow posters saved me the search by sending me a link in a
private email, which was very good of him.

Make up your mind. You said you did research. and now you say another
person gave you the answer. Anyway, now that you have research, you
don't need to bother anybody here about gun laws in America.

Like I said numerous time befo do research. Are you and Willard
that dense? Maybe you just want people to spoon feed you.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:35:18 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 27/09/2016 19:43, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 20:10:49 -0700, T wrote:

On 09/26/2016 05:02 PM, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:36:03 +0100, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:17:57 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 26/09/2016 18:10, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:02:35 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 26/09/2016 17:52, Frank wrote:
On 9/26/2016 12:51 PM, Bod wrote:
Why did no civilians use their guns to stop or reduce the
severity of
the attacks or were they all carried out in *no carry* states?

I thought that the point of having a gun was for protection.
I think in each case it was the police who had to stop the buggers.

runs and hides behind sofa again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37469757

bug off

Can you answer the question; were all of those attacks carried out in
no-carry states?

As Frank said: "bug off"

Do your own research.

I did and I'm not much the wiser. It seems that some can, some can't.
I need one of your knowledgable gun owners to outline the laws.
Something about 'Concealed Licence Holders' can, etc.

Do more research. People get tired of spoon feeding you.

I do laugh when people can't come up with an answer.


Because you , Willard are ignorant. The answers are in each of the
three state laws and how they apply. Research would provide the
answer. It would only take a little effort to find the answer. So go
fu ck yourself.

It does get tiring when you answer and they don't
listen then they ask the same question again. Over
and over and over.

If would be different if the one asking the questions responded
to the answers and started a dialog.

But then again, you Brits are all about condescending and not
about dialog.

It's a game they play.

That's a bit of a generalisation and happens to be untrue.

Americans don't think clearly when you endanger their idea of the right to shoot everything that moves. Remember, they're still dumbass yeehaas like in the Western films.

--
Why are there 5 syllables in the word "monosyllabic"?

On 9/28/2016 7:01 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:35:18 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 27/09/2016 19:43, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 20:10:49 -0700, T wrote:

On 09/26/2016 05:02 PM, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:36:03 +0100, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:17:57 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 26/09/2016 18:10, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:02:35 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 26/09/2016 17:52, Frank wrote:
On 9/26/2016 12:51 PM, Bod wrote:
Why did no civilians use their guns to stop or reduce the
severity of
the attacks or were they all carried out in *no carry* states?

I thought that the point of having a gun was for protection.
I think in each case it was the police who had to stop the
buggers.

runs and hides behind sofa again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37469757

bug off

Can you answer the question; were all of those attacks carried
out in
no-carry states?

As Frank said: "bug off"

Do your own research.

I did and I'm not much the wiser. It seems that some can, some
can't.
I need one of your knowledgable gun owners to outline the laws.
Something about 'Concealed Licence Holders' can, etc.

Do more research. People get tired of spoon feeding you.

I do laugh when people can't come up with an answer.


Because you , Willard are ignorant. The answers are in each of the
three state laws and how they apply. Research would provide the
answer. It would only take a little effort to find the answer. So go
fu ck yourself.

It does get tiring when you answer and they don't
listen then they ask the same question again. Over
and over and over.

If would be different if the one asking the questions responded
to the answers and started a dialog.

But then again, you Brits are all about condescending and not
about dialog.

It's a game they play.

That's a bit of a generalisation and happens to be untrue.

Americans don't think clearly when you endanger their idea of the right
to shoot everything that moves. Remember, they're still dumbass yeehaas
like in the Western films.


Since you associate one or a small handful of Americans as the typical
American, then you won't have a problem when we do the same for the
idiotic Brit. It seems to fit appropriately since we already know you're
an idiot.

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:16:04 +0100, Meanie wrote:

On 9/28/2016 7:01 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:35:18 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 27/09/2016 19:43, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 20:10:49 -0700, T wrote:

On 09/26/2016 05:02 PM, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:36:03 +0100, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:17:57 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 26/09/2016 18:10, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:02:35 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 26/09/2016 17:52, Frank wrote:
On 9/26/2016 12:51 PM, Bod wrote:
Why did no civilians use their guns to stop or reduce the
severity of
the attacks or were they all carried out in *no carry* states?

I thought that the point of having a gun was for protection.
I think in each case it was the police who had to stop the
buggers.

runs and hides behind sofa again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37469757

bug off

Can you answer the question; were all of those attacks carried
out in
no-carry states?

As Frank said: "bug off"

Do your own research.

I did and I'm not much the wiser. It seems that some can, some
can't.
I need one of your knowledgable gun owners to outline the laws.
Something about 'Concealed Licence Holders' can, etc.

Do more research. People get tired of spoon feeding you.

I do laugh when people can't come up with an answer.


Because you , Willard are ignorant. The answers are in each of the
three state laws and how they apply. Research would provide the
answer. It would only take a little effort to find the answer. So go
fu ck yourself.

It does get tiring when you answer and they don't
listen then they ask the same question again. Over
and over and over.

If would be different if the one asking the questions responded
to the answers and started a dialog.

But then again, you Brits are all about condescending and not
about dialog.

It's a game they play.

That's a bit of a generalisation and happens to be untrue.

Americans don't think clearly when you endanger their idea of the right
to shoot everything that moves. Remember, they're still dumbass yeehaas
like in the Western films.


Since you associate one or a small handful of Americans as the typical
American, then you won't have a problem when we do the same for the
idiotic Brit. It seems to fit appropriately since we already know you're
an idiot.

You're saying only a small handful of Americans like guns? You're not even familiar with the attitudes of your own country.

--
U2's on-tour sound system weighs 30 tons.

On 9/28/2016 8:28 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:16:04 +0100, Meanie wrote:

On 9/28/2016 7:01 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:35:18 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 27/09/2016 19:43, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 20:10:49 -0700, T wrote:

On 09/26/2016 05:02 PM, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:36:03 +0100, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:17:57 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 26/09/2016 18:10, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:02:35 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 26/09/2016 17:52, Frank wrote:
On 9/26/2016 12:51 PM, Bod wrote:
Why did no civilians use their guns to stop or reduce the
severity of
the attacks or were they all carried out in *no carry*
states?

I thought that the point of having a gun was for protection.
I think in each case it was the police who had to stop the
buggers.

runs and hides behind sofa again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37469757

bug off

Can you answer the question; were all of those attacks carried
out in
no-carry states?

As Frank said: "bug off"

Do your own research.

I did and I'm not much the wiser. It seems that some can, some
can't.
I need one of your knowledgable gun owners to outline the laws.
Something about 'Concealed Licence Holders' can, etc.

Do more research. People get tired of spoon feeding you.

I do laugh when people can't come up with an answer.


Because you , Willard are ignorant. The answers are in each of the
three state laws and how they apply. Research would provide the
answer. It would only take a little effort to find the answer. So go
fu ck yourself.

It does get tiring when you answer and they don't
listen then they ask the same question again. Over
and over and over.

If would be different if the one asking the questions responded
to the answers and started a dialog.

But then again, you Brits are all about condescending and not
about dialog.

It's a game they play.

That's a bit of a generalisation and happens to be untrue.

Americans don't think clearly when you endanger their idea of the right
to shoot everything that moves. Remember, they're still dumbass yeehaas
like in the Western films.


Since you associate one or a small handful of Americans as the typical
American, then you won't have a problem when we do the same for the
idiotic Brit. It seems to fit appropriately since we already know you're
an idiot.

You're saying only a small handful of Americans like guns? You're not
even familiar with the attitudes of your own country.


Not falling into your idiotic diatribe of providing your with the
attention you seek. Worry about your own pathetic country. I know plenty
about mine.

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 01:50:01 +0100, Meanie wrote:

On 9/28/2016 8:28 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:16:04 +0100, Meanie wrote:

On 9/28/2016 7:01 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:35:18 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 27/09/2016 19:43, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 20:10:49 -0700, T wrote:

On 09/26/2016 05:02 PM, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:36:03 +0100, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:17:57 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 26/09/2016 18:10, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:02:35 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 26/09/2016 17:52, Frank wrote:
On 9/26/2016 12:51 PM, Bod wrote:
Why did no civilians use their guns to stop or reduce the
severity of
the attacks or were they all carried out in *no carry*
states?

I thought that the point of having a gun was for protection.
I think in each case it was the police who had to stop the
buggers.

runs and hides behind sofa again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37469757

bug off

Can you answer the question; were all of those attacks carried
out in
no-carry states?

As Frank said: "bug off"

Do your own research.

I did and I'm not much the wiser. It seems that some can, some
can't.
I need one of your knowledgable gun owners to outline the laws.
Something about 'Concealed Licence Holders' can, etc.

Do more research. People get tired of spoon feeding you.

I do laugh when people can't come up with an answer.


Because you , Willard are ignorant. The answers are in each of the
three state laws and how they apply. Research would provide the
answer. It would only take a little effort to find the answer. So go
fu ck yourself.

It does get tiring when you answer and they don't
listen then they ask the same question again. Over
and over and over.

If would be different if the one asking the questions responded
to the answers and started a dialog.

But then again, you Brits are all about condescending and not
about dialog.

It's a game they play.

That's a bit of a generalisation and happens to be untrue.

Americans don't think clearly when you endanger their idea of the right
to shoot everything that moves. Remember, they're still dumbass yeehaas
like in the Western films.


Since you associate one or a small handful of Americans as the typical
American, then you won't have a problem when we do the same for the
idiotic Brit. It seems to fit appropriately since we already know you're
an idiot.

You're saying only a small handful of Americans like guns? You're not
even familiar with the attitudes of your own country.


Not falling into your idiotic diatribe of providing your with the
attention you seek. Worry about your own pathetic country. I know plenty
about mine.

Answer the question. You can use the word yes or the word no.

--
Q: If you have a mothball in one hand and another mothball in the other hand, what would you have?
A: The undivided attention of a very large moth!

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:53:19 +0100, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:35:18 +0100, Bod wrote:

But then again, you Brits are all about condescending and not
about dialog.

It's a game they play.

That's a bit of a generalisation and happens to be untrue.

You spelled generalization wrong.

It's got an S in the UK, although I interchangeably use and accept both.

--
He saw her in her birthday suit swimming by the pier
She said, "Please go away," but he pretended not to hear.
"If you don't go I'll stay in here 'til it's dark."
'That's OK by me," he said, "I only came to feed the shark."
-- Benny Hill

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 21:32:39 +0100, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 07:53:02 +0100, Bod wrote:

You said you did research, but never gave examples of, or looked at
gun laws in three states: TX, WA or MN.

One of your fellow posters saved me the search by sending me a link in a
private email, which was very good of him.

Make up your mind. You said you did research. and now you say another
person gave you the answer. Anyway, now that you have research, you
don't need to bother anybody here about gun laws in America.

Like I said numerous time befo do research. Are you and Willard
that dense? Maybe you just want people to spoon feed you.

We will continue to laugh at the neanderthal yanks shooting each other. Maybe one day you'll all kill each other and leave your land free for civilised folk.

--
Why doesn't DOS ever say "EXCELLENT command or filename"?

On 9/29/2016 11:03 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 01:50:01 +0100, Meanie wrote:

On 9/28/2016 8:28 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:16:04 +0100, Meanie
wrote:

On 9/28/2016 7:01 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:35:18 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 27/09/2016 19:43, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 20:10:49 -0700, T wrote:

On 09/26/2016 05:02 PM, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:36:03 +0100, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:17:57 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 26/09/2016 18:10, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:02:35 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 26/09/2016 17:52, Frank wrote:
On 9/26/2016 12:51 PM, Bod wrote:
Why did no civilians use their guns to stop or reduce the
severity of
the attacks or were they all carried out in *no carry*
states?

I thought that the point of having a gun was for protection.
I think in each case it was the police who had to stop the
buggers.

runs and hides behind sofa again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37469757

bug off

Can you answer the question; were all of those attacks carried
out in
no-carry states?

As Frank said: "bug off"

Do your own research.

I did and I'm not much the wiser. It seems that some can, some
can't.
I need one of your knowledgable gun owners to outline the laws.
Something about 'Concealed Licence Holders' can, etc.

Do more research. People get tired of spoon feeding you.

I do laugh when people can't come up with an answer.


Because you , Willard are ignorant. The answers are in each of the
three state laws and how they apply. Research would provide the
answer. It would only take a little effort to find the answer. So go
fu ck yourself.

It does get tiring when you answer and they don't
listen then they ask the same question again. Over
and over and over.

If would be different if the one asking the questions responded
to the answers and started a dialog.

But then again, you Brits are all about condescending and not
about dialog.

It's a game they play.

That's a bit of a generalisation and happens to be untrue.

Americans don't think clearly when you endanger their idea of the
right
to shoot everything that moves. Remember, they're still dumbass
yeehaas
like in the Western films.


Since you associate one or a small handful of Americans as the typical
American, then you won't have a problem when we do the same for the
idiotic Brit. It seems to fit appropriately since we already know
you're
an idiot.

You're saying only a small handful of Americans like guns? You're not
even familiar with the attitudes of your own country.


Not falling into your idiotic diatribe of providing your with the
attention you seek. Worry about your own pathetic country. I know plenty
about mine.

Answer the question. You can use the word yes or the word no.


Thanks for playing.

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 23:32:13 +0100, Meanie wrote:

On 9/29/2016 11:03 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 01:50:01 +0100, Meanie wrote:

On 9/28/2016 8:28 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:16:04 +0100, Meanie
wrote:

On 9/28/2016 7:01 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:35:18 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 27/09/2016 19:43, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 20:10:49 -0700, T wrote:

On 09/26/2016 05:02 PM, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:36:03 +0100, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:17:57 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 26/09/2016 18:10, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:02:35 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 26/09/2016 17:52, Frank wrote:
On 9/26/2016 12:51 PM, Bod wrote:
Why did no civilians use their guns to stop or reduce the
severity of
the attacks or were they all carried out in *no carry*
states?

I thought that the point of having a gun was for protection.
I think in each case it was the police who had to stop the
buggers.

runs and hides behind sofa again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37469757

bug off

Can you answer the question; were all of those attacks carried
out in
no-carry states?

As Frank said: "bug off"

Do your own research.

I did and I'm not much the wiser. It seems that some can, some
can't.
I need one of your knowledgable gun owners to outline the laws.
Something about 'Concealed Licence Holders' can, etc.

Do more research. People get tired of spoon feeding you.

I do laugh when people can't come up with an answer.


Because you , Willard are ignorant. The answers are in each of the
three state laws and how they apply. Research would provide the
answer. It would only take a little effort to find the answer. So go
fu ck yourself.

It does get tiring when you answer and they don't
listen then they ask the same question again. Over
and over and over.

If would be different if the one asking the questions responded
to the answers and started a dialog.

But then again, you Brits are all about condescending and not
about dialog.

It's a game they play.

That's a bit of a generalisation and happens to be untrue.

Americans don't think clearly when you endanger their idea of the
right
to shoot everything that moves. Remember, they're still dumbass
yeehaas
like in the Western films.


Since you associate one or a small handful of Americans as the typical
American, then you won't have a problem when we do the same for the
idiotic Brit. It seems to fit appropriately since we already know
you're
an idiot.

You're saying only a small handful of Americans like guns? You're not
even familiar with the attitudes of your own country.


Not falling into your idiotic diatribe of providing your with the
attention you seek. Worry about your own pathetic country. I know plenty
about mine.

Answer the question. You can use the word yes or the word no.


Thanks for playing.

I wasn't, I asked you a simple question, you failed to answer it. Now stop being a silly little troll and try an adult conversation.

--
Why isn;t the apostrophe next to the L? Who ever uses the semicolon???

On 09/29/2016 08:06 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 21:32:39 +0100, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 07:53:02 +0100, Bod wrote:

You said you did research, but never gave examples of, or looked at
gun laws in three states: TX, WA or MN.

One of your fellow posters saved me the search by sending me a link in a
private email, which was very good of him.

Make up your mind. You said you did research. and now you say another
person gave you the answer. Anyway, now that you have research, you
don't need to bother anybody here about gun laws in America.

Like I said numerous time befo do research. Are you and Willard
that dense? Maybe you just want people to spoon feed you.

We will continue to laugh at the neanderthal yanks shooting each other.
Maybe one day you'll all kill each other and leave your land free for
civilised folk.


Stereotypical condescending Brit ignoramus

On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:48:46 +0100, T wrote:

On 09/29/2016 08:06 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 21:32:39 +0100, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 07:53:02 +0100, Bod wrote:

You said you did research, but never gave examples of, or looked at
gun laws in three states: TX, WA or MN.

One of your fellow posters saved me the search by sending me a link in a
private email, which was very good of him.

Make up your mind. You said you did research. and now you say another
person gave you the answer. Anyway, now that you have research, you
don't need to bother anybody here about gun laws in America.

Like I said numerous time befo do research. Are you and Willard
that dense? Maybe you just want people to spoon feed you.

We will continue to laugh at the neanderthal yanks shooting each other.
Maybe one day you'll all kill each other and leave your land free for
civilised folk.


Stereotypical condescending Brit ignoramus

Stereotypes are there for a reason.

--
Good health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.

On 09/30/2016 06:23 AM, James Wilkinson Sword condescended:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:48:46 +0100, T wrote:

On 09/29/2016 08:06 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 21:32:39 +0100, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 07:53:02 +0100, Bod wrote:

You said you did research, but never gave examples of, or looked at
gun laws in three states: TX, WA or MN.

One of your fellow posters saved me the search by sending me a link
in a
private email, which was very good of him.

Make up your mind. You said you did research. and now you say another
person gave you the answer. Anyway, now that you have research, you
don't need to bother anybody here about gun laws in America.

Like I said numerous time befo do research. Are you and Willard
that dense? Maybe you just want people to spoon feed you.

We will continue to laugh at the neanderthal yanks shooting each other.
Maybe one day you'll all kill each other and leave your land free for
civilised folk.


Stereotypical condescending Brit ignoramus

Stereotypes are there for a reason.


You bet. It makes you fell better about yourself
without actually being better. You can be a jerk and
feel positive about yourself.

On Mon, 03 Oct 2016 21:33:06 +0100, T wrote:

On 09/30/2016 06:23 AM, James Wilkinson Sword condescended:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:48:46 +0100, T wrote:

On 09/29/2016 08:06 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 21:32:39 +0100, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 07:53:02 +0100, Bod wrote:

You said you did research, but never gave examples of, or looked at
gun laws in three states: TX, WA or MN.

One of your fellow posters saved me the search by sending me a link
in a
private email, which was very good of him.

Make up your mind. You said you did research. and now you say another
person gave you the answer. Anyway, now that you have research, you
don't need to bother anybody here about gun laws in America.

Like I said numerous time befo do research. Are you and Willard
that dense? Maybe you just want people to spoon feed you.

We will continue to laugh at the neanderthal yanks shooting each other.
Maybe one day you'll all kill each other and leave your land free for
civilised folk.


Stereotypical condescending Brit ignoramus

Stereotypes are there for a reason.


You bet. It makes you fell better about yourself
without actually being better. You can be a jerk and
feel positive about yourself.

No, they're there because a large quantity of those people are that thing.

--
User has insufficient intelligence to complete this task, please insert a new user.

On 10/03/2016 02:13 PM, James Wilkinson Sword condescended:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2016 21:33:06 +0100, T wrote:

On 09/30/2016 06:23 AM, James Wilkinson Sword condescended:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:48:46 +0100, T wrote:

On 09/29/2016 08:06 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 21:32:39 +0100, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 07:53:02 +0100, Bod wrote:

You said you did research, but never gave examples of, or looked at
gun laws in three states: TX, WA or MN.

One of your fellow posters saved me the search by sending me a link
in a
private email, which was very good of him.

Make up your mind. You said you did research. and now you say
another
person gave you the answer. Anyway, now that you have research, you
don't need to bother anybody here about gun laws in America.

Like I said numerous time befo do research. Are you and Willard
that dense? Maybe you just want people to spoon feed you.

We will continue to laugh at the neanderthal yanks shooting each
other.
Maybe one day you'll all kill each other and leave your land free for
civilised folk.


Stereotypical condescending Brit ignoramus

Stereotypes are there for a reason.


You bet. It makes you fell better about yourself
without actually being better. You can be a jerk and
feel positive about yourself.

No, they're there because a large quantity of those people are that thing.


"Oh and those actors are not gay, they are British." Does it
apply?

"What do you call a good looking woman in England? A tourist."
Does it apply?

"What goes for a good looking man in Briton? One who has all his
teeth and his ears are the same height." Does it apply?

They are just nasty things small minded people make up to
feel better about themselves.

You really need to clean up your own country before
telling us how to run ours, especially when it comes
to crime. You are "THE" crime capitol of Europe after all.

And I can tell you haven't the slightest clue about guns in
America. But that does not stop you from condescending.
It would be different if you were asking us to explain,
but you are not. Your are just condescending.

On Mon, 03 Oct 2016 23:00:43 +0100, T wrote:

On 10/03/2016 02:13 PM, James Wilkinson Sword condescended:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2016 21:33:06 +0100, T wrote:

On 09/30/2016 06:23 AM, James Wilkinson Sword condescended:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:48:46 +0100, T wrote:

On 09/29/2016 08:06 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 21:32:39 +0100, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 07:53:02 +0100, Bod wrote:

You said you did research, but never gave examples of, or looked at
gun laws in three states: TX, WA or MN.

One of your fellow posters saved me the search by sending me a link
in a
private email, which was very good of him.

Make up your mind. You said you did research. and now you say
another
person gave you the answer. Anyway, now that you have research, you
don't need to bother anybody here about gun laws in America.

Like I said numerous time befo do research. Are you and Willard
that dense? Maybe you just want people to spoon feed you.

We will continue to laugh at the neanderthal yanks shooting each
other.
Maybe one day you'll all kill each other and leave your land free for
civilised folk.


Stereotypical condescending Brit ignoramus

Stereotypes are there for a reason.


You bet. It makes you fell better about yourself
without actually being better. You can be a jerk and
feel positive about yourself.

No, they're there because a large quantity of those people are that thing.

"Oh and those actors are not gay, they are British." Does it
apply?

To a lot more than in other countries, yes.

"What do you call a good looking woman in England? A tourist."
Does it apply?

Dunno, I'm in Scotland.

"What goes for a good looking man in Briton?

Where is "Briton"?

One who has all his
teeth and his ears are the same height." Does it apply?

Funny, your hillbillies look pretty ugly. Do they all still **** their cousins?
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=te...w=1309&bih=755


They are just nasty things small minded people make up to
feel better about themselves.

But they always select a certain group, so there is a reason for that.

You really need to clean up your own country before
telling us how to run ours, especially when it comes
to crime. You are "THE" crime capitol of Europe after all.

And I can tell you haven't the slightest clue about guns in
America. But that does not stop you from condescending.
It would be different if you were asking us to explain,
but you are not. Your are just condescending.

I know the stats, you're still in the dark ages shooting each other. Your country is 100 times worse than ours.

--
Does a pope **** in the woods? And if a pope ****s in the woods and no-one is around, does he pebbledash?

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 15:00:43 -0700, T wrote:

And I can tell you haven't the slightest clue about guns in
America. But that does not stop you from condescending.
It would be different if you were asking us to explain,
but you are not. Your are just condescending.


He found out his father was a Yank, his mother loved American
chocolate, cigarettes and nylon hosiery? Or maybe the brits have
penis envy...