Bod wrote:
On 26/07/2016 22:46, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article , says...


I've not tried to because I don't need one, I have no intention of
deliberately killing anyone.
Why do you? They oughta just pre-empt murderers and lock up anyone
who ever bought a gun.

Why are you so kinky about what Americans can and
cannot buy or own?

I find it amusing how backward your country is.


Yes, we are a backward country. Only one to put a man on the moon. The
modern home computers invented here. Hard telling how much was
invented over here. Bailed out many countries in Europe in 2 world
wars. Probably should have let Germany take it over.

As with many things it is beter to have a gun and not need it than to
need it and not have it. I hope to never need a gun to defend myself,
but it I do, most likely I will have one on me. Just as a spare
tire in a car. Hope to never need it ,but have it. Home owner
insurance, don't want to use it,but feel that I should have it
incase. Do you have insurance or a car with a spare tire ?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Hmm, every time there is a mass shooting in the US, it's always the
police that shoot the villain. I've never seen a report where an armed
member of the public kills the nutter.

Why do you think the nutters select "gun free zones" to wreak their mayhem
? I saw one a few minutes ago where a guy went nuts and shot 3 people before
a CCW drew his weapon and shot the guy in the leg . One thing you'll very
seldom see on the news is a citizen stopping a nutter - because it doesn't
fit the liberal narrative . They want us disarmed so they can control us ...
The difference between citizens and subjects is that citizens have guns ...

--
Snag