Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 4/22/2013 5:59 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 4/20/2013 2:22 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Of course, you are a well known loon.


**If pointing out the abject stupidity of US gun control laws (such as
they are), by using logic, reason and common-sense, makes me a "loon",
then I guess you have some serious problems in dealing with plain English.


Why is that it everyone who post from down under is insane? Of
course, 'rageaudio' tells everyone that you are just an opinionated ass.


**I should add that, despite your peculiar insanity, I do not regard ALL
Americans as ignorant, gun loving morons. I reserve those sorts of
comments solely for NRA supporters and George W Bush voters. The other
150 million Americans may well be decent, intelligent people.


You have no clue who I support, so you just act like a monkey and
fling your ****.

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:27:33 +1000, Trevor Wilson
wrote:
[i]
On 4/22/2013 1:44 AM, Ramsman wrote:
On 20/04/2013 20:45, Ramsman wrote:
On 20/04/2013 07:06, G. Morgan wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:

People like 'Trevor' are responsible for creating 'Gun free zones'
which are the perfect targets for shooting sprees where no one will
shoot back. He is down under, and has no business spouting off about
gun control in the US.

I just told him the same thing.

I also get tired of Eurotrash bad-mouthing our Constitution. For
Chrissakes, they still have queens, prince's, princesses, and kings
ruling over the moral majority (or would that be the majorities'
morals?).


Please provide a list of European countries where royalty rules.

If you're going to make statements like that with no evidence to back
them up, it doesn't do much for what little credibility you do have.

Ranting is no substitute for reasoned argument.

Once again, please tell use where these countries are that are ruled by
a royal family.

Very few Americans get involved with politics outside of the US, yet the
whole world has a ****ing opinion on *our* politics and law. If they
can't vote here, they need to STFU about it. [g][r][n]



Very few Americans know anything about anything outside the US.



**Sad, but true. So much power in the hands of so many ignorant people.
George W Bush is a prime example. A hugely ignorant man, who did much
damage to the planet.

Idiot. What does "outside the US" have to do with the US
Constitution?

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:10:27 +1000, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 4/22/2013 1:31 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
Trevor Wilson writes:

On 4/21/2013 11:41 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
Trevor Wilson writes:

**And I will repeat:

The 2nd Amendment was written:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.

So, I take it that you believe the Freedom of Speech clause in the First
Amendment only applies to speaking from atop a soapbox at the local park
(no voice amplification), handwritten letters and documents/newspapers/
books printed using a screw press. It does not apply to radio, television,
modern high speed printing presses, the Internet or anything involving
amplification, electronics or any other technology developed since the
late 1700s?


**And there's the rub: Freedom of speech also applies to instructions on
bomb-building, preparation of toxins and other substances, paedophile
materials, along with fear-mongering and hate-inciting materials.

That's not the point. If the 2nd only applies to the technology of the
time of its passage (inaccurate muskets) then, to be consistent, the 1st
can only apply to the technology of the time of its passage. Meaning only
handwritten text, newspapers printed with a screw press and yelling from
atop a box at a street corner.


**Precisely. You may care to note that, despite the 1st Amendment, truly
free speech does not exist in the US.

You're a liar, but we all already knew that.

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:10:58 +1000, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 4/22/2013 6:14 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**And there's the rub: Freedom of speech also applies to instructions on
bomb-building, preparation of toxins and other substances, paedophile
materials, along with fear-mongering and hate-inciting materials.


So, you're a drug making, bomb building pedophile? That's no
surprise.


**You are one ignorant ****.

A perfect example of your best reasoned argument.

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:20:46 -0700, UCLAN wrote:

On 4/21/2013 3:41 PM, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 11:55:10 -0700, wrote:

On 4/21/2013 7:42 AM, wrote:

I'll assume from the above that you believe that assault weapons are
protected by the Second Amendment.

Define "assault weapon". (this ought to be good for a laugh)

If so, where do you draw the line?

The line is pretty bright, should you care to actually take a few
moments to educate yourself rather than spout the typical leftist
nonsense.

Bazookas? Grenade launchers? A tank parked in my front yard?

Again, you show your complete ignorance of the subject which you rant
on about.

Typical non-answer. Lots of rhetoric, but not even an attempt at an
answer to a simple question. Figures...

Another lying lefty raises his head above the swamp scum.

Still no answer. I figured as much. Just another right-wing circle jerk.

You got your answer. Though it is unfortunate that you're too stupid
to understand it, it's not my problem.

Carry on. Don't hurt yourself.

Brainless twit.

On 4/22/2013 11:40 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Like any rabid NRA supporter, who is incapable of forming an
individual thought, YOU have no idea what I think.



The problem is that you don't think, and you never will.


**First you claim to know what I think, then you claim that I don't
think. You don't know what I think.

I don't
belong to the NRA, and I never have.


**Doesn't matter. You parrot their words.

I am a US Army Veteran who
believes in all of our amendments, including the Second Amendment.


**Really?

You "believe in" the 18th Amendment?
You "belive in" the 21st Amendment?

Which is it?

You
harp about free speech, yet try to deny that right to others.


**Do I? When did I do that?

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

On 4/22/2013 11:46 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 4/22/2013 5:59 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 4/20/2013 2:22 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Of course, you are a well known loon.


**If pointing out the abject stupidity of US gun control laws (such as
they are), by using logic, reason and common-sense, makes me a "loon",
then I guess you have some serious problems in dealing with plain English.


Why is that it everyone who post from down under is insane? Of
course, 'rageaudio' tells everyone that you are just an opinionated ass.


**I should add that, despite your peculiar insanity, I do not regard ALL
Americans as ignorant, gun loving morons. I reserve those sorts of
comments solely for NRA supporters and George W Bush voters. The other
150 million Americans may well be decent, intelligent people.


You have no clue who I support,

**You are an NRA supporter. Regardless of your membership status. Your
words betray you. NRA supporters are idiots. Evil idiots.


so you just act like a monkey and
fling your ****.


**No. I deal in facts.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 07:32:06 +1000, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 4/22/2013 11:40 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Like any rabid NRA supporter, who is incapable of forming an
individual thought, YOU have no idea what I think.



The problem is that you don't think, and you never will.


**First you claim to know what I think, then you claim that I don't
think. You don't know what I think.

You just proved you can't read or think.

I don't
belong to the NRA, and I never have.


**Doesn't matter. You parrot their words.

Because the NRA spoke the truth doesn't change the fact that it is the
truth.

I am a US Army Veteran who
believes in all of our amendments, including the Second Amendment.


**Really?

You "believe in" the 18th Amendment?
You "belive in" the 21st Amendment?

Which is it?

Idiot. Learn something about the Constitution.

You
harp about free speech, yet try to deny that right to others.


**Do I? When did I do that?

Many times, moron.

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:22:46 +1000, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 4/22/2013 11:46 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 4/22/2013 5:59 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 4/20/2013 2:22 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Of course, you are a well known loon.


**If pointing out the abject stupidity of US gun control laws (such as
they are), by using logic, reason and common-sense, makes me a "loon",
then I guess you have some serious problems in dealing with plain English.


Why is that it everyone who post from down under is insane? Of
course, 'rageaudio' tells everyone that you are just an opinionated ass.


**I should add that, despite your peculiar insanity, I do not regard ALL
Americans as ignorant, gun loving morons. I reserve those sorts of
comments solely for NRA supporters and George W Bush voters. The other
150 million Americans may well be decent, intelligent people.


You have no clue who I support,

**You are an NRA supporter. Regardless of your membership status. Your
words betray you. NRA supporters are idiots. Evil idiots.


so you just act like a monkey and
fling your ****.


**No. I deal in facts.

Wow! Now *THAT'S* FUNNY!

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:22:46 +1000, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 4/22/2013 11:46 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 4/22/2013 5:59 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 4/20/2013 2:22 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and
their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Of course, you are a well known loon.


**If pointing out the abject stupidity of US gun control laws (such
as
they are), by using logic, reason and common-sense, makes me a
"loon",
then I guess you have some serious problems in dealing with plain
English.


Why is that it everyone who post from down under is insane? Of
course, 'rageaudio' tells everyone that you are just an opinionated
ass.


**I should add that, despite your peculiar insanity, I do not regard
ALL
Americans as ignorant, gun loving morons. I reserve those sorts of
comments solely for NRA supporters and George W Bush voters. The other
150 million Americans may well be decent, intelligent people.


You have no clue who I support,

**You are an NRA supporter. Regardless of your membership status. Your
words betray you. NRA supporters are idiots. Evil idiots.


so you just act like a monkey and
fling your ****.


**No. I deal in facts.

Wow! Now *THAT'S* FUNNY!


Jeez, is it something in the water?

I am the NRA!

"Roger Blake" wrote in message
...

Trevor clearly does not believe in the natural right to self-defense
that so many of the U.S. founders spoke of and enshrined in the
2nd Amendment, and instead wants to trust government, an
institution historically bathed in the blood of innocents.

As a statist who believes that the fundamental purpose of government is to
PROTECT individual rights -- a point made in the Constitution -- I have no
problem with "reasonable" controls on the ownership and use of weapons. My
definition of "reasonable" pretty much begins and ends with keeping weapons
out of the hands of criminals and the irresponsible. I do not see requiring
background checks on everyone who purchases a weapon as un-reasonable --
unless it can be shown that such checks are ineffective.

People clearly do not "need" assault rifles. But there are lots of things
people don't "need". I'm bothered about outlawing any "unneeded" thing unless
we have a good idea of the consequences. (I have yet to hear a discussion of
the effects of the previous ban on assault weapons.) Too many laws are passed
because they reflect a view of how the world ought to be, rather than how it
actually is.

As for "slippery slopes"... Power tends to draw more power to itself. ANY
regulatory law creates its own slippery slope.

As for the blood of innocents -- let's start with the innocent people killed
in environmental and engineering disasters, due to the greed of business.
Money is power -- or didn't you know that? This country is in the process of
returning power to Big Business, where it resided in the 19th century.

PS: I've been watching "The Rifleman" on MeTV. It's a fascinating program,
with outstanding episodes alternating with appalling garbage (including a
story in which the central dramatic conflict is resolved by an attack by a man
in a bad bear costume). In one episode, Lucas wins a 12ga shotgun in a
contest, which he puts aside for Mark "until he's ready for it". (In this
context, "ready" means knowing how to use it responsibly.) Though this makes
sense, it is out of context, as "rural" children were -- and still are --
taught to use firearms. The teaching is part of the process of learning
responsible use.

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:41:07 -0500, G. Morgan
wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 4/20/2013 3:53 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
Who the **** posted this **** to all these groups? The OP didn't even
cite who the "kike" is.

Newsgroups:
sci.electronics.repair,24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt. sports.football.pro.sd-chargers,alt.engineering.electrical,rec.audio.car

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written in the United States. If some
Aussie has a problem with it, just don't come here and you'll be just
fine.

I really don't understand why people that are outside of the US think
they are allowed to opine on the 2nd. I don't tell you what kind of
boomerang you can carry.

**We call it: 'Freedom of speech'. An interesting concept you should
learn about.

Freedom of speech? Your diversion noted.

That's not the crux of the issue, it's about why anyone outside of the US
thinks they can opine on our laws and make statements like "time to
change". No... You don't live here and that means you don't get to vote
on it. It's not a human rights issue, so the international community has
no say.

Stupid septic.

Nice sig.

What would you expect from Ron Reaugh? It *is* him.

On 19/04/2013 9:29 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Don Kelly wrote:

On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.
* At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
* At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
* At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
* At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of their
country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
providing fresh meat was also rather important).
What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem earlier)- or
for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone innocent
gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons that
can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't infringe
on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun owners
but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in dismay at
what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and lived
with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
based on ??


Guns aren't the problem, and it only takes a second or two to change a
magazine, so the size doesn't make any difference if no one is shooting
back. The problem is that sleazy lawyers got 'rights' for the mentally
ill to be on the streets. A gun is a tool, and doesn't kill by itself.
It takes an unstable person or criminal who places no value on human
life to use one to maim or kill in cold blood.


I disagree in part-any legal limitations don't mean a damn to
criminals-but what you have is a situation where any kook can walk into
a store and buy a gun, or where this isn't allowed, go to a gun show and
do it -without any background checks. The "rights" should be limited- do
you have a "right" to drive a car- I don't think so- you have the
privilege- provided that you present information as to your ability to
do it within conditions of capability. Shouldn't the same be done with
respect to weapons?
As to reloading magazines- true-just think, instead of firing 50
rounds into a movie theater, one has to stop after 10 to reload. Even
that is too much.
As for shooting back- the odds are that in such a firefight, the
collateral damage is high-my experience with an automatic (or semi-)
weapon is that it tends to walk around a lot from where it is aimed. Oh
****- spraying bullets around hit some innocent people- while the
intended target is unharmed- witness gang shootouts.
I do think a "long gun" registry doesn't work- but restrictions on
particular weapons do help. Illegal weapons do get into criminal hands-
but facts may indicate that making these weapons licit increases the
chance of innocents being harmed. The old west idea of gunfights as a
form of duel - may well be fiction- it is easier to shoot an opponent in
the back that to walk down the street and duel to appropriate music.
Anyhow, I can disagree with you -but it will not be beyond the extent
of arguing over which of us is to buy the next round if we ever meet.





--
Don Kelly
remove the cross to reply

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:58:41 -0700, Don Kelly wrote:

On 19/04/2013 9:29 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Don Kelly wrote:

On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.
* At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
* At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
* At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
* At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of their
country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
providing fresh meat was also rather important).
What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem earlier)- or
for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone innocent
gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons that
can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't infringe
on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun owners
but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in dismay at
what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and lived
with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
based on ??


Guns aren't the problem, and it only takes a second or two to change a
magazine, so the size doesn't make any difference if no one is shooting
back. The problem is that sleazy lawyers got 'rights' for the mentally
ill to be on the streets. A gun is a tool, and doesn't kill by itself.
It takes an unstable person or criminal who places no value on human
life to use one to maim or kill in cold blood.


I disagree in part-any legal limitations don't mean a damn to
criminals-but what you have is a situation where any kook can walk into
a store and buy a gun, or where this isn't allowed, go to a gun show and
do it -without any background checks.

The above is a deliberate lie. Dealers at gun shows have to perform
the same background check as any other dealer. Always have.

The "rights" should be limited- do
you have a "right" to drive a car- I don't think so- you have the
privilege- provided that you present information as to your ability to
do it within conditions of capability. Shouldn't the same be done with
respect to weapons?

Where does the Constitution mention cars? How do cars *PROTECT* life?

As to reloading magazines- true-just think, instead of firing 50
rounds into a movie theater, one has to stop after 10 to reload. Even
that is too much.

Wrong again. Even that is ridiculous. You *obviously* know nothing of
what you speak.

As for shooting back- the odds are that in such a firefight, the
collateral damage is high-my experience with an automatic (or semi-)
weapon is that it tends to walk around a lot from where it is aimed. Oh
****- spraying bullets around hit some innocent people- while the
intended target is unharmed- witness gang shootouts.

The facts prove you wrong, but that's to be expected from *ANY* gun
grabber.

I do think a "long gun" registry doesn't work- but restrictions on
particular weapons do help.

Bull****. Proof required.

Illegal weapons do get into criminal hands-
but facts may indicate that making these weapons licit increases the
chance of innocents being harmed.

What "facts"? You've stated none.

The old west idea of gunfights as a
form of duel - may well be fiction- it is easier to shoot an opponent in
the back that to walk down the street and duel to appropriate music.
Anyhow, I can disagree with you -but it will not be beyond the extent
of arguing over which of us is to buy the next round if we ever meet.

"Buy the next round"? A rather unfortunate choice of words, eh?

Per Don Kelly:
or where this isn't allowed, go to a gun show and
do it -without any background checks.

That's the one that bugs me, but nobody in the news media seems to pick
up on it.

Personally, I'm not so sure that background checks accomplish all that
much. I'm not rabidly against them. I could go either way... OTOH
Bloomberg seems to be for them big time And whether one approves of him
or not, one must concede that Bloomberg is no dummy.

But requiring background checks (with all the attendant administrative
overhead) in one venue and not requiring them in another
readily-available venue I find extremely offensive.

Time and money down the drain.

Either do it right or do away with it.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 08:48:09 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Don Kelly:
or where this isn't allowed, go to a gun show and
do it -without any background checks.

That's the one that bugs me, but nobody in the news media seems to pick
up on it.

Personally, I'm not so sure that background checks accomplish all that
much. I'm not rabidly against them. I could go either way... OTOH
Bloomberg seems to be for them big time And whether one approves of him
or not, one must concede that Bloomberg is no dummy.

Doomberg, no dummy? The biggest big-government nanny of them all?
Good grief! You really don't like your personal freedoms much.

But requiring background checks (with all the attendant administrative
overhead) in one venue and not requiring them in another
readily-available venue I find extremely offensive.

Hint: You've fallen for another lefty lie. The exact same background
checks are required at a gun show as they are in a brick-and-mortar
store (and "Internet sales" must go through a local licensed dealer,
in any case).

Time and money down the drain.

Either do it right or do away with it.

Learn something about what you're talking about or don't talk.

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
news
Per Don Kelly:
or where this isn't allowed, go to a gun show and
do it -without any background checks.

That's the one that bugs me, but nobody in the news media seems to pick
up on it.

Personally, I'm not so sure that background checks accomplish all that
much. I'm not rabidly against them. I could go either way... OTOH
Bloomberg seems to be for them big time And whether one approves of him
or not, one must concede that Bloomberg is no dummy.

But requiring background checks (with all the attendant administrative
overhead) in one venue and not requiring them in another
readily-available venue I find extremely offensive.

Time and money down the drain.

Either do it right or do away with it.
--
Pete Cresswell

Have you ever been to a gun show? It sure sounds like you have not.

There are very few private sales at gun shows. Mostly just dealer tables and
they ALL require background checks.

Take in a show sometime and at least you will be more knowledgeable on the
subject.

On 4/24/2013 10:39 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:58:41 -0700, Don Kelly wrote:

On 19/04/2013 9:29 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Don Kelly wrote:

On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.
* At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
* At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
* At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
* At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of their
country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
providing fresh meat was also rather important).
What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem earlier)- or
for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone innocent
gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons that
can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't infringe
on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun owners
but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in dismay at
what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and lived
with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
based on ??


Guns aren't the problem, and it only takes a second or two to change a
magazine, so the size doesn't make any difference if no one is shooting
back. The problem is that sleazy lawyers got 'rights' for the mentally
ill to be on the streets. A gun is a tool, and doesn't kill by itself.
It takes an unstable person or criminal who places no value on human
life to use one to maim or kill in cold blood.


I disagree in part-any legal limitations don't mean a damn to
criminals-but what you have is a situation where any kook can walk into
a store and buy a gun, or where this isn't allowed, go to a gun show and
do it -without any background checks.

The above is a deliberate lie. Dealers at gun shows have to perform
the same background check as any other dealer. Always have.

**There is little to stop a person who has a clean record form walking
into a gun show, buying whatever guns they are asked to buy, by someone
waiting outside the show. This is PRECISELY the method used by the
Columbine killers to obtain at least one of their guns. It is a stupid
loop-hole and one which can easily be closed.


The "rights" should be limited- do
you have a "right" to drive a car- I don't think so- you have the
privilege- provided that you present information as to your ability to
do it within conditions of capability. Shouldn't the same be done with
respect to weapons?

Where does the Constitution mention cars? How do cars *PROTECT* life?

As to reloading magazines- true-just think, instead of firing 50
rounds into a movie theater, one has to stop after 10 to reload. Even
that is too much.

Wrong again. Even that is ridiculous. You *obviously* know nothing of
what you speak.

As for shooting back- the odds are that in such a firefight, the
collateral damage is high-my experience with an automatic (or semi-)
weapon is that it tends to walk around a lot from where it is aimed. Oh
****- spraying bullets around hit some innocent people- while the
intended target is unharmed- witness gang shootouts.

The facts prove you wrong, but that's to be expected from *ANY* gun
grabber.

**Cite these alleged "facts" you speak of.


I do think a "long gun" registry doesn't work- but restrictions on
particular weapons do help.

Bull****. Proof required.

**Australia introduced bans on certain firearms in 1996, to deal with
the crime of mass murder, via gunshot. In the 18 years prior to 1996,
there were 13 incidences of mass murder, via gunshot. Since 1996, there
have been none.


Illegal weapons do get into criminal hands-
but facts may indicate that making these weapons licit increases the
chance of innocents being harmed.

What "facts"? You've stated none.

**10,000 Americans are shot to death each year.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 4/24/2013 10:39 PM, wrote:

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:58:41 -0700, Don Kelly wrote:

On 19/04/2013 9:29 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Don Kelly wrote:


On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:


**What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not
milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.
* At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
* At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
* At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
* At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of
their
country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
providing fresh meat was also rather important).
What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem
earlier)- or
for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone
innocent
gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons
that
can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't
infringe
on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun
owners
but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in
dismay at
what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and
lived
with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
based on ??



Guns aren't the problem, and it only takes a second or two to
change a
magazine, so the size doesn't make any difference if no one is shooting
back. The problem is that sleazy lawyers got 'rights' for the mentally
ill to be on the streets. A gun is a tool, and doesn't kill by itself.
It takes an unstable person or criminal who places no value on human
life to use one to maim or kill in cold blood.


I disagree in part-any legal limitations don't mean a damn to
criminals-but what you have is a situation where any kook can walk into
a store and buy a gun, or where this isn't allowed, go to a gun show and
do it -without any background checks.


The above is a deliberate lie. Dealers at gun shows have to perform
the same background check as any other dealer. Always have.


**There is little to stop a person who has a clean record form walking
into a gun show, buying whatever guns they are asked to buy, by someone
waiting outside the show. This is PRECISELY the method used by the
Columbine killers to obtain at least one of their guns. It is a stupid
loop-hole and one which can easily be closed.


The "rights" should be limited- do
you have a "right" to drive a car- I don't think so- you have the
privilege- provided that you present information as to your ability to
do it within conditions of capability. Shouldn't the same be done with
respect to weapons?


Where does the Constitution mention cars? How do cars *PROTECT* life?

As to reloading magazines- true-just think, instead of firing 50
rounds into a movie theater, one has to stop after 10 to reload. Even
that is too much.


Wrong again. Even that is ridiculous. You *obviously* know nothing of
what you speak.

As for shooting back- the odds are that in such a firefight, the
collateral damage is high-my experience with an automatic (or semi-)
weapon is that it tends to walk around a lot from where it is aimed. Oh
****- spraying bullets around hit some innocent people- while the
intended target is unharmed- witness gang shootouts.


The facts prove you wrong, but that's to be expected from *ANY* gun
grabber.


**Cite these alleged "facts" you speak of.


I do think a "long gun" registry doesn't work- but restrictions on
particular weapons do help.


Bull****. Proof required.


**Australia introduced bans on certain firearms in 1996, to deal with
the crime of mass murder, via gunshot. In the 18 years prior to 1996,
there were 13 incidences of mass murder, via gunshot. Since 1996, there
have been none.
Well that is simple, the mass murders were more than likely the
criminals getting shot by the victims and if they were just gangs
fighting among themselves, then just let them. Hell, they should sell
ring side tickets at schedule events! Let the cesspool cleanse itself.

As usual, the victims remain the victim because the criminals always
win. They still have the guns and now home invasion is up rampant
and the criminals do not need to worry about getting shot at much, any more.

Sure, shooting is down, but at the cost of people losing their
livelihood to criminals still having guns and pointing them at the
innocent while they are getting cleaned out. Hell, they don't even
need guns as much now, because they know there is a good chance you
don't have any. Old people are the easiest to get whacked now..

You can argue all you want about it, it is fact. We read your news
from AU, and so does the rest of the world. DOn't worry, it'll show up
on your door step one day and we won't have to listen to you any more.
Because they'll have your belongings including the computer you use and
maybe even your better half, taking a round with her in bed, while you
watch! Don't think that won't happen? Even if your some old dried up
prune? Scum don't care how old they are! They'll be just has happy to
pass on their disease to your family.

You live a sheltered life, get out from under that rock your GOV
has you tucked under, feeding you the line of crap you accept as
gospel. They are only doing that to protect themselves, it has nothing
to do with you. They could care less about people getting shoot, they
only worry when the crooks start to migrate into the GOV sector, thereby
threatening them.

THe prefect solution is to shoot the heinous crooks and allow the
honest people to keep their protection, which will also help keep the
criminals in control. But you'll find that does not fit your GOV's
plains. They use incidents that take place as a course to
plead their case in taking the peoples guns away, however, only the
honest people loose their guns and you fall for it.

Wake up, idiot.


Jamie

On 04/24/2013 4:06 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 4/24/2013 10:39 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:58:41 -0700, Don Kelly wrote:

On 19/04/2013 9:29 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Don Kelly wrote:

On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not
milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.
* At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
* At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
* At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
* At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of
their
country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
providing fresh meat was also rather important).
What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem
earlier)- or
for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone
innocent
gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons
that
can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't
infringe
on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun
owners
but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in
dismay at
what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and
lived
with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
based on ??


Guns aren't the problem, and it only takes a second or two to
change a
magazine, so the size doesn't make any difference if no one is shooting
back. The problem is that sleazy lawyers got 'rights' for the mentally
ill to be on the streets. A gun is a tool, and doesn't kill by itself.
It takes an unstable person or criminal who places no value on human
life to use one to maim or kill in cold blood.


I disagree in part-any legal limitations don't mean a damn to
criminals-but what you have is a situation where any kook can walk into
a store and buy a gun, or where this isn't allowed, go to a gun show and
do it -without any background checks.

The above is a deliberate lie. Dealers at gun shows have to perform
the same background check as any other dealer. Always have.

**There is little to stop a person who has a clean record form walking
into a gun show, buying whatever guns they are asked to buy, by someone
waiting outside the show. This is PRECISELY the method used by the
Columbine killers to obtain at least one of their guns. It is a stupid
loop-hole and one which can easily be closed.


The "rights" should be limited- do
you have a "right" to drive a car- I don't think so- you have the
privilege- provided that you present information as to your ability to
do it within conditions of capability. Shouldn't the same be done with
respect to weapons?

Where does the Constitution mention cars? How do cars *PROTECT* life?

As to reloading magazines- true-just think, instead of firing 50
rounds into a movie theater, one has to stop after 10 to reload. Even
that is too much.

Wrong again. Even that is ridiculous. You *obviously* know nothing of
what you speak.

As for shooting back- the odds are that in such a firefight, the
collateral damage is high-my experience with an automatic (or semi-)
weapon is that it tends to walk around a lot from where it is aimed. Oh
****- spraying bullets around hit some innocent people- while the
intended target is unharmed- witness gang shootouts.

The facts prove you wrong, but that's to be expected from *ANY* gun
grabber.

**Cite these alleged "facts" you speak of.


I do think a "long gun" registry doesn't work- but restrictions on
particular weapons do help.

Bull****. Proof required.

**Australia introduced bans on certain firearms in 1996, to deal with
the crime of mass murder, via gunshot. In the 18 years prior to 1996,
there were 13 incidences of mass murder, via gunshot. Since 1996, there
have been none.


Illegal weapons do get into criminal hands-
but facts may indicate that making these weapons licit increases the
chance of innocents being harmed.

What "facts"? You've stated none.

**10,000 Americans are shot to death each year.



Canada which has more gun control than the US: (Wikipedia)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada

The homicide rate in Canada peaked in 1975 at 3.03 per 100,000 and has
dropped since then; it reached lower peaks in 1985 (2.72) and 1991
(2.69). It reached a post-1970 low of 1.73 in 2003. The average murder
rate between 1970 and 1976 was 2.52, between 1977 and 1983 it was 2.67,
between 1984 and 1990 it was 2.41, between 1991 and 1997 it was 2.23 and
between 1998 to 2004 it was 1.82.[18] The attempted homicide rate has
fallen at a faster rate than the homicide rate.[19]

By comparison, the homicide rate in the U.S. reached 10.1 per 100,000 in
1974, peaked in 1980 at 10.7 and reached a lower peak in 1991 (10.5).
The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 9.4, between 1977 and
1983 it was 9.6, between 1984 and 1990 it was 9, between 1991 and 1997
it was 9.2 and between 1998 and 2004 it was 6.3. In 2004, the murder
rate in the U.S. dipped below 6 per 100,000, for the first time since
1966, and as of 2010 stood at 4.8 per 100,000 [17]

And Australia:

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

Over the past 18 years (1 July 1989 to 30 June 2007), the rate* of
homicide incidents decreased from 1.9 in 1990-91 and 1992-93 to the
second-lowest recorded rate, of 1.3, in 2006-07. *rate per 100,000
population.

So, much like seat belts and helmet laws, more people survive when there
are some controls placed on use of items capable of causing death.

John :-#)#


--
(Please post followups or tech enquiries to the newsgroup)
John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9
Call (604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:06:09 +1000, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 4/24/2013 10:39 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:58:41 -0700, Don Kelly wrote:

On 19/04/2013 9:29 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Don Kelly wrote:

On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.
* At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
* At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
* At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
* At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of their
country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
providing fresh meat was also rather important).
What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem earlier)- or
for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone innocent
gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons that
can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't infringe
on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun owners
but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in dismay at
what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and lived
with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
based on ??


Guns aren't the problem, and it only takes a second or two to change a
magazine, so the size doesn't make any difference if no one is shooting
back. The problem is that sleazy lawyers got 'rights' for the mentally
ill to be on the streets. A gun is a tool, and doesn't kill by itself.
It takes an unstable person or criminal who places no value on human
life to use one to maim or kill in cold blood.


I disagree in part-any legal limitations don't mean a damn to
criminals-but what you have is a situation where any kook can walk into
a store and buy a gun, or where this isn't allowed, go to a gun show and
do it -without any background checks.

The above is a deliberate lie. Dealers at gun shows have to perform
the same background check as any other dealer. Always have.

**There is little to stop a person who has a clean record form walking
into a gun show, buying whatever guns they are asked to buy, by someone
waiting outside the show. This is PRECISELY the method used by the
Columbine killers to obtain at least one of their guns. It is a stupid
loop-hole and one which can easily be closed.

Idiot. Straw purchases are already against the law and this is *NO
DIFFERENT* than going into a gun store. The PROCESS IS EXACTLY THE
SAME NOW. Got it, moron?

IOW, you're a liar (but we already knew that).

The "rights" should be limited- do
you have a "right" to drive a car- I don't think so- you have the
privilege- provided that you present information as to your ability to
do it within conditions of capability. Shouldn't the same be done with
respect to weapons?

Where does the Constitution mention cars? How do cars *PROTECT* life?

As to reloading magazines- true-just think, instead of firing 50
rounds into a movie theater, one has to stop after 10 to reload. Even
that is too much.

Wrong again. Even that is ridiculous. You *obviously* know nothing of
what you speak.

As for shooting back- the odds are that in such a firefight, the
collateral damage is high-my experience with an automatic (or semi-)
weapon is that it tends to walk around a lot from where it is aimed. Oh
****- spraying bullets around hit some innocent people- while the
intended target is unharmed- witness gang shootouts.

The facts prove you wrong, but that's to be expected from *ANY* gun
grabber.

**Cite these alleged "facts" you speak of.

The "collateral damage" from self defense uses of guns is
*exceedingly* low. In fact, CCW holders accidentally shoot fewer
bystanders than do the police (yet shoot twice as many perps).

If you really wanted to learn anything about the subject you'd read:
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less...&keywords=lott

but you don't. You're too happy lying.

I do think a "long gun" registry doesn't work- but restrictions on
particular weapons do help.

Bull****. Proof required.

**Australia introduced bans on certain firearms in 1996, to deal with
the crime of mass murder, via gunshot. In the 18 years prior to 1996,
there were 13 incidences of mass murder, via gunshot. Since 1996, there
have been none.

The more legal guns, the LOWER the serious crime rate.

Illegal weapons do get into criminal hands-
but facts may indicate that making these weapons licit increases the
chance of innocents being harmed.

What "facts"? You've stated none.

**10,000 Americans are shot to death each year.

You really are an idiot. But that's no surprise to anyone here, Ron
Reaugh.

Don Kelly wrote:

On 19/04/2013 9:29 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Don Kelly wrote:

On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.
* At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
* At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
* At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
* At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of their
country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
providing fresh meat was also rather important).
What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem earlier)- or
for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone innocent
gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons that
can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't infringe
on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun owners
but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in dismay at
what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and lived
with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
based on ??


Guns aren't the problem, and it only takes a second or two to change a
magazine, so the size doesn't make any difference if no one is shooting
back. The problem is that sleazy lawyers got 'rights' for the mentally
ill to be on the streets. A gun is a tool, and doesn't kill by itself.
It takes an unstable person or criminal who places no value on human
life to use one to maim or kill in cold blood.


I disagree in part-any legal limitations don't mean a damn to
criminals-but what you have is a situation where any kook can walk into
a store and buy a gun, or where this isn't allowed, go to a gun show and
do it -without any background checks. The "rights" should be limited- do
you have a "right" to drive a car- I don't think so- you have the
privilege- provided that you present information as to your ability to
do it within conditions of capability. Shouldn't the same be done with
respect to weapons?
As to reloading magazines- true-just think, instead of firing 50
rounds into a movie theater, one has to stop after 10 to reload. Even
that is too much.
As for shooting back- the odds are that in such a firefight, the
collateral damage is high-my experience with an automatic (or semi-)
weapon is that it tends to walk around a lot from where it is aimed. Oh
****- spraying bullets around hit some innocent people- while the
intended target is unharmed- witness gang shootouts.
I do think a "long gun" registry doesn't work- but restrictions on
particular weapons do help. Illegal weapons do get into criminal hands-
but facts may indicate that making these weapons licit increases the
chance of innocents being harmed. The old west idea of gunfights as a
form of duel - may well be fiction- it is easier to shoot an opponent in
the back that to walk down the street and duel to appropriate music.
Anyhow, I can disagree with you -but it will not be beyond the extent
of arguing over which of us is to buy the next round if we ever meet.


I was taught to fire a three round burst with the M16. Using full
auto, and wasting the entire magazine is for bad movies.