"G Henslee" wrote in message
...
Dave Jefford wrote:

I just don't understand how anyone
could enjoy killing that rare and beautify animal?

They ran out of looters.

Specifically, they ran out of blacks to shoot.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:16:11 -0700, Dave Jefford wrote:

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:21:16 -0800, "Christina Peterson"
wrote:

C'mon, Dave. People in the NRA are probably LESS likely to be vigilantes.
Same as most people in Alcoholics Anonymous don't ever drink. OUTLAWS are
vigilantes.

MORE likely.

NRA is mostly law abiding gun owners like myself. Would I kill to protect
me or mine? Yes. I also do a little martial arts. I'm a dyed in the wool
Pacifist from the 60s. Grew up near UC Berkeley. Way too liberal for most
groups like this (do well in women's groups and arty groups). I believe in
force if it lessen violence. And other people as left leaning as I also are
NRA card-carrying members.

I was watching cable last night a few "hunters" were describing a beautiful rare
African's "deer" (could not remember what kind of deer) they planned to kill in
the bush. A "hunter" took aim a killed it. I just don't understand how anyone
could enjoy killing that rare and beautify animal? I think it's really senseless
and mind bogging! I am sure any NRA card carrying member will have a million
reasons to end the animal life.

You sure paint with a broad brush. Is everything in your life that simple?

"FDR" wrote...
The Army refers to it's weapons as pistol or rifle. Gun is considered
slang
and not much appreciated.

"This is your rifle, this is your gun, one is for fighting and one is for
fun"? Hmmm, and a hand gun is what you get when you masturbate?

Tina

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:16:11 -0700, Dave Jefford
wrote:

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:21:16 -0800, "Christina Peterson"

wrote:

C'mon, Dave. People in the NRA are probably LESS likely to be
vigilantes.
Same as most people in Alcoholics Anonymous don't ever drink. OUTLAWS
are
vigilantes.

MORE likely.

NRA is mostly law abiding gun owners like myself. Would I kill to
protect
me or mine? Yes. I also do a little martial arts. I'm a dyed in the
wool
Pacifist from the 60s. Grew up near UC Berkeley. Way too liberal for
most
groups like this (do well in women's groups and arty groups). I believe
in
force if it lessen violence. And other people as left leaning as I also
are
NRA card-carrying members.

I was watching cable last night a few "hunters" were describing a
beautiful rare
African's "deer" (could not remember what kind of deer) they planned to
kill in
the bush. A "hunter" took aim a killed it. I just don't understand how
anyone
could enjoy killing that rare and beautify animal? I think it's really
senseless
and mind bogging! I am sure any NRA card carrying member will have a
million
reasons to end the animal life.

You sure paint with a broad brush. Is everything in your life that simple?

About as simple as "Looters bad, people that kill looters good"

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:32:35 GMT, "FDR"
wrote:

Oh heck, let's just get rid of the courts and play wild west.

Which character do you wanna play?
I'll be Marshall Matt Dillon and you can play
Doc Holiday together we might tame these
NRA gunslingers.

On 8 Sep 2005 23:53:55 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

You're not actually for real, are you.

Could you be Donald H. Rumsfeld?

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:21:16 -0800, "Christina Peterson"
wrote:

C'mon, Dave. People in the NRA are probably LESS likely to be vigilantes.
Same as most people in Alcoholics Anonymous don't ever drink. OUTLAWS are
vigilantes.

MORE likely.

NRA is mostly law abiding gun owners like myself. Would I kill to protect
me or mine? Yes. I also do a little martial arts. I'm a dyed in the wool
Pacifist from the 60s. Grew up near UC Berkeley. Way too liberal for most
groups like this (do well in women's groups and arty groups). I believe in
force if it lessen violence. And other people as left leaning as I also are
NRA card-carrying members.

I was watching cable last night a few "hunters" were describing a beautiful rare
African's "deer" (could not remember what kind of deer) they planned to kill in
the bush. A "hunter" took aim a killed it. I just don't understand how anyone
could enjoy killing that rare and beautify animal? I think it's really senseless
and mind bogging! I am sure any NRA card carrying member will have a million
reasons to end the animal life.

Stop being insulting, or the good message you have will be lost!

Tina


"Dave Jefford" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 01:52:45 GMT, "FDR"

wrote:

What if the guy is walking near his home? The vigilante thinks the guy
is
bringing the loot home to the guys house. Or thinks he looted his
neighbors
house. Shoots him. Does that make Mr. Vigilante Guy happy?

These trigger happy card carrying NRA vigilante are out to shoot anything
that
move. I guess they can't shoot straight and find reasons for target
practices.

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 12:33:14 -0700, Offbreed wrote:

Dave Jefford wrote:

If you really believe everything posted here, you must be a damn fool?
It's up to you to size up what being posted here and decide the motive
of the posters. I came here to relax and enjoy myself and see how
dumb neo-con jumping up and down with rage.

Bragging about being a troll?

And the lefties wonder why they get no respect.

....and what's wrong being a liberal?

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 18:14:30 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote:

You sure paint with a broad brush. Is everything in your life that simple?

Nope, but I just dun understand how any God loving men could shoot that
beautiful rare animals. The hunters even took the time to describe the horns,
build etc. and than shoots that harmless innocent animal. What good reasons
can you give me? Did it hurt anyone, or other animals?

I guess the pleasure of killing or to show the viewers 'I am a NRA card carrying
member", nope?

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 18:33:46 GMT, "FDR"
wrote:

About as simple as "Looters bad, people that kill looters good"

I believe you put it very nicely.

"Red Cloud©" wrote in message

There was a Doctor on Larry King last night who, with the help of a
New Orleans police officer, broke into and looted a pharmacy. They
both filled garbage bags with medical supplies, and then went to the
SuperDome to help as many people as they could with the looted
supplies.

Good for them. Now if they took a TV, . . . . . . . . .

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
. ..

"Red Cloud©" wrote in message

There was a Doctor on Larry King last night who, with the help of a
New Orleans police officer, broke into and looted a pharmacy. They
both filled garbage bags with medical supplies, and then went to the
SuperDome to help as many people as they could with the looted
supplies.

Good for them. Now if they took a TV, . . . . . . . . .

You know I was thinkig about it, but a tv is an essential survival item. It
let's people know what's going on with the disaster and allows them to make
informed decisions on what to do.

FDR wrote:

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
. ..

"Red Cloud©" wrote in message

There was a Doctor on Larry King last night who, with the help of a
New Orleans police officer, broke into and looted a pharmacy. They
both filled garbage bags with medical supplies, and then went to the
SuperDome to help as many people as they could with the looted
supplies.

Good for them. Now if they took a TV, . . . . . . . . .

You know I was thinkig about it, but a tv is an essential survival item. It
let's people know what's going on with the disaster and allows them to make
informed decisions on what to do.

With no power and none in sight for weeks at best? Don't think so and I
don't believe that was what was in what would normally pass for minds of
the thugs.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:25:42 +0000, 123go wrote:


"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:18:41 GMT, FDR
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 20:43:12 GMT, FDR
wrote:

Gun is the slang and improper term.

I see you also don't understand the first thing about firearms.

Go tell that to the Army.

So, because the army has a slang definition of the word "gun", you
deduce that that's the defining factor? I see you also don't understand
the first thing about firearms, language, or the army.

in the Army, a "gun" is an artillery piece.

....or something between your legs, AIUI. ;-)

"This is my rifle and this is my gun."
"One is for killing and one is for fun."

--
Keith

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:08:33 +0000, Red Cloud© wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:32:35 GMT, "FDR"
wrote:


"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 05:06:52 GMT, Michael Daly wrote:

On 7-Sep-2005, "Larry Caldwell" wrote:

You don't shoot looters because they are
stealing stuff, you shoot looters because they are interfering with
rescue efforts and the restoration of civil order. Society has a right
to defend itself, collectively just as much as individually.

If you shoot people without any semblance of justice, you don't have
a society.

Mike, shooting a looter _is_ justice.

Oh heck, let's just get rid of the courts and play wild west.


There was a Doctor on Larry King last night who, with the help of a
New Orleans police officer, broke into and looted a pharmacy. They
both filled garbage bags with medical supplies, and then went to the
SuperDome to help as many people as they could with the looted
supplies.

Amazing. The LA authorities wouldn't let the Red Cross in there with
the same (and legal) stuff. Truely amazing!

--
Keith

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:58:13 -0700, Dave Jefford wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:32:35 GMT, "FDR"
wrote:

Oh heck, let's just get rid of the courts and play wild west.

Which character do you wanna play?
I'll be Marshall Matt Dillon and you can play
Doc Holiday together we might tame these
NRA gunslingers.

I'll play Roy Bean. Boy, you're in a heap-o-trouble!

--
Keith

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
FDR wrote:

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
. ..

"Red Cloud©" wrote in message

There was a Doctor on Larry King last night who, with the help of a
New Orleans police officer, broke into and looted a pharmacy. They
both filled garbage bags with medical supplies, and then went to the
SuperDome to help as many people as they could with the looted
supplies.

Good for them. Now if they took a TV, . . . . . . . . .

You know I was thinkig about it, but a tv is an essential survival item.
It
let's people know what's going on with the disaster and allows them to
make
informed decisions on what to do.

With no power and none in sight for weeks at best? Don't think so and I
don't believe that was what was in what would normally pass for minds of
the thugs.

Well, that's why you have to procure a generator too.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 18:33:46 GMT, "FDR"
wrote:


"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:16:11 -0700, Dave Jefford
wrote:

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:21:16 -0800, "Christina Peterson"

wrote:

C'mon, Dave. People in the NRA are probably LESS likely to be
vigilantes.
Same as most people in Alcoholics Anonymous don't ever drink. OUTLAWS
are
vigilantes.

MORE likely.

NRA is mostly law abiding gun owners like myself. Would I kill to
protect
me or mine? Yes. I also do a little martial arts. I'm a dyed in the
wool
Pacifist from the 60s. Grew up near UC Berkeley. Way too liberal for
most
groups like this (do well in women's groups and arty groups). I believe
in
force if it lessen violence. And other people as left leaning as I also
are
NRA card-carrying members.

I was watching cable last night a few "hunters" were describing a
beautiful rare
African's "deer" (could not remember what kind of deer) they planned to
kill in
the bush. A "hunter" took aim a killed it. I just don't understand how
anyone
could enjoy killing that rare and beautify animal? I think it's really
senseless
and mind bogging! I am sure any NRA card carrying member will have a
million
reasons to end the animal life.

You sure paint with a broad brush. Is everything in your life that simple?

About as simple as "Looters bad, people that kill looters good"

That is what is known as an oversimplification, but that is probably too big a
word for you. Try to find a grownup person to explain it to you, if you know
any.


Growing old is mandatory. Growing wise is optional.

"FDR" wrote in message
...

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 14:45:27 GMT, FDR
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

What part of "as much time as you want and no concerns about making
noise" aren't you understanding? Hell, given all the time you want and
the knowledge that nobody cared about noise, you could even get into
_my_ gun storage vault.

What would you need to get in? What would be making the noise?

I'm sure you'll understand that I'm not going to tell the world how to
defeat my personal security precautions. If you can't imagine what it
would take to get into a _vault_, well, I can't help you much.

Because what it would require is power tools or explosives. Since there's
no electricity after the hurricane, that rules power out. And I don't
often see explosives lying around either. Sounds like shoddy security in
those shopkeepers cases.


Wrong. Without going into detail, a good, solid hammer would do most of
what you would need to do. AFA power tools, there are cordless tools
available that work pretty well.

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 18:33:46 GMT, "FDR"

wrote:


"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:16:11 -0700, Dave Jefford

wrote:

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:21:16 -0800, "Christina Peterson"

wrote:

C'mon, Dave. People in the NRA are probably LESS likely to be
vigilantes.
Same as most people in Alcoholics Anonymous don't ever drink. OUTLAWS
are
vigilantes.

MORE likely.

NRA is mostly law abiding gun owners like myself. Would I kill to
protect
me or mine? Yes. I also do a little martial arts. I'm a dyed in the
wool
Pacifist from the 60s. Grew up near UC Berkeley. Way too liberal for
most
groups like this (do well in women's groups and arty groups). I
believe
in
force if it lessen violence. And other people as left leaning as I
also
are
NRA card-carrying members.

I was watching cable last night a few "hunters" were describing a
beautiful rare
African's "deer" (could not remember what kind of deer) they planned to
kill in
the bush. A "hunter" took aim a killed it. I just don't understand how
anyone
could enjoy killing that rare and beautify animal? I think it's really
senseless
and mind bogging! I am sure any NRA card carrying member will have a
million
reasons to end the animal life.

You sure paint with a broad brush. Is everything in your life that
simple?

About as simple as "Looters bad, people that kill looters good"

That is what is known as an oversimplification, but that is probably too
big a
word for you. Try to find a grownup person to explain it to you, if you
know
any.

It's obvious you don't get it.



Growing old is mandatory. Growing wise is optional.

Dave Jefford wrote:

Do you shoot or condemn anyone who cannibalize?


Well yeah. They're easier to get into the stew pot that way.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:42:37 GMT, "FDR"
wrote:
(snip)
You sure paint with a broad brush. Is everything in your life that
simple?

About as simple as "Looters bad, people that kill looters good"

That is what is known as an oversimplification, but that is probably too
big a
word for you. Try to find a grownup person to explain it to you, if you
know
any.

It's obvious you don't get it.

It's obvious that you haven't learned that life isn't as simple as many people
would like it to be. Many people learn that lesson at some point in their lives.
Some don't.


Growing old is mandatory. Growing wise is optional.

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:42:37 GMT, "FDR"

wrote:
(snip)
You sure paint with a broad brush. Is everything in your life that
simple?

About as simple as "Looters bad, people that kill looters good"

That is what is known as an oversimplification, but that is probably too
big a
word for you. Try to find a grownup person to explain it to you, if you
know
any.

It's obvious you don't get it.

It's obvious that you haven't learned that life isn't as simple as many
people
would like it to be. Many people learn that lesson at some point in their
lives.
Some don't.

Yep. I wish some other people here with the "kill the looter" mentality
would understand that.



Growing old is mandatory. Growing wise is optional.

FDR wrote:

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
....
It's obvious that you haven't learned that life isn't as simple as many
people
would like it to be. Many people learn that lesson at some point in their
lives.
Some don't.

Yep. I wish some other people here with the "kill the looter" mentality
would understand that.

The problem as I see it is that some wish to make some very simple
things complex while at the same time attempting simple-minded solutions
to complex problems.

In article ,
(Michael Daly) says...

On 7-Sep-2005, "Larry Caldwell" wrote:

You don't shoot looters because they are
stealing stuff, you shoot looters because they are interfering with
rescue efforts and the restoration of civil order. Society has a right
to defend itself, collectively just as much as individually.

If you shoot people without any semblance of justice, you don't have
a society.

I think that is pretty much the point. There are instances where
society breaks down. In NOLA, that breakdown was characterized by
widespread lawlessness. Criminals did not see any consequences for
their actions, so they went on a spree. They finally restored order,
and society, by shooting a few of them.

If you think for a moment, there is both law and precedent supporting
self defense and justifiable homicide. An on-the-spot death penalty IS
justice, albeit of the sudden kind. It is not so arbitrary as you might
think. Certainly anyone who killed someone will eventually have to face
an investigation into their actions, and civil authorities will have to
determine if it was a criminal act or not.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

In article ,
(FDR) says...

Innocent people are the ones trapped in floodwaters, drowning or otherwise
in peril in other parts of the city, while your cops are busy arresting
looters. You tell me the logic there.

There is no way to rescue innocent people in the absence of civil order.
Fire fighters were being shot at. One blog out of NOLA wondered, "Who
the hell shoots at firefighters?" Just this last week, a telephone
lineman was shot at. Who the hell shoots at telephone linemen?

The absence of civil order may have killed as many people as the
hurricane. There's your logic. Eventually, the highest civil authority
in the land ordered troops to shoot looters on sight. They did it to
save the lives of innocent people. There's your justice.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

In article ,
(FDR) says...

Someone that thinks they can take the law into their own hands won't just
stop at shooting the WalMart looters, he'll also go shoot anyone else that's
suspicious. And I bet the suspicious ones are going to all be black.

Please stay on point. The discussion was of police and the military
shooting looters on sight, under orders from the governor or the
president. Nobody was "taking the law into their own hands." It was a
necessary measure to restore civil order, and the only responsible
course of action.

There were some cases of building occupants shooting people attempting
to break in. That was self-defense, an entirely different issue.
Nobody objects to killing in self-defense.

You were the one with the fantasy of gettin' your gun and heading out to
pot a few looters. The police and military would be justified in
killing you too. In fact, that small armed group that the Army wiped
out was probably a batch of nut cases like you. What skin color do you
think they were?


--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

There were some cases of building occupants shooting people attempting
to break in. That was self-defense, an entirely different issue.
Nobody objects to killing in self-defense.

there are plenty of our legislators and congressmembers who DO object to the
use of deadly force in self defense. Strange, but true. Senator Feinstein
has stated something to the effect of "I understand why some people want
guns for hunting, but self defense is not something I am comfortable with".
We also hear quite frequent howls when a police officer shoots someone in
self defense.

In article , (Dave
Hinz) says...

If I owned a house in NO, and a looter came in, I _would_ shoot to kill,
no question about it. He's likely to be armed and to be prepared to
shoot the people he's "just trying to steal stuff" from. You, on the
other hand, say "I don't think that letting people have free access to
firearm stores during an emergency is a good idea. It's obviously bad."

In other words, you value the criminal's life over my right to defend
myself and my family. Says a lot about where your priorities are.

Whose side are you on, exactly?

This guy is from New York. He probably reads the NYT, with their
constant lies and innuendo against gun owners. He hates the very idea
of personal responsibility. He is on the side of the murderers and
rapists.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:58:49 GMT, Larry Caldwell wrote:
In article , (Dave
Hinz) says...

In other words, you value the criminal's life over my right to defend
myself and my family. Says a lot about where your priorities are.
Whose side are you on, exactly?

This guy is from New York. He probably reads the NYT, with their
constant lies and innuendo against gun owners. He hates the very idea
of personal responsibility. He is on the side of the murderers and
rapists.

Larry, wasn't there once a time where you and I disagreed on everything?
That seems to have reversed completely since this storm, have you
noticed that?

FDR wrote:



Yep. I wish some other people here with the "kill the looter" mentality
would understand that.


You need to quit masturbating so much.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:54:06 GMT, 123go wrote:

There were some cases of building occupants shooting people attempting
to break in. That was self-defense, an entirely different issue.
Nobody objects to killing in self-defense.

there are plenty of our legislators and congressmembers who DO object to the
use of deadly force in self defense. Strange, but true. Senator Feinstein
has stated something to the effect of "I understand why some people want
guns for hunting, but self defense is not something I am comfortable with".

Is that why she has an armed bodyguard?

We also hear quite frequent howls when a police officer shoots someone in
self defense.

With the inevitable "Yes, he had a long criminal record ,but he was just
starting to think about considering turning his life around" wailing,
yes.

"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message
k.net...
In article ,
(Michael Daly) says...

On 7-Sep-2005, "Larry Caldwell" wrote:

You don't shoot looters because they are
stealing stuff, you shoot looters because they are interfering with
rescue efforts and the restoration of civil order. Society has a right
to defend itself, collectively just as much as individually.

If you shoot people without any semblance of justice, you don't have
a society.

I think that is pretty much the point. There are instances where
society breaks down. In NOLA, that breakdown was characterized by
widespread lawlessness. Criminals did not see any consequences for
their actions, so they went on a spree. They finally restored order,
and society, by shooting a few of them.

If you think for a moment, there is both law and precedent supporting
self defense and justifiable homicide. An on-the-spot death penalty IS
justice, albeit of the sudden kind. It is not so arbitrary as you might
think. Certainly anyone who killed someone will eventually have to face
an investigation into their actions, and civil authorities will have to
determine if it was a criminal act or not.

That's going to be near impossible to tell given the situation. How would
we ever know if it was civic duty or just a gunman who figured he can off a
few blacks without anyone noticing?


--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:54:06 GMT, 123go wrote:

There were some cases of building occupants shooting people attempting
to break in. That was self-defense, an entirely different issue.
Nobody objects to killing in self-defense.

there are plenty of our legislators and congressmembers who DO object to
the
use of deadly force in self defense. Strange, but true. Senator
Feinstein
has stated something to the effect of "I understand why some people want
guns for hunting, but self defense is not something I am comfortable
with".

Is that why she has an armed bodyguard?

Does she? Hmmm, well I bet a bodyguard has more training the everyday yokel
walking around the street.


We also hear quite frequent howls when a police officer shoots someone in
self defense.

With the inevitable "Yes, he had a long criminal record ,but he was just
starting to think about considering turning his life around" wailing,
yes.

"G Henslee" wrote in message
...
FDR wrote:



Yep. I wish some other people here with the "kill the looter" mentality
would understand that.


You need to quit masturbating so much.

I'm sorry that you're homosexual tendencies bother you.

"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message
k.net...
In article ,
(FDR) says...

Innocent people are the ones trapped in floodwaters, drowning or
otherwise
in peril in other parts of the city, while your cops are busy arresting
looters. You tell me the logic there.

There is no way to rescue innocent people in the absence of civil order.
Fire fighters were being shot at. One blog out of NOLA wondered, "Who
the hell shoots at firefighters?" Just this last week, a telephone
lineman was shot at. Who the hell shoots at telephone linemen?

If they are being shot at, then it's not about looting, it's about murder
and the police should take care of the matter.


The absence of civil order may have killed as many people as the
hurricane. There's your logic.

What you want to do is shoot a looter who's carrying off some non-essential
item because it's bad. That act does not endanger anyone. I ahve seen
pictures of people looting, and they are not carrying guns and don't appear
violent.


Eventually, the highest civil authority
in the land ordered troops to shoot looters on sight. They did it to
save the lives of innocent people. There's your justice.

Well isn't that special.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

****ing Dumbass Replies wrote:



I'm sorry that you're homosexual tendencies bother you.

In article , (Dave
Hinz) says...

Larry, wasn't there once a time where you and I disagreed on everything?
That seems to have reversed completely since this storm, have you
noticed that?

That's the difference between ideology and immediate practical solutions
to difficult problems. I doubt that we will ever agree on political
matters, but I suspect that, if TSHTF, we would get along very well.

Pragmatists of the World, Unite!

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

In article ,
(FDR) says...

That's going to be near impossible to tell given the situation. How would
we ever know if it was civic duty or just a gunman who figured he can off a
few blacks without anyone noticing?

Fortunately, all of the nut cases who kill people for no reason live in
New York, far from New Orleans. America still remembers the shooter on
the Long Island commuter train who was able to shoot 17 people because
your nut case politicians disarmed the general public. Do you happen to
remember what color the shooter was? Do you remember what color the
victims were?

Even in times of peace and quiet, allowing citizens to go armed
substantially improves public safety. During times of turmoil and
unrest, the ability to defend yourself effectively is the ONLY public
safety. You will not find a responsible, law abiding person running
around killing people, no matter what color they are.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

You will not find a responsible, law abiding person running
around killing people, no matter what color they are.


Nor you will never get a sensible reply from this FDR nitwit.