On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:41:14 -0700, G Henslee wrote:
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.

Of course not, but he sure seems to be able to pull _your_ strings to
get you to keep giving him the attention and responses he craves...

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:41:14 -0700, G Henslee wrote:

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.


Of course not, but he sure seems to be able to pull _your_ strings to
get you to keep giving him the attention and responses he craves...



So what? You think by arguing with this tard day after day about
looters, the NRA and every other OT subject known to man, like these
other nimrods do with him makes their postings any better?

**** you and the FDR you rode in on...

Dave Jefford wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 09:50:23 -0700, G Henslee wrote:


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.


You do masturbate while waiting in the bush to
shoot an innocent beautiful deer?


No. That would only attract the does. I shoot bucks.

Uhh, those are the ones with the horns.

G Henslee wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:41:14 -0700, G Henslee wrote:

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.



Of course not, but he sure seems to be able to pull _your_ strings to
get you to keep giving him the attention and responses he craves...



So what? You think by arguing with this tard day after day about
looters, the NRA and every other OT subject known to man, like these
other nimrods do with him makes their postings any better?

Of which _you_ are the primary offender/hypocrite.

Go **** on a fire hero...
..

Dave Jefford wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:03:24 -0700, G Henslee wrote:

You must be a battle harden Neo-Con that hated gays and lesbians?


****ing Dumbass Replies wrote:



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





Wrong inbred. I love lesbians. In fact I'm a male lesbian. I love women.

In article ,
(FDR) says...

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.

And what police would that be, Fraud?


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

****ING DUMBASS RETARD wrote:



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.

True to form...

On 11 Sep 2005 16:50:41 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

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?

Yes, it's so SHE doesn't have to bother with SELF defense. :/
None of that messy dirtying of her hands.

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.

Poor victims of society and all that, you know.


Growing old is mandatory. Growing wise is optional.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:54:07 GMT, "FDR"
wrote:


"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.

And does that mean the "good" Senator is more deserving of an armed bodyguard
than the "everyday yokel walking around the street", Mr. Elitist Snob?


Growing old is mandatory. Growing wise is optional.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 09:50:23 -0700, G Henslee wrote:

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.

You do masturbate while waiting in the bush to
shoot an innocent beautiful deer?

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:03:24 -0700, G Henslee wrote:

You must be a battle harden Neo-Con that hated gays and lesbians?

****ing Dumbass Replies wrote:



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

On 11 Sep 2005 18:56:05 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Birds of the same feathers stick together and they carry the same NRA cards.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:41:14 -0700, G Henslee wrote:
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.

Of course not, but he sure seems to be able to pull _your_ strings to
get you to keep giving him the attention and responses he craves...

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:01:13 -0700, G Henslee wrote:

So what? You think by arguing with this tard day after day about
looters, the NRA and every other OT subject known to man, like these
other nimrods do with him makes their postings any better?

**** you and the FDR you rode in on...

We will not miss you should you get a heart attack!

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:01:13 -0700, G Henslee wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:
Of course not, but he sure seems to be able to pull _your_ strings to
get you to keep giving him the attention and responses he craves...

So what? You think by arguing with this tard day after day about
looters, the NRA and every other OT subject known to man, like these
other nimrods do with him makes their postings any better?

**** you and the FDR you rode in on...

Wow. Tell a guy a troll is pulling him in hook, line, and sinker, and
he goes all hostile on ya. Well, live and learn.

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




When Feinstein was mayor of San Francisco she carried a "Saturday Night
Special" in her purse.
As that type of weapon is not legal to even own in CA she could not have
had a Concealed Weapon permit.




--
If you find a posting or message from myself offensive,
inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know
how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate.

FDR wrote:
"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?



"off a few blacks", you say. It isn't possible that it could be the
other way around too?
Are you being PC (Personally Cowardly) or are you anti-white?


--
If you find a posting or message from myself offensive,
inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know
how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate.

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




When Feinstein was mayor of San Francisco she carried a "Saturday Night
Special" in her purse.
As that type of weapon is not legal to even own in CA she could not have
had a Concealed Weapon permit.

the firearm was legal, I think she got it from the police dept. from their
recovered gun inventory, and I think she had a "junior G man" badge from the
Justice Dept, so she was some sort of U.S. Marshall - she could carry
nationwide.

rank has its privileges, eh. What a hypocrite . . .

"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message
k.net...
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?

Yep, no where else in the US are there irrational shooters. The south has
no crime, is pretty all the time, a mere utopia. And if someone gets shot
in the South, well it must be because he deserved it.

You're racist colors are showing.


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

"G Henslee" wrote in message
...
Dave Hinz wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:41:14 -0700, G Henslee wrote:

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.


Of course not, but he sure seems to be able to pull _your_ strings to
get you to keep giving him the attention and responses he craves...



So what? You think by arguing with this tard day after day about looters,
the NRA and every other OT subject known to man, like these other nimrods
do with him makes their postings any better?

**** you and the FDR you rode in on...

Aww, calling me a tard. Your mom must be so proud of you. Her little boy
using those big words based on making fun of people with mental handicaps.
Yes, you should be very proud. Now run along with that big old gun of yours
and point it to your head.

"Gort" wrote in message
...
FDR wrote:
"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?



"off a few blacks", you say. It isn't possible that it could be the other
way around too?
Are you being PC (Personally Cowardly) or are you anti-white?

We're talking about the south here you know. You do have a history of
lynchings, abuse, slavery and not letting blacks have the rights a white
person would. Do you think now that after hundreds of years that you are
all the victims and you have suddenly changed to accept and love black
people. Barbara Bush thinks it's scary when they come to Texas you know.



--
If you find a posting or message from myself offensive,
inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know
how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate.

In article , (Gort)
says...

"off a few blacks", you say. It isn't possible that it could be the
other way around too?
Are you being PC (Personally Cowardly) or are you anti-white?

Fraud is pretty obviously a racist.

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

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:54:07 GMT, "FDR"

wrote:


"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.

And does that mean the "good" Senator is more deserving of an armed
bodyguard
than the "everyday yokel walking around the street", Mr. Elitist Snob?

Does the President?



Growing old is mandatory. Growing wise is optional.

"G Henslee" wrote in message
...
Dave Jefford wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:03:24 -0700, G Henslee wrote:

You must be a battle harden Neo-Con that hated gays and lesbians?


****ing Dumbass Replies wrote:



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




Wrong inbred. I love lesbians. In fact I'm a male lesbian. I love
women.

You must have to love them at gun point.

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

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.

And what police would that be, Fraud?

You know, the ones that have badges, that have been sworn in to protect and
serve. You do grasp what police are right?



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

123go wrote:
"Gort" wrote in message
...

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".

We also hear quite frequent howls when a police officer shoots someone

in

self defense.




When Feinstein was mayor of San Francisco she carried a "Saturday Night
Special" in her purse.
As that type of weapon is not legal to even own in CA she could not have
had a Concealed Weapon permit.


the firearm was legal, I think she got it from the police dept. from their
recovered gun inventory, and I think she had a "junior G man" badge from the
Justice Dept, so she was some sort of U.S. Marshall - she could carry
nationwide.

rank has its privileges, eh. What a hypocrite . . .





The newspapers and tv reports all said it was not legal to possess that
weapon in CA.



--
If you find a posting or message from myself offensive,
inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know
how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate.

FDR wrote:
"Gort" wrote in message
...

FDR wrote:

"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message
link.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?



"off a few blacks", you say. It isn't possible that it could be the other
way around too?
Are you being PC (Personally Cowardly) or are you anti-white?


We're talking about the south here you know. You do have a history of
lynchings, abuse, slavery and not letting blacks have the rights a white
person would. Do you think now that after hundreds of years that you are
all the victims and you have suddenly changed to accept and love black
people. Barbara Bush thinks it's scary when they come to Texas you know.







I do have a history of WHAT in the South?
And of course you have proof of that, right?
You did post it in a worldwide newsgroup.
My second will contact yours in the morning.



--
If you find a posting or message from myself offensive,
inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know
how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate.

"Gort" wrote in message
...
FDR wrote:
"Gort" wrote in message
...

FDR wrote:

"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message
hlink.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?



"off a few blacks", you say. It isn't possible that it could be the
other way around too?
Are you being PC (Personally Cowardly) or are you anti-white?


We're talking about the south here you know. You do have a history of
lynchings, abuse, slavery and not letting blacks have the rights a white
person would. Do you think now that after hundreds of years that you are
all the victims and you have suddenly changed to accept and love black
people. Barbara Bush thinks it's scary when they come to Texas you know.







I do have a history of WHAT in the South?
And of course you have proof of that, right?
You did post it in a worldwide newsgroup.
My second will contact yours in the morning.

Your second what?




--
If you find a posting or message from myself offensive,
inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know
how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate.

"Gort" wrote in message
...
123go wrote:
"Gort" wrote in message
...

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".

We also hear quite frequent howls when a police officer shoots someone

in

self defense.




When Feinstein was mayor of San Francisco she carried a "Saturday Night
Special" in her purse.
As that type of weapon is not legal to even own in CA she could not have
had a Concealed Weapon permit.


the firearm was legal, I think she got it from the police dept. from
their
recovered gun inventory, and I think she had a "junior G man" badge from
the
Justice Dept, so she was some sort of U.S. Marshall - she could carry
nationwide.

rank has its privileges, eh. What a hypocrite . . .





The newspapers and tv reports all said it was not legal to possess that
weapon in CA.

I don't recall that, or even recall that certain handguns were illegal back
then. But you could be right, one more "privilege" to her majesty.

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:44:08 -0500, Duane Bozarth
wrote:

an_Musicant wrote:
:
: On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 16:47:29 -0500, Duane Bozarth
: wrote:
:
: :tomkanpa wrote:
: :
: : I'm only speaking for what I know about, but the rules out living in
: : the
: : eastern US.
: :
: : ____Reply Separator_____
: :
: : Staying away from earthquake faults rules out living in the eastern
: : U.S.?????
: :
: :Well, except for the New Madrid (Memphis area) most are small and
: :relatively inactive, but there are certainly faultlines in the eastern
: :US.
: I believe there was a cataclysmic earthquake on that fault sometime in
: the last 250 years, I don't remember the details. The quake was felt
: over an area equal to half the area of the continental US, IIRC, perhaps
: greater. It was monumental.
:
:Yes, the MS river ran backwards for a couple of days while filling some
:newly created lakes. It actually was much more recent than that--in
:1811-12(?) iirc. If the area had not been so unpopulated at the time it
:would have been as well known as the San Francisco quake. Another of
:that magnitude could be cataclysmic for Memphis.
I think if the same earthquake happened today it would be far and away
the worst cataclysm in the history of the United States of America. It
would be the biggest benchmark since the civil war, maybe ever.

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:44:08 -0500, Duane Bozarth
wrote:

an_Musicant wrote:
:
: On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 16:47:29 -0500, Duane Bozarth
: wrote:
:
: :tomkanpa wrote:
: :
: : I'm only speaking for what I know about, but the rules out living in
: : the
: : eastern US.
: :
: : ____Reply Separator_____
: :
: : Staying away from earthquake faults rules out living in the eastern
: : U.S.?????
: :
: :Well, except for the New Madrid (Memphis area) most are small and
: :relatively inactive, but there are certainly faultlines in the eastern
: :US.
: I believe there was a cataclysmic earthquake on that fault sometime in
: the last 250 years, I don't remember the details. The quake was felt
: over an area equal to half the area of the continental US, IIRC, perhaps
: greater. It was monumental.
:
:Yes, the MS river ran backwards for a couple of days while filling some
:newly created lakes. It actually was much more recent than that--in
:1811-12(?) iirc. If the area had not been so unpopulated at the time it
:would have been as well known as the San Francisco quake. Another of
:that magnitude could be cataclysmic for Memphis.

" In December of 1811, a the largest earthquake ever recorded in
American History started. This earthquake, called the New Madrid
Earthquake because of its primary location on the New Madrid Fault, near
New Madrid, Missouri. From the effects of the 1811-1812 earthquakes, it
can be estimated that they had a magnitude of 8.0 or higher on the not
yet invented Richter scale. Large areas sank into the earth, new lakes
were formed, and the Mississippi River changed its course due to the
earthquakes. "

The above from http://asms.k12.ar.us/armem/richards/