harry wrote:
(snip)
Handguns have no other function but to kill people.
Funny, I thought they were to keep the other fellow with a handgun (or
whatever) from killing ME.

--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If no-one has a gun, no-one gets killed with a gun.
It's this scumbag gun culture that results in these numerous school
massacres in the US. I bet the parents of these kids wished they had
lived somewhere else at the time,

If there was some way to magically make ALL the handguns vanish, at the
same time, I would agree with you. (and along with the guns, the
knowledge to make them- any half-competent machine shop can turn out a
servicable weapon in a couple of hours.) But you can't unring the bell-
they are out there, and there is no way to make them not be out here.
Unlike countries that nominally bow to the queen, if the government here
told everyone to line up and meekly turn them in, at best it would get
ignored, and at worst could lead to revolution. (Although I suspect a
lot of people in UK, CA, Oz, etc, turned in Grandpa's old fowling piece,
and quietly packed their modern arms away someplace safe.)

Sorry, but I don't feel noble enough to disarm myself first. My family
already had to flee halfway around the damn planet once. Ain't gonna
happen again. Nobody is in any danger from any weapon I own, unless of
course they show up pointing one at me.

A small reality check, by the way- probably 100x the kids who get killed
by guns, get killed showing off in cars. They are finally tightening the
drivers license procedure for kids to require more training and
practice, but nobody has suggested not letting kids drive. The changed
license procedures are reducing the number of vehicle deaths among the
young set. Instead of getting hysterical about guns, maybe they should
give all 8th-graders a week of instruction at a shooting range? Take the
mystique out of it, make them understand it isn't like TV- people don't
get up and go back to life as normal after being shot, make the boys
understand a gun does NOT make their genitalia any larger, safe
handling/storage procedures, get rid of the 'forbidden fruit' factor,
etc? Nah, that would never fly. Just because training and education work
to make operating other mechanical devices safer doesn't mean it would
work with those EVIL guns.

--
aem sends...

On Thu, 13 May 2010 16:58:04 -0400, George
wrote:

Much better to be robbed by the pawn shop

Chances are the guy would have walked out alive. Unfortunately there are
way too many folks who think if they think good thoughts everything will
be OK.

Point taken! I learned years ago that rehabilitation doesn't work.
How can you rehabilitate a person that has never been habilitated?

We have predators that walk this earth, prey on the innocent. They
should not be allowed to walk among public streets or have oxygen.


An excellent example is our current president thinking that if he
apologized to everyone we would all be holding hands and singing songs
together instead of realizing that there are nasty people in the world.

POSTUS has been seen bowing before his new pet dog.

aemeijers wrote:

-snip-
If there was some way to magically make ALL the handguns vanish, at the
same time, I would agree with you. (and along with the guns, the
knowledge to make them- any half-competent machine shop can turn out a
servicable weapon in a couple of hours.)

Machine shop? We didn't need no steenkin' machine shop in the 60's! A
bit of copper tubing, a clothespin, a nail & a block of wood. Was good
enough to shoot frogs & rats.

-snip-
young set. Instead of getting hysterical about guns, maybe they should
give all 8th-graders a week of instruction at a shooting range? Take the
mystique out of it, make them understand it isn't like TV- people don't
get up and go back to life as normal after being shot, make the boys
understand a gun does NOT make their genitalia any larger, safe
handling/storage procedures, get rid of the 'forbidden fruit' factor,
etc? Nah, that would never fly. Just because training and education work
to make operating other mechanical devices safer doesn't mean it would
work with those EVIL guns.

It's a pleasure to see someone sounding off with a bit of reason
guns. The whacks from both sides of that argument get *way* too
much press.

Jim

On 5/13/2010 6:51 PM, aemeijers wrote:

If there was some way to magically make ALL the handguns vanish, at the
same time, I would agree with you. (and along with the guns, the
knowledge to make them- any half-competent machine shop can turn out a
servicable weapon in a couple of hours.) But you can't unring the bell-
they are out there, and there is no way to make them not be out here.
Unlike countries that nominally bow to the queen, if the government here
told everyone to line up and meekly turn them in, at best it would get
ignored, and at worst could lead to revolution. (Although I suspect a
lot of people in UK, CA, Oz, etc, turned in Grandpa's old fowling piece,
and quietly packed their modern arms away someplace safe.)

Sorry, but I don't feel noble enough to disarm myself first. My family
already had to flee halfway around the damn planet once. Ain't gonna
happen again. Nobody is in any danger from any weapon I own, unless of
course they show up pointing one at me.



That's it in a nutshell. I completely agree.



Jay

If a person believes that the US government (Our Nation's
Leaders, who used to be called our elected represenatives)
is reaching for ever more power over the citizens (who are
now called civillians). Then it's an easy next step to
figure that more gun laws and making guns into demons is a
natural next step in seeking power over the people.

Taking the kids for range time is empowering, which is
totally not what the ever growing Fed wants. Rather, teach
that guns are bad when in citizens hands. And always dial
911 if you have concerns. Free men shoot back, subjects call
911.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Jim Elbrecht" wrote in message
...

It's a pleasure to see someone sounding off with a bit of
reason
guns. The whacks from both sides of that argument get
*way* too
much press.

Jim

In article , Douglas Johnson wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , Douglas Johnson
wrote:
keith wrote:

But the fact is that your fist language isn't Russian, as it would be
if the Russians had "won" WWII.

They were one of the winners. Actually, the Soviets. Who captured Berlin?

The Sovs.

In what country was the Yalta conference held?

Crimea, Ukraine, which at that time was part of the USSR.

Name the six largest countries of the Allies.

USSR, Canada, USA, China, Australia, Brazil

VBG. I wasn't thinking of land area, but, of course, you are right. You
answered actual, correct facts. That's not appropriate for USENET.

:-) Probably a welcome change from reading harry's posts....

The six most populous, I imagine, were China, India, USSR, USA, Brazil, and
Mexico. The six providing the largest armed forces in the conflict were
probably USSR, USA, Canada, China, Australia, and UK.

In article , aemeijers wrote:
[...]
get rid of the 'forbidden fruit' factor

Yep. When my boys were toddlers, I told them that they were not to handle the
guns alone, but any time they wanted to, all they had to do was ask, and I
would get the guns out of the cabinet -- one at a time -- and we would look at
them *together*. About once a year, they'd ask. And I'd put down whatever I
was doing, open the gun cabinet, and show them the guns. They're both safe and
responsible hunters now, at ages 22 and 18.

Jay Hanig wrote in
:

On 5/13/2010 6:51 PM, aemeijers wrote:

If there was some way to magically make ALL the handguns vanish, at the
same time, I would agree with you. (and along with the guns, the
knowledge to make them- any half-competent machine shop can turn out a
servicable weapon in a couple of hours.) But you can't unring the bell-
they are out there, and there is no way to make them not be out here.
Unlike countries that nominally bow to the queen, if the government here
told everyone to line up and meekly turn them in, at best it would get
ignored, and at worst could lead to revolution. (Although I suspect a
lot of people in UK, CA, Oz, etc, turned in Grandpa's old fowling piece,
and quietly packed their modern arms away someplace safe.)

Sorry, but I don't feel noble enough to disarm myself first. My family
already had to flee halfway around the damn planet once. Ain't gonna
happen again. Nobody is in any danger from any weapon I own, unless of
course they show up pointing one at me.



That's it in a nutshell. I completely agree.



Jay


"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and
law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own
conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the
law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the
lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by
forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected
behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals
to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
---------- Jeff Snyder

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

aemeijers wrote in
:

harry wrote:
(snip)
Handguns have no other function but to kill people.
Funny, I thought they were to keep the other fellow with a handgun (or
whatever) from killing ME.

--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If no-one has a gun, no-one gets killed with a gun.
It's this scumbag gun culture that results in these numerous school
massacres in the US. I bet the parents of these kids wished they had
lived somewhere else at the time,

If there was some way to magically make ALL the handguns vanish, at the
same time, I would agree with you. (and along with the guns, the
knowledge to make them- any half-competent machine shop can turn out a
servicable weapon in a couple of hours.) But you can't unring the bell-
they are out there, and there is no way to make them not be out here.
Unlike countries that nominally bow to the queen, if the government here
told everyone to line up and meekly turn them in, at best it would get
ignored, and at worst could lead to revolution. (Although I suspect a
lot of people in UK, CA, Oz, etc, turned in Grandpa's old fowling piece,
and quietly packed their modern arms away someplace safe.)

Sorry, but I don't feel noble enough to disarm myself first. My family
already had to flee halfway around the damn planet once. Ain't gonna
happen again. Nobody is in any danger from any weapon I own, unless of
course they show up pointing one at me.

A small reality check, by the way- probably 100x the kids who get killed
by guns, get killed showing off in cars. They are finally tightening the
drivers license procedure for kids to require more training and
practice, but nobody has suggested not letting kids drive. The changed
license procedures are reducing the number of vehicle deaths among the
young set. Instead of getting hysterical about guns, maybe they should
give all 8th-graders a week of instruction at a shooting range? Take the
mystique out of it, make them understand it isn't like TV- people don't
get up and go back to life as normal after being shot, make the boys
understand a gun does NOT make their genitalia any larger, safe
handling/storage procedures, get rid of the 'forbidden fruit' factor,
etc? Nah, that would never fly. Just because training and education work
to make operating other mechanical devices safer doesn't mean it would
work with those EVIL guns.


"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and
law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own
conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the
law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the
lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by
forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected
behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals
to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
---------- Jeff Snyder

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , aemeijers wrote:
[...]
get rid of the 'forbidden fruit' factor

Yep. When my boys were toddlers, I told them that they were not to handle the
guns alone, but any time they wanted to, all they had to do was ask, and I
would get the guns out of the cabinet -- one at a time -- and we would look at
them *together*. About once a year, they'd ask. And I'd put down whatever I
was doing, open the gun cabinet, and show them the guns. They're both safe and
responsible hunters now, at ages 22 and 18.

Yepper. Nobody in my family ever hunted, but we all learned to shoot
before the age of 10, when we could hold the .22 single-shot without
assistance. Guns were No Big Deal, just something else to move out of
the way from behind the door when you were cleaning or painting. Of
course, back then, you could just go out in the country and plink into a
hillside, and nobody gave a damn. Now, you'd be hearing sirens before
you got through the first 50 rounds, unless you have your own acreage
big enough to disperse the sound.

--
aem sends...

The Daring Dufas wrote:

My Russian cousins lost so many people in the war and they have
every right to be paranoid. Hitler should have paid attention to
history. The Russians are very pragmatic and will grind anyone
into the ground who is foolish enough to attack them on their
home turf, Ruskies don't play. Boris, have you hugged a terrorist
today? Da! Hugged him like bear till eyeballs pop out!


That's why we have so many bug-eyed Afghanis?

harry wrote:

The Normandy landings would have failed had the Germans not had to
fight the Russians on the Eastern front simultaneously.

If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his butt every time he hopped.

If the Nazis had not been fighting the Ruskies, there would have not been a
Normandy invasion.

harry wrote:
On May 13, 12:54?pm, Jim Yanik wrote:
Jay Hanig wrote
:

On 5/13/2010 3:51 AM, harry wrote:

If no-one has a gun, no-one gets killed with a gun.

there's no such place anywhere on Earth.
in EVERY nation,criminals have guns.

BTW,police and government often "LOSE" guns.
The US FEDGOV is missing over 1000 of their guns(circa 2003),some
full auto machine guns. Police have them stolen from their patrol
cars.

Also,guns are the great equalizer;
they permit the weak,elderly,handicapped or outnumbered to defend
themselves against bigger,stronger or more numerous attackers,with
the best chances of success,and with the least harm to themselves.

Would you expect a 100 lb woman to fight off a 200+ lb man attacking
her?
Or your grandmother?



God made men. Henry Colt made men equal.

Leaving gang-bangers out of the equation, there are far MORE defensive uses
of handguns than there are assaults by their use.

I personally have had to throw down on three mopes in the past ten years
that probably intended to do me harm. It's quite possible that I'm alive
today because some squint with a tire iron decided a bullet could close the
twenty feet between him and me faster than he could throw.

It's not productive to compare the UK and the US. In the US, we have a
culture that praises the gun. There are almost as many guns in the US (240
million by some estimates) as there are people. In my state, Texas, there
are MORE guns than people. We love our guns. We buy them presents. We trick
them out with all sorts of accouterments. We hand them down from generation
to generation. We give them pet names and celebrate their birthdays.

Guns may be anachronistic and serve very little purpose, but we dote on
them, respect them, and defend them with all our might. Sorta like the
monarchy.

HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
My Russian cousins lost so many people in the war and they have
every right to be paranoid. Hitler should have paid attention to
history. The Russians are very pragmatic and will grind anyone
into the ground who is foolish enough to attack them on their
home turf, Ruskies don't play. Boris, have you hugged a terrorist
today? Da! Hugged him like bear till eyeballs pop out!


That's why we have so many bug-eyed Afghanis?



I don't believe anyone will ever be able to conquer Afghanistan. It
will take an autochthonous government to control that country and
even then, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible.

TDD

In article ,
aemeijers wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , aemeijers
wrote:
[...]
get rid of the 'forbidden fruit' factor

Yep. When my boys were toddlers, I told them that they were not to handle
the
guns alone, but any time they wanted to, all they had to do was ask, and I
would get the guns out of the cabinet -- one at a time -- and we would look
at
them *together*. About once a year, they'd ask. And I'd put down whatever I
was doing, open the gun cabinet, and show them the guns. They're both safe
and
responsible hunters now, at ages 22 and 18.

Yepper. Nobody in my family ever hunted, but we all learned to shoot
before the age of 10, when we could hold the .22 single-shot without
assistance. Guns were No Big Deal, just something else to move out of
the way from behind the door when you were cleaning or painting. Of
course, back then, you could just go out in the country and plink into a
hillside, and nobody gave a damn. Now, you'd be hearing sirens before
you got through the first 50 rounds, unless you have your own acreage
big enough to disperse the sound.

You didn't even have to go to the country. My old boss grew up in Los
Angeles. When he was in grade school, he'd go home after school, grab
the .22 rifle, and head down the street to the park. Cops would stop and
give him a ride.

On May 13, 11:14�pm, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 07:56:58 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

When in Australia I had a go with a large handgun at a target. �After
15 or 20 minutes I was bored. �You need to be not very smart to think
target practice is interesting. �But then I suppose large tracts of
the US are not very interesting & target practice is one of few
pastimes.

Um, I will be sending money to a politician. Yep! I already made up my
mind about her. She is 130#, petite and carries (concealed) a .44 cal
Smith & Wesson hawg leg.

Oh, her concept of relaxation? Target practice! She was recently in
Washington (named after the Father of our Country) D.C., she stated
she usually has Smith and Wesson with her on trips, so when she goes
to the Senate, well whatever.

I understand that your past shooting Olympic Teams, had to practice in
Ireland. Is that true?

Where I live in the Mohave �Desert you would be more likely to die
from dehydration than from a gun - one mile off the road.

I presume you are refering to the mad cow Sarah Palin? I have
listened to her ramblings on the odd occasion. Sub-intelligent even
for a retard. If you support such morons, why are you surprised the
USA (along with us) is in the **** today? What you have said bears
out my post exactly. That woman, tiny minded and ignorant. God help
you all if she ever gets into national government.

On May 13, 11:14�pm, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 07:56:58 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

When in Australia I had a go with a large handgun at a target. �After
15 or 20 minutes I was bored. �You need to be not very smart to think
target practice is interesting. �But then I suppose large tracts of
the US are not very interesting & target practice is one of few
pastimes.

Um, I will be sending money to a politician. Yep! I already made up my
mind about her. She is 130#, petite and carries (concealed) a .44 cal
Smith & Wesson hawg leg.

Oh, her concept of relaxation? Target practice! She was recently in
Washington (named after the Father of our Country) D.C., she stated
she usually has Smith and Wesson with her on trips, so when she goes
to the Senate, well whatever.

I understand that your past shooting Olympic Teams, had to practice in
Ireland. Is that true?

Where I live in the Mohave �Desert you would be more likely to die
from dehydration than from a gun - one mile off the road.

BTW, you may not be aware, there are other deserts elsewhere. Some of
them bigger and hotter. Why did you bring up the subject?

On May 13, 11:16�pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Douglas Johnson wrote:
keith wrote:

But the fact is that your fist language isn't Russian, as it would be
if the Russians had "won" WWII.

They were one of the winners. �Actually, the Soviets. �Who captured Berlin?

The Sovs.

In what country was the Yalta conference held?

Crimea, Ukraine, which at that time was part of the USSR.

Name the six largest countries of the Allies. �

USSR, Canada, USA, China, Australia, Brazil

British Empire by far, covering 25% of the land surface of the globe.

On May 13, 11:22�pm, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 08:19:33 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

The Normandy landings would have failed had the Germans not had to
fight the Russians on the Eastern front simultaneously.

It might have failed without Winston Churchill. But again, our
fightin' boys killed and later made babies all over Europe :-/

Wars are fought with multiple fronts. �

The American dream eh? Rape and pillage?

On May 13, 11:36�pm, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 09:44:46 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On May 13, 5:10?pm, keith wrote:
On May 13, 10:19?am, harry wrote:

snip

The Normandy landings would have failed had the Germans not had to
fight the Russians on the Eastern front simultaneously.

Is your first language Russian?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nope. �I speak a little German, French, Spanish and a few words of
Arabic.

There is a reason you don't speak Russian - think about that!

You missed the point of the question.

But I know fact from (Hollywood) fiction.

So do I.

You are in a minority here.

On May 13, 11:44�pm, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 09:50:14 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

The police are not responsible for your protection. ?Their job is to
fill out the necessary paperwork and if possible catch the perp, after
he's killed you and raped your daughter.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Strange way to run a police force. �Oh, I see you're taking the
**** �:-)

Strange??! �Doesn't a "Bobby" have to call his/her supervisor, that
actually has a gun. That is strange.

Can cops in the UK even have a sharp pencil?

There are special.patrol cars in every large city with armed police
officers. There are armed police at airports and gov. buildings in
London. Apart from that, we never see a gun in the UK.

On May 13, 11:51�pm, aemeijers wrote:
harry wrote:
(snip)
Handguns have no other function but to kill people.
Funny, I thought they were to keep the other fellow with a handgun (or
whatever) from killing ME.

--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If no-one has a gun, no-one gets killed with a gun.
It's this scumbag gun culture that results in these numerous school
massacres in the US. �I bet the parents of these kids wished they had
lived somewhere else at the time,

If there was some way to magically make ALL the handguns vanish, at the
same time, I would agree with you. (and along with the guns, the
knowledge to make them- any half-competent machine shop can turn out a
servicable weapon in a couple of hours.) �But you can't unring the bell-
they are out there, and there is no way to make them not be out here.
Unlike countries that nominally bow to the queen, if the government here
told everyone to line up and meekly turn them in, at best it would get
ignored, and at worst could lead to revolution. (Although I suspect a
lot of people in UK, CA, Oz, etc, turned in Grandpa's old fowling piece,
and quietly packed their modern arms away someplace safe.)

Sorry, but I don't feel noble enough to disarm myself first. My family
already had to flee halfway around the damn planet once. Ain't gonna
happen again. Nobody is in any danger from any weapon I own, unless of
course they show up pointing one at me.

A small reality check, by the way- probably 100x the kids who get killed
by guns, get killed showing off in cars. They are finally tightening the
drivers license procedure for kids to require more training and
practice, but nobody has suggested not letting kids drive. The changed
license procedures are reducing the number of �vehicle deaths among the
young set. Instead of getting hysterical about guns, maybe they should
give all 8th-graders a week of instruction at a shooting range? Take the
mystique out of it, make them understand it isn't like TV- people don't
get up and go back to life as normal after being shot, make the boys
understand a gun does NOT make their genitalia any larger, safe
handling/storage procedures, get rid of the 'forbidden fruit' factor,
etc? Nah, that would never fly. Just because training and education work
to make operating other mechanical devices safer doesn't mean it would
work with those EVIL guns.

--
aem sends...

You have to make a start somewhere. There's something mentally
defective about anyone who thinks they need to carry/posses a gun to
impress people. They have made a start in Australia I believe.
We made a start in the 1920s.

On May 13, 11:37�pm, Douglas Johnson wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Douglas Johnson wrote:
keith wrote:

But the fact is that your fist language isn't Russian, as it would be
if the Russians had "won" WWII.

They were one of the winners. �Actually, the Soviets. �Who captured Berlin?

The Sovs.

In what country was the Yalta conference held?

Crimea, Ukraine, which at that time was part of the USSR.

Name the six largest countries of the Allies. �

USSR, Canada, USA, China, Australia, Brazil

VBG. �I wasn't thinking of land area, but, of course, you are right. �You
answered actual, correct facts. �That's not appropriate for USENET. �
-- Doug- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Brazil eh? Was that on a Hollywood musical?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Rubber

On May 14, 3:40�am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , aemeijers wrote:

[...]

get rid of the 'forbidden fruit' factor

Yep. When my boys were toddlers, I told them that they were not to handle the
guns alone, but any time they wanted to, all they had to do was ask, and I
would get the guns out of the cabinet -- one at a time -- and we would look at
them *together*. About once a year, they'd ask. And I'd put down whatever I
was doing, open the gun cabinet, and show them the guns. They're both safe and
responsible hunters now, at ages 22 and 18.

That's pretty sick.
Hunters. American "heros" out shooting helpless animals with high
power guns. Pretty sick too. You poisoned their minds.
If you wanted to see heros you need to go to Africa. (Kenya).
There the Masia armed their teenage son with a spear and a shield.
They were surrounded with armed warriors and into the ring was put an
adult male lion. Only one came out alive. These were true heros.
Only after that could they marry. (Several wives)
As they are running out of lions these days, they are needed for
tourists to watch, this no longer done. However I did personally
witness a small group go into the bush at night armed only with spears
to pursue/kill lions that were killing cattle. Now that is heroism.
BTW these were proper lions, big as a cow, not your new world toy town
ones.
Nowadays they are reduced to selling replica spears and shields to
tourists. That is sad.
Shooting animals with guns is the puerile pursuit of retards.

On May 14, 6:48�am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
My Russian cousins lost so many people in the war and they have
every right to be paranoid. Hitler should have paid attention to
history. The Russians are very pragmatic and will grind anyone
into the ground who is foolish enough to attack them on their
home turf, Ruskies don't play. Boris, have you hugged a terrorist
today? Da! Hugged him like bear till eyeballs pop out!

That's why we have so many bug-eyed Afghanis?

I don't believe anyone will ever be able to conquer Afghanistan. It
will take an autochthonous government to control that country and
even then, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible.

TDD

The might of the British empire failed in Afghanistan. The greater
and closer might of the USSR failed. Yet the retard Bush thought he
could succeed. And our own B-liar thought he could be famous.
This is because George Retard Bush never was interested in HISTORY.
Probably never even heard of Vietnam.

On May 14, 7:08�am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,





�aemeijers wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , aemeijers
wrote:
[...]
get rid of the 'forbidden fruit' factor

Yep. When my boys were toddlers, I told them that they were not to handle
the
guns alone, but any time they wanted to, all they had to do was ask, and I
would get the guns out of the cabinet -- one at a time -- and we would look
at
them *together*. About once a year, they'd ask. And I'd put down whatever I
was doing, open the gun cabinet, and show them the guns. They're both safe
and
responsible hunters now, at ages 22 and 18.

Yepper. Nobody in my family ever hunted, but we all learned to shoot
before the age of 10, when we could hold the .22 single-shot without
assistance. Guns were No Big Deal, just something else to move out of
the way from behind the door when you were cleaning or painting. Of
course, back then, you could just go out in the country and plink into a
hillside, and nobody gave a damn. Now, you'd be hearing sirens before
you got through the first 50 rounds, unless you have your own acreage
big enough to disperse the sound.

You didn't even have to go to the country. My old boss grew up in Los
Angeles. When he was in grade school, he'd go home after school, grab
the .22 rifle, and head down the street to the park. Cops would stop and
give him a ride.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And there exactly is the problem.

On May 14, 6:48�am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
My Russian cousins lost so many people in the war and they have
every right to be paranoid. Hitler should have paid attention to
history. The Russians are very pragmatic and will grind anyone
into the ground who is foolish enough to attack them on their
home turf, Ruskies don't play. Boris, have you hugged a terrorist
today? Da! Hugged him like bear till eyeballs pop out!

That's why we have so many bug-eyed Afghanis?

I don't believe anyone will ever be able to conquer Afghanistan. It
will take an autochthonous government to control that country and
even then, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible.

TDD

The reason we so many "bug eyed Afghanis is enitrely the fault of the
USA.
The USSR identified there was a problem in Afghanistan and was well on
the way to resolving it by their usual brutal methods. The USA for no
good reason, decided to arm and train the Afghans. We are all paying
the price for this foolishness. Once again no-one in the US government
was interested in history.

First rule. Never give the cloth-heads guns.

The USA needs to be at perpetual war to enrich the republican-owned
arms industry. The war in the ME was started because the USSR had
(temporarily) fallen by the wayside.
Those poor American boys dying in far off places are dying to enrich
the wealthy elite of America. They are not BTW fighting to defend
America. They are fighting and dying to defend the fascist state of
Israel.
They need a gun culture in America so they have a reserve of gun-
trained, misinformed, ill-educated youth to use as gun fodder so they
can fill their pocket with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

So who will be next? The war in Afghanistan is getting unpopular and
unprofitable. Iran? Venezuela? Hah! Now there's a thought. Oil
rich, close at hand and socialist. Ideal target i say!

harry wrote:
On May 14, 6:48�am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
My Russian cousins lost so many people in the war and they have
every right to be paranoid. Hitler should have paid attention to
history. The Russians are very pragmatic and will grind anyone
into the ground who is foolish enough to attack them on their
home turf, Ruskies don't play. Boris, have you hugged a terrorist
today? Da! Hugged him like bear till eyeballs pop out!
That's why we have so many bug-eyed Afghanis?
I don't believe anyone will ever be able to conquer Afghanistan. It
will take an autochthonous government to control that country and
even then, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible.

TDD

The reason we so many "bug eyed Afghanis is enitrely the fault of the
USA.
The USSR identified there was a problem in Afghanistan and was well on
the way to resolving it by their usual brutal methods. The USA for no
good reason, decided to arm and train the Afghans. We are all paying
the price for this foolishness. Once again no-one in the US government
was interested in history.

First rule. Never give the cloth-heads guns.

The USA needs to be at perpetual war to enrich the republican-owned
arms industry. The war in the ME was started because the USSR had
(temporarily) fallen by the wayside.
Those poor American boys dying in far off places are dying to enrich
the wealthy elite of America. They are not BTW fighting to defend
America. They are fighting and dying to defend the fascist state of
Israel.
They need a gun culture in America so they have a reserve of gun-
trained, misinformed, ill-educated youth to use as gun fodder so they
can fill their pocket with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

So who will be next? The war in Afghanistan is getting unpopular and
unprofitable. Iran? Venezuela? Hah! Now there's a thought. Oil
rich, close at hand and socialist. Ideal target i say!

Harry, have you thought about why you're not speaking German right now?
It might have something to do with an evil, selfish, former colony that
came to the aid of Great Britain about 70 years ago. It's funny that
this horrid, selfish, terror exporting, gun worshiping, imperialist,
evil country I live in is so quick to offer or come to the aid of those
people who spit in our face. Perhaps my country should tell the rest of
the world to bugger off?

TDD

harry wrote:
On May 14, 3:40�am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , aemeijers wrote:

[...]

get rid of the 'forbidden fruit' factor
Yep. When my boys were toddlers, I told them that they were not to handle the
guns alone, but any time they wanted to, all they had to do was ask, and I
would get the guns out of the cabinet -- one at a time -- and we would look at
them *together*. About once a year, they'd ask. And I'd put down whatever I
was doing, open the gun cabinet, and show them the guns. They're both safe and
responsible hunters now, at ages 22 and 18.

That's pretty sick.
Hunters. American "heros" out shooting helpless animals with high
power guns. Pretty sick too. You poisoned their minds.
If you wanted to see heros you need to go to Africa. (Kenya).
There the Masia armed their teenage son with a spear and a shield.
They were surrounded with armed warriors and into the ring was put an
adult male lion. Only one came out alive. These were true heros.
Only after that could they marry. (Several wives)
As they are running out of lions these days, they are needed for
tourists to watch, this no longer done. However I did personally
witness a small group go into the bush at night armed only with spears
to pursue/kill lions that were killing cattle. Now that is heroism.
BTW these were proper lions, big as a cow, not your new world toy town
ones.
Nowadays they are reduced to selling replica spears and shields to
tourists. That is sad.
Shooting animals with guns is the puerile pursuit of retards.

Harry, I really feel sorry for you. You appear to have one of the
worst infections of Liberalitis I've observed in a long time. It
must be due to something in your immediate environment. It's often
spread audibly to those susceptible weak minded individuals when
they come in contact with drooling Liberal Socialists. As an evil,
horrid, wicked, selfish American I would be glad to help you shake
off the infection but I believe the best course of action is to let
your own immune system recognize it for what it is and quash it on
its own. That would make you much stronger and impossible to infect
in the future. I would hope that you have a speedy recovery.

TDD

In article , "HeyBub" wrote:

It's not productive to compare the UK and the US. In the US, we have a
culture that praises the gun. There are almost as many guns in the US (240
million by some estimates) as there are people.

That's an underestimate, BTW. Per capita firearm ownership in the US is 0.9,
which means 270M+ firearms.

harry wrote:

The might of the British empire failed in Afghanistan. The greater
and closer might of the USSR failed. Yet the retard Bush thought he
could succeed. And our own B-liar thought he could be famous.
This is because George Retard Bush never was interested in HISTORY.
Probably never even heard of Vietnam.

True story.

It was my second date with a lovely lady.

I was sitting on the couch in her living room watching the news while she
skinned another muskrat - or whatever women do when they say "I'll be read
in just a minute" - when suddenly there's this screech from the bedroom:
"That goddamn George Bush should learn some history!" (Evidently she, too,
was monitoring the news.)

"Uh, he has a degree from Yale," I volunteered. "In history."

"That's a goddamn lie!" came the reasoned retort.

[tappity-tap-tap on her computer]

"Ah, here it is," I say. "He also has an MBA from Harvard."

Standing behind me now, fists clenched, she stares at the screen and hisses:
"The ****in' Republicans have taken over the internet."

Thinking quickly, I composed a complicated, but believable, excuse for
leaving. I think it was "I have to go."

Still, I learned two very important lessons from this encounter:
1. Google is not always your friend, and
2. Don't date an unmedicated manic-depressive.

On May 13, 6:54*pm, Jay Hanig wrote:
On 5/13/2010 6:51 PM, aemeijers wrote:

If there was some way to magically make ALL the handguns vanish, at the
same time, I would agree with you. (and along with the guns, the
knowledge to make them- any half-competent machine shop can turn out a
servicable weapon in a couple of hours.) But you can't unring the bell-
they are out there, and there is no way to make them not be out here.
Unlike countries that nominally bow to the queen, if the government here
told everyone to line up and meekly turn them in, at best it would get
ignored, and at worst could lead to revolution. (Although I suspect a
lot of people in UK, CA, Oz, etc, turned in Grandpa's old fowling piece,
and quietly packed their modern arms away someplace safe.)

Sorry, but I don't feel noble enough to disarm myself first. My family
already had to flee halfway around the damn planet once. Ain't gonna
happen again. Nobody is in any danger from any weapon I own, unless of
course they show up pointing one at me.

That's it in a nutshell. *I completely agree.

Except that if they show up in my living room at 2:000AM they need not
show their gun.

On May 14, 2:55*am, harry wrote:
On May 13, 11:51 pm, aemeijers wrote:



harry wrote:
(snip)
Handguns have no other function but to kill people.
Funny, I thought they were to keep the other fellow with a handgun (or
whatever) from killing ME.

--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If no-one has a gun, no-one gets killed with a gun.
It's this scumbag gun culture that results in these numerous school
massacres in the US. I bet the parents of these kids wished they had
lived somewhere else at the time,

If there was some way to magically make ALL the handguns vanish, at the
same time, I would agree with you. (and along with the guns, the
knowledge to make them- any half-competent machine shop can turn out a
servicable weapon in a couple of hours.) But you can't unring the bell-
they are out there, and there is no way to make them not be out here.
Unlike countries that nominally bow to the queen, if the government here
told everyone to line up and meekly turn them in, at best it would get
ignored, and at worst could lead to revolution. (Although I suspect a
lot of people in UK, CA, Oz, etc, turned in Grandpa's old fowling piece,
and quietly packed their modern arms away someplace safe.)

Sorry, but I don't feel noble enough to disarm myself first. My family
already had to flee halfway around the damn planet once. Ain't gonna
happen again. Nobody is in any danger from any weapon I own, unless of
course they show up pointing one at me.

A small reality check, by the way- probably 100x the kids who get killed
by guns, get killed showing off in cars. They are finally tightening the
drivers license procedure for kids to require more training and
practice, but nobody has suggested not letting kids drive. The changed
license procedures are reducing the number of vehicle deaths among the
young set. Instead of getting hysterical about guns, maybe they should
give all 8th-graders a week of instruction at a shooting range? Take the
mystique out of it, make them understand it isn't like TV- people don't
get up and go back to life as normal after being shot, make the boys
understand a gun does NOT make their genitalia any larger, safe
handling/storage procedures, get rid of the 'forbidden fruit' factor,
etc? Nah, that would never fly. Just because training and education work
to make operating other mechanical devices safer doesn't mean it would
work with those EVIL guns.

--
aem sends...

You have to make a start somewhere. There's something mentally
defective about anyone who thinks they need to carry/posses a gun to
impress people. *They have made a start in Australia I *believe.
We made a start in the 1920s.

But guns *do* impress people. Something like 2M wannabe perps are
"impressed" every year.

harry wrote:

The USA needs to be at perpetual war to enrich the republican-owned
arms industry. The war in the ME was started because the USSR had
(temporarily) fallen by the wayside.
Those poor American boys dying in far off places are dying to enrich
the wealthy elite of America. They are not BTW fighting to defend
America. They are fighting and dying to defend the fascist state of
Israel.
They need a gun culture in America so they have a reserve of gun-
trained, misinformed, ill-educated youth to use as gun fodder so they
can fill their pocket with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

So who will be next? The war in Afghanistan is getting unpopular and
unprofitable. Iran? Venezuela? Hah! Now there's a thought. Oil
rich, close at hand and socialist. Ideal target i say!

Oh, bother. We need a war every ten to fifteen years to keep the tip of the
spear sharp. Right now, it would be difficult to find a commander, from
sergeant to general, who has not lead troops in combat. You can't BUY that
kind of experience.

As for boys (and girls) dying in far off lands, remember, they volunteered.
They volunteered knowing the risks of death or disability were real, much
the same as a race car driver, a mountain climber, a sky-diver chooses his
vocation. They serve for the opportunity to kill people and blow things up,
well aware that there is a chance, slim, but still there, that they could
suffer.

The folks in Iraq and Afghanistan are our warrior class. They trained to be
there; they want to be there. They NEED to be there! War is their destiny,
their reason for being. They fight. For their friends, for their families,
for their homes.

For honor's sake. For duty's sake. For glory's sake.

Interestingly, eighty-five percent of the troops who served on the ground
Iraqistan re-enlisted at the first opportunity. The remaining fifteen
percent retired, invalided out, or married harridans.

The only downside I can see to a larger war is that the relative percentage
of pussies at home increases. That's not TOO problematic, because there's
still enough of us retired and reserve warriors to put paid to their wussie
asses should they get out of hand.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "HeyBub"
wrote:

It's not productive to compare the UK and the US. In the US, we have
a culture that praises the gun. There are almost as many guns in the
US (240 million by some estimates) as there are people.

That's an underestimate, BTW. Per capita firearm ownership in the US
is 0.9,
which means 270M+ firearms.

Yeah. But who's counting?

harry wrote:

That's pretty sick.
Hunters. American "heros" out shooting helpless animals with high
power guns. Pretty sick too. You poisoned their minds.
If you wanted to see heros you need to go to Africa. (Kenya).
There the Masia armed their teenage son with a spear and a shield.
They were surrounded with armed warriors and into the ring was put an
adult male lion. Only one came out alive. These were true heros.
Only after that could they marry. (Several wives)
As they are running out of lions these days, they are needed for
tourists to watch, this no longer done. However I did personally
witness a small group go into the bush at night armed only with spears
to pursue/kill lions that were killing cattle. Now that is heroism.
BTW these were proper lions, big as a cow, not your new world toy town
ones.

Heroes? Hunting lions with spears? Well, I guess if spears was all they had
and their livelihood was at risk...

But, given modern society, I can think of several words that would be far
more appropriate than "hero," with "fool" being at the top of the list.

harry wrote:

You have to make a start somewhere. There's something mentally
defective about anyone who thinks they need to carry/posses a gun to
impress people. They have made a start in Australia I believe.
We made a start in the 1920s.

I agree. Whether someone carries a gun or the latest designer handbag with
the purpose of "impressing" others is certainly a symptom of a destructive
impulse in the human condition.

On the other hand, if a person feels better about themselves by consuming
designer water, or dressing in fashionable clothing, driving an
environmentally friendly car, or carrying a Glock, well, what's WRONG with
feeling good?

Women who've had breast implants tell me they feel more confident, secure,
and capable. I feel the same way with my pistol.

On May 14, 11:40�am, The Daring Dufas the-daring-
wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 14, 6:48 am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
My Russian cousins lost so many people in the war and they have
every right to be paranoid. Hitler should have paid attention to
history. The Russians are very pragmatic and will grind anyone
into the ground who is foolish enough to attack them on their
home turf, Ruskies don't play. Boris, have you hugged a terrorist
today? Da! Hugged him like bear till eyeballs pop out!
That's why we have so many bug-eyed Afghanis?
I don't believe anyone will ever be able to conquer Afghanistan. It
will take an autochthonous government to control that country and
even then, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible.

TDD

The reason we so many "bug eyed Afghanis is enitrely the fault of the
USA.
The USSR identified there was a problem in Afghanistan and was well on
the way to resolving it by their usual brutal methods. �The USA for no
good reason, decided to arm and train the Afghans. �We are all paying
the price for this foolishness. Once again no-one in the US government
was interested in history.

First rule. �Never give the cloth-heads guns.

The USA needs to be at perpetual war to enrich the republican-owned
arms industry. �The war in the ME was started because the USSR had
(temporarily) fallen by the wayside.
Those poor American boys dying in far off places are dying to enrich
the wealthy elite of America. �They are not BTW fighting to defend
America. They are fighting and dying to defend the fascist state of
Israel.
They need a gun culture in America so they have a reserve of gun-
trained, misinformed, ill-educated youth to use as gun fodder so they
can fill their pocket with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

So who will be next? �The war in Afghanistan is getting unpopular and
unprofitable. �Iran? �Venezuela? �Hah! Now there's a thought. Oil
rich, close at hand and socialist. Ideal target i say!

Harry, have you thought about why you're not speaking German right now?
It might have something to do with an evil, selfish, former colony that
came to the aid of Great Britain about 70 years ago. It's funny that
this horrid, selfish, terror exporting, gun worshiping, imperialist,
evil country I live in is so quick to offer or come to the aid of those
people who spit in our face. Perhaps my country should tell the rest of
the world to bugger off?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hitler declared war on te USA just after the Japanese attack on Pearl
harbour. You did not come running tour aid. Learn your HISTORY.

On May 14, 1:23�pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

The might of the British empire failed in Afghanistan. �The greater
and closer might of the USSR failed. �Yet the retard Bush thought he
could succeed. And our own B-liar thought he could be famous.
This is because George Retard Bush never was interested in HISTORY.
Probably never even heard of Vietnam.

True story.

It was my second date with a lovely lady.

I was sitting on the couch in her living room watching the news while she
skinned another muskrat - or whatever women do when they say "I'll be read
in just a minute" - when suddenly there's this screech from the bedroom:
"That goddamn George Bush should learn some history!" (Evidently she, too,
was monitoring the news.)

"Uh, he has a degree from Yale," I volunteered. "In history."

"That's a goddamn lie!" came the reasoned retort.

[tappity-tap-tap on her computer]

"Ah, here it is," I say. "He also has an MBA from Harvard."

Standing behind me now, fists clenched, she stares at the screen and hisses:
"The ****in' Republicans have taken over the internet."

Thinking quickly, I composed a complicated, but believable, excuse for
leaving. I think it was "I have to go."

Still, I learned two very important lessons from this encounter:
1. Google is not always your friend, and
2. Don't date an unmedicated manic-depressive.

Are the qualifications from these institutes are not worth a wank?
"W" led America into the greatest disasters ever. Financial and
military. How does that equate with qualifications from these
organisations?
Or was it this?. It was to enable his wealthy republican friends to
make massive profits fro the banking sectors and the armaments
industries. So he wasn't stupid, he was EVIL. Is that what you're
telling me?
Meanwhile ordinary Americans lose their jobs and their homes.
Whilst he bankers and the armament manufacturers relax in the sun in
their island paradises. Democracy republican style.

On May 14, 1:39�pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

The USA needs to be at perpetual war to enrich the republican-owned
arms industry. �The war in the ME was started because the USSR had
(temporarily) fallen by the wayside.
Those poor American boys dying in far off places are dying to enrich
the wealthy elite of America. �They are not BTW fighting to defend
America. They are fighting and dying to defend the fascist state of
Israel.
They need a gun culture in America so they have a reserve of gun-
trained, misinformed, ill-educated youth to use as gun fodder so they
can fill their pocket with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

So who will be next? �The war in Afghanistan is getting unpopular and
unprofitable. �Iran? �Venezuela? �Hah! Now there's a thought. Oil
rich, close at hand and socialist. Ideal target i say!

Oh, bother. We need a war every ten to fifteen years to keep the tip of the
spear sharp. Right now, it would be difficult to find a commander, from
sergeant to general, who has not lead troops in combat. You can't BUY that
kind of experience.

As for boys (and girls) dying in far off lands, remember, they volunteered.
They volunteered knowing the risks of death or disability were real, much
the same as a race car driver, a mountain climber, a sky-diver chooses his
vocation. They serve for the opportunity to kill people and blow things up,
well aware that there is a chance, slim, but still there, that they could
suffer.

The folks in Iraq and Afghanistan are our warrior class. They trained to be
there; they want to be there. They NEED to be there! War is their destiny,
their reason for being. They fight. For their friends, for their families,
for their homes.

For honor's sake. For duty's sake. For glory's sake.

Interestingly, eighty-five percent of the troops who served on the ground
Iraqistan re-enlisted at the first opportunity. The remaining fifteen
percent retired, invalided out, or married harridans.

The only downside I can see to a larger war is that the relative percentage
of pussies at home increases. That's not TOO problematic, because there's
still enough of us retired and reserve warriors to put paid to their wussie
asses should they get out of hand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Poor brainwashed youths. The recruiting officers scour the streets
for the uneducated and the (Hollywood) deluded. At the end of their
service, they have not improved themselves educationally or otherwise,
They have no choice but to re-enlist. There's no work for them in
America. The Mexicans, I hear, take the few jobs there are. Helped
by the greedy unpatriotic Americans that employ them.