On May 14, 1:46�pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Real sportsmen fight their prey on equal terms. The cowardly give
their prey no chance.
& BTW, the Masia's is not a modern society. But in no way inferior.

On May 14, 1:52�pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
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.
All these things point to an ingrained inferiority complex or asI
previusly remare paranoia.
Personally I don't give a **** what anyone else thinks. I gather my
own evidence, first and if possible and come to my own conclusions.

It's a sad cow that measures her worth by the size of her tits.
It's a sad git as can only face his contemporaries clad in designer
clothes.
It's an even sadder git that measures the worth of someone by the
bling they display.
Mature people assess the worth of people by their actions and their
friends.
And that's in the bible.

Hmm. I wonder if Jesus carried a Glock or indeed any other weapon?
Maybe this is why you are the Great Satan! :-)





Being environmentally friendly is about leaving the world in a fit
state for one's descendants.

On May 14, 12:02�pm, The Daring Dufas the-daring-
wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I find my own evidence and fomulate my own opinions unfettered by the
likes of Fox TV. There is no excuse in these days ofthe internet for
even Americans to do the same. I realise you belong to a closed and
brainwashed society but you must try to rise above it.

On May 14, 1:52�pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
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.

All these things point to an ingrained inferiority complex or as I
previusly remarked, paranoia.

Personally I don't give a **** what anyone else thinks. I gather my
own evidence, first hand if possible and come to my own conclusions.

It's a sad cow that measures her worth by the size of her tits.
It's a sad git as can only face his contemporaries clad in designer
clothes.
It's an even sadder git that measures the worth of someone by the
bling they display.
Mature people assess the worth of people by their actions and their
friends.
And that's in the bible.


Hmm. I wonder if Jesus carried a Glock or indeed any other weapon?
Maybe this is why you are the Great Satan! :-)


Being environmentally friendly is about leaving the world in a fit
state for one's descendants.

On Fri, 14 May 2010 00:43:42 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

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.

Don't be presumptuous! Sarah Palin is NOT running for the United
States Senate. What's wrong in the USA is that the Progressives ate
all the Democrats.

It time for your tea and crumpets?

WWJC?
What Would Jesus Carry?

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


"harry" wrote in message
...

Hmm. I wonder if Jesus carried a Glock or indeed any other
weapon?
Maybe this is why you are the Great Satan! :-)

On May 14, 8:41�pm, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 00:43:42 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:





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.

Don't be presumptuous! �Sarah Palin is NOT running for the United
States Senate. What's wrong in the USA is that the Progressives ate
all the Democrats.

It time for your tea and crumpets?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What is a Progressive?
I don't drink tea but crumpets are fine. :-)

On Fri, 14 May 2010 00:52:36 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

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.

So police officers, working the streets, cannot be trusted with a
firearm?

Halt in the name of the crumpet! Let me hug you until a weapon gets
here.

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

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?

Financial? 26 consecutive quarters of economic growth is considered a
disaster? True, Bush did run up an $800+ billion dollar deficit in his eight
years, but Obama more than quadrupled that in a mere 18 months.

Military? Look at Sadaam Hussein: We invaded his country, evicted him from
his homes, confiscated his fortunes, exiled his family, killed his children,
imprisoned his friends, and eventually got his skanky ass hanged. I wouldn't
call that a "failure."

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?

No, I'm telling you that you're acting like an unmedicated manic-depressive.
That without sufficient Prozac, the Bush Derangement Syndrome will ruin your
life.

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.

Do your research. All this started with the Community Development Act under
Carter. We could absorb that mistake, but it was hugely enhanced under
Clinton. It required banks and lending institutions to lend money to
unworthy borrowers under the liberal mantra of "everybody should own their
own home."

As long as demand for homes increased, the Ponzi scheme could be sustained.
Eventually, everybody who could be placed in a home got one and the demand
stopped overnight. Under Bush, we just ran out of poor people, that's all.

harry wrote:

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.

You're living in the past. Virtually all U.S. military personnel are
high-school graduates and some have some college.

Money quotes:

"We find that, on average, recruits tend to be much more highly educated
than the general pub-lic..."

"98 percent of all enlisted recruits who enter the military have an
education level of high school graduate or higher, compared to the national
aver-age of 75 percent."

And mo
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Rep...and-After-9-11

In a companion report:
"...only about 7 percent of recruits for 2003-2005 entered the military with
some college experi-ence, over 11 percent of the 2004 active component
enlisted force had some college experience." (About one-quarter of the U.S.
population has a baccalaureate degree).

harry wrote:

Hmm. I wonder if Jesus carried a Glock or indeed any other weapon?
Maybe this is why you are the Great Satan! :-)


Well, He DID say "trade your cloak for a sword"...

harry wrote:
On May 14, 8:41?pm, Oren wrote:

What is a Progressive?

A "Progressive" is the new name for "liberal" (U.S. liberal). Same people,
same policies, different name.

Their policies, platforms, and promises so tarnished the old name, they had
to come up with a new one.

That's all.

On May 14, 8:55�pm, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 00:52:36 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:





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.

So police officers, working the streets, cannot be trusted with a
firearm?

Halt in the name of the crumpet! Let me hug you until a weapon gets
here.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not needed.

On May 14, 9:39�pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

Hmm. �I wonder if Jesus carried a Glock or indeed any other weapon?
Maybe this is why you are the Great Satan! � :-)

Well, He DID say "trade your cloak for a sword"...

Where is that?

On Fri, 14 May 2010 15:41:54 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

harry wrote:
On May 14, 8:41?pm, Oren wrote:

What is a Progressive?

A "Progressive" is the new name for "liberal" (U.S. liberal). Same people,
same policies, different name.

Their policies, platforms, and promises so tarnished the old name, they had
to come up with a new one.

That's all.


You say it more eloquently. I was going to say "a wolf in sheep's
clothing".

First glance, they look harmless.

On Fri, 14 May 2010 14:12:14 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On May 14, 8:55?pm, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 00:52:36 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:





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.

So police officers, working the streets, cannot be trusted with a
firearm?

Halt in the name of the crumpet! Let me hug you until a weapon gets
here.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not needed.

Cite your research please. Better for the police to have a weapon and
not need it than to need it and not have it.

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

It is stretching the term to call it a country. Most of that part of the
world is really ****ant little feifdoms, much like Europe after Rome
fell, and the borders on the map a western invention of convenience.
Loyalty is to clan/village/sect, not to nation-state.

--
aem sends...

On Fri, 14 May 2010 05:40:41 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

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

Agree.

Stop all foreign aid immediately - pay our damn bills, first.

I speak as many languages as Harry. English, Redneck and Profanity.

harry wrote:
(snip)
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 have no interest whatsoever in impressing people, and do not carry a
gun off my property, since this state requires a carry permit for
handguns, and I never got around to dealing with the red tape to get
one. I don't hunt, so there is no need to carry a long gun anywhere. I
purposely bought a house in an area where guns are not carried as a
fashion accessory or manhood enhancer. (My office, sadly, is in such an
area- I do not like going there late at night.) I don't display them on
a wall or anything, or tell anyone about them unless they ask, and then
not always, because I'd rather not advertise that my house is worth
robbing. Guns are a tool, nothing more.

--
aem sends...

On Fri, 14 May 2010 19:25:19 -0400, aemeijers
wrote:

harry wrote:
(snip)
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 have no interest whatsoever in impressing people, and do not carry a
gun off my property, since this state requires a carry permit for
handguns, and I never got around to dealing with the red tape to get
one. I don't hunt, so there is no need to carry a long gun anywhere. I
purposely bought a house in an area where guns are not carried as a
fashion accessory or manhood enhancer. (My office, sadly, is in such an
area- I do not like going there late at night.) I don't display them on
a wall or anything, or tell anyone about them unless they ask, and then
not always, because I'd rather not advertise that my house is worth
robbing. Guns are a tool, nothing more.

A local Senate candidate, one of a dozen, was asked about her
"concealed" carry of her .44 Cal S&W.

*It's up to me and for the bad guys to find out - words like that, she
replied.

She carries concealed, but Nevada is an open carry state. She can
prance down the Las Vegas Strip with a firearm belted on her side.

The Sheriff of Nottingham _MUST_ allow it.

aemeijers wrote in
:

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

It is stretching the term to call it a country. Most of that part of the
world is really ****ant little feifdoms, much like Europe after Rome
fell, and the borders on the map a western invention of convenience.
Loyalty is to clan/village/sect, not to nation-state.


so what happens when one of those sects decides to launch attacks on the
US,originating from bases in that "nation"?
(and the others resist our retribution...)

What would YOU do?(as one responsible for US security and defense.)

either some Afghan group takes authority and keeps some control over
them all,or it's a lawless land and anything goes,including "genocide" when
they attack the US from there,or go there to hide from us.

Our problem is that we listen to our whiners,weenies,and politically
correct and give them too much weight.
And lots of OUR people unnecessarily die from doing that.
Israel has pretty much the same problem.

We MUST establish that attacking the US is a REALLY bad idea.
We can be a good friend or a terrible enemy. We can't be both.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

aemeijers wrote in
:

harry wrote:
(snip)
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.

And it has NOT been successfull.
After enactment of their "strict gun control",there was little change in
crime,in fact,it's been increasing. Same goes for Britain and Japan.

"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

We made a start in the 1920s.

and it only made things worse. Like everywhere else.
Gun control hasn't worked in ANY nation on Earth.


I have no interest whatsoever in impressing people, and do not carry a
gun off my property, since this state requires a carry permit for
handguns, and I never got around to dealing with the red tape to get
one. I don't hunt, so there is no need to carry a long gun anywhere. I
purposely bought a house in an area where guns are not carried as a
fashion accessory or manhood enhancer. (My office, sadly, is in such an
area- I do not like going there late at night.) I don't display them on
a wall or anything, or tell anyone about them unless they ask, and then
not always, because I'd rather not advertise that my house is worth
robbing. Guns are a tool, nothing more.


exactly.
It's not about "impressing" anyone,it's about having the means to defend
yourself and others if necessary.
Reasonable people recognize that police are not always around to protect
you or your property,and that they take some time to arrive when called,and
that YOU have to take steps to do it yourself,within the law.
Reasonable people recognize that trouble can strike in many public places.

and for most people,a firearm is the best tool for the job.
It can be used by almost anyone to successfully defend against
bigger,stronger,or more numerous attackers,with the best chances for
success and with the least risk to ones self.
One cannot always run,flee or retreat to a "safe place" until police can be
called and they actually arrive. Nor can any reasonable person expect a 90
lb woman to fight off a 200 lb male,or several attackers with any other
weapon or by unarmed combat methods. Not everyone is physically capable of
that or by using a knife or club against another person or persons in self-
defense.

But the EVIDENCE has shown that using a gun gives you the best chances for
successful self-defense.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Oren wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 19:25:19 -0400, aemeijers
wrote:

harry wrote:
(snip)
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 have no interest whatsoever in impressing people, and do not carry a
gun off my property, since this state requires a carry permit for
handguns, and I never got around to dealing with the red tape to get
one. I don't hunt, so there is no need to carry a long gun anywhere. I
purposely bought a house in an area where guns are not carried as a
fashion accessory or manhood enhancer. (My office, sadly, is in such an
area- I do not like going there late at night.) I don't display them on
a wall or anything, or tell anyone about them unless they ask, and then
not always, because I'd rather not advertise that my house is worth
robbing. Guns are a tool, nothing more.

A local Senate candidate, one of a dozen, was asked about her
"concealed" carry of her .44 Cal S&W.

*It's up to me and for the bad guys to find out - words like that, she
replied.

She carries concealed, but Nevada is an open carry state. She can
prance down the Las Vegas Strip with a firearm belted on her side.

The Sheriff of Nottingham _MUST_ allow it.


I hear you, but in general I put blatant open carry in the 'lifes too
damn short' category. Many years ago, Bob Greene wrote about a fellow in
Chicago that wanted to force a test case about open carry, and promptly
got arrested. The law on the books is one thing, and the actual law (as
enforced) is another. Unless you have DEEP pockets for lawyers and bail,
you will not prevail. I have a hard enough time living my life of quiet
desperation without going out and looking for trouble just on principle.

Unfortunately, my office is a no-weapons zone once you cross the
perimeter (unless you have a badge), and I'm not about to leave a weapon
even in a locked vehicle in that part of town, so even if I did get a
carry permit, it would not do me any good on late-night call-ins. That
is the only nasty part of town I ever have to go to when there aren't
crowds around.

--
aem sends...

Jim Yanik wrote:
aemeijers wrote in
:

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
It is stretching the term to call it a country. Most of that part of the
world is really ****ant little feifdoms, much like Europe after Rome
fell, and the borders on the map a western invention of convenience.
Loyalty is to clan/village/sect, not to nation-state.


so what happens when one of those sects decides to launch attacks on the
US,originating from bases in that "nation"?
(and the others resist our retribution...)

What would YOU do?(as one responsible for US security and defense.)

either some Afghan group takes authority and keeps some control over
them all,or it's a lawless land and anything goes,including "genocide" when
they attack the US from there,or go there to hide from us.

Our problem is that we listen to our whiners,weenies,and politically
correct and give them too much weight.
And lots of OUR people unnecessarily die from doing that.
Israel has pretty much the same problem.

We MUST establish that attacking the US is a REALLY bad idea.
We can be a good friend or a terrible enemy. We can't be both.


What was it that ancient Cave Politician said? "Walk softly but
carry a big stick."

TDD

On Fri, 14 May 2010 11:14:20 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

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.

....and we were sitting on our hands before that? You do know your Spitfires
would have been cute hangar queens without Texas sweet? No, I suppose not.
You didn't have a chance with the Battle of Brittan without US' help.

On Fri, 14 May 2010 16:22:05 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 05:40:41 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

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

Agree.

Stop all foreign aid immediately - pay our damn bills, first.

I speak as many languages as Harry. English, Redneck and Profanity.

Pull all troops out of the UK and Germany. Put them in Poland, if necessary.

On Thu, 13 May 2010 23:08:16 -0700, 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.

A guy I used to work with carried his .22 rifle to school. The gym teacher
locked it up in a locker during the day. They had an intermural shooting team
in high school. He lived in New York City, BTW.

On Fri, 14 May 2010 15:52:58 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

WWJC?
What Would Jesus Carry?

Probably an Uzzi.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 11:14:20 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

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.

...and we were sitting on our hands before that? You do know your Spitfires
would have been cute hangar queens without Texas sweet? No, I suppose not.
You didn't have a chance with the Battle of Brittan without US' help.

Perhaps he should lookup something called "Lend-Lease" and the time
frame in which it occurred. Of course Liberal Socialist Commie types
have their own version of history. They do seem to forget a lot of it.

TDD

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 23:08:16 -0700, 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.

A guy I used to work with carried his .22 rifle to school. The gym teacher
locked it up in a locker during the day. They had an intermural shooting team
in high school. He lived in New York City, BTW.

I know a guy who grew up in Alaska, he and all the other kids carried
rifles and shotguns with them on the way to school. When they arrived
at school, they put the guns, snow shoes and heavy parkas into their
lockers. The reason they all carried guns had something to do with not
wanting to become bear scat. The local bear population considered all
the unarmed schoolchildren to be quite tasty.

TDD

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 15:52:58 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

WWJC?
What Would Jesus Carry?

Probably an Uzzi.

Naaaa, Jesus would carry a Tavor sniper version.

TDD

On May 15, 12:22�am, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 05:40:41 -0500, The Daring Dufas

wrote:
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

Agree.

Stop all foreign aid immediately - pay our damn bills, first.

I speak as many languages as Harry. English, Redneck and Profanity.

Heh! Heh! Don't forget to learn some drivel too. :-) Or are you
already proficient? The extent of my foreign languages is to ask the
way, ask for a bus/train/boat/airplane, ask for food and ask for a
hotel. Maybe a few remarks about the weather. If the conversation
turns intellectual I'm f***d. Mind you there are people on this
thread are clearly f***d if the conversation turns intellectual in
English.

As to foreign aid, you're quite right.
Most is spent on administration, of what's left corrupt third world
govs. pocket as much as they can lay their hands on.
I have travelled throught countries where the local farmers could
grow, say corn but if they did, couldn't sell it when someone down the
road is giving it away. So they go and join the handout queue.
There's lots goes on of a similar vein.
Private foreign aid is about do-gooders sat behind a desk collecting
money and building themselves a little empire. In any case what's the
point of saving the starving so they can breed and cayse a yet greater
problem. Crunch time is coming for population & it will start in the
3rd world.

On May 15, 1:00�am, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 19:25:19 -0400, aemeijers
wrote:





harry wrote:
(snip)
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 have no interest whatsoever in impressing people, and do not carry a
gun off my property, since this state requires a carry permit for
handguns, and I never got around to dealing with the red tape to get
one. I don't hunt, so there is no need to carry a long gun anywhere. I
purposely bought a house in an area where guns are not carried as a
fashion accessory or manhood enhancer. (My office, sadly, is in such an
area- I do not like going there late at night.) �I don't display them on
a wall or anything, or tell anyone about them unless they ask, and then
not always, because I'd rather not advertise that my house is worth
robbing. Guns are a tool, nothing more.

A local �Senate candidate, one of a dozen, was asked about her
"concealed" carry of her .44 Cal S&W.

*It's up to me and for the bad guys to find out - words like that, she
replied.

She carries concealed, but Nevada is an open carry state. She can
prance down the Las Vegas Strip with a firearm belted on her side.

The Sheriff of Nottingham �_MUST_ �allow it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your point being?

On May 15, 2:18�am, Jim Yanik wrote:
aemeijers wrote om:

harry wrote:
(snip)
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.

And it has NOT been successfull.
After enactment of their "strict gun control",there was little change in
crime,in fact,it's been increasing. Same goes for Britain and Japan.

"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

We made a start in the 1920s.

and it only made things worse. Like everywhere else.
Gun control hasn't worked in ANY nation on Earth.



I have no interest whatsoever in impressing people, and do not carry a
gun off my property, since this state requires a carry permit for
handguns, and I never got around to dealing with the red tape to get
one. I don't hunt, so there is no need to carry a long gun anywhere. I
purposely bought a house in an area where guns are not carried as a
fashion accessory or manhood enhancer. (My office, sadly, is in such an
area- I do not like going there late at night.) �I don't display them on
a wall or anything, or tell anyone about them unless they ask, and then
not always, because I'd rather not advertise that my house is worth
robbing. Guns are a tool, nothing more.

exactly.
It's not about "impressing" anyone,it's about having the means to defend
yourself and others if necessary.
Reasonable people recognize that police are not always around to protect
you or your property,and that they take some time to arrive when called,and
that YOU have to take steps to do it yourself,within the law.
Reasonable people recognize that trouble can strike in many public places..

and for most people,a firearm is the best tool for the job.
It can be used by almost anyone to successfully defend against
bigger,stronger,or more numerous attackers,with the best chances for
success and with the least risk to ones self.
One cannot always run,flee or retreat to a "safe place" until police can be
called and they actually arrive. Nor can any reasonable person expect a 90
lb woman to fight off a 200 lb male,or several attackers with any other
weapon or by unarmed combat methods. Not everyone is physically capable of
that or by using a knife or club against another person or persons in self-
defense.

But the EVIDENCE has shown that using a gun gives you the best chances for
successful self-defense.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Commonsense tels you if you start a gunfight somemight get killed.
You are just spouting NRS drivel.

On May 15, 4:26�am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:
aemeijers wrote in
m:

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
It is stretching the term to call it a country. Most of that part of the
world is really ****ant little feifdoms, much like Europe after Rome
fell, and the borders on the map a western invention of convenience.
Loyalty is to clan/village/sect, not to nation-state.

so what happens when one of those sects decides to launch attacks on the
US,originating from bases in that "nation"?
(and the others resist our retribution...)

What would YOU do?(as one responsible for US security and defense.)

either some Afghan group takes authority and keeps some control over
them all,or it's a lawless land and anything goes,including "genocide" when
they attack the US from there,or go there to hide from us.

Our problem is that we listen to our whiners,weenies,and politically
correct and give them too much weight.
And lots of OUR people unnecessarily die from doing that.
Israel has pretty much the same problem.

We MUST establish that attacking the US is a REALLY bad idea.
We can be a good friend or a terrible enemy. We can't be both.

What was it that ancient Cave Politician said? "Walk softly but
carry a big stick."

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sounds like "W".

On May 15, 6:29�am, "
wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 11:14:20 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
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..

...and we were sitting on our hands before that? �You do know your Spitfires
would have been cute hangar queens without Texas sweet? �No, I suppose not.
You didn't have a chance with the Battle of Brittan without US' help.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your Mustang was powered by the Rolls Royce Merlin engine. You had to
beg us for the plans for it so you could make your own after you
learned how. I think Packhard built Merlin engines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packard_V-1650
Later you had to beg for the plans for jet engines. We never did tell
you about our electronic computers that routinely cracked the German
Enigma codes and saved thousands of US lives.
There now, you can learn about it, the secret is out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer

There were a handful of US pilots flew spitfires in the battle of
Britain. They masquaraded as Canadians mostly.

On May 15, 6:30�am, "
wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 16:22:05 -0700, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 05:40:41 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

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

Agree.

Stop all foreign aid immediately - pay our damn bills, first.

I speak as many languages as Harry. English, Redneck and Profanity.

Pull all troops out of the UK and Germany. �Put them in Poland, if necessary.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why Poland?

On May 15, 2:18�am, Jim Yanik wrote:
aemeijers wrote om:

harry wrote:
(snip)
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.

And it has NOT been successfull.
After enactment of their "strict gun control",there was little change in
crime,in fact,it's been increasing. Same goes for Britain and Japan.

"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

We made a start in the 1920s.

and it only made things worse. Like everywhere else.
Gun control hasn't worked in ANY nation on Earth.



I have no interest whatsoever in impressing people, and do not carry a
gun off my property, since this state requires a carry permit for
handguns, and I never got around to dealing with the red tape to get
one. I don't hunt, so there is no need to carry a long gun anywhere. I
purposely bought a house in an area where guns are not carried as a
fashion accessory or manhood enhancer. (My office, sadly, is in such an
area- I do not like going there late at night.) �I don't display them on
a wall or anything, or tell anyone about them unless they ask, and then
not always, because I'd rather not advertise that my house is worth
robbing. Guns are a tool, nothing more.

exactly.
It's not about "impressing" anyone,it's about having the means to defend
yourself and others if necessary.
Reasonable people recognize that police are not always around to protect
you or your property,and that they take some time to arrive when called,and
that YOU have to take steps to do it yourself,within the law.
Reasonable people recognize that trouble can strike in many public places..

and for most people,a firearm is the best tool for the job.
It can be used by almost anyone to successfully defend against
bigger,stronger,or more numerous attackers,with the best chances for
success and with the least risk to ones self.
One cannot always run,flee or retreat to a "safe place" until police can be
called and they actually arrive. Nor can any reasonable person expect a 90
lb woman to fight off a 200 lb male,or several attackers with any other
weapon or by unarmed combat methods. Not everyone is physically capable of
that or by using a knife or club against another person or persons in self-
defense.

But the EVIDENCE has shown that using a gun gives you the best chances for
successful self-defense.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Paranoia.

The Daring Dufas wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:
aemeijers wrote in
:

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
It is stretching the term to call it a country. Most of that part of
the world is really ****ant little feifdoms, much like Europe after
Rome fell, and the borders on the map a western invention of
convenience. Loyalty is to clan/village/sect, not to nation-state.


so what happens when one of those sects decides to launch attacks on
the US,originating from bases in that "nation"? (and the others resist
our retribution...)

What would YOU do?(as one responsible for US security and defense.)

either some Afghan group takes authority and keeps some control over
them all,or it's a lawless land and anything goes,including "genocide"
when they attack the US from there,or go there to hide from us.

Our problem is that we listen to our whiners,weenies,and politically
correct and give them too much weight.
And lots of OUR people unnecessarily die from doing that.
Israel has pretty much the same problem.

We MUST establish that attacking the US is a REALLY bad idea.
We can be a good friend or a terrible enemy. We can't be both.


What was it that ancient Cave Politician said? "Walk softly but
carry a big stick."

TDD

Trouble is, big sticks only work well on targets you can identify. A
shifting nomadic group of bipedal kamikaze weapons, that look and act
just like the indigenous population they sprang from and live among, is
awful hard to draw a bead on.

Aside from the kamikaze part, it reminds me of the VC in Viet Nam. Smile
and work with you by day, attack you when you least expect it.


Sometimes I think that the 1st and 2nd world countries brought it on
themselves, bringing modern arms, comms, and transport to these 4th
world countries. Too bad we can't just all pull back and let them try to
get out of the 1800s on their own.

--
aem sends...

harry wrote:
(snip)

But the EVIDENCE has shown that using a gun gives you the best chances for
successful self-defense.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Commonsense tels you if you start a gunfight somemight get killed.
You are just spouting NRS drivel.

I'm a peaceful man- I'll never start a gunfight. But if someone else
does, and he dies instead of me because I had a gun available, well, I
fail to see a problem. I'm no cowboy- I go out of my way to avoid
hanging out with stupid people, drunks, druggies, and criminals, and
situations and areas where violence is a common way of settling
disputes. But if said stupid people, et al, come to my quiet little
corner of the world and start something, I will do my best to make sure
I'm not the one leaving on a gurney.

--
aem sends...