JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"DGDevin" wrote in message
...


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

The same screwing holds true for "boiler plate" orders of
separation in most divorce cases. The language on such orders
almost always includes prohibitions of gun ownership. The defendant
needs to contest such boiler-plate, but the problem is, he seldom
knows about it!

A) Documentation please, that such orders in "most" divorce cases
prohibit gun ownership. B) Hiring the wrong lawyer is always a bad
move.


He has no documentation because what he said is false. He talks more
**** than *almost* anyone I've ever witnessed. My ex-wife absolutely
HATES guns, but not a word was said about guns in our divorce
meetings with both lawyers, and the paperwork said nothing about guns
at all. HeyBub is a retired cop who needs to shoot his computer and
find another hobby. Law is not one of his talents.

You, no doubt, had an amicable divorce without a Temporary Restraining Order
(TRO) or one that precluded violence. Your must admit your unique
circumstance cannot extrapolate to the whole world.

I, on the other hand, do not make this **** up (although that's often more
convenient). You did, however, force me to dig out my old textbook from my
Family Law course.

In Texas, the Family Code lists some 30-odd different articles that may be
included in a TRO. The list includes the following:

" (1) intentionally communicating by telephone or in writing with the other
party by use of vulgar, profane, obscene, or indecent language or in a
coarse or offensive manner, with intent to annoy or alarm the other;..."
http://law.onecle.com/texas/family/6.501.00.html

So here we have some boilerplate that's often included in a TRO divorce
petition. It restrains one party from attempting to annoy or alarm the
petitioner.

Now we look at 18 USC 922(g)

"It shall be unlawful for any person -

(8) who is subject to a court order that -
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice,
and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an
intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person,
or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in
reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child;... or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic
violence, to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess
in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any
firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or
foreign commerce."
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922

So, then, if you are subject to a (state) temporary restraining order (in a
divorce proceeding) prohibiting you from alarming another, you are in
violation of federal law if you possess a firearm or ammunition.

You are correct, however, when you state "law is not one of his talents." I
never took the bar exam after finishing law school.

You are incorrect, though, when characterizing me as a "retired cop." I'm
neither a cop nor retired. I used to be a cop (or airline pilot, I forget
which).

I hope the above discourse convinces you I don't talk smack. If you have any
other instances in which you are as certain that I'm in error as you were
about the TRO/guns business, I'd certainly like an opportunity to correct my
remarks or enlighten you as to the wonderfulness of them.

Steve B wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote

snip

Bub, remember ...... don't cast your pearls before swine ...........

Steve

Or pride before a fall...

You're point is well-taken.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"DGDevin" wrote in message
...


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

The same screwing holds true for "boiler plate" orders of
separation in most divorce cases. The language on such orders
almost always includes prohibitions of gun ownership. The defendant
needs to contest such boiler-plate, but the problem is, he seldom
knows about it!

A) Documentation please, that such orders in "most" divorce cases
prohibit gun ownership. B) Hiring the wrong lawyer is always a bad
move.


He has no documentation because what he said is false. He talks more
**** than *almost* anyone I've ever witnessed. My ex-wife absolutely
HATES guns, but not a word was said about guns in our divorce
meetings with both lawyers, and the paperwork said nothing about guns
at all. HeyBub is a retired cop who needs to shoot his computer and
find another hobby. Law is not one of his talents.

You, no doubt, had an amicable divorce without a Temporary Restraining
Order (TRO) or one that precluded violence. Your must admit your unique
circumstance cannot extrapolate to the whole world.

I, on the other hand, do not make this **** up (although that's often more
convenient). You did, however, force me to dig out my old textbook from my
Family Law course.

In Texas, the Family Code lists some 30-odd different articles that may be
included in a TRO. The list includes the following:

" (1) intentionally communicating by telephone or in writing with the
other party by use of vulgar, profane, obscene, or indecent language or in
a coarse or offensive manner, with intent to annoy or alarm the other;..."
http://law.onecle.com/texas/family/6.501.00.html

So here we have some boilerplate that's often included in a TRO divorce
petition. It restrains one party from attempting to annoy or alarm the
petitioner.

Now we look at 18 USC 922(g)

"It shall be unlawful for any person -

(8) who is subject to a court order that -
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual
notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an
intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or
person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner
in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child;... or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic
violence, to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or
possess
in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any
firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate
or foreign commerce."
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922

So, then, if you are subject to a (state) temporary restraining order (in
a divorce proceeding) prohibiting you from alarming another, you are in
violation of federal law if you possess a firearm or ammunition.

You are correct, however, when you state "law is not one of his talents."
I never took the bar exam after finishing law school.

You are incorrect, though, when characterizing me as a "retired cop." I'm
neither a cop nor retired. I used to be a cop (or airline pilot, I forget
which).

I hope the above discourse convinces you I don't talk smack. If you have
any other instances in which you are as certain that I'm in error as you
were about the TRO/guns business, I'd certainly like an opportunity to
correct my remarks or enlighten you as to the wonderfulness of them.




Suddenly, you've changed the game to include TROs. Sorry. No dice. What
percentage of divorces involve TROs? Show a reliable source with stats.

"Peter" wrote in message ...


Although your attitude is very common, many reputable studies have shown
that more people are killed by guns legally owned by non-law enforcement
citizens due to crimes of passion (the gun was available in the heat of
the moment), accident, and suicide than the number of criminals who are
shot (note: not necessarily killed) during a valid episode of
self-defense.

Can you cite these studies, tell us who conducted them, and detail their
methodology? If not, how do you know they are reputable? For example, if
such a study includes all shootings in which someone who lives in a dwelling
shoots someone else who lives there, but fails to inform us that includes
inner city drug houses in which drugs are sold and consumed, is that a
meaningful number when those reading the study are thinking of families in
suburbia? The illegal drug trade is responsible for the majority of
shootings in America, it is a leading cause of death for young black males.
Yet for middle-class citizens not living in high crime areas, death by
homicide isn't even in the top ten causes of death, overall homicide comes
in at number 15. You have to break the numbers down to much finer detail
for them to have any meaning, otherwise it the old case of drowning in a
river with an average depth of two inches.

In other words, the statistics show that you are much more likely to kill
yourself or a loved one with that gun than you are to use it to protect
yourself or a loved one from a life endangering threat.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. 1.5 to 2 million times a year
in America someone uses a firearm defensively (depending on whether you
believe the DOJ or the NRA). Compare that to the number of people who die
every year of gunshot, then explain how it is that the defensive uses
outnumber fatal shootings 60 to 1 if a gun in the home is *really* more
likely to be used to shoot a family member than a criminal.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:53:22 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 1/11/2011 10:39 AM, harry wrote:
On Jan 11, 2:47 pm, wrote:
harry wrote:

All part of the American dream. A lala land personified by such tripe
as NCSI aand so forth. Aplace were the good guy always wins (with his
gun), there are no fat or ugly people, there are no poor peopl, no
slums, no unemployent and every thing is beautiful. All complete
********. Dopey credulous people who don't know fact from fiction.
The American gov. wants young boys trained up for their foriegn wars,
waged to enrich the already rich.

Heh! The "poor" in the USA are mostly better off than the "middle class" in
the UK. Virtually all the underclass own a color TV (with no annual tax), a
car, a microwave, a cell phone, and so forth.

Hey you need to get on Google Earth. There's poverty in America to
rival anything in the third word. Try Tuskaloosa for a start. Plenty
of places in the rust belt too. And I suspect they were afraid to go
into the really tough areas.

There are no tent cities in the UK. The gov, gives a house anyone
without .
If you have google earth I can send you some links.

Harry, The UK has a population of a bit less than 52 million and The USA
has a population of a bit less than 311 million. We have more poor
citizens as defined by some government agency than the UK has subjects.
Statistically we have more lunatics than you have. Your perverts may be
of superior quality but we have greater numbers. The State of Texas is
2.9 times the size of your whole country. I'm sorry my friend but our
countries just don't survive a side to side comparison. If you were
referring to the West Alabama city of Tuscaloosa, I know it well, I was
born there back in the middle of the last century. If you have a link to
some source of disparaging material on my birthplace, I'd like to see
it. Heck, I might recognize the people and places. :-)

Tuscaloosa, being a university town, is likely quite well off. ...pretty
similar, I would expect, to Auburn.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:10:18 -0600, Jim Yanik wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in
ster.com:


JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"RicodJour" wrote in message
.
.. On Jan 10, 12:04 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
I see that six people have been killed by some loon in Arizona.
I feel really sorry for that poor little girl and her family.
Some judge killed too but who likes lawyers anyway?

As for Gabrielle Giffords I hear she was a gun advocate. Big
friend of the Palin nut?

Well there's, a good outcome at least. If still capable of
cognisant thought when/if she recovers, I wonder if she'll have a
change of heart.

I notice that no -one was able to "defend themselves" with guns
and the gunman was disarmed by a little old lady and a couple of
passing youths who sat on his head.

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.

What happened to the poor folks in Tuscon was regrettable indeed.
Our hearts
go out to them.

Still, it's the price we must pay so that our ability to defend
ourselves remains available. Here's an interview with a citizen
carrying a weapon who
helped subdue the
shooter.http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/01...k/think-concea
l-carry-d...

As for Giffords being a gun advocate, hardly. The NRA rated her
"D+" (up from an "F" during her tenure as a state legislator). Of
course a D+ rating
in Arizona would be a flogging offense in the UK.

Ancient bumper-sticker:
"If Vince Foster had had a gun, he'd be alive today."

Ah, yes, nothing like starting off the New Year with the same
simplistic thinking for which you're famous.

Scenario: Wacko in a crowd with a gun starts shooting. People all
around him have guns, too, and they start shooting at the wacko. How
many bystanders get shot by the people in the crowd defending
themselves?
Answer: Too many.
Moral: The wacko with the gun will always "win".

============

This is all theoretical unless you have some idea of how many people
in the crowd were carrying guns, but did not use them. We already
know of at least one.

I eagerly await your further information.

It's the same old tired and utterly baseless "wild west" fantasy of
the anti gun kooks. A fantasy since there has never been a single such
incident anywhere in the US, including all the states that have had
concealed carry for decades.


well,that's because the "progressives" don't operate based on fact and
reason,but on "feelings" and imaginations.

Hollywood.

Steve B wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
benick wrote:


Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns...

I carry a gun because a cop won't fit in my pocket..

When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have them...

Guns don't kill people , PEOPLE kill people...

CAUTION...Homeowner is armed...


I carry a .45 'cause they don't make a .46.

Keep Honking - I'm Reloading

I carry a gun for EXACTLY the same reasons a cop does.

I like my 17 shot 9mm, for now anyway. I just don't like the
bulkiness of a .45. I carry a .380 Keltec at times, and yes, I know,
it's a small gun. So small that I can put it in my pocket. g


Just today I had my Glock 19 blow-the-****-up!

It slam-fired but it slam-fired before the cartridge was chambered!

Pictures he
http://i956.photobucket.com/albums/a...g?t=1294788340

Goddamn Bakelite guns!

I showed it to the range master. "Yep," he said. "Failure to maintain
weapon. You didn't keep it clean."

I hit him in the mouth.

Fortunately I wasn't injured... my current squeeze was the one firing the
pistol.

[Pardon the profanity, but I'm still upset. According to the anti-gunners I
should be running around the neighborhood shooting everything that moves in
a fit of pique and they are relieved my weapon won't work ("It's alright
little brother... there are more."). Guess I'll have to settle for standing
on the street corner yelling "May your thigh swell up with salt water!"]

This evening I'll break out the duct tape.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:20:41 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jan 11, 3:44 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...
On Jan 10, 11:05 pm, "Steve B" wrote:





"HeyBub" wrote in message

om...

Steve B wrote:

It was NOT a coincidence that no one in the crowd had a gun. Out of
respect of the law, no one carried a gun to a federal official's
presence, save the gunman. I own guns, and could have been carrying
one, but I would not have because of the uproar it would have caused.
It is illegal to do so, and I'm sure that the Secret Service would
have been all over anyone carrying a gun, legal or not. Except for
the shooter, proving that one with an agenda cannot be stopped
easily.

Next time you shoot off your mouth, make sure it's loaded.

Sorry, you are mistaken.

It is NOT illegal (per se) to carry a gun in the presence of a federal
official.

It is not even illegal for a private citizen to carry a gun to a
presidential rally or function.

In the case of the latter, the Secret Service will decline to permit
him
entry, but it is not illegal.

Sorry about the way I stated it. Let's just say that I would not take a
gun
to a place where a federal official is present out of fear that it might
create a stir. Apparently, there was a firearm carrier there, and he did
not shoot the perp, but helped to subdue him. Proof that when people
carry
guns, they are not the maniacs many people think they are, but can
demonstrate a high degree of restraint. I wonder how many people would
have
shot the perp...............

Steve- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The point is the gun(s) wre useless in defense. Which is what any one
with half a brain can deduce.
Oh there was the idiot above who explained how he "nearly shot a dog".
Does that count?

==================

Tell me in great detail why you believe it was improper for me to draw a
gun
in order to keep two badly behaved dogs from getting any closer than they
already were to my son, who happened to be doing absolutely nothing which
should cause dogs to go into "corner the target" mode.

There was zero risk to bystanders, since there were none. The setup was
perfect.

I await your humorous explanation. Please try to minimize the spittle.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is the irony of it all. We have six people murdered by a loon with
a gun. And your justification for owning one, proving that it's
necessary is you nearly shot a dog (or two).
=================

I will do absolutely anything to protect my kid. That includes using my
teeth to rip out another person's trachea, and eating it, hopefully while
the offender's children are watching in horror. It is absolutely normal to
protect one's young using any means available, and anyone who disagrees with
this is seriously maladjusted.

Little harry is just jealous. His parents failed to protect him and what you
see is the result.

snip

DGDevin wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...

Personally I have no problem with civilians carrying, as long as they
have training.

Very good point. Rights come with responsibilities, and IMO if someone
wants to pack they should have to take a training course in safe handling,
local firearms laws and shooting proficiency, and demonstrate every five
years that they can still pass the test.

Here in Texas you do indeed have to take a course and requalify at each
renewal.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:43:08 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 1/11/2011 1:23 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In ,
The Daring wrote:

Guns are easy to use, hard to eascape from and unecessary.
It takes preparation to make a firebomb and knowledge to make an
effective one.

The Resistance did a pretty good job of utilizing firebombs during WWII. :-)

Hmmm. Never realized that it took a lot of knowledge to fill a wine
bottle with gasoline, put in some paper towel or similar for a wick and
toss it. The most important parameters for a fire bomb is (1). good
throwing arm and (2). making sure you have a bottle that is thin enough
that it will actually break.

You have to know enough to drink the wine first.

Well, the Frogs did have a lot of wine bottles. :-)

I rest my case.

But, how many wives do they have? Are they in 315 area code?

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


"JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote in message ...


I hope the above discourse convinces you I don't talk
smack. If you have
any other instances in which you are as certain that I'm
in error as you
were about the TRO/guns business, I'd certainly like an
opportunity to
correct my remarks or enlighten you as to the
wonderfulness of them.




Suddenly, you've changed the game to include TROs. Sorry. No
dice. What
percentage of divorces involve TROs? Show a reliable source
with stats.

Larry W wrote:

In article ,
harry wrote:
...snipped...
Guns are easy to use, hard to eascape from and unecessary.
It takes preparation to make a firebomb and knowledge to make an
effective one.

It's arguably easier to make an effective single shot firearm than it
is to make an effective bomb. I bet even a modern Englishman could do it!

Don't confuse a "firebomb" which is elementary school easy, with an
explosive bomb which is a good deal more difficult.

On Jan 11, 7:51*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

What makes you think that mentally ill people have enough
connections in the criminal community to obtain a gun illegally?
* *25 years as a Psych RN and we take one off of psych patients as we
admit them a couple times a year (the deputies and security do so
every month or so in ER). Talk about rectum slamming shut moments
(grin). Many mental patients hang out on the streets in less than
savory neighborhoods. It is isn't all much trouble to find one if
motivated. They aren't usually your Glocks or high class weapons, but
they can get cheapo guns if they want to look hard enough.

Which affirms my point that the mentally-afflicted often have a GREATER need
for self defense than normal folk.

You'd believe a bear crapping in the woods would affirm your point.
Hey, people that don't have guns are at a disadvantage so they have a
GREATER need for self defense than 'normal' folk. Sheesh.

R

On 1/11/2011 7:54 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:53:22 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 1/11/2011 10:39 AM, harry wrote:
On Jan 11, 2:47 pm, wrote:
harry wrote:

All part of the American dream. A lala land personified by such tripe
as NCSI aand so forth. Aplace were the good guy always wins (with his
gun), there are no fat or ugly people, there are no poor peopl, no
slums, no unemployent and every thing is beautiful. All complete
********. Dopey credulous people who don't know fact from fiction.
The American gov. wants young boys trained up for their foriegn wars,
waged to enrich the already rich.

Heh! The "poor" in the USA are mostly better off than the "middle class" in
the UK. Virtually all the underclass own a color TV (with no annual tax), a
car, a microwave, a cell phone, and so forth.

Hey you need to get on Google Earth. There's poverty in America to
rival anything in the third word. Try Tuskaloosa for a start. Plenty
of places in the rust belt too. And I suspect they were afraid to go
into the really tough areas.

There are no tent cities in the UK. The gov, gives a house anyone
without .
If you have google earth I can send you some links.

Harry, The UK has a population of a bit less than 52 million and The USA
has a population of a bit less than 311 million. We have more poor
citizens as defined by some government agency than the UK has subjects.
Statistically we have more lunatics than you have. Your perverts may be
of superior quality but we have greater numbers. The State of Texas is
2.9 times the size of your whole country. I'm sorry my friend but our
countries just don't survive a side to side comparison. If you were
referring to the West Alabama city of Tuscaloosa, I know it well, I was
born there back in the middle of the last century. If you have a link to
some source of disparaging material on my birthplace, I'd like to see
it. Heck, I might recognize the people and places. :-)

Tuscaloosa, being a university town, is likely quite well off. ...pretty
similar, I would expect, to Auburn.

When I last lived there in the late 1970's, there was a lot of
manufacturing going on in the area.

TDD

On 1/11/2011 2:34 PM, Jon Danniken wrote:
Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
m...
Steve B wrote:

Carrying a firearm is near the bottom of the list. I'd rank the
defenses as:

* Avoiding dangerous situations and locations
* Leave any situation that develops
* Try to de-escalate the confrontation
* Carry a firearm
* Display the firearm
* Shoot the goblin if unlawful force is threatened.


Displaying a firearm and not using it can be considered as
"brandishing a firearm" in many states.

Scenario: Bad guys want to rob you. You "display" firearm and they
retreat. They go to police officer and state that you waved a gun
at them. One lies and the other swears to it. You get arrested and
lose your permit.
You never pull a gun unless you shoot it.


I say you're wrong. Displaying a firearm and NOT shooting it is
meritorious and worthy of praise. You've prevented a disaster and no
one died.

You are correct that the object of my affections may take it the
wrong way and get all ****y, and I'd certainly take his attitude
into account before escalating the conflict to a potential shoot-out.

On the two occasions I've had to display my sidearm, the actors
would have to bathe, put down their tire-iron, and wipe the drool
from their chins before making a complaint.

In my state, you can't lose your permit simply because you were
arrested.

Keywords: "In my state". One size does not fit all, and the
scenario I described was explained to me during my third CCF class by
an Internal Affairs Bureau panel member with the Las Vegas
Metropolitan Police Department who investigates OIS's. (Officer
Involved Shootings) He explained that if one perp lies, and another
swears to it, you would lose the gun and permit until you could make
a judge agree with your side of said scenario. He said he had seen
it happen.
Bottom line, yes, you can defuse some situations by showing a weapon,
or even intimating one with your hand. But, you also must admit that
there have been situations where doing that has gotten innocent
people in trouble.
I monitor Southern Nevada Law Enforcement channels when in Las Vegas,
and have for years. You'd be surprised the number of people who call
in others for making a gun gesture with their hands. Now, the police
do not really look for that individual, but have it on record, and if
that person is stopped, it pops out, and then they usually spend some
time getting searched.

As always, the laws hinder "normal" people.

Steve

Steve, while I generally agree with your politics, you REALLY need to take
this to a political group. This is alt.home.repair, NOT alt.political
bull****.

Please stop using this group as your personal political ****ing ground.

Jon



Johnny, just kill the thread so you don't have to see it. It's very easy
in Thunderbird, press "K" when you see an off-topic post.

TDD

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:03:02 -0600, "
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:40:30 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


Crimes committed by legal gun owners are rare that they're statistically
insignificant

11,000 deaths are insiginificant?

2,000,000 defensive uses of guns are insignificant?

yeah. because they're unnecessary. we're the most heavily armed nation
on earth

and it seems to stop nothing. if guns stop crime, why do we have 2M
uses of them a year, along with 11K deaths?

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:02:33 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

bpuharic wrote in
:


Crimes committed by legal gun owners are rare that they're statistically
insignificant

11,000 deaths are insiginificant?

were all or most of those committed by LAWFUL gun owners?

with 300M guns in this country, the distinction between legal and
illegal ownership is a fiction.


chalk it up to the "revolving door of "justice"";
lenient judges and prosecutors who plea-bargain down to lesser crimes and
shorter sentences.

let's see. america has the highest rate of incarceration in the world.
we have more prisoners than china.

how's that leniency working out?

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 09:21:14 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:04:03 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:



Crimes committed by legal gun owners are rare that they're statistically
insignificant

11,000 deaths are insiginificant?


Are you saying that 11,000 crimes were committed with guns by legal gun
owners in the United States? If that's what you're saying, please show your
source of information. If your source doesn't end with .gov, it's probably
useless.

if gun ownership causes a DECREASE in violence like you say it does

why are we the most viotent developed country in the world?

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:04:24 -0600, "
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:41:37 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


What happened to the poor folks in Tuscon was regrettable indeed. Our hearts
go out to them.

Still, it's the price we must pay so that our ability to defend ourselves
remains available.

anyone know what 'defend ourselves' means? we have the highest murder
rate in the developed world

You know, when you use a gun to "convince" the no-good-nick to not rob you and
rape your daughter?

dont know any rape victims. but you go ahead and tell the mom of the 9
year old killed in AZ that at least she wasnt raped.

let me know how that works out

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 18:37:21 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:



"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .


anyone know what 'defend ourselves' means? we have the highest murder
rate in the developed world

Brazil, with very strict gun laws, has a murder rate four times that of the
U.S.

great. when the US becomes a 3rd world country, let me know

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:05:00 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

bpuharic wrote in
:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:04:52 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:
.

Still, it's the price we must pay so that our ability to defend
ourselves remains available.

anyone know what 'defend ourselves' means? we have the highest murder
rate in the developed world

"developed world"? cherry-picking,I see.
Mexico is developed,and theirs is higher.

anyone think mexico is a developed country?

anyone? bueller? bueller?



how's that defense thingie working out?

according to Gary Kleck,over 2 MILLION DGUs per year.

so you're saying that crime is deterred SO much that, in the most
heavily armed nation on earth we still have to use guns 2M times a
year??

golly. doesnt do much for your argument

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 09:53:01 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

bpuharic wrote:

anyone know what 'defend ourselves' means? we have the highest murder
rate in the developed world

how's that defense thingie working out?

Uh, no. We do NOT have the highest "homicide" rate of developed countries.
We're (let me count, mumble-mumble, carry the three...), ah, forty-sixth in
homicide rates. Admittedly, some of the countries ahead of us are less than
fully developed, but the list does include:
* Jamaica
* Belize
* Brazil
* Ecuador
* Mexico
* Costa Rica
* Lithuania
* Turkey
* Agrentina

anybody think these are developed countries?

in mexico they have to send in the marines to patrol their cities.
does that make them developed?

costa rica's gun homicide rate? half of ourse

argentina? 1/3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 18:37:21 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
...


anyone know what 'defend ourselves' means? we have the highest murder
rate in the developed world
Brazil, with very strict gun laws, has a murder rate four times that of the
U.S.

great. when the US becomes a 3rd world country, let me know

You mean, it is not already???

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:05:44 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:03:02 -0600, "
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:40:30 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


Crimes committed by legal gun owners are rare that they're statistically
insignificant

11,000 deaths are insiginificant?

2,000,000 defensive uses of guns are insignificant?

yeah. because they're unnecessary. we're the most heavily armed nation
on earth

2,000,000 instances of defense is unnecessary? How about I hang the "no guns
here" sign out in front of your house?

and it seems to stop nothing. if guns stop crime, why do we have 2M
uses of them a year, along with 11K deaths?

It stops 2,000,000 of them every year. Perhaps candy-asses like you
carried...

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:06:58 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:02:33 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

bpuharic wrote in
m:


Crimes committed by legal gun owners are rare that they're statistically
insignificant

11,000 deaths are insiginificant?

were all or most of those committed by LAWFUL gun owners?

with 300M guns in this country, the distinction between legal and
illegal ownership is a fiction.

Now we all *know* you're stupid.

chalk it up to the "revolving door of "justice"";
lenient judges and prosecutors who plea-bargain down to lesser crimes and
shorter sentences.

let's see. america has the highest rate of incarceration in the world.
we have more prisoners than china.

....and that's relevant to gun ownership, how?

how's that leniency working out?

Not well, obviously.

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 04:32:08 +0100, Sjouke Burry
wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 18:37:21 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
...


anyone know what 'defend ourselves' means? we have the highest murder
rate in the developed world
Brazil, with very strict gun laws, has a murder rate four times that of the
U.S.

great. when the US becomes a 3rd world country, let me know

You mean, it is not already???

yeah, tell me about it.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:07:56 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 09:21:14 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"bpuharic" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:04:03 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:



Crimes committed by legal gun owners are rare that they're statistically
insignificant

11,000 deaths are insiginificant?


Are you saying that 11,000 crimes were committed with guns by legal gun
owners in the United States? If that's what you're saying, please show your
source of information. If your source doesn't end with .gov, it's probably
useless.

if gun ownership causes a DECREASE in violence like you say it does

It certainly does. Check out violence in areas where it is legal carry (and
easy to obtain *legal* firearms) and areas that don't.

why are we the most viotent developed country in the world?

A lie.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 20:51:17 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 1/11/2011 7:54 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:53:22 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 1/11/2011 10:39 AM, harry wrote:
On Jan 11, 2:47 pm, wrote:
harry wrote:

All part of the American dream. A lala land personified by such tripe
as NCSI aand so forth. Aplace were the good guy always wins (with his
gun), there are no fat or ugly people, there are no poor peopl, no
slums, no unemployent and every thing is beautiful. All complete
********. Dopey credulous people who don't know fact from fiction.
The American gov. wants young boys trained up for their foriegn wars,
waged to enrich the already rich.

Heh! The "poor" in the USA are mostly better off than the "middle class" in
the UK. Virtually all the underclass own a color TV (with no annual tax), a
car, a microwave, a cell phone, and so forth.

Hey you need to get on Google Earth. There's poverty in America to
rival anything in the third word. Try Tuskaloosa for a start. Plenty
of places in the rust belt too. And I suspect they were afraid to go
into the really tough areas.

There are no tent cities in the UK. The gov, gives a house anyone
without .
If you have google earth I can send you some links.

Harry, The UK has a population of a bit less than 52 million and The USA
has a population of a bit less than 311 million. We have more poor
citizens as defined by some government agency than the UK has subjects.
Statistically we have more lunatics than you have. Your perverts may be
of superior quality but we have greater numbers. The State of Texas is
2.9 times the size of your whole country. I'm sorry my friend but our
countries just don't survive a side to side comparison. If you were
referring to the West Alabama city of Tuscaloosa, I know it well, I was
born there back in the middle of the last century. If you have a link to
some source of disparaging material on my birthplace, I'd like to see
it. Heck, I might recognize the people and places. :-)

Tuscaloosa, being a university town, is likely quite well off. ...pretty
similar, I would expect, to Auburn.

When I last lived there in the late 1970's, there was a lot of
manufacturing going on in the area.

Tuscaloosa Auburn
Population = 95K 52K
School size= 28,700 24,600
Employment =$45.5K 55.6K median family income

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:04:03 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

But, how many wives do they have? Are they in 315 area code?

You have 315 wives? Figures.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:10:20 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

On Jan 11, 1:04*am, "
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:41:37 -0500, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:04:52 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

harry wrote:
I see that six people have been killed by some loon in Arizona.
I feel really sorry for that poor little girl and her family. Some
judge killed too but who likes lawyers anyway?

As for Gabrielle Giffords I hear she was a gun advocate. Big friend of
the Palin nut?

Well there's, a good outcome at least. If still capable of cognisant
thought when/if she recovers, I wonder if she'll have a change of
heart.

I notice that no -one was able to "defend themselves" with guns and
the gunman was disarmed by a little old lady and a couple of passing
youths who sat on his head.

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.

What happened to the poor folks in Tuscon was regrettable indeed. Our hearts
go out to them.

Still, it's the price we must pay so that our ability to defend ourselves
remains available.

anyone know what 'defend ourselves' means? we have the highest murder
rate in the developed world

You know, when you use a gun to "convince" the no-good-nick to not rob you and
rape your daughter?

how's that defense thingie working out?

Yes, that's how defense works. *You daughter might thank you, even if your
wife might enjoy it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So how many times have they been raped? Paranoia.

Don't know. Ask him. It does happen all too often, though. I suppose you
support rape, though.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:09:38 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:04:24 -0600, "
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:41:37 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


What happened to the poor folks in Tuscon was regrettable indeed. Our hearts
go out to them.

Still, it's the price we must pay so that our ability to defend ourselves
remains available.

anyone know what 'defend ourselves' means? we have the highest murder
rate in the developed world

You know, when you use a gun to "convince" the no-good-nick to not rob you and
rape your daughter?

dont know any rape victims. but you go ahead and tell the mom of the 9
year old killed in AZ that at least she wasnt raped.

Have you listened to her parents?

let me know how that works out

Let me know when you grow up. On second thought, don't bother. I'll be long
dead.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:52:51 -0600, "
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:05:44 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:03:02 -0600, "
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:40:30 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


Crimes committed by legal gun owners are rare that they're statistically
insignificant

11,000 deaths are insiginificant?

2,000,000 defensive uses of guns are insignificant?

yeah. because they're unnecessary. we're the most heavily armed nation
on earth

2,000,000 instances of defense is unnecessary? How about I hang the "no guns
here" sign out in front of your house?

how about you tell me why criminals aren't deterred in the most
heavily armed nation on earth.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:53:48 -0600, "
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:06:58 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:02:33 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

bpuharic wrote in
:


Crimes committed by legal gun owners are rare that they're statistically
insignificant

11,000 deaths are insiginificant?

were all or most of those committed by LAWFUL gun owners?

with 300M guns in this country, the distinction between legal and
illegal ownership is a fiction.

Now we all *know* you're stupid.

ah. so you think there's some way to track and control 300M guns

golly. are you psychic? do you do a vulcan mind meld with each gun?


chalk it up to the "revolving door of "justice"";
lenient judges and prosecutors who plea-bargain down to lesser crimes and
shorter sentences.

let's see. america has the highest rate of incarceration in the world.
we have more prisoners than china.

...and that's relevant to gun ownership, how?

how's that leniency working out?

Not well, obviously.

obviously because 'leniency' is just another figment of the right's
imagination

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:06:58 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

let's see. america has the highest rate of incarceration in the world.
we have more prisoners than china.

The U.S. does have a large prison population. We use guns to contain
prisoners based on classification and propensity towards violence.

Our penal systems are admired around the world as the best run
facilities in the world.

The Federal system only has 209,494 (Last updated on January 6, 2011 )
Up from 52, 000 in 1979. You can look the daily count for each state,
though.

What is really neat is that we don't harvest body parts from prisoners
and sell them on the black market.

Next!

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:55:10 -0600, "
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:07:56 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


if gun ownership causes a DECREASE in violence like you say it does

It certainly does. Check out violence in areas where it is legal carry (and
easy to obtain *legal* firearms) and areas that don't.

gee then why does the US have the highest rate of homicide in the
westen world?


why are we the most viotent developed country in the world?

A lie.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate


really?

where's your evidence?

oh. you gone none

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:56:06 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article om,
frag wrote:

Palin needs to take her Hit List off the web. And she needs to stop putting
up that sort of thing.

ABout the time the Dems apologize for their website where they had
bullseyes on certain districts.

"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."
- BeeHO

Steve, while I generally agree with your politics, you REALLY need to
take
this to a political group. This is alt.home.repair, NOT alt.political
bull****.

Please stop using this group as your personal political ****ing ground.

Jon

Please turn in your computer. You are too stupid to own one. Notice that
the subject clearly says "O.T. The sick gun culture." For you to click into
this thread and then complain about it is silly. Do you return oatmeal at
the store that is plainly labeled oatmeal?

I'm only answering you because someone else quoted you. I have YOU
killfiled because of just this type of stupidity you constantly display.
Buy a vowel. Get a clue. Learn how to use your computer, or dump it.

Please!

Learn how to read plainly labeled goods.

Steve

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:36:08 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:52:51 -0600, "
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:05:44 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:03:02 -0600, "
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:40:30 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


Crimes committed by legal gun owners are rare that they're statistically
insignificant

11,000 deaths are insiginificant?

2,000,000 defensive uses of guns are insignificant?

yeah. because they're unnecessary. we're the most heavily armed nation
on earth

2,000,000 instances of defense is unnecessary? How about I hang the "no guns
here" sign out in front of your house?

how about you tell me why criminals aren't deterred in the most
heavily armed nation on earth.

Because not only can't you read, candy-asses like you refuse to defend
themselves. No problem, here. You can be Darwined, for all I care.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:37:20 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:53:48 -0600, "
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:06:58 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:02:33 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

bpuharic wrote in
m:


Crimes committed by legal gun owners are rare that they're statistically
insignificant

11,000 deaths are insiginificant?

were all or most of those committed by LAWFUL gun owners?

with 300M guns in this country, the distinction between legal and
illegal ownership is a fiction.

Now we all *know* you're stupid.

ah. so you think there's some way to track and control 300M guns

Good God, no! Why would we even WANT to track guns. There should be another
300M, at least. I'm thinking about buying a Walther PPK/S for my wife, in
fact.

golly. are you psychic? do you do a vulcan mind meld with each gun?

Nope, just a full magazine.

chalk it up to the "revolving door of "justice"";
lenient judges and prosecutors who plea-bargain down to lesser crimes and
shorter sentences.

let's see. america has the highest rate of incarceration in the world.
we have more prisoners than china.

...and that's relevant to gun ownership, how?

how's that leniency working out?

Not well, obviously.

obviously because 'leniency' is just another figment of the right's
imagination

Wrong. As long as loony lefty judges, and politicians, keep turning them out,
they'll keep killing.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 20:37:45 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:06:58 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

let's see. america has the highest rate of incarceration in the world.
we have more prisoners than china.

The U.S. does have a large prison population. We use guns to contain
prisoners based on classification and propensity towards violence.

Our penal systems are admired around the world as the best run
facilities in the world.

The Federal system only has 209,494 (Last updated on January 6, 2011 )
Up from 52, 000 in 1979. You can look the daily count for each state,
though.

Right. We try to keep track of prisoners, not guns.

What is really neat is that we don't harvest body parts from prisoners
and sell them on the black market.

Next!

How about bpuharic?