CRACK HEADS BRAIN FAILURE.MAKES.GUNS NOT SO PROBLEMATIC AFTER ALL.
 

On Jan 13, 9:46*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:10:19 -0800 (PST), The Ghost in The Machine





wrote:
On Jan 13, 9:05 pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:08:24 -0500, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:33:03 -0600, "
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 05:39:21 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

keep and bear arms. arms are weapons. arms are tools to do sometihing.
they are not a freedom. freedom of speech is, in and of itself, a
freedom. if you own a gun, so what? it's not a freedom.

It sure is! It's the freedom to protect yourself and your property. You
really aren't very bright.

your right stops where it infringes mine. and gun owners are
freeloaders.

You're such a liar.

they suck up billions and make me pay for it.

Bull****.

i'm tired
of the socialist gun owners and their wlefare mentality making me pay
for their failures

...and stupid beyond belief.

...though you don't care. What the Constitution says doesn't matter, right?
After all it was written OVER TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO!

yeah and it used to guarantee the right to own slaves...

Wrong! You're nothing but another lefty liar, but that's redundant.

really? then why was the civil war fought?

Economics. You really are a *recent* product of the public schools, aren't
you kid?

oh. gun nuts dont believe there was a civil war

You've got that stupid beyond belief thing going again.
I THINK I WILL BE CALLED TO COLLECT YOUR SOUL BEFORE BHUBONICTARCICS.
YOU ARE INFECTED DUDE...GO SEE A SOUL DOCTOR...I HAVE ALREADY GOT YOU
ON MY LIST, PENDING A DELIVERY ADDRESS.
PATECUM

Speaking of stupid beyond belief... Hi Roy!

YOU KEEP CALLING ME ROY...YOU WONT THINK IT IS STUPID WHEN YOUR TAKING
YOUR LAST BREATHS.
TAKE CARE OF THAT NASTY HABIT, IT IS BRINGING YOU CLOSER TO THE GRIM
REAPERS AGENDA.
I'M JUST THE DELIVERY GUY.

PAT ECUM

Gun lobby always wins
 

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:13:10 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:17:59 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:49:52 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:06:01 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:53:13 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

ah. let us know about this when you learn about repealing amendments

Sure. Right now. It won't be because Congress conducts a "ruling"!

You never answered my question about where you found that in the
Constitution.

right next to where it says amendments cant be repealed

Hey. You said the 2nd Amendment needed to be repealed.

Which is it? Get specific, can you?

you cant read the constitution?

See! You have no game. Bring something with substance...

You act like a 2 year old, answering a question with a question.

1) Where did you get the idea about Congress "ruling"? From Judge
Wapner?

2) Why did your turn into a Chameleon, changing colors, when you talk
about "repealing" the 2nd Amendment and then later state it can't be
repealed?

3) Don't answer I know the reasons. There are plenty of them.

Gun lobby always wins
 

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:14:03 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:29:34 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:50:14 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:54:05 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


I see you snipping the thread again. Give me the name of one member
of Congress that would be dumb enough to suggest repealing the 2nd
Amendment.

yeah i know. the NRA has the best congress money can buy

I'm not mad.

Still waiting for the name of one member that would suggest repealing
the 2nd Amendment.

Tell us whom that might be.

straighten your tin foil hat.

Here is what you said:

--------
On 1/11/2011 10:56 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:45:10 -0500, wrote:

which is exactly why i said the 2nd has to be repealed

---------

Am I dealing with an unarmed idiot? Now you suggest Amendments can't
be repealed....

Have your live-in defense attorney plea bargain. It's okay for you to
cop-out, but you can't have it both ways.

HAHAHAHAHA just because no one is WILLING to repeal it does not mean
it doesnt have to be repealed!

Who says? You?! You don't count, period.


cant read english, i suppose

Gun lobby always wins because you play their game.DOLT!
 

On Jan 13, 10:38*pm, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:13:10 -0500, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:17:59 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:49:52 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:06:01 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:53:13 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

ah. let us know about this when you learn about repealing amendments

Sure. Right now. *It won't be because Congress conducts a "ruling"!

You never answered my question about where you found that in the
Constitution.

right next to where it says amendments cant be repealed

Hey. You said the 2nd Amendment needed to be repealed.

Which is it? Get specific, can you?

you cant read the constitution?

See! *You have no game. *Bring something with substance...

You act like a 2 year old, answering a question with a question.

1) Where did you get the idea about Congress "ruling"? From Judge
Wapner?

2) Why did your turn into a Chameleon, changing colors, *when you talk
about "repealing" the 2nd Amendment and then later state it can't be
repealed?

3) Don't answer I know the reasons. There are plenty of them.

ORENTHAL JUST DROP IT, BEFORE THEY GET A JUDGE TO REVOKE YOUR PRISON
COMPUTER PRIVILEGE.
PATECUM

CRACK HEADS BRAIN FAILURE.MAKES.GUNS NOT SO PROBLEMATIC AFTER ALL.
 

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:56:16 -0800 (PST), The Ghost in The Machine
wrote:

On Jan 13, 9:46*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:10:19 -0800 (PST), The Ghost in The Machine





wrote:
On Jan 13, 9:05 pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:08:24 -0500, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:33:03 -0600, "
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 05:39:21 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

keep and bear arms. arms are weapons. arms are tools to do sometihing.
they are not a freedom. freedom of speech is, in and of itself, a
freedom. if you own a gun, so what? it's not a freedom.

It sure is! It's the freedom to protect yourself and your property. You
really aren't very bright.

your right stops where it infringes mine. and gun owners are
freeloaders.

You're such a liar.

they suck up billions and make me pay for it.

Bull****.

i'm tired
of the socialist gun owners and their wlefare mentality making me pay
for their failures

...and stupid beyond belief.

...though you don't care. What the Constitution says doesn't matter, right?
After all it was written OVER TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO!

yeah and it used to guarantee the right to own slaves...

Wrong! You're nothing but another lefty liar, but that's redundant.

really? then why was the civil war fought?

Economics. You really are a *recent* product of the public schools, aren't
you kid?

oh. gun nuts dont believe there was a civil war

You've got that stupid beyond belief thing going again.
I THINK I WILL BE CALLED TO COLLECT YOUR SOUL BEFORE BHUBONICTARCICS.
YOU ARE INFECTED DUDE...GO SEE A SOUL DOCTOR...I HAVE ALREADY GOT YOU
ON MY LIST, PENDING A DELIVERY ADDRESS.
PATECUM

Speaking of stupid beyond belief... Hi Roy!

YOU KEEP CALLING ME ROY...YOU WONT THINK IT IS STUPID WHEN YOUR TAKING
YOUR LAST BREATHS.

Oh! I think Roy is threatening me. Didn't you hear Obama last night?

TAKE CARE OF THAT NASTY HABIT, IT IS BRINGING YOU CLOSER TO THE GRIM
REAPERS AGENDA.

Yep, definitely a threat.

I'M JUST THE DELIVERY GUY.

No, you're just Roy Queerjano.

CRACK HEADS BRAIN FAILURE.MAKES.GUNS NOT SO PROBLEMATIC AFTER ALL.
 

On Jan 13, 11:24*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:56:16 -0800 (PST), The Ghost in The Machine





wrote:
On Jan 13, 9:46 pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:10:19 -0800 (PST), The Ghost in The Machine

wrote:
On Jan 13, 9:05 pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:08:24 -0500, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:33:03 -0600, "
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 05:39:21 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

keep and bear arms. arms are weapons. arms are tools to do sometihing.
they are not a freedom. freedom of speech is, in and of itself, a
freedom. if you own a gun, so what? it's not a freedom.

It sure is! It's the freedom to protect yourself and your property. You
really aren't very bright.

your right stops where it infringes mine. and gun owners are
freeloaders.

You're such a liar.

they suck up billions and make me pay for it.

Bull****.

i'm tired
of the socialist gun owners and their wlefare mentality making me pay
for their failures

...and stupid beyond belief.

...though you don't care. What the Constitution says doesn't matter, right?
After all it was written OVER TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO!

yeah and it used to guarantee the right to own slaves...

Wrong! You're nothing but another lefty liar, but that's redundant.

Gun lobby always wins
 

On Jan 13, 5:15*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:38:21 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:









On Jan 12, 4:54*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 09:55:48 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

bpuharic wrote in
:

Every nation with "strict" gun control STILL has shootings and
murders,along with lesser crimes.

which is irrelevant, isnt it? by orders of magnitude we're the most
violent

not really,UK is more "violent" than the US,but their violence extends to
crimes other than "gun violence".You cannot go by "gun violence" alone.

so you're saying murder isnt a violent crime?

Maybe it's not a gun problem....

care to give your insightful analysis of these US Govt data?

and yet you cant answer why the most heavily armed nation on earth has
the highest murder rate in the west...when you gunnies say this
shouldnt happen

Dr. B, the answer to your question is in the data to which I posted
links.

I'm waiting for your analysis / comments.
I've read your rants, rhetoric, insults & name calling.

How about some reasoned thought?
Are you capable of it?

cheers
Bob

Gun lobby always wins
 

wrote in message ...


So if it never happened, why did the Bush administration get Congress to
pass legislation immunizing the telecom companies against being sued for
cooperating with the government's tapping program, hmmmm? This was widely
covered in the news, or do you avoid the news because it's all lib crap?

So they wouldn't have to bother with expensive suits from people with more
money than brains.

Oh, I see, like Ford pardoning Nixon, not because Nixon had broken any laws,
but just to avoid having to mess around in court for years. But not because
he was guilty of anything. Sure.

Nobody Wins
 

On Jan 14, 2:26*am, "DGDevin" wrote:
wrote in messagenews:ud9vi6ps7c8sbud2vmddsmpc4t4n5589ui@4ax .com...

So if it never happened, why did the Bush administration get Congress to
pass legislation immunizing the telecom companies against being sued for
cooperating with the government's tapping program, hmmmm? *This was widely
covered in the news, or do you avoid the news because it's all lib crap?
So they wouldn't have to bother with expensive suits from people with more
money than brains.

Oh, I see, like Ford pardoning Nixon, not because Nixon had broken any laws,
but just to avoid having to mess around in court for years. *But not because
he was guilty of anything. *Sure.

DON'T YOU MORTALS HAVE PRODUCTIVE, BETTER THINGS TO DO?
GO AIR OUT YOUR NATIONWIDE LAUNDRY ELSEWHERE....THIS IS "HOME
REPAIR"..NOT HOUSE CLEANING.
JUST AS YOU FIGURED IT OUT, SO WILL THE REST OF SOCIETY.
OR DO YOU REALLY THINK THEY ARE THAT DUMB?
PULL THAT BUNCHED UP NO-IT-ALL WAD OUT OF YOUR CREVICES AND LET THE
GROUP FLOW.

PATECUM

Gun lobby always wins
 

In article ,
" wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:49:31 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 19:35:02 -0600, "
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:58:35 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

the US chamber of commerce alone spent over $50M in the last election

How much did the teacher's unions spend?the How much by the trial
lawyers? The
Teamsters?...

tell you what. you go he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ll-time_donors

it turns out the chamber of commerce, alone, spent more than the top
labor union did in over 10 years

You're a ****ing liar.


And it isn't until #13 that you get to one that LEANS toward the GOP.
The unions mostly are solidly Dem (meaning around 90%--in real life
probably close to 100%) of the money goes to the Dems.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

Gun lobby always wins
 

bpuharic wrote:

your right stops where it infringes mine. and gun owners are
freeloaders. they suck up billions and make me pay for it. i'm tired
of the socialist gun owners and their wlefare mentality making me pay
for their failures

...though you don't care. What the Constitution says doesn't
matter, right? After all it was written OVER TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO!

yeah and it used to guarantee the right to own slaves...

Wrong! You're nothing but another lefty liar, but that's redundant.

really? then why was the civil war fought?


The Civil War (we prefer to call it The Recent Unplesantness) was certainly
not fought over the mention of slavery in the Constitution. The word
"Slavery" did NOT appear in the Constitution until after the Second War of
Independence.

As to slavery itself, that wasn't really the issue that caused the conflict,
only the casus belli to feed the masses.

There are two proofs for this claim: a) Southern cotton amounted to about
60% of the nation's exports (and 75% of the world's supply). Without that
export trade, the United States would be an economic basket case. b) The
Emancipation Proclamation wasn't issued by Lincoln until the third year of
the conflict and even then the proclamation did not apply to slaves in the
north.

Gun lobby always wins
 

Gun lobby always wins
 

bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 11:03:11 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

bpuharic wrote:

gee. gunnies say that guns prevent crime.

and here we are in the most heavily armed nation on earth

with the highest murder rate. so it seems guns may prevent
shoplifiting

but they dont prevent murder.

Actually, we're 45th, or thereabouts, in homicide rate tabulations
at 5 per 100,000 population.

yeah. after all the ivory coast is such a paraidse. thanks for making
my case. did a great j ob!


Inasmuch as half or more of these homicides are
gang-bangers killing other gang-bangers, that's a Good Thing(TM).

If you take the good things out of the total, we're much lower on the
homicide list - we'd move to 64th (below Afghanistan

ah. well that's a GREAT recommendation. afghanistan...a 3rd centruy
theocracy

Actually, Mohammed founded Islam in the 7th Century. Presumably it took a
while to get to Afghanistan. Before that they were Democrats, so it wasn't a
big change...

Gun lobby always wins
 

bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:06:01 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:53:13 -0500, bpuharic
wrote:

ah. let us know about this when you learn about repealing amendments

Sure. Right now. It won't be because Congress conducts a "ruling"!

You never answered my question about where you found that in the
Constitution.

right next to where it says amendments cant be repealed

The word "repeal" does not appear in the Constitution. The word "repealed"
occurs once, viz:

"Amendment 21
" 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United
States is hereby repealed."

Gun lobby always wins
 

bpuharic wrote:

care to give your insightful analysis of these US Govt data?

and yet you cant answer why the most heavily armed nation on earth has
the highest murder rate in the west...when you gunnies say this
shouldnt happen

One swallow does not make a summer! As the mayor of Washington, D.C. said:

"If you ignore the murder rate, D.C. is a wonderful place to live."

Gun lobby
 

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

Every one predicts that with overwhelming Republican majorities in
both houses of our legislature plus a Republican governor, we'll be
able to get more common-sense gun laws on the books.

Has Gov. Perry decided Texas should remain within the Union after all?

Such things as concealed carry on college campuses, open carry,
restoring the right to felons, and so forth.

Excuse me, restoring the right to felons?

Today, in all states but two (Wisconsin and Illinois), plus the
District of Columbia, it is possible for a private citizen to carry
a pistol concealed.

Possible, but not likely in some may-issue states and quite a pain in
the butt in others. 8,000,000 million people in New Jersey and less
than 1,000 CCW permits--what does that tell you?

New Jersey is a "may issue" state. That is, whether to issue a license is
discretionary on the part (usually) of the chief of police in your city of
residence. Further, issuance of a permit seems to be, by practice, limited
to armored car drivers and retired police officers.

In the "shall issue" states there is no discretion. If an applicant meets
the state's statutory requirements (able to stand up, see lightning, and
hear thunder), the issuing authority MUST issue the license. Currently there
are 38 states in the "shall issue" category. There are two (plus D.C.) that
are "no issue," and two that are "no issue" in practice (New Jersey and
Hawaii).

Gun lobby always wins
 

bpuharic wrote:

a cliche. if guns arent the problem, why does the most heavilly armed
country on earth have the highest murder rate in the developed world?

you keep dancing around the issue.


Because we have the highest rate of do-bads in the world.

Just think how much worse crime would be if we stopped culling the herd!

Jeeze! The stink-eyes are like beaver teeth - you've got to keep them filed
down or they'll kill you.

Gun lobby always wins
 

On Jan 14, 6:15*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
bpuharic wrote:

a cliche. if guns arent the problem, why does the most heavilly armed
country on earth have the highest murder rate in the developed world?

you keep dancing around the issue.

Because we have the highest rate of do-bads in the world.

Just think how much worse crime would be if we stopped culling the herd!

Jeeze! The stink-eyes are like beaver teeth - you've got to keep them filed
down or they'll kill you.

Because we have the highest rate of do-bads in the "developed" world.

I was hoping that Dr. B would discover the correlation on his own, the
answer is in the data I linked to. :(

Dr. B got it now?

Only focused on ranting?

Figured out why the US murder rate has dropped by half since its local
peak in 1980?
And the details of drop?

Can't see the answers or are you avoiding the answers?
Study harder............

cheers
Bob

Gun lobby always wins
 

On Jan 11, 5:45*am, willshak wrote:
DGDevin wrote the following:



"bpuharic" *wrote in message
.. .

Refer to Second Amendment of our Constitution.

written 200 years ago

So were the parts about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the
right to a trial and so on. *Do you figure all the Bill of Rights is
out of date?

Disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun (I have a CCW permit), but....
'Arms' are a little different than they were 224 years ago. At the time,
they only had single shot muzzle loading firearms.
The subject of the other freedoms have not changed as much.



useless today, except for the carnage it causes

The Constitution contains a formula for amending it, so if you don't
like it as written, start a campaign to get it changed. *In the
meantime it is the law, and you don't get to just ignore it the way
the Bush administration figured it could.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

vDisclaimer: I'm not anti-gun (I have a CCW permit), but....
'Arms' are a little different than they were 224 years ago. At the
time,
they only had single shot muzzle loading firearms.
The subject of the other freedoms have not changed as much.

is that so?

Two hundred years ago the village idiot could stand in the town square
& spout nonsense to passersby.

Now we have TV & the internet..........

Gun lobby always wins
 

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 07:43:11 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

General Lee (peace be upon him) surrendered eight months before.


Just a minor correction.

"Robut E. Lee: The finest gentleman who ever drew breath and the
greatest military leader since Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great."

"Robut E. Lee didn't surrender. Grant just stole his sword and Lee
was too much of a gentleman to ast him to give it back."

G

Gun lobby always wins
 

On Jan 14, 2:10*pm, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 07:43:11 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

*General Lee (peace be upon him) surrendered eight months before.

Just a minor correction.

"Robut E. Lee: *The finest gentleman who ever drew breath and the
greatest military leader since Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great."

"Robut E. Lee didn't surrender. *Grant just stole his sword and Lee
was too much of a gentleman to ast him to give it back."

G

SHUT UP ORENTHAL, WE DONT NEED YOUR GAYTARD ACCOUNT OF HISTORY.
YOU TWISTED ABUSIVE OFF TOPIC TROLL.

PAT ECUM

Gun lobby always wins
 

Oren wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 07:43:11 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

General Lee (peace be upon him) surrendered eight months before.


Just a minor correction.

"Robut E. Lee: The finest gentleman who ever drew breath and the
greatest military leader since Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great."

"Robut E. Lee didn't surrender. Grant just stole his sword and Lee
was too much of a gentleman to ast him to give it back."


Yeah. There's a saying about military historians: Amateurs study tactics,
professionals study logistics.

Lee was still commanding a force in excess of 30,000 men with certainly
enough firepower to break through Grant's Union lines and continue the
conflict. The problem was he left most of his supplies behind when he
retreated from Richmond. Later, Lee's remaining supply lines were
effectively cut by General Sheridan's cavalry.

Oh, and Lee did not offer nor did Grant receive, Lee's sword.

Gun lobby always wins
 

On Jan 14, 3:21*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

Oh, and Lee did not offer nor did Grant receive, Lee's sword.

So it's not official then...?

R

Gun lobby always wins
 

DGDevin wrote:

Second, enemy combatants do not get trials. The 6th Amendment
states: "In all CRIMINAL prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the
right to a speedy trial..." Only CRIMINALS get trials, and
combatants, either lawful or unlawful, are not criminals. The 6th
Amendment goes on to say "... by an impartial jury of the State and
district wherein the crime shall have been committed..." So, an
enemy combatant captured in Afghanistan would be tried, according to
you, exactly where?

A captured enemy combatant must be a POW, if he was captured in a war
and he's fighting for the other side then he's an enemy soldier, so
he gets the same treatment any POW is entitled to by treaties the
U.S. has signed.

Absolutely and positively not so. Spies, saboteurs, guerrillas, and the like
are most emphatically NOT soldiers and, if captured on the battlefield, are
NOT entitled to POW status. This has been part of the Rules of Warfare for
millennia and is codified in the various treaties and conventions on the
conduct of war.

But wait, if he's a U.S. citizen who has taken up
arms against the U.S., then he's a traitor, and what do we do with
traitors--we charge them and try them in a court of law. So, which
is it? POW status for foreigners, or court for American citizens?


During WWII literally hundreds of thousands of German and Italian POWs were
confined on U.S. soil and a significant number of them were U.S. citizens
(think dual citizenship). Not a one was tried as a traitor. Further, not a
one ever had access to U.S. civilian courts. (Crimes committed within a POW
camp - theft, murder, etc. - were handled by courts martial.)

Point is, citizenship is irrelevant for POW status, charging as a traitor,
or detention and execution as an unlawful enemy combatant.


In which case they're POWs, and denying them their rights as POWs is
contrary to international law which the U.S. has agreed to uphold. So,
again, which is it?

Why are you having trouble understand that it's not simply one or the other?
There's a completely separate catagory, defined by the Rules of War,
codified in the IV Geneva Convention and the Military Commissions Act of
2006. Those so defined are neither fish nor fowl; they are rodents.

Gun lobby always wins
 

bpuharic wrote:

Here's the latest:
"The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is
moving to require federally licensed firearms retailers to report
multiple sales of modern sporting rifles beginning January 5, 2011

ah. REPORTING

yes, i can see that means they'll immediately start kicking in doors


Yes, they will. If you buy three rifles in one week, the BATF will knock on
your door demanding to know why (think Waco).

Gun lobby always wins
 

Doc wrote:
On Jan 12, 8:04 pm, bpuharic wrote:

No one is making the argument that crime would never happen. You're
ignoring that such an occurrence is very situational. There are no
guarantees but criminals are stopped by armed citizens all the time.

and yet other countries have murder rates orders of magnitude lower
than ours...without guns.


Cite specifics.



Well, there's the Vatican and, er, possibly others. The Swiss Guard does,
however, have long, pointy thingies.

And I know for a fact that the gun homicide rate for Rhodesia, Patagonia,
and British Honduras is very close to zero.

I'm still looking for Shanri-La's homicide rate. I'll report when I find it.

Gun lobby always wins
 

So, so true. Did they have sword control back then? You
know, the right to keep and bear camels shall not be
infringed and all that?

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


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

If you take the good things out of the total, we're much
lower on the
homicide list - we'd move to 64th (below Afghanistan

ah. well that's a GREAT recommendation. afghanistan...a
3rd centruy
theocracy

Actually, Mohammed founded Islam in the 7th Century.
Presumably it took a
while to get to Afghanistan. Before that they were
Democrats, so it wasn't a
big change...

Gun lobby always wins
 

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 14:54:25 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

I'm still looking for Shanri-La's homicide rate. I'll report when I find it.

I patiently await.......

Gun lobby always wins
 

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:05:05 -0600, "
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:08:24 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:33:03 -0600, "
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 05:39:21 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


keep and bear arms. arms are weapons. arms are tools to do sometihing.
they are not a freedom. freedom of speech is, in and of itself, a
freedom. if you own a gun, so what? it's not a freedom.

It sure is! It's the freedom to protect yourself and your property. You
really aren't very bright.

your right stops where it infringes mine. and gun owners are
freeloaders.

You're such a liar.

let's see....billions of dollars are spent in healthcare every year to
gun victims. funeral costs

and gun owners, socialists that they are, pass these costs on to
others.




...though you don't care. What the Constitution says doesn't matter, right?
After all it was written OVER TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO!

yeah and it used to guarantee the right to own slaves...

Wrong! You're nothing but another lefty liar, but that's redundant.

really? then why was the civil war fought?

Economics. You really are a *recent* product of the public schools, aren't
you kid?

HAHAHAHAH economics..the economics of SLAVERY, fool!

you're just a socialist.

Gun lobby always wins
 

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 07:38:25 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

bpuharic wrote:

your right stops where it infringes mine. and gun owners are
freeloaders. they suck up billions and make me pay for it. i'm tired
of the socialist gun owners and their wlefare mentality making me pay
for their failures

...though you don't care. What the Constitution says doesn't
matter, right? After all it was written OVER TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO!

yeah and it used to guarantee the right to own slaves...

Wrong! You're nothing but another lefty liar, but that's redundant.

really? then why was the civil war fought?


The Civil War (we prefer to call it The Recent Unplesantness) was certainly
not fought over the mention of slavery in the Constitution. The word
"Slavery" did NOT appear in the Constitution until after the Second War of
Independence.

it was fought over slavery. the word appears in the constitution of
1787.


As to slavery itself, that wasn't really the issue that caused the conflict,
only the casus belli to feed the masses.

meaningless


There are two proofs for this claim: a) Southern cotton amounted to about
60% of the nation's exports (and 75% of the world's supply). Without that
export trade, the United States would be an economic basket case. b) The
Emancipation Proclamation wasn't issued by Lincoln until the third year of
the conflict and even then the proclamation did not apply to slaves in the
north.

meaningless. the north had generally freed its slaves by the time of
the war. so slavery wasnt needed for healthy economy, even at that
time.

and in the declarations of secession...you HAVE read those,
right?....every state listed SLAVERY as the cause.

oh. you dont read history

Gun lobby always wins
 

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:06:42 -0600, "
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:10:05 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

khOn Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:40:09 -0600, "j
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 05:40:11 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

let's see.... virtually all free countries guarantee those. no country
has the bizarre non sequitur of gun ownership in its constituion. it's
like the right to wear spats.

Then why don't you move to one of those countries, if you're so scared of
guns?

i love it when you gunnies thump your chests...

It's not my chest I'm thumping, kid.

i dont want to know....

You can't feel your chest, kid? You've been thumped, even if you're too
stupid to realize it.

nah. as is typical for a gunnie, you've got lots of hair on your
palms.

You *obviously* don't.

oh. it's outdated

Hardly, liar.

Amendment XIII

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the
United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

and when ws that enacted



It *IS* part of the Constitution, dummy.

gee. it was enacted at the END Of the civil war.

any time you need to be educated, you c'mon by...

Gun lobby always wins
 

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 07:45:49 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 11:03:11 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:


Inasmuch as half or more of these homicides are
gang-bangers killing other gang-bangers, that's a Good Thing(TM).

If you take the good things out of the total, we're much lower on the
homicide list - we'd move to 64th (below Afghanistan

ah. well that's a GREAT recommendation. afghanistan...a 3rd centruy
theocracy

Actually, Mohammed founded Islam in the 7th Century. Presumably it took a
while to get to Afghanistan. Before that they were Democrats, so it wasn't a
big change...



nah, they're religious fanatics...good members of the GOP

Gun lobby always wins
 

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 19:38:36 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:13:10 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


right next to where it says amendments cant be repealed

Hey. You said the 2nd Amendment needed to be repealed.

Which is it? Get specific, can you?

you cant read the constitution?

See! You have no game. Bring something with substance...

You act like a 2 year old, answering a question with a question.

1) Where did you get the idea about Congress "ruling"? From Judge
Wapner?

right next to where you said amendments cant be repealed


2) Why did your turn into a Chameleon, changing colors, when you talk
about "repealing" the 2nd Amendment and then later state it can't be
repealed?

HAHAHAHA i said it cant be repealed as a matter of POLICY. there is
no congressional support for it, you complete moron


3) Don't answer I know the reasons. There are plenty of them.

christ you're stupid

Gun lobby always wins
 

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 07:51:07 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:06:01 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:53:13 -0500, bpuharic
wrote:

ah. let us know about this when you learn about repealing amendments

Sure. Right now. It won't be because Congress conducts a "ruling"!

You never answered my question about where you found that in the
Constitution.

right next to where it says amendments cant be repealed

The word "repeal" does not appear in the Constitution. The word "repealed"
occurs once, viz:

"Amendment 21
" 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United
States is hereby repealed."

thanks for proving my point

Gun lobby always wins
 

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 21:35:38 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Jan 13, 5:15*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:38:21 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:




so you're saying murder isnt a violent crime?

Maybe it's not a gun problem....

care to give your insightful analysis of these US Govt data?

and yet you cant answer why the most heavily armed nation on earth has
the highest murder rate in the west...when you gunnies say this
shouldnt happen

Dr. B, the answer to your question is in the data to which I posted
links.

so let's see. you're saying other countries dont have minorities?

gee. then what about this?

http://www.stefanwolff.com/files/min-eu.pdf

oh. they do.

sorry


I'm waiting for your analysis / comments.
I've read your rants, rhetoric, insults & name calling.

How about some reasoned thought?
Are you capable of it?


golly. the UK has a huge minority population. so does the netherlands

and funny that their gun homicide rate is MUCH lower than ours

ball's in your court

Gun lobby always wins
 

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 14:40:38 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

bpuharic wrote:

Here's the latest:
"The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is
moving to require federally licensed firearms retailers to report
multiple sales of modern sporting rifles beginning January 5, 2011

ah. REPORTING

yes, i can see that means they'll immediately start kicking in doors


Yes, they will. If you buy three rifles in one week, the BATF will knock on
your door demanding to know why (think Waco).


more tin foil hat paranoia

Gun lobby always wins
 

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:47:35 -0600, "
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:49:31 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 19:35:02 -0600, "
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:58:35 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

the US chamber of commerce alone spent over $50M in the last election

How much did the teacher's unions spend?the How much by the trial lawyers? The
Teamsters?...

tell you what. you go he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ll-time_donors

it turns out the chamber of commerce, alone, spent more than the top
labor union did in over 10 years

You're a ****ing liar.

all i did was present the facts

you dont like it? gee. that's too bad

Gun lobby always wins
 

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 06:27:58 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:49:31 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 19:35:02 -0600, "
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:58:35 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

the US chamber of commerce alone spent over $50M in the last election

How much did the teacher's unions spend?the How much by the trial
lawyers? The
Teamsters?...

tell you what. you go he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ll-time_donors

it turns out the chamber of commerce, alone, spent more than the top
labor union did in over 10 years

You're a ****ing liar.


And it isn't until #13 that you get to one that LEANS toward the GOP.
The unions mostly are solidly Dem (meaning around 90%--in real life
probably close to 100%) of the money goes to the Dems.

oh, i'm sorry. i forgot conservatives cant count!

AFSCME spent $40M in 10 years

the US chamber of commerce spent FIFTY MILLION in this last election
alone

oh. you guys can't divide by 10

just use your fingers and toes!!

Gun lobby always wins
 

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:36:12 -0800 (PST), Doc
wrote:

On Jan 12, 8:04*pm, bpuharic wrote:

No one is making the argument that crime would never happen. You're
ignoring that such an occurrence is very situational. There are no
guarantees but criminals are stopped by armed citizens all the time.

and yet other countries have murder rates orders of magnitude lower
than ours...without guns.


Cite specifics.

i did. it's called wikipedia. go look it up yourself


orders of magnitude. *so if guns stop violent crimes...why is our
murder rate so high?


Is murder rate synonymous with murder by gun rate?

the reference has homicide by guns.

And who is
committing these killings? I imagine if one takes an unflinching look
at who is doing the killing a picture will emerge that the politically
correct won't like.

so you think other countries dont have minorities?

http://www.stefanwolff.com/files/min-eu.pdf

sorry. they do.

oh. your racist explanation just blew up in your face

Gun lobby always wins
 

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:31:40 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Jan 14, 6:15*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
bpuharic wrote:

a cliche. if guns arent the problem, why does the most heavilly armed
country on earth have the highest murder rate in the developed world?

you keep dancing around the issue.

Because we have the highest rate of do-bads in the world.

Just think how much worse crime would be if we stopped culling the herd!

Jeeze! The stink-eyes are like beaver teeth - you've got to keep them filed
down or they'll kill you.

Because we have the highest rate of do-bads in the "developed" world.

I was hoping that Dr. B would discover the correlation on his own, the
answer is in the data I linked to. :(

aw, gee. guess he forgot that OTHER countries have minorities

http://www.stefanwolff.com/files/min-eu.pdf

but they dont have a homicide rate anywhere near ours

oh. they were counting on the racist argument.

sorry