Short-term furor over assassination of a Federal judge (!) and
possible murder (hope not!) of a national legislator, along with
murder of a 9-year-old child and other innocents.

Furor will soon die down. Nothing will be done. The gun lobby will
continue to pay off the whores in Congress who defeat every attempt at
REASONABLE regulation with shrill misreadings of the 2nd Amendment.

So assault rifles and other multiple-fire devices will continue to be
sold -- to kill little Bambi in the forest, as the NRA piously
pretends.

And you can still go to a gun show and buy any lethal weapon for sale
no matter if you are a terrorist or "merely" a psychotic killer.

It's so pitifully obvious that the "men" who need lethal weapons to
prove their manhood are really nothing but scared, sick little
children inside.

HB

"Higgs Boson" wrote in message
...
Short-term furor over assassination of a Federal judge (!) and
possible murder (hope not!) of a national legislator, along with
murder of a 9-year-old child and other innocents.

Furor will soon die down. Nothing will be done. The gun lobby will
continue to pay off the whores in Congress who defeat every attempt at
REASONABLE regulation with shrill misreadings of the 2nd Amendment.

So assault rifles and other multiple-fire devices will continue to be
sold -- to kill little Bambi in the forest, as the NRA piously
pretends.

And you can still go to a gun show and buy any lethal weapon for sale
no matter if you are a terrorist or "merely" a psychotic killer.

It's so pitifully obvious that the "men" who need lethal weapons to
prove their manhood are really nothing but scared, sick little
children inside.

HB

Refer to Second Amendment of our Constitution.

What?

Never heard of it?

Figgers.

Now go back to baking cookies, you *******.

Steve

A well armed society is a very polite one.
Things could have been different if the shooter
had been taken out earlier than it took for two
people to tackle him down.
And who would not have the guns with the
regulations you propose? Same as before.

The guy used a semi-automatic. Pull the trigger,
it shoots.

Next time you go to a McDonalds, hope that if
someone starts shooting, a customer will be
armed and know what to do. Because I'll bet
you are neither.

On Jan 10, 5:47*pm, Higgs Boson wrote:
Short-term furor over assassination of a Federal judge (!) and
possible murder (hope not!) of a national legislator, along with
murder of a 9-year-old child and other innocents.

Furor will soon die down. Nothing will be done. * The gun lobby will
continue to pay off the whores in Congress who defeat every attempt at
REASONABLE regulation with shrill misreadings of the 2nd Amendment.

So assault rifles and other multiple-fire devices will continue to be
sold -- to kill little Bambi in the forest, as the NRA piously
pretends.

And you can still go to a gun show and buy any lethal weapon for sale
no matter if you are a terrorist or "merely" a psychotic killer.

It's so pitifully obvious that the "men" who need lethal weapons to
prove their manhood are really nothing but scared, sick little
children inside.

HB

"Michael B" wrote in message
...
A well armed society is a very polite one.
Things could have been different if the shooter
had been taken out earlier than it took for two
people to tackle him down.
And who would not have the guns with the
regulations you propose? Same as before.

The guy used a semi-automatic. Pull the trigger,
it shoots.

Next time you go to a McDonalds, hope that if
someone starts shooting, a customer will be
armed and know what to do.

That is the theory put forth, but unfortunately that concept won't work
either. There will be lots of people with guns that don't know how to use
them, how to shoot without taking out bystanders, and using them in anger --
as we see street gangs doing.

In my area we have "licensed drivers" who should know how to drive a car,
they do drive cars, but have no concept of how to drive them in snow, which
we have lots of. They don't think that you cannot cut in between two other
cars or pull out in front of other moving cars or make sharp turns.

The theory for drivers, just like gun owners, is that they will know how and
what to do in all situations, but they just don't know and the result is
disaster. More guns will make more disasters, just as more car drivers
create more disasters on the roads.

On Jan 10, 2:47*pm, Higgs Boson wrote:
It's so pitifully obvious that the "men" who need lethal weapons to

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one
who is responsible for the lives of others.

I'm responsible not only defending my own life, but also the life of
my family. I cannot do that with a pointy stick.

"Michael B" wrote in message
...
A well armed society is a very polite one.
Things could have been different if the shooter
had been taken out earlier than it took for two
people to tackle him down.
And who would not have the guns with the
regulations you propose? Same as before.

The guy used a semi-automatic. Pull the trigger,
it shoots.

Next time you go to a McDonalds, hope that if
someone starts shooting, a customer will be
armed and know what to do. Because I'll bet
you are neither.

On Jan 10, 5:47 pm, Higgs Boson wrote:
Short-term furor over assassination of a Federal judge (!) and
possible murder (hope not!) of a national legislator, along with
murder of a 9-year-old child and other innocents.

Furor will soon die down. Nothing will be done. The gun lobby will
continue to pay off the whores in Congress who defeat every attempt at
REASONABLE regulation with shrill misreadings of the 2nd Amendment.

So assault rifles and other multiple-fire devices will continue to be
sold -- to kill little Bambi in the forest, as the NRA piously
pretends.

And you can still go to a gun show and buy any lethal weapon for sale
no matter if you are a terrorist or "merely" a psychotic killer.

It's so pitifully obvious that the "men" who need lethal weapons to
prove their manhood are really nothing but scared, sick little
children inside.

HB

Higgs is a fuzzy feel good liberal. I don't think he's ever been in a
critical situation.

In fact, I believe from his warm and fuzzy illogical postings that he still
lives in his parent's basement. Probably hasn't ever been out of his state
in his life.

Steve

Higgs Boson wrote:
Short-term furor over assassination of a Federal judge (!) and
possible murder (hope not!) of a national legislator, along with
murder of a 9-year-old child and other innocents.

Furor will soon die down. Nothing will be done. The gun lobby will
continue to pay off the whores in Congress who defeat every attempt at
REASONABLE regulation with shrill misreadings of the 2nd Amendment.

So assault rifles and other multiple-fire devices will continue to be
sold -- to kill little Bambi in the forest, as the NRA piously
pretends.

And you can still go to a gun show and buy any lethal weapon for sale
no matter if you are a terrorist or "merely" a psychotic killer.

It's so pitifully obvious that the "men" who need lethal weapons to
prove their manhood are really nothing but scared, sick little
children inside.

Ban guns like we ban drugs? BAAAHHHHAHAHAHA.


HB


--
LSMFT

Simple job, assist the assistant of the physicist.

Higgs Boson wrote:

I hope you'll permit a few modest corrections:


So assault rifles and other multiple-fire devices will continue to be
sold -- to kill little Bambi in the forest, as the NRA piously
pretends.

If, by "multiple fire" weapon, you mean "fully automatic," to buy one, you
must supply fingerprints to the FBI, pass a background check, fill out a
long BATF form, get permission to buy the weapon from the head of your local
law enforcement agency, and pay a substantial tax. Further, the
lowest-priced Class III weapon I've seen lately starts at around $4,000.00.
None have been manufactured for sale to the general public since 1986, nor
have any been imported. If, on the other hand, by "multiple-fire" devices
you mean a weapon that fires once for each trigger pull, you're right. Those
can be bought and have been since the early 1800s.


And you can still go to a gun show and buy any lethal weapon for sale
no matter if you are a terrorist or "merely" a psychotic killer.

Um, sort of. There are two kinds of sellers at a gun show: Federal Firearm
Licensed dealers and individuals.

It is true that a psychotic or terrorist can buy a weapons from a FFL
dealer - gun show or not - if he passes the federal background check (and
has the money). Major Hassan (a terrorist) and Jared Loughner (a whacko)
certainly did. It is also true that a psychotic or terrorist can buy a
weapon from an individual, whether at a gun show or from next door neighbor,
although I can't think of a case where either has done so and gone on to
commit a horrific crime.

At a gun show, there is no difference between an individual who pays $75 for
a "table" to sell, say, six guns he recently inherited and the individual
walking around with an AR-15 sporting a sign "For Sale - $1200.


It's so pitifully obvious that the "men" who need lethal weapons to
prove their manhood are really nothing but scared, sick little
children inside.


I admit there are some who fit that description. Others who need to feel
good about themselves own "muscle cars" or "hogs" or 'six-pack abs," but
itt's not the OWNERSHIP that's a problem. And I don't think psychotics or
terrorists are intent on proving anything - they're simply obeying the
voices in their head (or from the pulpit).

Short-term furor over assassination of a Federal judge (!) and
possible murder (hope not!) of a national legislator, along with
murder of a 9-year-old child and other innocents.

Furor will soon die down. Nothing will be done. The gun lobby will
continue to pay off the whores in Congress who defeat every attempt at
REASONABLE regulation with shrill misreadings of the 2nd Amendment.

One can only hope that nothing will be done in the emotion of the moment. To
paraphrase a legal maxim "Bad situations make bad laws."

As for "shrill misreadings" of the 2nd Amendment, I'm with you there.
Neither you nor I get to define what the 2nd Amendment means. The Supreme
Court is the final arbiter and the court said: a) The business about the
"militia" is so much dross and has no effect, and b) The Amendment asserts
an "individual" right to own a gun.

Michael B wrote:
A well armed society is a very polite one.
Things could have been different if the shooter
had been taken out earlier than it took for two
people to tackle him down.
And who would not have the guns with the
regulations you propose? Same as before.

The guy used a semi-automatic. Pull the trigger,
it shoots.

Next time you go to a McDonalds, hope that if
someone starts shooting, a customer will be
armed and know what to do. Because I'll bet
you are neither.


He doesn't have to wait for something that may never happen.

He could put a sign in his front yard: "There are no guns in this house."

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:00:04 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Higgs Boson" wrote in message
...
Short-term furor over assassination of a Federal judge (!) and
possible murder (hope not!) of a national legislator, along with
murder of a 9-year-old child and other innocents.

Furor will soon die down. Nothing will be done. The gun lobby will
continue to pay off the whores in Congress who defeat every attempt at
REASONABLE regulation with shrill misreadings of the 2nd Amendment.

So assault rifles and other multiple-fire devices will continue to be
sold -- to kill little Bambi in the forest, as the NRA piously
pretends.

And you can still go to a gun show and buy any lethal weapon for sale
no matter if you are a terrorist or "merely" a psychotic killer.

It's so pitifully obvious that the "men" who need lethal weapons to
prove their manhood are really nothing but scared, sick little
children inside.

HB

Refer to Second Amendment of our Constitution.

written 200 years ago

useless today, except for the carnage it causes

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:08:32 -0500, LSMFT wrote:

Higgs Boson wrote:
Short-term furor over assassination of a Federal judge (!) and
possible murder (hope not!) of a national legislator, along with
murder of a 9-year-old child and other innocents.

Furor will soon die down. Nothing will be done. The gun lobby will
continue to pay off the whores in Congress who defeat every attempt at
REASONABLE regulation with shrill misreadings of the 2nd Amendment.

So assault rifles and other multiple-fire devices will continue to be
sold -- to kill little Bambi in the forest, as the NRA piously
pretends.

And you can still go to a gun show and buy any lethal weapon for sale
no matter if you are a terrorist or "merely" a psychotic killer.

It's so pitifully obvious that the "men" who need lethal weapons to
prove their manhood are really nothing but scared, sick little
children inside.

Ban guns like we ban drugs? BAAAHHHHAHAHAHA.

people inject guns?

who knew!



HB

On 1/10/2011 3:48 PM mike spake thus:

On Jan 10, 2:47 pm, Higgs Boson wrote:

It's so pitifully obvious that the "men" who need lethal weapons
to

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one
who is responsible for the lives of others.

I'm responsible not only defending my own life, but also the life of
my family. I cannot do that with a pointy stick.

I'm sure as you write that you feel all noble and manly and stuff, but
to me it just makes you sound like a caveman.

What are the police, chopped liver?


--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:36:39 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:00:04 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Higgs Boson" wrote in message
...
Short-term furor over assassination of a Federal judge (!) and
possible murder (hope not!) of a national legislator, along with
murder of a 9-year-old child and other innocents.

Furor will soon die down. Nothing will be done. The gun lobby will
continue to pay off the whores in Congress who defeat every attempt at
REASONABLE regulation with shrill misreadings of the 2nd Amendment.

So assault rifles and other multiple-fire devices will continue to be
sold -- to kill little Bambi in the forest, as the NRA piously
pretends.

And you can still go to a gun show and buy any lethal weapon for sale
no matter if you are a terrorist or "merely" a psychotic killer.

It's so pitifully obvious that the "men" who need lethal weapons to
prove their manhood are really nothing but scared, sick little
children inside.

HB

Refer to Second Amendment of our Constitution.

written 200 years ago

useless today, except for the carnage it causes

Another leftist loon who demands his own version of the Constitution.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 18:27:29 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

Michael B wrote:
A well armed society is a very polite one.
Things could have been different if the shooter
had been taken out earlier than it took for two
people to tackle him down.
And who would not have the guns with the
regulations you propose? Same as before.

The guy used a semi-automatic. Pull the trigger,
it shoots.

Next time you go to a McDonalds, hope that if
someone starts shooting, a customer will be
armed and know what to do. Because I'll bet
you are neither.


He doesn't have to wait for something that may never happen.

He could put a sign in his front yard: "There are no guns in this house."

His neighbor should put the "no guns in the house next door" sign out.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:44:21 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 1/10/2011 3:48 PM mike spake thus:

On Jan 10, 2:47 pm, Higgs Boson wrote:

It's so pitifully obvious that the "men" who need lethal weapons
to

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one
who is responsible for the lives of others.

I'm responsible not only defending my own life, but also the life of
my family. I cannot do that with a pointy stick.

I'm sure as you write that you feel all noble and manly and stuff, but
to me it just makes you sound like a caveman.

What are the police, chopped liver?

They are *NOT* required to save your life. Only you have that responsibility.
That a good thing because you're there, they aren't.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:36:39 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

Refer to Second Amendment of our Constitution.

written 200 years ago

useless today, except for the carnage it causes

shaking my head

Spoken like a true fire breathing liberal. How old are you?

Our Nevada State Constitution also has a Second Amendment. I'm not
sure about other states.

See: (SCOTUS)

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...mbia_v._Heller

and

"McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___ (2010), was a landmark[1] decision
of the Supreme Court of the United States on the issue of gun rights.
The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms"
protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is
incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and
applies to the states..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

Note the word "incorporated"

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:47:17 -0800 (PST), Higgs Boson
wrote:

Furor will soon die down. Nothing will be done. The gun lobby will
continue to pay off the whores in Congress who defeat every attempt at
REASONABLE regulation with shrill misreadings of the 2nd Amendment.

I'll ask you this: Why is there so little regulation government
interference in the manufacturing of guns in the U.S.?

I have an idea about this but want to know from you.

My idea: Politicians don't want to step into that swamp of Quicksand.

They may have to get a real job if they even suggest such a notion :-/

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:44:21 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 1/10/2011 3:48 PM mike spake thus:

On Jan 10, 2:47 pm, Higgs Boson wrote:

It's so pitifully obvious that the "men" who need lethal weapons
to

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one
who is responsible for the lives of others.

I'm responsible not only defending my own life, but also the life of
my family. I cannot do that with a pointy stick.

I'm sure as you write that you feel all noble and manly and stuff, but
to me it just makes you sound like a caveman.

What are the police, chopped liver?

No. Mass consumers of donuts is what they are.

"Higgs Boson" wrote in message
...

Furor will soon die down. Nothing will be done. The gun lobby will
continue to pay off the whores in Congress who defeat every attempt at
REASONABLE regulation with shrill misreadings of the 2nd Amendment.

The gun lobby doesn't have to pay off the whores in Congress, that lobby is
effective because it is supported by the votes of many millions of
Americans. If you dont like how representative democracy works, you could
always move to North Korea.

And you can still go to a gun show and buy any lethal weapon for sale
no matter if you are a terrorist or "merely" a psychotic killer.

That's a bit silly.

It's so pitifully obvious that the "men" who need lethal weapons to
prove their manhood are really nothing but scared, sick little
children inside.

I know two civilians who used firearms to defend themselves against violent
criminals, in one case without firing a shot, and in one case the person
holding the gun was female and a direct ancestor of mine. Depending on
whether you believe the DOJ or the NRA, somewhere between 1.5 and 2 million
times a year someone in America uses a firearm defensively. Who are you to
tell those people they have no right to self-defense?

"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?

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.

On 1/10/2011 7:44 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 1/10/2011 3:48 PM mike spake thus:

On Jan 10, 2:47 pm, Higgs Boson wrote:

It's so pitifully obvious that the "men" who need lethal weapons
to

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one
who is responsible for the lives of others.

I'm responsible not only defending my own life, but also the life of
my family. I cannot do that with a pointy stick.

I'm sure as you write that you feel all noble and manly and stuff, but
to me it just makes you sound like a caveman.

What are the police, chopped liver?


Anywhere between 5 and 20 minutes away around here. Of course, in this
township, there are only about 20 of them, 6 or so per shift. And they
are also the firemen, so if a barn is burning down, or the weather is
bad and there are several car wrecks, well, they will be by in the
morning to fill out the paperwork.

Disclaimer- I'm no gun nut. But 60-odd years ago, my family had to move
halfway around the world because the general population where they lived
didn't have guns. Discretion being the better part of valor, I picked a
low-crime area to move to (versus the apartments I used to live in), and
I avoid the parts of town where packing a gun 'proves' manhood. I hope I
never have any reason to use a gun against a living creature, even some
criminal scum. But I will not be prey for harvesting.

BTW, in comment on a previous post, look up the US Code definition of
'militia'. It doesn't mean the national guard. It means all able-bodied
adults. Originally just the males, but now females are included as well.
In the context of that now-obscure definition, and the similarly old
definition of 'well regulated', the 2nd makes perfect sense as written.

--
aem sends...

Actually, every bit as relevant, now. The RKBA is so that
the citizens can defend themselves against government gone
bad.

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


"bpuharic" wrote in message
...


Refer to Second Amendment of our Constitution.

written 200 years ago

useless today, except for the carnage it causes

People respect gun laws, like they respect laws that say
it's illegal to shoot at people. Laws against murder don't
seem to slow down the murder rate.

What slows down murder rate is more gun ownership. It seems
a paradox. There was a fellow who studied that. "Klek" was
his name. Kleck? Gary, was it? My memory is failing.

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


"bpuharic" wrote in message
...


Ban guns like we ban drugs? BAAAHHHHAHAHAHA.

people inject guns?

who knew!

Police are those who show up after the shooting stopped.
(For example, at the mass shooting at Virgina Tech.) In that
case, the police are too little, too late.

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


"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...


Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave
duty for one
who is responsible for the lives of others.

I'm responsible not only defending my own life, but also
the life of
my family. I cannot do that with a pointy stick.

I'm sure as you write that you feel all noble and manly and
stuff, but
to me it just makes you sound like a caveman.

What are the police, chopped liver?

On Jan 10, 9:47*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
People respect gun laws, like they respect laws that say
it's illegal to shoot at people. Laws against murder don't
seem to slow down the murder rate.

What slows down murder rate is more gun ownership. It seems
a paradox. There was a fellow who studied that. "Klek" was
his name. Kleck? Gary, was it? My memory is failing.

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

"bpuharic" wrote in message

...



Ban guns like we ban drugs? *BAAAHHHHAHAHAHA.

people inject guns?

who knew!

THAT IS WHY I AM PACKING A DISINTEGRATOR INSTEAD.

PATECUM

On 1/10/2011 7:36 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:00:04 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Higgs wrote in message
...
Short-term furor over assassination of a Federal judge (!) and
possible murder (hope not!) of a national legislator, along with
murder of a 9-year-old child and other innocents.

Furor will soon die down. Nothing will be done. The gun lobby will
continue to pay off the whores in Congress who defeat every attempt at
REASONABLE regulation with shrill misreadings of the 2nd Amendment.

So assault rifles and other multiple-fire devices will continue to be
sold -- to kill little Bambi in the forest, as the NRA piously
pretends.

And you can still go to a gun show and buy any lethal weapon for sale
no matter if you are a terrorist or "merely" a psychotic killer.

It's so pitifully obvious that the "men" who need lethal weapons to
prove their manhood are really nothing but scared, sick little
children inside.

HB

Refer to Second Amendment of our Constitution.

written 200 years ago

useless today, except for the carnage it causes
It doesn't cause anything. We did not give government the ability to
take away our Rights. The right to own and bear arms is ours not
government's privledge to be granted.
We retain the right to have the means to protect ourselves with firearms
or whatever we damned well please.
What your kind wants is to shackle everyone except you.
All the bans or laws, over history have not stopped violence.
There will be violence til the end of mankind.
We reserve the individual right to be able to protect me from it.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 21:47:29 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

People respect gun laws, like they respect laws that say
it's illegal to shoot at people. Laws against murder don't
seem to slow down the murder rate.

What slows down murder rate is more gun ownership. It seems
a paradox. There was a fellow who studied that. "Klek" was
his name. Kleck? Gary, was it? My memory is failing.

Gary Kleck:
http://www.amazon.com/Targeting-Guns...4717274&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Armed-New-Pers...4717126&sr=8-3

John Lott:
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less...4717126&sr=8-1

On Jan 10, 3:29*pm, Michael B wrote:
A well armed society is a very polite one.
Things could have been different if the shooter
had been taken out earlier than it took for two
people to tackle him down.
And who would not have the guns with the
regulations you propose? Same as before.

The guy used a semi-automatic. Pull the trigger,
it shoots.

Next time you go to a McDonalds, hope that if
someone starts shooting, a customer will be
armed and know what to do. Because I'll bet
you are neither.


Indeed...

One of Representative Gifford's interns, a young fellow (unarmed), he
looked for personal safety when the shooting started

An interview with a different young fellow (with a concealed carry)
headed towards the shooting but never drew his weapon.
By the time he got close, bystanders (unarmed) had tackled the
shooter.

The shooter was a loose nut, acting strangely of a VERY long time. He
was kicked out of community college.
Campus admin & police met with him and his parents....... no re-admit
until he got clearance from a mental health professionals.

Sounds very similar to the incident at VPI.

Why are there seldom (never?) these types of shootings at a gun show,
pawn shop or police station?
Because the shooters might be crazy but they're not stupid.

cheers
Bob

On Jan 10, 3:47*pm, "EXT" wrote:
"Michael B" wrote in message

...

A well armed society is a very polite one.
Things could have been different if the shooter
had been taken out earlier than it took for two
people to tackle him down.
And who would not have the guns with the
regulations you propose? Same as before.

The guy used a semi-automatic. Pull the trigger,
it shoots.

Next time you go to a McDonalds, hope that if
someone starts shooting, a customer will be
armed and know what to do.

That is the theory put forth, but unfortunately that concept won't work
either. There will be lots of people with guns that don't know how to use
them, how to shoot without taking out bystanders, and using them in anger -- *
as we see street gangs doing.

In my area we have "licensed drivers" who should know how to drive a car,
they do drive cars, but have no concept of how to drive them in snow, which
we have lots of. They don't think that you cannot cut in between two other
cars or pull out in front of other moving cars or make sharp turns.

The theory for drivers, just like gun owners, is that they will know how and
what to do in all situations, but they just don't know and the result is
disaster. More guns will make more disasters, just as more car drivers
create more disasters on the roads.


Your analogy is off the mark. Increased CCW has not resulted in
"more disasters".

Check the FBI's data.... I'll put my money on the armed citizen.
They kill more bad guys than the police and they kill fewer "good
guys" by mistake.

The reason being..... they typically have better situational intel,
they are there from start to finish and know the good guys from the
bad guys.
The police arrive on scene and if the shooting has already started
have very time to assess the situation.

"Lil Abner" wrote in message
...
On 1/10/2011 7:36 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:00:04 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Higgs wrote in message
...
Short-term furor over assassination of a Federal judge (!) and
possible murder (hope not!) of a national legislator, along with
murder of a 9-year-old child and other innocents.

Furor will soon die down. Nothing will be done. The gun lobby will
continue to pay off the whores in Congress who defeat every attempt at
REASONABLE regulation with shrill misreadings of the 2nd Amendment.

So assault rifles and other multiple-fire devices will continue to be
sold -- to kill little Bambi in the forest, as the NRA piously
pretends.

And you can still go to a gun show and buy any lethal weapon for sale
no matter if you are a terrorist or "merely" a psychotic killer.

It's so pitifully obvious that the "men" who need lethal weapons to
prove their manhood are really nothing but scared, sick little
children inside.

HB

Refer to Second Amendment of our Constitution.

written 200 years ago

useless today, except for the carnage it causes
It doesn't cause anything. We did not give government the ability to take
away our Rights. The right to own and bear arms is ours not government's
privledge to be granted.
We retain the right to have the means to protect ourselves with firearms
or whatever we damned well please.
What your kind wants is to shackle everyone except you.
All the bans or laws, over history have not stopped violence.
There will be violence til the end of mankind.
We reserve the individual right to be able to protect me from it.

One by one, our rights are threatened. At the current time, we are
threatened by people who want to take our guns and right to free speech
away. They want to limit what we can say and where we can say it.

Steve

On Jan 10, 4:44*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 1/10/2011 3:48 PM mike spake thus:

On Jan 10, 2:47 pm, Higgs Boson wrote:

It's so pitifully obvious that the "men" who need lethal weapons
to

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one
who is responsible for the lives of others.

I'm responsible not only defending my own life, but also the life of
my family. *I cannot do that with a pointy stick.

I'm sure as you write that you feel all noble and manly and stuff, but
to me it just makes you sound like a caveman.

What are the police, chopped liver?



The police have no duty to protect any of us as individuals, only a
generalized duty to protect society.
As such they cannot be held responsible for harm caused by their
failure to act.
The LAPD certainly did a wonder job in BOTH of the LA riots in my life
time.

Sounds like your place of residence needs a sign....

To whom it may concern, there are no firearms in this residence.

"mike" wrote

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one
who is responsible for the lives of others.

I'm responsible not only defending my own life, but also the life of
my family. I cannot do that with a pointy stick.

reply: My daughter was being threatened by gang girls in her junior year in
high school. For the last three months of the school year, we home schooled
her. Then for her final year, she went to a new satellite school for
talented students.

When I went to police and school officials and told them of the threats to
her, they said, "If the girls do anything to her, they will be in trouble."
Excuse me. Do I have to wait until she is maimed or killed before you will
do anything? Apparently so.

There were two girls. The brother of one was killed by a homeowner in a
home invasion. The brother of the other was killed at a convenience store
in a drive-by. They were serious gangsters.

At times, you can not defend yourself without letting the perpetrators
injure you. And, as with the Arizona shooter, there is nothing that police
or teachers or the system can or will do to the perpetrator who is
terrorizing people and acting a jerk.

But, boy, once they kill some people, now they're in trouble!

Trouble is that people are unnecessarily dead.

Steve

On Jan 11, 12:33*am, "Steve B" wrote:

One by one, our rights are threatened. *At the current time, we are
threatened by people who want to take our guns and right to free speech
away. *They want to limit what we can say and where we can say it.

Rights are always threatened. You see the problem is that rights are
not inalienable, whether people use the adjective or not. Your rights
have to be exercised and defended. All of them - not just owning
guns.

People used to have to check their guns at the door when they went
into a saloon. Why would that be if everyone were carrying guns? I
mean, everyone having guns makes it safe, right?

http://mainecampus.com/2010/02/15/ch...s-at-the-door/
I pretty much agree with everything in that article. How do you feel
about it?

When the "government" comes for you they won't be restricting
themselves to handguns and rifles. They've got planes, tanks and the
Bomb, not to mention chemical weapons, drones, etc., etc. But they
won't need to resort to that, as they control food, water and power
supplies. I suppose if you were that concerned about it you could
remove yourself to a place where you would have some control over your
food, water and power, but that could never be complete, could it?
Me? I weigh the odds, figure out if there's something I can do about
it, and if not, well, I go about my business and don't worry about it.

R

On Jan 10, 5:47*pm, Higgs Boson wrote:
Short-term furor over assassination of a Federal judge (!) and
possible murder (hope not!) of a national legislator, along with
murder of a 9-year-old child and other innocents.

Furor will soon die down. Nothing will be done. *

So assault rifles and other multiple-fire devices will continue to be
sold -- to kill little Bambi in the forest, as the NRA piously
pretends.


While it's not exactly clear to me why anyone actually *needs*
automatic and assault weapons, that wasn't the problem here nor is it
ever. The problem also isn't heated political rhetoric which for some
reason seems to be getting lots of press in this incident. There are
lots of people who are really angry at government or at specific
legislators, most of them don't go on a killing rampage.

The problem is a mentally unstable person who committed a violent act.
What do you propose be "done" about it? A determined attacker could
probably have done a similar amount of damage with a hunting knife.
Look how many people John Hinckley took down with a dinky .22 and in
the presence of heavily armed, highly trained bodyguards who were
there specifically to deter such an act.

Loughner could have just as easily set off a homemade bomb or 3. He
could have had a shotgun or run into the crowd with an SUV. Trite but
true - guns don't kill people, people kill people.

On Jan 10, 9:47*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

People respect gun laws, like they respect laws that say
it's illegal to shoot at people. Laws against murder don't
seem to slow down the murder rate.

What slows down murder rate is more gun ownership. It seems
a paradox. There was a fellow who studied that. "Klek" was
his name. Kleck? Gary, was it? My memory is failing.

We've noticed. ~

As far as guns bringing down the murder rate, I don't think it's as
simple as that. There was one murder in my hometown (population
around 9,000) in something like the past forty years. The woman was
shot by, of course, her husband. I now live one town over and I can
honestly say I don't know who the closest person that owns a gun is.
I wouldn't be surprised if it were ten blocks away, and I wouldn't be
surprised if it were next door. It's not an issue and not a concern.
I'm far more concerned about someone being killed with a bottle and a
car than a gun. YMMV.

R

In article
,
Higgs Boson wrote:

BUNCH OF ****ING **** WHICH I DID NOT READ BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE
JACK ****ING **** TO DO WITH HOME REPAIR.

HB

WHAT THE ****ING **** DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH HOME REPAIR, YOU ****ING
DICKWAD? WHEN WILL YOU AND THE 32 MORONS WHO RESPONDED JUST STFU ??????

On Jan 11, 1:35*am, RicodJour wrote:
On Jan 10, 9:47*pm, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:

People respect gun laws, like they respect laws that say
it's illegal to shoot at people. Laws against murder don't
seem to slow down the murder rate.

What slows down murder rate is more gun ownership. It seems
a paradox. There was a fellow who studied that. "Klek" was
his name. Kleck? Gary, was it? My memory is failing.

We've noticed. *~

As far as guns bringing down the murder rate, I don't think it's as
simple as that. *There was one murder in my hometown (population
around 9,000) in something like the past forty years. *The woman was
shot by, of course, her husband. *I now live one town over and I can
honestly say I don't know who the closest person that owns a gun is.
I wouldn't be surprised if it were ten blocks away, and I wouldn't be
surprised if it were next door. *It's not an issue and not a concern.
I'm far more concerned about someone being killed with a bottle and a
car than a gun. *YMMV.

R

THE ENTIRE PREMISE IS ABSURD, YOU CANNOT CONTROL KILLING WITH A DEATH
MACHINE., ALL YOU DO IS BECOME A PROVEYOR OF DEATH YOURSELF.
PERHAPS GUNS CAN DETER CRIME AND SUCH ABUSES BUT ONLY IF THEY ARE IN
THE RIGHT HANDS, THEREFOR THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS LAWFUL AND
SUPPORTED BY THE INNOCENT MASSES...OTHER WISE IT IS JUST A PRESCIPTION
FOR DEATH.
I KNOW IT SOUNDS DEEP, BUT THE BEST POLITICIAN THE SCHOOL OF NO
MURDERS HAS IS NOT OF THE FLESH.
WHY PREPARE TO KILL, IF YOU ARE AGAINST DEATH BY ANY MEANS? IT IS
BOUND TO FAIL ITS OWN GUARANTEE.

PEOPLE MUST APPLY A BETTER SOLUTION THAN WEAPONS EVOLUTION AND
POSSESSION.

THE GUN LOBBY MUST LOSE OR THEY TO WILL BE BOUND TO DEATH., NOT LIFE,
LOVE AND TRUTH.
ANYONE WHO ARGUES DIFFERENT JUST WANTS TO PACK HEAT IN FEAR OF THE
UNKOWN WHAT IFs.
SO LICENSES WILL CONTINUE TO BE ISSUED.
SADLY, Disenfranchised elements will seek out their own protection.
WHERE HONOR PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE, FAITH IS A LUXURY THE POOR CAN
AFFORD.
PATECUM+

On Jan 11, 1:59*am, Smitty Two wrote:

BUNCH OF ****ING **** WHICH I DID NOT READ BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE
JACK ****ING **** TO DO WITH HOME REPAIR.


Gee, you sound really angry. You're not going to go on a shooting
spree are you?


WHEN WILL YOU AND THE 32 MORONS WHO RESPONDED


Including yourself of course...

On Jan 11, 1:59*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,
*Higgs Boson wrote:

BUNCH OF ****ING **** WHICH I DID NOT READ BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE
JACK ****ING **** TO DO WITH HOME REPAIR.

HB

WHAT THE ****ING **** DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH HOME REPAIR, YOU ****ING
DICKWAD? WHEN WILL YOU AND THE 32 MORONS WHO RESPONDED JUST STFU ??????

SMITTY TWO TWO MIND YOUR MANNERS....DO YOU EVEN OWN A HOME? OR A GUN?
YOU MORON, YOU ACTING LIKE AN UNSTABLE INTOLERANT IDIOT IS JUST WHAT
THEY WANT AS AN EXCUSE.
WHATEVER YOU DO DON'T GET A GUN...NOR A HOME.

YOU CAN KEEP THE STUPID OFF TOPIC POSTING TURD THAT POSTED THIS ON
YOUR **** LIST, BUT DONT MESS WITH THE OTHERS.....THEY OUT NUMBER
YOU.

PAT ECUM

In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote:

O

What are the police, chopped liver?

They are usually too far away to get there in time.

--
"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