Harry K wrote:

Ooooo
did I touch
your panties
all wadded up again.

How about you come back in about 20 years when you're all grown up and
ready to have an adult conversation.

On 11/27/2011 11:49 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 11/27/2011 12:40 PM, harry wrote:
On Nov 27, 3:01 pm, Red wrote:
Home wrote :





READSBORO — State police say a Vermont hunter shot a friend who was
tracking a deer and then killed himself after realizing his friend was
dead.

Sgt. Albert Abdelnour says three men were hunting midday Saturday in
southwestern Vermont when 39-year-old Benjamin Birch, of Readsboro,
shot a deer. The injured deer ran, and Birch and the two other men
chased after it.

Police say 49-year-old Timothy Bolognani, of Readsboro, then fired a
shot and heard Birch cry out. Bolognani and the third man found Birch
injured from the gunshot, and he died.

Abdelnour says a "distraught" Bolognani then used his rifle to kill
himself.

An autopsy will be conducted on the two bodies. State police say there
is no evidence of foul play.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/a...7/111127001/Co
ps-Upset-Vermont-hunter-kills-self-after-pal-killed

---------------

At least they're taking themselves out, one gun owner at a time (or in
this case, two).

If it wasn't from hunting deer, it would be the impending global
financial crash and resulting economic turmoil. Those in the US that
will be pushed over the financial edge will resort to the handgun
under their mattress as they exit themselves (and their families) from
this earthly stage.

It's a requirement here in VT now. Budget crisis has no money to
investigate or prosecute. Tew rule is if you shoot your buddy then you
must do in yourself.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah well. They got to know how the deer feels.

So you're a vegetarian, then, I assume?

nate


I eat vegetarians. ^_^

TDD

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 10:33:09 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote Re Ah, the enjoyment of gun ownership and use...:

On 11/27/2011 10:08 AM, notbob wrote:
On 2011-11-27, Nate wrote:

Oh eat me. This is a truly sad story and your politicizing it makes you
just look like an asshole.

What a co-winkydink. Acting like an asshole makes YOU look jes like
an asshole.

If that was aimed at me, show me where I've acted like an asshole.

Hint: calling some mean-spirited idiot lowlife an asshole is not "acting
like an asshole." The world would be a nicer place if people weren't
afraid to stop every now and then and say "hey, man, that's not cool,
knock it off."

nate

Well said Nate.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

Stormin Mormon wrote:
In that case, it's homicide, pretty clearly so.

It was always homicide. Homicide is not always murder. Homicide could be the
execution of a prisoner under a lawful warrant or the killing of an enemy
soldier in time of war. Homicide could be killing in self defense or via
drunk driving. Homicide could result from a mistake on the operating table.

"Homicide" is the killing of one human being by the act or omission of
another and is NOT, per se, a violation of law.

On 11/27/2011 12:49 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 11/27/2011 12:40 PM, harry wrote:
On Nov 27, 3:01 pm, Red wrote:
Home wrote :





READSBORO — State police say a Vermont hunter shot a friend who was
tracking a deer and then killed himself after realizing his friend was
dead.

Sgt. Albert Abdelnour says three men were hunting midday Saturday in
southwestern Vermont when 39-year-old Benjamin Birch, of Readsboro,
shot a deer. The injured deer ran, and Birch and the two other men
chased after it.

Police say 49-year-old Timothy Bolognani, of Readsboro, then fired a
shot and heard Birch cry out. Bolognani and the third man found Birch
injured from the gunshot, and he died.

Abdelnour says a "distraught" Bolognani then used his rifle to kill
himself.

An autopsy will be conducted on the two bodies. State police say there
is no evidence of foul play.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/a...7/111127001/Co
ps-Upset-Vermont-hunter-kills-self-after-pal-killed

---------------

At least they're taking themselves out, one gun owner at a time (or in
this case, two).

If it wasn't from hunting deer, it would be the impending global
financial crash and resulting economic turmoil. Those in the US that
will be pushed over the financial edge will resort to the handgun
under their mattress as they exit themselves (and their families) from
this earthly stage.

It's a requirement here in VT now. Budget crisis has no money to
investigate or prosecute. Tew rule is if you shoot your buddy then you
must do in yourself.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah well. They got to know how the deer feels.

So you're a vegetarian, then, I assume?

nate

Probably not but most Brits are pansies when it comes to "blood sport"

On 11/28/2011 6:34 AM, Frank wrote:
On 11/27/2011 12:49 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 11/27/2011 12:40 PM, harry wrote:
On Nov 27, 3:01 pm, Red wrote:
Home wrote :





READSBORO — State police say a Vermont hunter shot a friend who was
tracking a deer and then killed himself after realizing his friend was
dead.

Sgt. Albert Abdelnour says three men were hunting midday Saturday in
southwestern Vermont when 39-year-old Benjamin Birch, of Readsboro,
shot a deer. The injured deer ran, and Birch and the two other men
chased after it.

Police say 49-year-old Timothy Bolognani, of Readsboro, then fired a
shot and heard Birch cry out. Bolognani and the third man found Birch
injured from the gunshot, and he died.

Abdelnour says a "distraught" Bolognani then used his rifle to kill
himself.

An autopsy will be conducted on the two bodies. State police say there
is no evidence of foul play.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/a...7/111127001/Co

ps-Upset-Vermont-hunter-kills-self-after-pal-killed

---------------

At least they're taking themselves out, one gun owner at a time (or in
this case, two).

If it wasn't from hunting deer, it would be the impending global
financial crash and resulting economic turmoil. Those in the US that
will be pushed over the financial edge will resort to the handgun
under their mattress as they exit themselves (and their families) from
this earthly stage.

It's a requirement here in VT now. Budget crisis has no money to
investigate or prosecute. Tew rule is if you shoot your buddy then you
must do in yourself.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah well. They got to know how the deer feels.

So you're a vegetarian, then, I assume?

nate

Probably not but most Brits are pansies when it comes to "blood sport"

The elite were quite big on fox hunts but I think the critter huggers
got them banned. ^_^

TDD

How about we get a couple horses and shotguns. You and me
can go on a critter hugger hunt?

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


"The Daring Dufas" wrote in
message ...

Probably not but most Brits are pansies when it comes to
"blood sport"

The elite were quite big on fox hunts but I think the
critter huggers
got them banned. ^_^

TDD

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
How about we get a couple horses and shotguns. You and me
can go on a critter hugger hunt?


How about you both get a horse and a shotgun, and one of you gets a 5 minute
head start, and then you can both stalk each other and the best man "wins",
and the other one.......oh well. It would be much more challenging and
sportsmanlike if the hunter & hunted both have guns.

On 11/28/2011 8:15 AM, SRN wrote:
"Stormin wrote in message
...
How about we get a couple horses and shotguns. You and me
can go on a critter hugger hunt?


How about you both get a horse and a shotgun, and one of you gets a 5 minute
head start, and then you can both stalk each other and the best man "wins",
and the other one.......oh well. It would be much more challenging and
sportsmanlike if the hunter& hunted both have guns.


I see you're suffering from drain bamage, you poor thing. ^_^

TDD

On Nov 28, 12:52*am, gpsman wrote:
On Nov 27, 1:35*pm, Nate Nagel wrote:

On 11/27/2011 12:56 PM, Home Guy wrote:
Gun issues rank
right up there with abortion and taxes as being the MOST political
issues in the US.

There are no "gun issues" save for people owning them who have not been
properly trained in the safe use and handling thereof.

Non sequitur. *Training does not prevent willful misconduct, as you
should well know. *You don't operate motor vehicles in accordance with
your training.

Cite?

US citizens have
the right to own guns, don't like it, don't live here - and don't
criticize us for our choices if you live elsewhere.

You tell 'im, Nate. * The US is above criticism... from beyond our
borders.

I wonder how you might feel about that criticism if it were to fault
US speed limits...?

Depends. Is it a US citizen doing the criticizing, or a xenophobic
foreigner?

Guns are and will be used to kill innocent people, intentionally, by
accident, and under very depressing circumstances. *Gun proponents can't
wish those events away no matter how hard they try.

It was a hunting accident, you moron.

Hitting that which one is presumably aiming can be classified as an
"accident". *You must be some kind of firearm expert.

And, I presume, a clairvoyant, since the guy could have shot his
friend intentionally. *It is reported that the police say they know
more than they have any method of learning other than from the sole
survivor, to wit:

"Police said Birch, Bolognani and a third man were hunting Saturday
morning when Birch shot a deer."

Unless the police have recovered the round from the deer and matched
it to Birch's gun, they are speculating.

The story, from the typical AP reporter working part-time when they
are not in 3rd grade, does not specify the method by which the police
think they learned that which they profess to know.

Let me guess, you think that meat magically appears on little
shrink-wrapped styrofoam trays?

Let me guess. *You think "meat" is shot with a gun before slaughter...
and you've never "observed" must less "read about" what goes on on a
kill floor...?

Not all meat comes from the supermarket. In some significant parts of
the US, it might even be "most" meat does not come from a supermarket,
but the shooting with a gun (rifle or slug barrel shotgun) *is* the
slaughter.

You're falling into the same trap as the OP, ASSuming that what is
commonplace and normal where he lives is applicable to somewhere that
he's never even been.

nate

That's close to what I was thinking.

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


"The Daring Dufas" wrote in
message ...
How about you both get a horse and a shotgun, and one of
you gets a 5 minute
head start, and then you can both stalk each other and the
best man "wins",
and the other one.......oh well. It would be much more
challenging and
sportsmanlike if the hunter& hunted both have guns.


I see you're suffering from drain bamage, you poor thing.
^_^

TDD

On 11/27/2011 1:03 PM, Home Guy wrote:
George wrote:

You're the one with a reading comprehension problem, you dolt.

Childish name calling will always reinforce your point...

Nice try at a diversion.


What diversion? You create a doesn't belong here post laughing about the
loss of human life and then add childish name calling to make yourself
look even sillier.



What were you trying to say he

=========
even my mentally challenged cousin knows better than that.
=========

If that isin't a back-door way of calling me "mentally challenged" then
I invite your explanation.

Seems you have some issues following the don't belong in this newsgroup
threads you keep on starting. Not sure where you got the snippet from
but it wasn't from anything I wrote.


I note that you did not rebutt the more pertinent aspects of my response
- an indication that you surrendered those points to me.

What is pertinent about inappropriate posts for this group? Maybe you
can have someone show you the numerous appropriate places you might go
to post your definitely nothing to do with home repair material.

On Nov 28, 9:47*am, N8N wrote:
On Nov 28, 12:52*am, gpsman wrote:
On Nov 27, 1:35*pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 11/27/2011 12:56 PM, Home Guy wrote:
Gun issues rank
right up there with abortion and taxes as being the MOST political
issues in the US.

There are no "gun issues" save for people owning them who have not been
properly trained in the safe use and handling thereof.

Non sequitur. *Training does not prevent willful misconduct, as you
should well know. *You don't operate motor vehicles in accordance with
your training.

Cite?

With pleasure!

http://i52.tinypic.com/23lawyf.jpg
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....n&dmode=source

US citizens have
the right to own guns, don't like it, don't live here - and don't
criticize us for our choices if you live elsewhere.

You tell 'im, Nate. * The US is above criticism... from beyond our
borders.

I wonder how you might feel about that criticism if it were to fault
US speed limits...?

Depends. *Is it a US citizen doing the criticizing, or a xenophobic
foreigner?

Please cite the symptoms of xenophobia, and your qualifications to
diagnose same.

Let me guess, you think that meat magically appears on little
shrink-wrapped styrofoam trays?

Let me guess. *You think "meat" is shot with a gun before slaughter....
and you've never "observed" must less "read about" what goes on on a
kill floor...?

Not all meat comes from the supermarket.

Straw man. Where else does it appear on shrink wrapped styrofoam
trays...?

In some significant parts of
the US, it might even be "most" meat does not come from a supermarket,

And frogs might fly out of my ass.

but the shooting with a gun (rifle or slug barrel shotgun) *is* the
slaughter.

That makes absolutely no sense. Slaughtering does not occur by
gunshot (but it sure would make packing an elk out of the woods a lot
easier).

You're falling into the same trap as the OP, ASSuming that what is
commonplace and normal where he lives is applicable to somewhere that
he's never even been.

I remember when one could expect the typical ironymeter to last a
lifetime and be bequeathed to one's heirs.
-----

- gpsman

On Nov 28, 10:36*am, gpsman wrote:
On Nov 28, 9:47*am, N8N wrote:

On Nov 28, 12:52*am, gpsman wrote:
On Nov 27, 1:35*pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 11/27/2011 12:56 PM, Home Guy wrote:
Gun issues rank
right up there with abortion and taxes as being the MOST political
issues in the US.

There are no "gun issues" save for people owning them who have not been
properly trained in the safe use and handling thereof.

Non sequitur. *Training does not prevent willful misconduct, as you
should well know. *You don't operate motor vehicles in accordance with
your training.

Cite?

With pleasure!

http://i52.tinypic.com/23lawyf.jpght...34d4be58594639...

Link no worky.

US citizens have
the right to own guns, don't like it, don't live here - and don't
criticize us for our choices if you live elsewhere.

You tell 'im, Nate. * The US is above criticism... from beyond our
borders.

I wonder how you might feel about that criticism if it were to fault
US speed limits...?

Depends. *Is it a US citizen doing the criticizing, or a xenophobic
foreigner?

Please cite the symptoms of xenophobia, and your qualifications to
diagnose same.

I was obviously using it in a colloquial sense, not a clinical one,
and I would think that the condescending tone amply proves my point.

Let me guess, you think that meat magically appears on little
shrink-wrapped styrofoam trays?

Let me guess. *You think "meat" is shot with a gun before slaughter....
and you've never "observed" must less "read about" what goes on on a
kill floor...?

Not all meat comes from the supermarket.

Straw man. *Where else does it appear on shrink wrapped styrofoam
trays...?

Sometimes it doesn't at all. Sometimes it appears wrapped in fur.

In some significant parts of
the US, it might even be "most" meat does not come from a supermarket,

And frogs might fly out of my ass.

Whatever you do on your own time, I don't want to know about.

but the shooting with a gun (rifle or slug barrel shotgun) *is* the
slaughter.

That makes absolutely no sense. *Slaughtering does not occur by
gunshot (but it sure would make packing an elk out of the woods a lot
easier).

My point is, oh intellectually challenged one, is that in significant
areas of the YooEss, hunting provides a significant portion of many
families' meat supply.

You're falling into the same trap as the OP, ASSuming that what is
commonplace and normal where he lives is applicable to somewhere that
he's never even been.

I remember when one could expect the typical ironymeter to last a
lifetime and be bequeathed to one's heirs.

You don't remember ****, because it's clear that you never knew much
to begin with.

nate

George wrote:


I note that you did not rebutt the more pertinent aspects of my
response - an indication that you surrendered those points to me.

What is pertinent about inappropriate posts for this group?

Another diversion - another way to say "I surrender".

Wana try again?

gpsman wrote:

but the shooting with a gun (rifle or slug barrel shotgun) *is*
the slaughter.

That makes absolutely no sense. Slaughtering does not occur by
gunshot

The movie "no country for old men" provides some insight into that
subject.

On Nov 28, 10:48*am, N8N wrote:
On Nov 28, 10:36*am, gpsman wrote:
On Nov 28, 9:47*am, N8N wrote:
On Nov 28, 12:52*am, gpsman wrote:
On Nov 27, 1:35*pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 11/27/2011 12:56 PM, Home Guy wrote:
Gun issues rank
right up there with abortion and taxes as being the MOST political
issues in the US.

There are no "gun issues" save for people owning them who have not been
properly trained in the safe use and handling thereof.

Non sequitur. *Training does not prevent willful misconduct, as you
should well know. *You don't operate motor vehicles in accordance with
your training.

Cite?

With pleasure!

http://i52.tinypic.com/23lawyf.jpght...com/group/misc.......

Link no worky.

And it couldn't be you.

Try this, Sparky.
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/phot...t=d irectlink

As if all your Usenet reported traffic tickets, that you must know you
have, that I have cited on numerous occasions, did not suggest to you
that you do not operate in accordance with your training...

I wonder how you might feel about that criticism if it were to fault
US speed limits...?

Depends. *Is it a US citizen doing the criticizing, or a xenophobic
foreigner?

Please cite the symptoms of xenophobia, and your qualifications to
diagnose same.

I was obviously using it in a colloquial sense, not a clinical one,
and I would think that the condescending tone amply proves my point.

That makes perfect sense if condescending tone is suggestive of
xenophobia, and "xenophobia" could be considered a colloquialism.

But they are not, so you have no point. Your use of xenophobic is
nothing more than ad hominem. Obviously.

Let me guess, you think that meat magically appears on little
shrink-wrapped styrofoam trays?

Let me guess. *You think "meat" is shot with a gun before slaughter...
and you've never "observed" must less "read about" what goes on on a
kill floor...?

Not all meat comes from the supermarket.

Straw man. *Where else does it appear on shrink wrapped styrofoam
trays...?

Sometimes it doesn't at all. *Sometimes it appears wrapped in fur.

Non sequitur. The premise is the appearance of meat on shrink wrapped
styrofoam trays.

It appears you are functionally illiterate and a suggestion to try to
keep up with the subject, and stick to it, would be futile.

In some significant parts of
the US, it might even be "most" meat does not come from a supermarket,

And frogs might fly out of my ass.

Whatever you do on your own time, I don't want to know about.

Sparkling rebuttal. You must have some George Will in your blood.

but the shooting with a gun (rifle or slug barrel shotgun) *is* the
slaughter.

That makes absolutely no sense. *Slaughtering does not occur by
gunshot (but it sure would make packing an elk out of the woods a lot
easier).

My point is, oh intellectually challenged one, is that in significant
areas of the YooEss, hunting provides a significant portion of many
families' meat supply.

Straw man. That 2 miles from the premise: "you think that meat
magically appears on little shrink-wrapped styrofoam trays?"

And your use of "significant" is moronically vague. Obviously you
must know which significant areas to which you allude, and the basis
of their significance. Is it land area, population, or other?

Name those areas and their significances, you who have never reported
to Usenet venturing west of the Mississippi, so that the reader may
evaluate their significance for themselves.

You're falling into the same trap as the OP, ASSuming that what is
commonplace and normal where he lives is applicable to somewhere that
he's never even been.

I neglected to set fire to that straw man out of kindness. It is you
purporting that wild game is a... significantly common and normal
source of meat.

And that suggests that a significant number of people, let's say 10%
per capita of an unspecified significant area, must either poach (as
does my ex-BIL), have giant freezers for storage and/or pay for
storage, or have small families that are sustained and/or satisfied on
the limited game one can legally harvest.

I remember when one could expect the typical ironymeter to last a
lifetime and be bequeathed to one's heirs.

You don't remember ****, because it's clear that you never knew much
to begin with.

Yes, of course. I only grew up on a farm and started hunting when I
was 8, and half of my family is from barefoot ****-kickin' Kentucky
and preferred chicken, because they didn't have to hunt them and they
taste a whole lot better than most parts of most large wild game.

Generally, a few prime pieces are kept and the rest of most large
animals is ground and beef and/or pork added because they're too damn
lean to be very tasty.
-----

- gpsman

"Home Guy" wrote in message ...
READSBORO - State police say a Vermont hunter shot a friend who was
tracking a deer and then killed himself after realizing his friend was
dead.


Funny thing is hat with over 300,000,000 guns in the country, there are only
800 or so accidental shooting deaths yearly
Compare that to 300,000,000 cars and over 42,000 accidental deaths by
car.
The ONLY reason you're writing about it is because it's SO UNUSUAL..

"Home Guy" wrote in message ...


Guns are and will be used to kill innocent people, intentionally, by
accident, and under very depressing circumstances. Gun proponents can't
wish those events away no matter how hard they try.

Too bad that banning guns, does NOT in any stop the fact that innocent
people get killed.
On the other hand, banning guns, only makes innocent people less able to
defend themselves against the criminals..
But that's an issue that such as you conveniently ignore even though far
more people are victimized when they are made defenseless by such as you.

"G. Morgan" wrote in message
...
Stormin Mormon wrote:

Well, the guy fired while not being sure what was in the
line of fire. Sounds like negligent homicide, to me. Or some
other legal term. Term for careless use of lethal force.

I wouldn't call it homicide, more like stupidity. If the dude didn't
shoot himself, he would have to live with it. Unless it was something
other than a stupid "accident", I think the D.A. should not become
involved.

Sad story.


1) "Homicide" is BY DEFINITION the killing of a human
So yes, it MOST DEFINITELY WAS "homicide"
2) Probably the DA will be involved for the Vermont equivalent of
"negligent homicide"

"Country" wrote in message
...
On Nov 27, 8:52 am, Home Guy wrote:
READSBORO — State police say a Vermont hunter shot a friend who was
tracking a deer and then killed himself after realizing his friend was
dead.

Sgt. Albert Abdelnour says three men were hunting midday Saturday in
southwestern Vermont when 39-year-old Benjamin Birch, of Readsboro, shot
a deer. The injured deer ran, and Birch and the two other men chased
after it.

Police say 49-year-old Timothy Bolognani, of Readsboro, then fired a
shot and heard Birch cry out. Bolognani and the third man found Birch
injured from the gunshot, and he died.

Abdelnour says a "distraught" Bolognani then used his rifle to kill
himself.

An autopsy will be conducted on the two bodies. State police say there
is no evidence of foul play.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/a...S07/111127001/...

---------------

At least they're taking themselves out, one gun owner at a time (or in
this case, two).

If it wasn't from hunting deer, it would be the impending global
financial crash and resulting economic turmoil. Those in the US that
will be pushed over the financial edge will resort to the handgun under
their mattress as they exit themselves (and their families) from this
earthly stage.


Some people can't handle the responsibility of having a gun in their
possession just like some people can't handle the responsibility of
being able to drive. It's why I shake my head in disbelief when I hear
some gun enthusiasts say that there should be a law that requires
everyone to carry a gun.


And do tell us, when was the last time that happened ?
I have never heard ANY "gun enthusiast" declare such nonsense.

On 11/28/2011 11:04 AM, Home Guy wrote:
George wrote:


I note that you did not rebutt the more pertinent aspects of my
response - an indication that you surrendered those points to me.

What is pertinent about inappropriate posts for this group?

Another diversion - another way to say "I surrender".



What diversion? I understand why you snipped out the almost the entire
reply I made because it makes you look so silly in not even being able
to follow the thread you started....


Wana try again?

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 09:52:29 -0500, Home Guy wrote:

READSBORO — State police say a Vermont hunter shot a friend who was
tracking a deer and then killed himself after realizing his friend was
dead.

Sgt. Albert Abdelnour says three men were hunting midday Saturday in
southwestern Vermont when 39-year-old Benjamin Birch, of Readsboro, shot
a deer. The injured deer ran, and Birch and the two other men chased
after it.

Police say 49-year-old Timothy Bolognani, of Readsboro, then fired a
shot and heard Birch cry out. Bolognani and the third man found Birch
injured from the gunshot, and he died.

Abdelnour says a "distraught" Bolognani then used his rifle to kill
himself.

An autopsy will be conducted on the two bodies. State police say there
is no evidence of foul play.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/a...ter-pal-killed

---------------

At least they're taking themselves out, one gun owner at a time (or in
this case, two).

If it wasn't from hunting deer, it would be the impending global
financial crash and resulting economic turmoil. Those in the US that
will be pushed over the financial edge will resort to the handgun under
their mattress as they exit themselves (and their families) from this
earthly stage.

You really sick.

"Michael Dobony" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 09:52:29 -0500, Home Guy wrote:


At least they're taking themselves out, one gun owner at a time (or in
this case, two).

If it wasn't from hunting deer, it would be the impending global
financial crash and resulting economic turmoil. Those in the US that
will be pushed over the financial edge will resort to the handgun under
their mattress as they exit themselves (and their families) from this
earthly stage.

You really sick.

One can only hope that he drives a car, since that increases by a factor of
50+ his chances of "being take out" by another driver than by a gun-owner

At least they're taking themselves out, one gun owner at a time (or in
this case, two).

Ah the enjoyment?

I'm glad you have made the decision to not own a gun. With your
attitude I wouldn't trust you with a gun either.

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in message
...

"Home Guy" wrote in message
...


Guns are and will be used to kill innocent people, intentionally, by
accident, and under very depressing circumstances. Gun proponents can't
wish those events away no matter how hard they try.

Too bad that banning guns, does NOT in any stop the fact that innocent
people get killed.
On the other hand, banning guns, only makes innocent people less able to
defend themselves against the criminals..
But that's an issue that such as you conveniently ignore even though
far more people are victimized when they are made defenseless by such as
you.

Well said and very true. If gun ownership were banned and criminals knew for
sure
that every home was devoid of firearms .... every night would be time for
"Trick or Treat" !
They sure as hell wouldn't be afraid of your baseball bat because they would
have guns.
Criminals don't care how many laws you pass against gun ownership. By
definition, breaking laws is what they do.

On Nov 27, 12:46*pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 11/27/2011 12:17 PM, Country wrote:









On Nov 27, 8:52 am, Home *wrote:
READSBORO — State police say a Vermont hunter shot a friend who was
tracking a deer and then killed himself after realizing his friend was
dead.

Sgt. Albert Abdelnour says three men were hunting midday Saturday in
southwestern Vermont when 39-year-old Benjamin Birch, of Readsboro, shot
a deer. The injured deer ran, and Birch and the two other men chased
after it.

Police say 49-year-old Timothy Bolognani, of Readsboro, then fired a
shot and heard Birch cry out. Bolognani and the third man found Birch
injured from the gunshot, and he died.

Abdelnour says a "distraught" Bolognani then used his rifle to kill
himself.

An autopsy will be conducted on the two bodies. State police say there
is no evidence of foul play.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/a...S07/111127001/....

---------------

At least they're taking themselves out, one gun owner at a time (or in
this case, two).

If it wasn't from hunting deer, it would be the impending global
financial crash and resulting economic turmoil. *Those in the US that
will be pushed over the financial edge will resort to the handgun under
their mattress as they exit themselves (and their families) from this
earthly stage.

Some people can't handle the responsibility of having a gun in their
possession just like some people can't handle the responsibility of
being able to drive. It's why I shake my head in disbelief when I hear
some gun enthusiasts say that there should be a law that requires
everyone to carry a gun.

-C-

Actually I believe there is a similar law in Switzerland.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel

The law you are alluding to is the one that makes every Swiss male
between the ages of twenty and thirty a member of the Swiss army.
Every such soldier is fully equipped with a complete set of individual
field kit including a fully automatic Sig 550 rifle. At the end of
there military obligation they may, but are not required to, keep
there field equipment. The rifle however is converted to Semi
Automatic at that time.

--
Tom Horne

On Nov 27, 1:35*pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 11/27/2011 12:56 PM, Home Guy wrote:

George wrote:

Actually he posted a very reasonable on target response using
real words.

He (Nate Nagel) posted a very emotional if not irrational response to my
dry and accurate (if depressing) commentary regarding the quoted story.

He acused me of "politicizing" - as if any aspect of gun ownership and
use in the US can be discussed in any other terms. *Gun issues rank
right up there with abortion and taxes as being the MOST political
issues in the US.

There are no "gun issues" save for people owning them who have not been
properly trained in the safe use and handling thereof. *US citizens have
the right to own guns, don't like it, don't live here - and don't
criticize us for our choices if you live elsewhere.

Guns are and will be used to kill innocent people, intentionally, by
accident, and under very depressing circumstances. *Gun proponents can't
wish those events away no matter how hard they try.

It was a hunting accident, you moron. *Now there possibly (likely?) was
a lapse of judgment involved, but that doesn't make it any less tragic,
nor is an anecdote any kind of justification for running around and
yelling "guns are bad! *see? *see?"

Let me guess, you think that meat magically appears on little
shrink-wrapped styrofoam trays?

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate
Your rudeness and name calling are completely obscuring any point that
you are trying to make. If your purpose is to alienate people who
might actually agree with a rational argument that is thoughtfully
presented then keep right on being abrasive.

I have to wonder why some proponents of gun ownership think that
turning a right into a duty is a good idea. If gun ownership were a
duty imposed on you by the state then that burden could be lifted from
you by the state. Gun ownership and carrying a gun is a right
intended to make it more difficult for the government to subjugate the
citizenry. Giving the government control of gun ownership is
legitimately seen as one step in a slide toward despotism. It was
Thomas Jefferson who said ""When the people fear their government,
there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is
liberty." There does not need to be any grand conspiracy underway
for the rights of the people to erode away to nothing. Like water
falling on a stone the outcome is inevitable unless that erosion is
deflected through the defense of all of the rights that the
constitution reserves to the citizens and not just the rights that the
government or even a majority of the population find it convenient for
citizens to exercise. I do realize that guns can be and are abused
but that does not make it a good idea to try to take away the basic
right that every American has to keep and bare arms.

--
Tom Horne

On Nov 28, 1:16*pm, gpsman wrote:
On Nov 28, 10:48*am, N8N wrote:









On Nov 28, 10:36*am, gpsman wrote:
On Nov 28, 9:47*am, N8N wrote:
On Nov 28, 12:52*am, gpsman wrote:
On Nov 27, 1:35*pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 11/27/2011 12:56 PM, Home Guy wrote:
Gun issues rank
right up there with abortion and taxes as being the MOST political
issues in the US.

There are no "gun issues" save for people owning them who have not been
properly trained in the safe use and handling thereof.

Non sequitur. *Training does not prevent willful misconduct, as you
should well know. *You don't operate motor vehicles in accordance with
your training.

Cite?

With pleasure!

http://i52.tinypic.com/23lawyf.jpght...com/group/misc.......

Link no worky.

And it couldn't be you.

Try this, Sparky.https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/phot...Ugfbt6NdcVzmyh...

As if all your Usenet reported traffic tickets, that you must know you
have, that I have cited on numerous occasions, did not suggest to you
that you do not operate in accordance with your training...

I wonder how you might feel about that criticism if it were to fault
US speed limits...?

Depends. *Is it a US citizen doing the criticizing, or a xenophobic
foreigner?

Please cite the symptoms of xenophobia, and your qualifications to
diagnose same.

I was obviously using it in a colloquial sense, not a clinical one,
and I would think that the condescending tone amply proves my point.

That makes perfect sense if condescending tone is suggestive of
xenophobia, and "xenophobia" could be considered a colloquialism.

But they are not, so you have no point. *Your use of xenophobic is
nothing more than ad hominem. *Obviously.

Let me guess, you think that meat magically appears on little
shrink-wrapped styrofoam trays?

Let me guess. *You think "meat" is shot with a gun before slaughter...
and you've never "observed" must less "read about" what goes on on a
kill floor...?

Not all meat comes from the supermarket.

Straw man. *Where else does it appear on shrink wrapped styrofoam
trays...?

Sometimes it doesn't at all. *Sometimes it appears wrapped in fur.

Non sequitur. *The premise is the appearance of meat on shrink wrapped
styrofoam trays.

It appears you are functionally illiterate and a suggestion to try to
keep up with the subject, and stick to it, would be futile.

In some significant parts of
the US, it might even be "most" meat does not come from a supermarket,

And frogs might fly out of my ass.

Whatever you do on your own time, I don't want to know about.

Sparkling rebuttal. *You must have some George Will in your blood.

but the shooting with a gun (rifle or slug barrel shotgun) *is* the
slaughter.

That makes absolutely no sense. *Slaughtering does not occur by
gunshot (but it sure would make packing an elk out of the woods a lot
easier).

My point is, oh intellectually challenged one, is that in significant
areas of the YooEss, hunting provides a significant portion of many
families' meat supply.

Straw man. *That 2 miles from the premise: "you think that meat
magically appears on little shrink-wrapped styrofoam trays?"

And your use of "significant" is moronically vague. *Obviously you
must know which significant areas to which you allude, and the basis
of their significance. *Is it land area, population, or other?

Name those areas and their significances, you who have never reported
to Usenet venturing west of the Mississippi, so that the reader may
evaluate their significance for themselves.

You're falling into the same trap as the OP, ASSuming that what is
commonplace and normal where he lives is applicable to somewhere that
he's never even been.

I neglected to set fire to that straw man out of kindness. *It is you
purporting that wild game is a... significantly common and normal
source of meat.

And that suggests that a significant number of people, let's say 10%
per capita of an unspecified significant area, must either poach (as
does my ex-BIL), have giant freezers for storage and/or pay for
storage, or have small families that are sustained and/or satisfied on
the limited game one can legally harvest.

I remember when one could expect the typical ironymeter to last a
lifetime and be bequeathed to one's heirs.

You don't remember ****, because it's clear that you never knew much
to begin with.

Yes, of course. *I only grew up on a farm and started hunting when I
was 8, and half of my family is from barefoot ****-kickin' Kentucky
and preferred chicken, because they didn't have to hunt them and they
taste a whole lot better than most parts of most large wild game.

Generally, a few prime pieces are kept and the rest of most large
animals is ground and beef and/or pork added because they're too damn
lean to be very tasty.
*-----

- gpsman

I do not say this to be quarrelsome and I know that it may provoke
some resentment in people who do not enjoy this tiny privilege but
many First Nations people have a treaty right to hunt and fish without
permits or restriction as to season. My uncle, who was an Arapahoe,
often invited himself to supper at other peoples homes. His standards
of who he ate with were somewhat peculiar. They had to be poor and
have younger children at home. You see his privilege to hunt did not
allow him to convey the meat to others who were not Native Americans.
But if he shared a meal with anyone he could leave the remainders with
them as a matter of courtesy that the game wardens could not turn into
a crime. The people he gifted with that meat or fish did not find the
taste at all objectionable.
--
Tom Horne

Tom Horne wrote:

Gun ownership and carrying a gun is a right intended to make it
more difficult for the government to subjugate the citizenry.
It was Thomas Jefferson who said ""When the people fear their
government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the
people, there is liberty."

I would argue that the vast majority of US gun owners do not know the
underlying reason why the "right to bear arms" is in the constitution.

But regardless, the US is way past the point that an armed citizenry
makes for an effective counter to gov't tyranny. The original framers
could not contimplate that US citizens would one day have more to fear
from something called the "IRS" or a "personal credit score" - forms of
tyranny that can not be fought back with a gun (or musket).

Did the framers ever forsee or even imagine that civilian gun ownership
would take a bigger toll in citizen-vs-citizen conflict (injury, death
and misery) - and NOT citizen-vs-gov't conflict?

Where has the right to bear arms ever served US citizens in countering
gov't tyranny during the entire existance of the country?

It was a stupid idea from the start - the gov't will always give itself
more and bigger guns if it thinks it needs it. Just ask the people of
Waco Tx.

"when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

No.

When the gov't fears the people, it buys more and bigger guns. And it
x-rays them at airports. And it taps their phone lines. And it passes
laws allowing the military to be the new police.

but that does not make it a good idea to try to take away the
basic right that every American has to keep and bare arms.

And a lot of good the exercise of that right has given you over the
years.

But the genie can't be put back in the bottle.

All we can really do is argue the merits of what could have been.

If given the choice between absolutely no private firearm ownership (and
hence no possibility for a domestic fire-arm trade, products,
black-market, etc) and the situation we have now, who could argue that
society wouldn't be better off if NOBODY had guns?

After all, we know from several hundred years of past experience that an
armed US citizenry was and is totally ineffective against it's own
gov't.

"Home Guy" wrote in message ...

After all, we know from several hundred years of past experience that an
armed US citizenry was and is totally ineffective against it's own
gov't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seminole_Wars

Seminole victory: Pensacola was taken by General Andrew Jackson, the U.S.
Government pays most of the warring Seminole to move to Indian Territory:
grants one seat in the House: one seat in the Senate of the State
Legislature, and Florida was ceded to the United States.

You could quibble and say they weren't US citizens but the case could be
made that they had a greater right to the lands they lived in for centuries
than Andy Jackson & Co.

You could also say that an armed citizenry was pretty effective at throwing
off the Brits during the American Revolution.

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green wrote:

Seminole victory:

What exactly did they win? And was it because they had guns?

After all, we know from several hundred years of past experience
that an armed US citizenry was and is totally ineffective against
it's own gov't.

You could also say that an armed citizenry was pretty effective
at throwing off the Brits during the American Revolution.

That was before there was a "United States", and before there was a US
constitution.

Tell me how you think that would go down today.

(I must have gotten most of the other stuff right, since you only chose
that part to quote me on)

Home Guy wrote:

If given the choice between absolutely no private firearm ownership
(and hence no possibility for a domestic fire-arm trade, products,
black-market, etc) and the situation we have now, who could argue that
society wouldn't be better off if NOBODY had guns?


I can.

By quoting the pithy saying: "God made man. Samuel Colt made men equal."

HeyBub wrote:

who could argue that society wouldn't be better off if NOBODY
had guns?

I can.

By quoting the pithy saying:
"God made man. Samuel Colt made men equal."

If everyone having guns makes them equal, then everyone not having guns
also makes them equal.

On Nov 29, 10:26*pm, Tom Horne wrote:
On Nov 28, 1:16*pm, gpsman wrote:

Generally, a few prime pieces are kept and the rest of most large
animals is ground and beef and/or pork added because they're too damn
lean to be very tasty.

I do not say this to be quarrelsome and I know that it may provoke
some resentment in people who do not enjoy this tiny privilege but
many First Nations people have a treaty right to hunt and fish without
permits or restriction as to season.

I'm familiar with "Indian" hunting rights, but I've never seen a
reservation that did not have a grocery with a meat department, or
empty of Indians.

That's limited anecdotal evidence, but I think we can safely assume
Indians are more like you and me than unlike you and me.

Of course there are NA Eskimos that do harvest all or most of their
warm-blooded meat, but I do not think they can be accurately described
as relatively "significant".

The people he gifted with that meat or fish did not find the
taste at all objectionable.

Specifically, the subject was "meat", and not the flavor sensations of
the perennially hungry.

I've been so hungry a cold C-Ration can of ham and eggs (that smelled
exactly like canned dog food) or a half-cooked crunchy spaghetti LRP
tasted better than anything I could remember.
-----

- gpsman

"Home Guy" wrote in message ...
Robert Green wrote:

Seminole victory:

What exactly did they win?

I already posted it but you clipped it:

Date 1816 - 1858 Location Florida, United States Result Seminole victory,
Pensacola was taken by General Andrew Jackson, the U.S. Government *pays*
most of the warring Seminole to move to Indian Territory: grants one seat in
the House: one seat in the Senate of the State Legislature, and Florida was
ceded to the United States.

FWIW, this was a time when most other recalcitrant Indians got nothing more
than a bullet. The Seminoles appeared to have learned very early in the
game to renege on signed treaties faster than the US did, taking the bribes
offered them to move and buying ammunition with that money.

And was it because they had guns?

Again, the link I posted contains the answer:

As the men were loading the wagons and saddling their horses the next
morning (December 20, 1855), forty Seminoles led by Billy Bowlegs attacked
the camp. Several soldiers were shot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seminole_Wars#Aftermath_2

I assume to shoot the soldiers, they used guns. But just in case the above
statement isn't convincing enough, the same article goes on to say:

Thompson then requested reinforcements for Fort King and Fort Brooke,
reporting that, "the Indians after they had received the Annuity, purchased
an unusually large quantity of Powder & Lead."

Maybe they were using the gunpowder for poultices and the lead as fishing
weights . . . but I doubt it.

The Seminole Uprising is well-known among military historians and
logisticians because the Seminoles proved to be too tenacious to remove by
military means.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/AMH-V1/ch07.htm

says: Early in 1832, at the direction of Secretary Cass, the U.S. Indian
commissioner in Florida negotiated a treaty with the Seminoles, ratified in
1834, by which the Indians would relinquish their lands in Florida and move
to Arkansas. The deadline was eventually set at January 1, 1836. However,
many of the Indians were determined to resist what they viewed as the theft
of their lands. Long before the deadline, the Seminoles, led by a
charismatic half-Indian named Osceola, demonstrated that they would not go
peaceably. Numerous sugar plantations in north and central Florida were
raided and burned.

After all, we know from several hundred years of past experience
that an armed US citizenry was and is totally ineffective against
it's own gov't.

You could also say that an armed citizenry was pretty effective
at throwing off the Brits during the American Revolution.

That was before there was a "United States", and before there was a US
constitution.

You miss the point. It was precisely that conflict that gave rise to the
2nd Amendment - the right to bear arms. The Founding Fathers realized how
important individual gun ownership was in making the break from "the Crown."

Tell me how you think that would go down today.

We have more guns than people. It could be very, very ugly. Look at how
long the Chechens have been at war with White Russia:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/olliver...chens-so-angry

(I must have gotten most of the other stuff right, since you only chose
that part to quote me on)

If you need to flatter yourself, go right ahead. BTW, it's "its own
government" not "it's." (Just by way of letting you know I don't feel the
need to correct *every* error made in every post. Just the egregious ones.)

--
Bobby G.

"Forrest" wrote in message
...

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in message
...

"Home Guy" wrote in message
...


Guns are and will be used to kill innocent people, intentionally, by
accident, and under very depressing circumstances. Gun proponents can't
wish those events away no matter how hard they try.

Too bad that banning guns, does NOT in any stop the fact that innocent
people get killed.
On the other hand, banning guns, only makes innocent people less able to
defend themselves against the criminals..
But that's an issue that such as you conveniently ignore even though
far more people are victimized when they are made defenseless by such as
you.

Well said and very true. If gun ownership were banned and criminals knew
for sure
that every home was devoid of firearms .... every night would be time for
"Trick or Treat" !
They sure as hell wouldn't be afraid of your baseball bat because they
would have guns.
Criminals don't care how many laws you pass against gun ownership. By
definition, breaking laws is what they do.


One only has to look at home invasions in Canada and England compared to the
US, to see the truth of that

"Home Guy" wrote in message ...
Tom Horne wrote:

Gun ownership and carrying a gun is a right intended to make it
more difficult for the government to subjugate the citizenry.
It was Thomas Jefferson who said ""When the people fear their
government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the
people, there is liberty."

I would argue that the vast majority of US gun owners do not know the
underlying reason why the "right to bear arms" is in the constitution.

But regardless, the US is way past the point that an armed citizenry
makes for an effective counter to gov't tyranny. The original framers
could not contimplate that US citizens would one day have more to fear
from something called the "IRS" or a "personal credit score" - forms of
tyranny that can not be fought back with a gun (or musket).

Did the framers ever forsee or even imagine that civilian gun ownership
would take a bigger toll in citizen-vs-citizen conflict (injury, death
and misery) - and NOT citizen-vs-gov't conflict?


Try making that criminal vs citizen and you would be right.
There is very little LAW-ABIDING citizen on citizen crime...


Where has the right to bear arms ever served US citizens in countering
gov't tyranny during the entire existance of the country?

It was a stupid idea from the start - the gov't will always give itself
more and bigger guns if it thinks it needs it. Just ask the people of
Waco Tx.


See battle of Athens, Tennessee for the counter



"when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

No.

When the gov't fears the people, it buys more and bigger guns. And it
x-rays them at airports. And it taps their phone lines. And it passes
laws allowing the military to be the new police.


It also need to have those people see citizens as the enemy
Most police and military, being on the right, have a far better grasp of
Constitutional issues than most.
They also have sworn an oath to protect the Constitution, NOT the
government.


but that does not make it a good idea to try to take away the
basic right that every American has to keep and bare arms.

And a lot of good the exercise of that right has given you over the
years.

But the genie can't be put back in the bottle.

All we can really do is argue the merits of what could have been.

If given the choice between absolutely no private firearm ownership (and
hence no possibility for a domestic fire-arm trade, products,
black-market, etc) and the situation we have now, who could argue that
society wouldn't be better off if NOBODY had guns?


Only idiots ignorant of history
When the law-abiding are disarmed it does NOTHING to disarm the
criminals who will then subjugate and terrorize the law-abiding.


After all, we know from several hundred years of past experience that an
armed US citizenry was and is totally ineffective against it's own
gov't.

And yet, the US, compared to just about any Western and non-Western country,
is one of the few countries that has stayed the course more than 200 years
in respecting individual rights and freedoms..

Your abyssal ignorance of history is sad to see.

"Home Guy" wrote in message ...
HeyBub wrote:

who could argue that society wouldn't be better off if NOBODY
had guns?

I can.

By quoting the pithy saying:
"God made man. Samuel Colt made men equal."

If everyone having guns makes them equal, then everyone not having guns
also makes them equal.

Except that in your words, that genie can NOT be put back in the bottle
Why are you arguing something that will NEVER occur
And if we look at the theory of if, past history shows that men have ALWAYS
tried to dominate those less able to defend themselves
Why are you ageing to return to past barbarism ?

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:08:09 -0600, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"Forrest" wrote in message
...

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in message
...

"Home Guy" wrote in message
...


Guns are and will be used to kill innocent people, intentionally, by
accident, and under very depressing circumstances. Gun proponents can't
wish those events away no matter how hard they try.

Too bad that banning guns, does NOT in any stop the fact that innocent
people get killed.
On the other hand, banning guns, only makes innocent people less able to
defend themselves against the criminals..
But that's an issue that such as you conveniently ignore even though
far more people are victimized when they are made defenseless by such as
you.

Well said and very true. If gun ownership were banned and criminals knew
for sure
that every home was devoid of firearms .... every night would be time for
"Trick or Treat" !
They sure as hell wouldn't be afraid of your baseball bat because they
would have guns.
Criminals don't care how many laws you pass against gun ownership. By
definition, breaking laws is what they do.


One only has to look at home invasions in Canada and England compared to the
US, to see the truth of that

Yeah. They just hug their criminals to death.