"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news
Attila.Iskander wrote:
one of the highest highest murder rates.

Highest relative to what ?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...100-000-people
63rd place out of 124 is doesn't even qualify as "one of the highest"
BY ANY STANDARD.


Harry thinks that places where guns are mostly illegal are safer from gun
violence. Places like, oh, Mexico for example.

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO MEXICO?

Well, I have. I went to Cabo, San Jose del Cabo, Mazatlan, and Puerta
Vallarta. And up into the countryside around there. Like Copala.

It is just a land full of the sweetest nicest kind considerate people I
have ever seen. I think I'd like to live there some day. My destination
is Puenta Gorda, north of the new marina at San Jose del Cabo.

I walked the streets. I bought things at the tourist shop. I ate at lots
of little restaurants. I sat on the beach and drank El Pacifico and lime.

What could anyone say bad about Mexico? I think you are mistaken. The
Mexico I saw was very nice.

Steve ;-)


Why don't you just try and go into any of the cities just across the US
border.
We'll burn a candle for you if you don't come back.

But I have been to Mexico numerous times
I've even refereed soccer (youth and men's amateur) games there a few
times.
You are right that the great MAJORITY of Mexicans are nice people who just
want to live a decent life
That's true for just about the majority of the people around the world
It's just that right now, they have a "thug" problem
The thugs are out of control and running around making everyone's lives
miserable and dangerous,
This will NOT change, until the Mexican Constitution is amended to eliminate
ALL government restrictions of the RKBA of Mexicans.
Then the citizens will be able to clean up the mess that their corrupt
government is unable to do.

"G. Morgan" wrote in message
...
harry wrote:

Parents must be half wits.
I bet they are Republicans.
http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2012/05/...6pLid%3D107028


"The shooting comes just two days after a similar incident in
Kentucky when 15-month-old Bella San Martin was shot dead by her
three-year-old brother in their family's Kentucky home on Sunday.

POLICE INVOLVED SAID IT WAS A TRAGIC ACCIDENT AND THAT THE PARENTS
WERE HOME AT THE TIME."

GM
An accident?? Letting a 3 y/o get access to a firearm is no
accident, it's a felony.


It may not be a felony, but it's definitely negligence.
It's not very hard to set up storage, that makes it difficult of a small
child to have access while allowing an adult instant access.

Anything that requires a not too obvious simultaneous operation will defeat
a child under 5.
At 5 you start teaching them gun safety and allow them to handle and shoot
ANY and ALL firearms they want.
That will completely eliminate any desire on their part to handle guns
without supervision for the next 8-10 years. During those years, you should
make the effort to teach your kids proper gun safety and use.
This is the system that has been proven to work for generations

"G. Morgan" wrote in message
...
Home Guy wrote:

In the landscape of consumer products, firearms stand alone as being
inately dangerous while serving no useful purpose in the hands of
consumers.

All alone? What about other weapons? The purpose is to defend
yourself from an equally armed criminal.

Firearms makers enjoy conspicuous freedom from law suits and
regulators by consumers when their products cause injury or death.

That's one thing they do when used for defense/LE. They also
provide millions with pleasurable hobbies.

The idea that the right to bear arms was intended so that citizens can
protect themselves from unconstitutional acts performed by their own
gov't is hogwash if not impractical.

It hasn't been tested in that way yet.

The only thing that the right to bear arms has given the citizens of the
United States is pain, misery and suffering.

I love shooting at paper from a distance, no different from golf
in my mind.



You know that you are trying to argue rationally and intelligently with a
mindless hoplophobe

Home Guy wrote:
harry wrote:

RKBA is one of the reasons the citizens of USA have any freedoms
remaining. Though, rapidly shrinking freedoms.

So having guns hasn't helped?

Exactly.

Americans are seeing their rights and freedoms being eroded on a daily
basis, and their guns aren't making any difference in that equation.

On the other hand, laws regulating guns have been liberalized in recent
years and those that haven't have been struck down by the courts.

In 1987, for example, there was only one jurisdiction (Vermont) where a
citizen could carry a concealed weapon without the discretionary approval of
some bureaucrat. Today, 39 states have "shall issue" concealed handgun laws.
"Shall issue" means that if an individual meets the statutorily-defined
requirements for a license (able to stand up, see lightning, and hear
thunder), the licensing authority MUST issue the license - no discretion
involved. All in all, 49 states have some mechanism for concealed handgun
licensing. (The outliers are Illinois and D.C.)

Some states even issue concealed handgun licenses to non-residents (much
like hunting licenses - I wonder if there's a connection) and will do so
entirely by mail (Florida and New Hampshire come to mind). Tennessee and
Texas - to name two - will issue a license, and have, to those who are
legally blind. Florida has issued over two million licenses since 1987 (not
all of them to blind people).

George Zimmerman had one.

On Sat, 5 May 2012 23:40:29 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

On May 5, 9:26*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 5, 2:04 pm, gonjah gonjah.net wrote:
On 5/5/2012 12:28 AM, harry wrote:

Parents must be half wits.
I bet they are Republicans.
http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2012/05/...hot-dead-by-th...

BTW: Accidental shootings, and all violent crimes, have been on the
decline for years now in the US.

The odds of being accidentally shot in the US are miniscule compared
to death by motor vehicle.

Should we outlaw cars too harry?

Jim

Guns are intended to kill. *Auto accidents are just that.
Not having guns would be lives saved.

That's bizarre. Having guns saves lives. By the hundreds of thousands.

The US experiences over two million defensive gun uses per year. Were it not
for the gun, a significant number of those instances would result in death.

Remember the mantra, "If Vince Foster had had a gun, he'd be alive today."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Two million. You just made that up. Like the rest of the crap you
invent. (Vince Foster being ane xample.)

You and HomoGuy really do like to lie, Harry.

On Sat, 5 May 2012 23:35:57 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

On May 5, 8:10*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top...eal-and-carry-...

I rest my case, yer honor.

Steve

Tch. Carrying knives is outlawed here as well.

....and you yammer on about our loss of rights. OTOH, you never had any to
lose.

harry wrote:
On May 5, 9:26 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 5, 2:04 pm, gonjah gonjah.net wrote:
On 5/5/2012 12:28 AM, harry wrote:

Parents must be half wits.
I bet they are Republicans.
http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2012/05/...hot-dead-by-th...

BTW: Accidental shootings, and all violent crimes, have been on the
decline for years now in the US.

The odds of being accidentally shot in the US are miniscule
compared to death by motor vehicle.

Should we outlaw cars too harry?

Jim

Guns are intended to kill. Auto accidents are just that.
Not having guns would be lives saved.

That's bizarre. Having guns saves lives. By the hundreds of
thousands.

The US experiences over two million defensive gun uses per year.
Were it not
for the gun, a significant number of those instances would result in
death.

Remember the mantra, "If Vince Foster had had a gun, he'd be alive
today."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Two million. You just made that up. Like the rest of the crap you
invent. (Vince Foster being ane xample.)

Nothing so shames a mocker than to have his mockery debunked.

DEFENSIVE GUN USE

"According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State
University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be
projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive
Gun Use every 13 seconds."
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html

"There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by
law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey
conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993.
Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of
between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually."
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

"As shown in this table, this amounts to 3.456% of households or 1,029,615
defensive gun uses per year. Accounting for the 15.7% figure from page 176
(cited above): 1,029,615 defensive gun uses per year × .157 of respondents
stating someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not
used a gun for protection" = 161,650 such incidents. Using percentages for
the same calculation: 3.456% × .157 = 0.54%."
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

" In footnote 4, they state, "Kleck and Gertz's survey (1995, pp. 182-3) of
10 other nationwide polls implies a range of 764,036 to 3,609,682 defensive
uses of guns per year."
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2003/04/duncan3.php

.... and several hundred more references.

VINCE FOSTER

As for the Vince Foster slogan, I can't take credit for it. It was a very
popular bumper sticker in its day and I am just your humble reporter.

On Sun, 6 May 2012 00:00:57 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

On May 5, 11:11*pm, Home Guy wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Can consumers sue gun companies for product liability / defective
product reasons like they can for cars or other consumer products?
If normal consumer product tort and liability laws applied to gun
companies as they do to all other consumer product companies,
there would be a much different gun situation in the US. *Guns
would be more expensive and much safer to handle when exposed to
children for example.

Civil suits arising from damages caused by firearms are
specifically prohibited by "The Protection of Lawful Commerce in
Arms Act," (2005), and became Public Law 109-02

And what logical, rational argument can anyone put forward defending
that law?

How would gun violence and death in the US be different if firearms were
treated EXACTLY like other consumer products under the law?

Why are they treated differently?

Because they are crazed in America. And gun manufacturers make lots
of money off the simple minded, fearful fools that buy them..

False, but that's an absurd reason for allowing suits against them for
something they did not do. Why don't you answer HeyBub's post?

You GOT to be simple minded to leave a loaded gun where a two year old
can find it.

....and that's the gun *MANUFACTURER'S* fault? You *are* a moron.

On Sun, 6 May 2012 08:43:23 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news
Attila.Iskander wrote:
one of the highest highest murder rates.

Highest relative to what ?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...100-000-people
63rd place out of 124 is doesn't even qualify as "one of the highest"
BY ANY STANDARD.


Harry thinks that places where guns are mostly illegal are safer from gun
violence. Places like, oh, Mexico for example.

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO MEXICO?

Well, I have. I went to Cabo, San Jose del Cabo, Mazatlan, and Puerta
Vallarta. And up into the countryside around there. Like Copala.

It is just a land full of the sweetest nicest kind considerate people I
have ever seen. I think I'd like to live there some day. My destination
is Puenta Gorda, north of the new marina at San Jose del Cabo.

I walked the streets. I bought things at the tourist shop. I ate at lots
of little restaurants. I sat on the beach and drank El Pacifico and lime.

What could anyone say bad about Mexico? I think you are mistaken. The
Mexico I saw was very nice.

Steve ;-)


Why don't you just try and go into any of the cities just across the US
border.

Mexaco City is not just across the border.

We'll burn a candle for you if you don't come back.

But I have been to Mexico numerous times
I've even refereed soccer (youth and men's amateur) games there a few
times.
You are right that the great MAJORITY of Mexicans are nice people who just
want to live a decent life
That's true for just about the majority of the people around the world
It's just that right now, they have a "thug" problem
The thugs are out of control and running around making everyone's lives
miserable and dangerous,
This will NOT change, until the Mexican Constitution is amended to eliminate
ALL government restrictions of the RKBA of Mexicans.
Then the citizens will be able to clean up the mess that their corrupt
government is unable to do.

....and the government, too. However, why would the government allow their
elimination?

On 2012-05-06, Home Guy wrote:

Exactly.

Americans are seeing their rights and freedoms being eroded on a daily
basis, and their guns aren't making any difference in that equation.

Ah, but that same creeping slowness of the govt to impose repressive
laws has also given citizens the time needed to intelligently
counteract and lobby against the gov's sinister agenda. You can't
deny most states have enacted pro-concealed carry laws that would have
been unthinkable 30 yrs ago.

When I first moved to CO from CA, about 5 yrs ago, I was shocked at
the difference. Not only can I carry a concealed weapon, here, but
with my embarrassingly clean police record, they CAN NOT deny me.
Have you noticed Ruger is now openly marketing a suppressor-ready
pistol? Un-be-leeeve-able!

nb

--
vi --the heart of evil!
--scream out the window "bitch!" --Bill Burr

G. Morgan wrote:
harry wrote:

Guns are intended to kill. Auto accidents are just that.
Not having guns would be lives saved.

No, that means only criminals will have them. By the time police
react to a situation, you're already dead.

The facts support my argument. Where do get the idea that "Not
having guns would be lives saved"?

Well, there are virtually no "legal" guns in Chicago. No sir, none. Zip.
Nada.

By Harry's logic there should be no shootings, let alone murders by guns.
But here's a fairly recent report:

"[June 21, 2010] Eight people were killed and at least 44 others were shot
across the city of Chicago Friday night into early Monday. "
http://www.eurweb.com/2010/06/chicag...kend-violence/

It must be, again according to Harry's logic, that the media are lying to
us. But we knew that from other examples.

"G. Morgan" wrote in message
...
gonjah wrote:

On 5/5/2012 12:28 AM, harry wrote:
Parents must be half wits.
I bet they are Republicans.
http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2012/05/...6pLid%3D107028


BTW: Accidental shootings, and all violent crimes, have been on the
decline for years now in the US.

The odds of being accidentally shot in the US are miniscule compared to
death by motor vehicle.

Should we outlaw cars too harry?

Why not? They serve no purpose either. g



Yeah
After all who needs a car when you can walk, bicycle and take the
bus.
Think of the children.

Attila.Iskander wrote:

You have a right to sue for damages if the PRODUCT is DEFECTIVE, and
are subsequently damage BECAUSE of the defect
You are NOT allowed to sue because a third party misuses the product
There are NO car manufacturers successfully sued because they were
harmed from driver negligence, error or even criminal use.
Ditto for ANY other product that were used in such a way.

Slight correction: You ARE allowed to sue. Anybody for anything. Generally.
That's why the federal law was passed; to prevent nuisance lawsuits. Or
emotionally-involved juries. Or rogue judges.

--- Begin quote

FINDINGS:
(7) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal
Government, States, municipalities, and private interest groups and others
are based on theories without foundation in hundreds of years of the common
law and jurisprudence of the United States and do not represent a bona fide
expansion of the common law. The possible sustaining of these actions by a
maverick judicial officer or petit jury would expand civil liability in a
manner never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution, by Congress,
or by the legislatures of the several States.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s397/text

---End quote

harry wrote:

And what logical, rational argument can anyone put forward defending
that law?

How would gun violence and death in the US be different if firearms
were treated EXACTLY like other consumer products under the law?

Why are they treated differently?

Because they are crazed in America. And gun manufacturers make lots
of money off the simple minded, fearful fools that buy them..

You GOT to be simple minded to leave a loaded gun where a two year old
can find it.

So, you're saying a two-year old shouldn't have the right to defend herself
or her loved ones? Maybe even the cat?

Liberal barbarism, I call it.

"G. Morgan" wrote in message
...
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

On 05/05/12 09:04 am, gonjah wrote:

Parents must be half wits.
I bet they are Republicans.
http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2012/05/...6pLid%3D107028



BTW: Accidental shootings, and all violent crimes, have been on the
decline for years now in the US.

The odds of being accidentally shot in the US are miniscule compared to
death by motor vehicle.

Should we outlaw cars too harry?

Firearms (other than the very few that are bought solely for target
practice) have no purpose other than to kill humans or animals. Motor
vehicles are not designed to kill.

Yet despite all the safety devices in motor vehicles, more people
(exponentially more people) are killed or maimed each year by them
than firearms.


Not to mention that the claim that guns "have no purpose other than to kill"
IS PATENTLY FALSE.
There are 8,000,000,000+ (yes BILLION) rounds of fired off each year in the
US
Were that claim in ANY WAY TRUE, there would be no one left alive in the
US in 16 days

Steve B wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news
Attila.Iskander wrote:
one of the highest highest murder rates.

Highest relative to what ?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...100-000-people
63rd place out of 124 is doesn't even qualify as "one of the
highest" BY ANY STANDARD.


Harry thinks that places where guns are mostly illegal are safer
from gun violence. Places like, oh, Mexico for example.

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO MEXICO?

Well, I have. I went to Cabo, San Jose del Cabo, Mazatlan, and Puerta
Vallarta. And up into the countryside around there. Like Copala.

It is just a land full of the sweetest nicest kind considerate people
I have ever seen. I think I'd like to live there some day. My
destination is Puenta Gorda, north of the new marina at San Jose del
Cabo.
I walked the streets. I bought things at the tourist shop. I ate at
lots of little restaurants. I sat on the beach and drank El Pacifico
and lime.
What could anyone say bad about Mexico? I think you are mistaken. The
Mexico I saw was very nice.


I'm in Texas.

I used to visit Mexico quite often. In the past couple of decades, Mexico
has come to visit me.

"G. Morgan" wrote in message
...
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

BTW, the Second Amendment states right up front why people should have
the right to bear arms. Have you signed up with your local militia? Does
your local militia commander know how to get in touch with you to summon
you for duty and what weapons you have and how well skilled you are in
their use? Do you report for training as required?

Lat time I checked the 'militia' (a.k.a. National Guard) provides
weapons to the volunteers and must be returned after the drill.


You also need to check the fact that National Guard is NOT the militia, as
per the Supreme Court.

"G. Morgan" wrote in message
...
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2012 20:07:05 -0500, G. Morgan

wrote:

Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

BTW, the Second Amendment states right up front why people should have
the right to bear arms. Have you signed up with your local militia? Does
your local militia commander know how to get in touch with you to summon
you for duty and what weapons you have and how well skilled you are in
their use? Do you report for training as required?

Lat time I checked the 'militia' (a.k.a. National Guard) provides
weapons to the volunteers and must be returned after the drill.

The "militia" is *not* the National Guard.

According to them it is. There are lots of militia groups if
that's what you mean.


ON this one, you are bloviating ignorance.
Please check your facts.

"notbob" wrote in message
...
On 2012-05-06, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

No, this is what I meant:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/I/13/311

10 U.S.C. § 311
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

Besides, how could the original authors of The Constitution possibly
have meant the current National Guard when no such entity existed in
1789, nor would it for another 114 yrs.

It always pains me to listen to these legal beagles try and outthink
the founding fathers, as if those great men somehow slipped up and got
it wrong. I'm not gonna dig up the 2nd ammendment for dissection at
this point, it all being too ludicrous to even comment on. Right now,
I'm happy the way it's going. The 2nd ammendment has been under
constant attack since its inception and is still healthy, alive, and
kicking, despite attempts by our increasingly repressive govt to
corrupt its meaning. The govt knows damn good and well exactly what
it means. It means if they push too far, the people are more than
capable of pushing right back. Not exactly conducive to the
furthering of a police state.

BTW, screw Jeff Cooper and his stupid "Cooperisms". Hopolophobe,
indeed! Sounds like someone with a phobia against Hopalong Cassidy.


I believe the case where the Supremes decided that the National Guard is NOT
the militia, is called Perpich.

notbob wrote:

It always pains me to listen to these legal beagles try and
outthink the founding fathers, as if those great men somehow
slipped up and got it wrong.

They fully expected the constitution to be re-written or changed every
20 to 30 years.

They would be slapping your faces if they knew you kept the same dusty
document as-written for over 200 years.

harry wrote:

I think he was talking about this Mexico.

http://www.wtop.com/215/2852855/Tort...aandthecaribbe...
(Funny harry didn't find that one)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Funny Nuevo Laredo is right next to the USA too. I wonder if that has
anything to do with it.

The USA exports violence and crime worldwide. You gotta feel sorry
for Mexicans right next to the US.

One can only wish we could export the right to keep and bear arms...

By Department of Justice standards, the SAFEST large city in the United
States is El Paso, Texas (pop. 801,000). Sixteen murders were recorded in El
Paso in 2011.

Now El Paso is less than 100 feet from Juarez, Mexico (pop. 1.4 million).
There were 3,075 murders in Juarez in 2011 (more or less - with a headless
body hanging upside-down from a bridge, it's sometimes hard to tell whether
the person died of natural causes).

Sixteen vs. three thousand. Which is better? Let me think...

"G. Morgan" wrote in message
...
harry wrote:

Guns are intended to kill. Auto accidents are just that.
Not having guns would be lives saved.

No, that means only criminals will have them. By the time police
react to a situation, you're already dead.

The facts support my argument. Where do get the idea that "Not
having guns would be lives saved"?


Because harry and the other idiot hoplophobes are only arguing about "gun
deaths" and ignoring all the rest
Ironically, in the UK, there are 4+ times more homicides committed with
knives than guns.
The fact that harry and his ilk COMPLETELY IGNORE that fact while going
after guns, demonstrates that it's NOT about ANYONE's safety. It's all about
their paranoid fear of guns.

harry wrote:

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO MEXICO?


I don't suppose he has been out of his home state.

Heh! I've been all over the world and parts of south Alabama.

I've even been to Manchester. And I'm returning in October.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On May 5, 8:10 pm, "Steve B" wrote:
http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top...eal-and-carry-...

I rest my case, yer honor.

Steve

Tch. Carrying knives is outlawed here as well.

And yet there are 4+ times more homicides committed with knives in the UK
than with guns
If you were all about public safety as you claim, then you should be
making 4+ times the effort to get knives banned, or at least strictly
controlled.

But since, it's about your paranoid fear of guns and NOT about ANYTHING
ELSE, you ignore that inconvenient truth.

On 2012-05-06, Home Guy wrote:

They would be slapping your faces.....

I only have one face. How many do you have?

nb

--
vi --the heart of evil!
--scream out the window "bitch!" --Bill Burr

"harry" wrote in message
...
On May 5, 9:26 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 5, 2:04 pm, gonjah gonjah.net wrote:
On 5/5/2012 12:28 AM, harry wrote:

Parents must be half wits.
I bet they are Republicans.
http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2012/05/...hot-dead-by-th...

BTW: Accidental shootings, and all violent crimes, have been on the
decline for years now in the US.

The odds of being accidentally shot in the US are miniscule compared
to death by motor vehicle.

Should we outlaw cars too harry?

Jim

Guns are intended to kill. Auto accidents are just that.
Not having guns would be lives saved.

That's bizarre. Having guns saves lives. By the hundreds of thousands.

The US experiences over two million defensive gun uses per year. Were it
not
for the gun, a significant number of those instances would result in
death.

Remember the mantra, "If Vince Foster had had a gun, he'd be alive
today."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Two million. You just made that up. Like the rest of the crap you
invent. (Vince Foster being ane xample.)


1) You don't even know who Vince Foster was.
2) In actual fact the number is closer to 2,500,000 DGUs annually
(Do your homework and read the Kleck study)

But you know harry, the ostrich is the symbol for all ignorant hoplophobes
like you
But instead of burying your heads in the sand, you plant it in your
fundaments.

On Sun, 6 May 2012 09:48:14 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"G. Morgan" wrote in message
...
gonjah wrote:

On 5/5/2012 12:28 AM, harry wrote:
Parents must be half wits.
I bet they are Republicans.
http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2012/05/...6pLid%3D107028


BTW: Accidental shootings, and all violent crimes, have been on the
decline for years now in the US.

The odds of being accidentally shot in the US are miniscule compared to
death by motor vehicle.

Should we outlaw cars too harry?

Why not? They serve no purpose either. g



Yeah
After all who needs a car when you can walk, bicycle and take the
bus.

No one has ever died riding a bus? Walk? In Chicago? Someone'll shoot you!

Think of the children.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On May 5, 10:03 pm, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2012 08:30:37 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

So how has having a gun helped you?

Which time? Fighting a rattlesnake, killing an about to strike cotton
mouth moccasin, inhibiting an 8 foot alligator from taking my ship?

Don't guns protect your beloved Queen?

Oh a regular Crocodile Dundee.
Fighting a rattlesnake. Heh Heh. Did the rattlesnake have a gun
too?
The all American hero.

I don't believe a word of it.
All of the above are very timid and only attack if provoked.


Shows how ignorant you are once again
But why do you need to prove your ignorance to the whole world
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crotalus_atrox
"Behavior
Life expectancy is more than 20 years, but is typically shorter
because of hunting and human expansion. Solitary outside
of mating season, they are one of the more aggressive
rattlesnake species found in North America because
they rarely back away from confrontation. "


News. It was an eight foot alligator sank the Titanic! Heh Heh.


Well maybe in your ignorant fantasies
The rest of us know better


Well guns didn't protect Kennedy. Or Regan. Or Lincoln. Garfield.
McKinley.

How do you imagine that an INANIMATE OBJECT is capable of doing ANYTHING on
it's own, including protecting someone
Are YOU really this stupid ?


I don't recall a single King or Queen ever being shot in the UK.


So ?
What does that prove ?

One or two have been executed or chopped to bits with swords.

So guns have a zero record for protecting anything.


Stupid premise
Even more stupid argument
Moronic conclusion

You are a complete dolt. You need to put your brain into gear before
your mouth.

LOL
You CLEARLY were looking into a mirror, and talking to yourself as you wrote
that one.


Mind you. Americans are noted for having big mouths.


But clearly you put them ALL to shame.

On Sun, 06 May 2012 11:00:55 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

notbob wrote:

It always pains me to listen to these legal beagles try and
outthink the founding fathers, as if those great men somehow
slipped up and got it wrong.

They fully expected the constitution to be re-written or changed every
20 to 30 years.

You're an idiot.

They would be slapping your faces if they knew you kept the same dusty
document as-written for over 200 years.

Admitted.

HeyBub wrote:

By Department of Justice standards, the SAFEST large city in the
United States is El Paso, Texas (pop. 801,000). Sixteen murders
were recorded in El Paso in 2011.

I'd like to see the stats for the rates per 100k people that are either
killed-on-scene or treated in hospitals for ANY injury caused by a
weapon, and see how those numbers break down when the weapon is a
firearm vs anything else (knife, 2x4, bow-and-arrow, etc).

Death stats are not necessarily illustrative of the net-harm caused to a
society because of guns, given increasingly sophisticated and effective
medical treatment.

The congresswoman from Arizona is forever going to live with the effects
of almost being killed by a gunshot to the brain. That she survived
does not take away from the utter lack of any redeeming value that guns
impart to US society.

notbob wrote:

They would be slapping your faces.....

I only have one face.

As a country, you have many faces.

How many do you have?

Some of you are two-faced.

" wrote:

They fully expected the constitution to be re-written or changed
every 20 to 30 years.

You're an idiot.

And you're an ignorant fool.

http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/07/0212constitution.html

===========
Thomas Jefferson believed that a country’s constitution should be
rewritten every 19 years. Instead, the U.S. Constitution, which
Jefferson did not help to write (he was in Paris serving as U.S.
minister to France when the Constitutional Convention was held in
Philadelphia), has prevailed since 1789.
===========

On Sat, 05 May 2012 18:16:07 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

What the hell are you doing destroying wildlife in the first place?

Kill or be killed. It's a fight or flight thingy...

On 2012-05-06, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2012 18:16:07 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

What the hell are you doing destroying wildlife in the first place?

Kill or be killed. It's a fight or flight thingy...

Appently Homo thinks black bears or even full grown raccoons, badgers,
etc, are some sorta Disney characters which will invite him to enjoy a
cuppa tea, rather than rip his lungs out or at least leave him as an
ambulance passenger.

The naivete of some ppl is even more astonishing than their
stupidity.

nb

--
vi --the heart of evil!
--scream out the window "bitch!" --Bill Burr

On Sat, 5 May 2012 18:28:53 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:

Most people in jail,

Yup
It means that criminals are not running around committing crimes
Funny how the crime rate has been dropping, as prisoners are being put
behind bars.

Yup. The days of locking people up for moonshine is over. Bank robbers
still make it to the big house. We damn sure have a lot more
terrorists locked up than we did 30 years ago.

Our federal prison system is the best in the world; a model for
others. If you go to prison in the UK, they will kill you by hugging
you to death or allowing you to many chocolate candy bars.

On Sat, 05 May 2012 21:10:12 -0400, "
wrote:

I beg to differ with you. My guns have never killed anything. Bullets
do the kilin' when and if essential.

Pencils were designed to cause spelling errors.

Obviously. Otherwise they wouldn't come with erasers.

Check your golf scoring pencils :-\

On Sat, 5 May 2012 23:35:57 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On May 5, 8:10*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top...eal-and-carry-...

I rest my case, yer honor.

Steve

Tch. Carrying knives is outlawed here as well.

After October the UK will be banning ice cream scoops.

On Sat, 5 May 2012 23:57:08 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

Mind you. Americans are noted for having big mouths.

With the balls to back it up.

Rattlesnakes, other vipers and alligators also have big mouths.

ya dumb muppet

On Sun, 6 May 2012 00:03:33 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On May 5, 11:26*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message

...

On Sat, 5 May 2012 08:30:37 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

So how has having a gun helped you?

Which time? Fighting a rattlesnake, killing an about to strike cotton
mouth moccasin, inhibiting an 8 foot alligator from taking my ship?

Don't guns protect your beloved Queen?

No, Oren. *I know, personally, just for me, when I see anyone who wears one
of those three foot high beaver skin stovepipe hats, I think, "That dude has
big balls, and I don't want to go near him."

Kinda like seeing a full dress biker.

You have to have big balls to wear a hat like that on public on purpose.

Steve

I bet he wears a Davy Crocket hat.

Leave Davy Crockett out of this and spell his name correctly. The man
was a national treasure.

You can fight with me, though.

The hats mentioned above are made from bears, that you brits kill so
the Queen's guard looks fancy.

ya muppet

On Sun, 6 May 2012 09:00:34 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:

You know that you are trying to argue rationally and intelligently with a
mindless hoplophobe

....like talkin' to a brick wall