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

harry wrote:

Parents must be half wits.
I bet they are Republicans.

I bet they're hill billies that don't even vote.

I'm posting the text of the story for those that haven't read it:

=========
May 4 / 2012

A family are dealing with unbearable grief this morning after their
16-month-old daughter was shot dead by her two-year-old brother – just
days after a similar tragedy.

Police are investigating the circumstances surrounding the death on
Tuesday, but it is believed that Calvuna Reese's unnamed brother
accidentally pulled the trigger of a loaded gun.

The news has sent shock waves around the community in Memphis,
Tennessee, U.S., with one neighbour, Randy Lark, telling the local TV
station: "Oh it tears me up. It really, really hurts. I'm so shocked and
hurt by what happened to this child."

Randy added: "Everyone should learn from that lesson, not to leave a
loaded gun around a kid."

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.
============

In the landscape of consumer products, firearms stand alone as being
inately dangerous while serving no useful purpose in the hands of
consumers. Firearms makers enjoy conspicuous freedom from law suits and
regulators by consumers when their products cause injury or death.

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.

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

On 2012-05-05, Home Guy wrote:

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.

What parallel universe is this guy living in? Mine has too damn many
"unconstitutional acts" being performed by a govt run amok and I don't
see it improving any time soon.

nb

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

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?

Jim

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.

Perce

On 5/5/2012 8:16 AM, 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.

Perce


That matters to the dead guy.

On 5/5/2012 9:04 AM, 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?

Jim



It doesn't matter. Clearly both harry and home guy live in a dark place
and are incapable of seeing anything but the negative side of all
situations.

If it were "free ice cream day" both would complain that the included
free toppings didn't include the color of sprinkles they like so clearly
the whole idea of "free ice cream day" is terrible...

On 05/05/12 08:42 am, Home Guy wrote:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-Kentucky.html

May 4 / 2012

A family are dealing with unbearable grief this morning after their
16-month-old daughter was shot dead by her two-year-old brother – just
days after a similar tragedy.

Police are investigating the circumstances surrounding the death on
Tuesday, but it is believed that Calvuna Reese's unnamed brother
accidentally pulled the trigger of a loaded gun.

The news has sent shock waves around the community in Memphis,
Tennessee, U.S., with one neighbour, Randy Lark, telling the local TV
station: "Oh it tears me up. It really, really hurts. I'm so shocked and
hurt by what happened to this child."

Randy added: "Everyone should learn from that lesson, not to leave a
loaded gun around a kid."

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.
============

In the landscape of consumer products, firearms stand alone as being
inately dangerous while serving no useful purpose in the hands of
consumers. Firearms makers enjoy conspicuous freedom from law suits and
regulators by consumers when their products cause injury or death.

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.

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

On 5/5/2012 8:19 AM, George wrote:
On 5/5/2012 9:04 AM, 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?

Jim



It doesn't matter. Clearly both harry and home guy live in a dark
place and are incapable of seeing anything but the negative side of
all situations.

If it were "free ice cream day" both would complain that the included
free toppings didn't include the color of sprinkles they like so
clearly the whole idea of "free ice cream day" is terrible...

LOL. Good one.

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

Truly regrettable. Still, an occasional tragedy, even a preventable one, is
the price we pay for freedom.

On May 5, 1:58*pm, notbob wrote:
On 2012-05-05, Home Guy wrote:

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.

What parallel universe is this guy living in? *Mine has too damn many
"unconstitutional acts" being performed by a govt run amok and I don't
see it improving any time soon.

nb

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

So how has having a gun helped you?

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.

On May 5, 2:19*pm, George wrote:
On 5/5/2012 9:04 AM, 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/...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

It doesn't matter. Clearly both harry and home guy live in a dark place
and are incapable of seeing anything but the negative side of all
situations.

If it were "free ice cream day" both would complain that the included
free toppings didn't include the color of sprinkles they like so clearly
the whole idea of "free ice cream day" is terrible...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

??????????
I think it's you lives in a dark, paranoid fearful world.

On 5/5/2012 10:32 AM, harry wrote:
On May 5, 2:04 pm, gonjahgonjah.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.

meh It's the risk you're afraid of. We're less risk adverse. You just
have to deal with it.

Some people use cars as weapons harry. Happens all the time.

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

On May 5, 1:58*pm, notbob wrote:
On 2012-05-05, Home Guy wrote:

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.

What parallel universe is this guy living in? *Mine has too damn many
"unconstitutional acts" being performed by a govt run amok and I don't
see it improving any time soon.

nb

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

So how has having a gun helped you?

Keeps your and HomoGuy's panties in a bunch.

On Sat, 5 May 2012 08:32:13 -0700 (PDT), 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.

Of course you never see that guns SAVE lives, too. One George Zimmerman,
comes to mind. snicker

On May 5, 3:31*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
Parents must be half wits.
I bet they are Republicans.
http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2012/05/...hot-dead-by-th...

Truly regrettable. Still, an occasional tragedy, even a preventable one, is
the price we pay for freedom.

You are slaves to your banksters.
Liviing in a place with concentration camps, arbitary arrest, Most
people in jail,
one of the highest highest murder rates. Most government snoops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rceration_rate

You are 668 times more likely to be killed with a gun in the US than
the UK.
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/...d-States/Crime

gonjah wrote:

Should we outlaw cars too harry?

Can consumers sue gun companies for product liability / defective
product reasons like they can for cars or other consumer products?

If an old lady can sue McDonalds because she burned herself when she
spilled a hot coffee, then why can't a home owner sue Smith & Wesson or
Colt because their product did not have enough built-in safety
mechanisms to prevent accidental injury or death?

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.

And anyone injured or killed by a stolen or lost gun (a gun that was not
reported to the police as being lost or stolen) should be able to sue
the last registered owner for negligence and wrongful death.

Insurance companies would or could include additional premiums for
homeowners that have or maintain dangerous products in their house that
can kill or injure others or be stolen and used to injure or kill others
- most specifically firearms.

If you want to make it so that it's your right to own a gun - fine.

If you want to own a company that makes or sells guns - fine.

If your gun injures or kills someone (regardless who pulled the trigger)
then some degree of responsibility should be aimed at you, and your ass
should be able to be sued for (at least) monentary damages.

You have to carry liability and property damage insurance to own/operate
a car.

The same should also apply to firearms.

In article ,
gonjah gonjah.net wrote:

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


And deaths by motorvehicle (at least as measured by deaths per
million miles traveled) have also been falling since ~1930s.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On 5/5/2012 11:54 AM, Home Guy wrote:
gonjah wrote:

Should we outlaw cars too harry?
Can consumers sue gun companies for product liability / defective
product reasons like they can for cars or other consumer products?

If an old lady can sue McDonalds because she burned herself when she
spilled a hot coffee, then why can't a home owner sue Smith& Wesson or
Colt because their product did not have enough built-in safety
mechanisms to prevent accidental injury or death?

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.

And anyone injured or killed by a stolen or lost gun (a gun that was not
reported to the police as being lost or stolen) should be able to sue
the last registered owner for negligence and wrongful death.

Insurance companies would or could include additional premiums for
homeowners that have or maintain dangerous products in their house that
can kill or injure others or be stolen and used to injure or kill others
- most specifically firearms.

If you want to make it so that it's your right to own a gun - fine.

If you want to own a company that makes or sells guns - fine.

If your gun injures or kills someone (regardless who pulled the trigger)
then some degree of responsibility should be aimed at you, and your ass
should be able to be sued for (at least) monentary damages.

You have to carry liability and property damage insurance to own/operate
a car.

The same should also apply to firearms.

This is moving the goal posts IMO. Good arguments, but not the root
issue of the right to bear arms.

Harry wants to law guns. Not practical here and will never happen anyway.

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

Accidental shootings and firearms mishaps were THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF DEATH
among the wagon trains in the 1800's. People mishandling guns, shooting
their uncle who was taking a dump out in the bushes and they thought they
was Injuns, etc.

Steve

Killing animals or humans, is often necessary.

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

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
news:jo396h$f5k$1@dont-

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.

Perce

The unfortunate death is a result of unsafe gun storage.

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

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

On 05/05/12 08:42 am, Home Guy wrote:


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.

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

On 5/5/2012 12:00 PM, gonjah wrote:
On 5/5/2012 11:54 AM, Home Guy wrote:
gonjah wrote:

Should we outlaw cars too harry?
Can consumers sue gun companies for product liability / defective
product reasons like they can for cars or other consumer products?

If an old lady can sue McDonalds because she burned herself when she
spilled a hot coffee, then why can't a home owner sue Smith& Wesson or
Colt because their product did not have enough built-in safety
mechanisms to prevent accidental injury or death?

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.

And anyone injured or killed by a stolen or lost gun (a gun that was not
reported to the police as being lost or stolen) should be able to sue
the last registered owner for negligence and wrongful death.

Insurance companies would or could include additional premiums for
homeowners that have or maintain dangerous products in their house that
can kill or injure others or be stolen and used to injure or kill others
- most specifically firearms.

If you want to make it so that it's your right to own a gun - fine.

If you want to own a company that makes or sells guns - fine.

If your gun injures or kills someone (regardless who pulled the trigger)
then some degree of responsibility should be aimed at you, and your ass
should be able to be sued for (at least) monentary damages.

You have to carry liability and property damage insurance to own/operate
a car.

The same should also apply to firearms.

This is moving the goal posts IMO. Good arguments, but not the root
issue of the right to bear arms.

Harry wants to law guns. Not practical here and will never happen anyway.

"outlaw"

On 5 May 2012 12:58:32 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2012-05-05, Home Guy wrote:

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.

What parallel universe is this guy living in? Mine has too damn many
"unconstitutional acts" being performed by a govt run amok and I don't
see it improving any time soon.

nb

.... and keep your powder dry

On Sat, 05 May 2012 09:16:01 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

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.

Perce

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.

On 5/5/2012 12:06 PM, Steve B wrote:
BTW: Accidental shootings, and all violent crimes, have been on the
decline for years now in the US.

Accidental shootings and firearms mishaps were THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF DEATH
among the wagon trains in the 1800's. People mishandling guns, shooting
their uncle who was taking a dump out in the bushes and they thought they
was Injuns, etc.

Steve



Well that settles it. Outlaw taking dumps.

On Sat, 5 May 2012 10:06:10 -0700, "Steve B" wrote:

Accidental shootings and firearms mishaps were THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF DEATH
among the wagon trains in the 1800's. People mishandling guns, shooting
their uncle who was taking a dump out in the bushes and they thought they
was Injuns, etc.

Steve


"... shaking that bush here Boss, shaking that bush (Cool Hand Luke)

On 05/05/12 01:42 pm, Oren wrote:

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.

Perce

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

So impose an enormous tax on ammunition.

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?

Perce

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top...RhrWCM9dQ.cspx

I rest my case, yer honor.

Steve

Worth noting, "the people" are not a state or national militia. The 2nd
recoginzes the God given rights, and prohibits the government from
infringing the God given rights.

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

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
news:jo3t0p$to$1@dont-

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?

Perce

On 2012-05-05, gonjah gonjah.net wrote:

Well that settles it. Outlaw taking dumps.

LOL!.....

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

On 2012-05-05, Oren wrote:

"... shaking that bush here Boss, shaking that bush (Cool Hand Luke)

ROFL!.......

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

On 2012-05-05, Oren wrote:

... and keep your powder dry

10-4

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

harry wrote:
On May 5, 1:58 pm, notbob wrote:
On 2012-05-05, Home Guy wrote:

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.

What parallel universe is this guy living in? Mine has too damn many
"unconstitutional acts" being performed by a govt run amok and I
don't see it improving any time soon.

nb

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

So how has having a gun helped you?

Not counting my time in another place, having a gun saved me from death or
serious bodily injury at least twice.

Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 05/05/12 01:42 pm, Oren wrote:

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.

Perce

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

So impose an enormous tax on ammunition.

The late Senator Patrick Moynihan proposed just that. Of course there is
reloading...


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?

You demonstrate your ignorance. In the 18th century, "militia" was defined
as the totality of all free men available for military service. One did not
"sign up" to be in the militia, one WAS in the militia simply by existing.
If, by training, you refer to the "well regulated" part of the 2nd
Amendment, you again demonstrate ignorance. Remember, in the 18th century,
there were no "regulations" as we know them nor any group, such as taxi
cabs, to be "regulated." The word "regulated" at that time (and still does
today in some small measure) meant "a functionally acceptable mechanical
device, meeting usage requirements" as in a "well-regulated timepiece."

You are correct about one of the reasons for firearms being stated up front
in the 2nd Amendment. Of course the ability to defend the country is not the
only reason as the money part of the amendment makes clear: "... the right
of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

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."

Home Guy wrote:
gonjah wrote:

Should we outlaw cars too harry?

Can consumers sue gun companies for product liability / defective
product reasons like they can for cars or other consumer products?

If an old lady can sue McDonalds because she burned herself when she
spilled a hot coffee, then why can't a home owner sue Smith & Wesson
or Colt because their product did not have enough built-in safety
mechanisms to prevent accidental injury or death?

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 (15 USC 7901 et seq. ).

See
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-10...-109publ92.pdf

On Sat, 05 May 2012 14:54:17 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

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

So impose an enormous tax on ammunition.


Liberal speak for "we need more laws". We already have enough gun
laws. Don't you get it?

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?

Perce

In summary, I am 911.

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?