I'm sure it was a bit cheaper, since you have the supply lines, and the
skills to put the damn thing in.

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

"Dustin" wrote in message
news:XnsA09BCE25E4521HHI2948AJD832@no...
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
:

Was the replacement window expensive?

Around 40 for the glass and a couple of hours putting the damn thing in...

No fooling? Might be mentioned in other places. Fools rush, where wise men
fear to tread?

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

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...


cowards handbook? heh... It's a fool who is not armed who faces off
against one who is.


Fools were mentioned quite often in the bible:

Doug wrote:

I agree.
Let me keep it brief here... Do you want gang members to be allowed
to " legally " carry guns?

Certainly.

Arguably, a gang member is in more need of self-defense than you.

Doug wrote:


You're evading my question but okay. If you represent the pro gun
people, then I guess you want no restrictions. I can never agree to
that no matter what you cite. Now if you want to resort to calling
me stupid or whatever, go ahead and make your day.

Strip away the rhetoric and the disputation comes down to those who are more
afraid of criminals than they are of guns vs those who are more afraid of
guns than they are of criminals.

I put you in the latter camp. Am I wrong?

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:44:53 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 09:41:59 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

... personally I think everyone who wants a
gun (with some restrictions) should be allowed to have a gun legally.
I'm not in favor of taking guns away from people (in most cases).

What "restrictions? Should a blind man own a gun?

What do you perceive as a reason to take away a privately owned gun?

You seen to have an opinion of when to take the guns... please share
with us.

At least two states I know about, Texas & Tennessee, a legally blind person
can obtain a concealed carry license.

In Georgia a guy had his permit revoked and a couple of his guns confiscated
because he was blind. He just won the suit to get them and his CCW permit
back.

Arguably, the physically handicapped have even MORE need of a weapon than
the more robust members of society.

That's why they call them "the great equalizer". OTOH, lefties want the weak
and minorities to be defenseless.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:18:55 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:51:20 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Oren wrote:

Kansas, a couple of years ago was considering removing the presidency
test for CCW renewals. The question of blindness and even people with
Parkinson's disease (can't hold a cup of tea) came up. Not sure what
or if the changes took place.

Arizona has no license requirement for CCW. So it seems reasonable
that a blind man could carry.


I was legally blind without my glasses when I went into the US Army
back in the '70s.


I meant to write "proficiency" above.

I'm in early stages of Glaucoma, myself. Time for a larger monitor :-\

Each of the eye doctors I've gone to have been concerned about glaucoma after
they've looked at my eyes. The pressure is fine (middle to low end of the
range) but the optic nerve pad is small, which is the real problem with
glaucoma. Each of them, after watching it every six months for a couple of
years has come to the conclusion that that's just the way it is. The most
recent even commented that perhaps my mother never did have glaucoma, rather I
inherited that trait from her. It wasn't glaucoma that did her eyes in, but
macular degeneration. Ugly! (OTHO, the was 90).

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:21:36 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

Oren wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:51:20 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Oren wrote:

Kansas, a couple of years ago was considering removing the presidency
test for CCW renewals. The question of blindness and even people with
Parkinson's disease (can't hold a cup of tea) came up. Not sure what
or if the changes took place.

Arizona has no license requirement for CCW. So it seems reasonable
that a blind man could carry.


I was legally blind without my glasses when I went into the US Army
back in the '70s.

I meant to write "proficiency" above.

I'm in early stages of Glaucoma, myself. Time for a larger monitor :-\


My 22" 2048 * 1536 HP monitor died on me.

Was it glaucoma or LEDcoma?
:-)

Silicosis. ;-)

On 7/25/2012 10:16 AM, Doug wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:37:05 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Doug wrote:


I wasn't but now I will..... personally I think everyone who wants a
gun (with some restrictions) should be allowed to have a gun legally.
I'm not in favor of taking guns away from people (in most cases).

I'll go farther. Everybody who wants a gun should have one PROVIDED by the
government (if they can't afford one on their own).

Here's the rationale: The courts have held that an individual charged with a
crime is entitled to a lawyer, at state expense if necessary, so that his
constitutional right to legal representation can be fulfilled.

It follows that if we have a right to own a gun...


Interesting opinion but expense of representation for me doesn't
equate to having the ability to kill someone.




Excluding Infants and coma patients, pretty much every one has the
ability to kill.

A firearm is just a tool.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:02:02 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Harry K wrote:

So one only has the "ability to kill someone" if they have a gun or a
lawyer??


You should never point a loaded lawyer at someone, unless you intend
to use it.

A loaded lawyer is safer than a sober one.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:03:21 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:17:49 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:37:05 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Doug wrote:


I wasn't but now I will..... personally I think everyone who wants a
gun (with some restrictions) should be allowed to have a gun legally.
I'm not in favor of taking guns away from people (in most cases).

I'll go farther. Everybody who wants a gun should have one PROVIDED by
the
government (if they can't afford one on their own).

Here's the rationale: The courts have held that an individual charged
with
a
crime is entitled to a lawyer, at state expense if necessary, so that
his
constitutional right to legal representation can be fulfilled.

It follows that if we have a right to own a gun...


Interesting opinion but expense of representation for me doesn't
equate to having the ability to kill someone.

Where do you presume you have to go out and kill someone ?


Presume no, potential yes

The word equate does NOT mean "potential by any stretch of the English
language
And if you're male, then does the fact that you have a penis mean that
you're automatically a "potential" rapist ?
And if you're female does your vagina, mean that your automatically a
"potential" prostitute ?

You're really really grasping at straws.

No, logic is not the leftie's strong suit.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:39:33 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote in message

I'll go farther. Everybody who wants a gun should have one PROVIDED
by the government (if they can't afford one on their own).

Here's the rationale: The courts have held that an individual
charged with a crime is entitled to a lawyer, at state expense if
necessary, so that his constitutional right to legal representation
can be fulfilled.

It follows that if we have a right to own a gun...

I'd like my free printing press, please, or alternately free broadband
Internet access.

They did loan me an assault rifle and a .45ACP once, with a few
conditions attached.....

One being that the rest of your Constitutional rights were, at least
temporarily, suspended.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:11:04 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:29:21 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:16:01 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
news:0qnv089c7r8kddl0qpr00kvrvhgs8cglug@4ax. com...
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 05:03:58 -0500, CRNG wrote:

Concealed weapons save lives
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/concealed-weapons-save-lives-article-1.1121161?localLinksEnabled=false


Interesting article if the facts are true. I'm going to guess that
if the movie house didn't have any sign, only a few would carry guns
on them into the movie house.

That is correct only 1-2% of the population chooses to be armed in
most
States
The rest of the population is willing to do nothing and depend on
luck,
the
police (who usually show up after the incident is over, or the hope
that
those 1-2% who carry are around and will respond to save them too.


I guess then an argument could be made
that if someone had a gun, they could have shot the shooter. I
think this is a valid point. I guess we need to ask ourselves with
what happened in this movie house in mind, if we went to a movie or
concert or any venue with a lot of people, would we feel safer with
some people carrying a gun or not?

Frankly, I hope you don't feel any safer if you choose to be passive
about
your own protection
And you should definitely not count on others saving your bacon for
you
when
you are not willing to make the effort for yourself
After all, the expectation that people who carry will automatically
stand
and respond is also a false expectation.
Our first duty is not to you but out ourselves and ours. Why should we
risk
ourselves, if there is a safe way for us and ours to get to safety.
After all, 97+% of the population CHOOSE not to arm themselves for
their
own
defense.
That is a morally corrupt mindset.

And the answer the other side of your question ,turn it around
Since the only people one needs to fear are those with criminal
intent,
why
would you feel less safe if there are armed law-abiding people around
you
?



Valid questions. Agreed.. having a person (not a cop) carrying a gun
near by doesn't obligate them to use it for my protection. I guess
that's why I can't feel safer or not in this situation but I would
feel unsafer if I felt (or worst knew) a certain individual should not
have a gun had one.

Problem is that you have made some vague allusions to who should not
have
a
gun, that are so far pretty arbitrary
And just because I feel that a particular individual does not have a
gun,
or
is too stupid to express himself intelligently, or is a religious
fanatic,
is not a justification to abrogate their rights UNTIL they actually do
something that justifies it
Preventive abrogation of rights is a nice wooly-warm feel-good
concept
that does not survive the hard truth that if you start abrogating rights
arbitrarily, your rights can be abrogated just as easily


I agree.
Let me keep it brief here... Do you want gang members to be allowed
to " legally " carry guns?

Another loaded question
Are you completely UNABLE to ask an honest question ?

So let's make your question more honest
Does it matter if gang members can carry guns ?
The answer is not really

Why not ?
Making it illegal for them to carry has NOT stopped them at all from
having,
carrying or using guns to commit crimes
100+ years ago, when you left the pen, you were considered to have served
your time
And your gun was returned to you.

So why waste time making it illegal
IT ACHIEVES NOTHING

All we need to do, is if they commit a crime with a gun, they go to jail.
After the 2nd or 3rd one, they get the chair.
And what they did as minors is NOT erased but is counted.

It's a much simpler solution



You're evading my question

Actually I answered it
I just evaded that loaded dishonest part


but okay. If you represent the pro gun
people, then I guess you want no restrictions.

I represent NO ONE BUT MYSELF
Do your bull**** projections some other way


I can never agree to that no matter what you cite.
Now if you want to resort to calling
me stupid or whatever, go ahead and make your day.

What you are desperately trying to do is skew everything to fit your
preconceived notions and justify your stance
That's also why you need to as a loaded question and then needed to
believe that I represent anyone else.

On 7/21/2012 5:26 PM, Richard wrote:
On 7/21/2012 7:14 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
During the Colorado shooting, wasn't there one person who said "Oh, well,
I'm dead anyway" and charged, and tackled the shooter? Or did they all
run
ad hide? I guess not?

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



I think it's a little unfair to ask that of civilians.
They thought they were going to a movie.


But one guy with a CC permit and a clear line of fire might have saved
some lives that day.

That fellow would have been...
1) shot by the police.
2) sued by everybody in the theater
3) God help him if he accidentally hit anybody.

After 911, I got a carry permit, primarily so I could
take a pistol in the car or motorhome without hassle.
I also carried it on the street for a while.
It gave me a false sense of security.
I determined that ANY action that I took would
involve WAY more risk to me than any help it could provide.

Ordinary people shouldn't carry guns.
But I'd defend their right to do so.

On Jul 25, 9:57*pm, mike wrote:
On 7/21/2012 5:26 PM, Richard wrote:





On 7/21/2012 7:14 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
During the Colorado shooting, wasn't there one person who said "Oh, well,
I'm dead anyway" and charged, and tackled the shooter? Or did they all
run
ad hide? I guess not?

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

I think it's a little unfair to ask that of civilians.
They thought they were going to a movie.

But one guy with a CC permit and a clear line of fire might have saved
some lives that day.

That fellow would have been...
1) shot by the police.
2) sued by everybody in the theater
3) God help him if he accidentally hit anybody.

After 911, I got a carry permit, primarily so I could
take a pistol in the car or motorhome without hassle.
I also carried it on the street for a while.
It gave me a false sense of security.
I determined that ANY action that I took would
involve WAY more risk to me than any help it could provide.

Ordinary people shouldn't carry guns.
But I'd defend their right to do so.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The average person does seem to be WAY too stupid to be carrying. Im
not too sure that the class they take to get a permit is much help. I
know of a few local permit holders that think their pistol can defy
the laws of physics.
I dont bother with a permit. Since I get harassed fairly regularly by
the local police, it probably cant come to a good end.
NB

Stormin Mormon wrote:

No fooling? Might be mentioned in other places. Fools rush, where wise men
fear to tread?


Yes, to register their run for office.

" wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:02:02 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Harry K wrote:

So one only has the "ability to kill someone" if they have a gun or a
lawyer??


You should never point a loaded lawyer at someone, unless you intend
to use it.

A loaded lawyer is safer than a sober one.


Not if they have a gun.

That, or a CCW guy at the theatrer would have stopped the shooter, and then
put away his weapon. The cops would have showed up, took a couple hundred
eye witness reports, and a couple hundred sheeple would have thanked the CCW
guy.

I'm sorry you thought it was false security. Maybe it was, in your case. You
lack confidence?

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

"mike" wrote in message
...

That fellow would have been...
1) shot by the police.
2) sued by everybody in the theater
3) God help him if he accidentally hit anybody.

After 911, I got a carry permit, primarily so I could
take a pistol in the car or motorhome without hassle.
I also carried it on the street for a while.
It gave me a false sense of security.
I determined that ANY action that I took would
involve WAY more risk to me than any help it could provide.

Ordinary people shouldn't carry guns.
But I'd defend their right to do so.

Stormin Mormon wrote:

That, or a CCW guy at the theatrer would have stopped the shooter, and then
put away his weapon. The cops would have showed up, took a couple hundred
eye witness reports, and a couple hundred sheeple would have thanked the CCW
guy.

I'm sorry you thought it was false security. Maybe it was, in your case. You
lack confidence?


Or he's planning on a shooting spree.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:10:56 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:03:21 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:17:49 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:37:05 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Doug wrote:


I wasn't but now I will..... personally I think everyone who wants a
gun (with some restrictions) should be allowed to have a gun legally.
I'm not in favor of taking guns away from people (in most cases).

I'll go farther. Everybody who wants a gun should have one PROVIDED by
the
government (if they can't afford one on their own).

Here's the rationale: The courts have held that an individual charged
with
a
crime is entitled to a lawyer, at state expense if necessary, so that
his
constitutional right to legal representation can be fulfilled.

It follows that if we have a right to own a gun...


Interesting opinion but expense of representation for me doesn't
equate to having the ability to kill someone.

Where do you presume you have to go out and kill someone ?


Presume no, potential yes

The word equate does NOT mean "potential by any stretch of the English
language
And if you're male, then does the fact that you have a penis mean that
you're automatically a "potential" rapist ?
And if you're female does your vagina, mean that your automatically a
"potential" prostitute ?

You're really really grasping at straws.

No, logic is not the leftie's strong suit.


Say that or call me names, doesn't matter.
I have no problem with people having guns legally as long as they're
qualified to do so. I also want some better accountability who has a
legal gun. That reminds me, recently I heard on the radio that the
NRA also believes in restrictions tho I don't know if that's true nor
what restrictions but that's what I heard.

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:29:06 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

I have no problem with people having guns legally as long as they're
qualified to do so.

The 2nd Amendment is qualification enough.

I also want some better accountability who has a
legal gun.

More Big Brother crap. How will they know when guns can be bartered or
traded amongst friends.

That reminds me, recently I heard on the radio that the
NRA also believes in restrictions tho I don't know if that's true nor
what restrictions but that's what I heard.

They also believe in removing restrictions.
--

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:29:06 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:10:56 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:03:21 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:17:49 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:37:05 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Doug wrote:


I wasn't but now I will..... personally I think everyone who wants a
gun (with some restrictions) should be allowed to have a gun legally.
I'm not in favor of taking guns away from people (in most cases).

I'll go farther. Everybody who wants a gun should have one PROVIDED by
the
government (if they can't afford one on their own).

Here's the rationale: The courts have held that an individual charged
with
a
crime is entitled to a lawyer, at state expense if necessary, so that
his
constitutional right to legal representation can be fulfilled.

It follows that if we have a right to own a gun...


Interesting opinion but expense of representation for me doesn't
equate to having the ability to kill someone.

Where do you presume you have to go out and kill someone ?


Presume no, potential yes

The word equate does NOT mean "potential by any stretch of the English
language
And if you're male, then does the fact that you have a penis mean that
you're automatically a "potential" rapist ?
And if you're female does your vagina, mean that your automatically a
"potential" prostitute ?

You're really really grasping at straws.

No, logic is not the leftie's strong suit.


Say that or call me names, doesn't matter.

No "names" at all. You *are* a lefty and logic obviously isn't your strong
suit (it isn't for any lefty but you're special).

I have no problem with people having guns legally as long as they're
qualified to do so.

You're a liar.

I also want some better accountability who has a legal gun.

See! You're a liar.

That reminds me, recently I heard on the radio that the
NRA also believes in restrictions tho I don't know if that's true nor
what restrictions but that's what I heard.

Again, you don't care to find out. All you're interested in is spreading your
"opinions". You "opinion" of what other's have said isn't all that
interesting to anyone.

"Michael A. Terrell" on Wed, 25 Jul 2012
20:25:48 -0400 typed in alt.survival the following:
Dustin wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Gunner Asch wrote:
One assumes you did the legal thing and stopped after the event
and reported it?
Legal?

What law, statute, ordinance, or common sense mandates an individual
risk his life when retreat or escape is possible?
That is from the front cover of the coward's handbook.

cowards handbook? heh... It's a fool who is not armed who faces off
against one who is.

Fools were mentioned quite often in the bible:


OpenBible.info


What does the Bible say about ?

Bible Verses about Fool

thanks for the list.

But I think you missed one

Proverbs 17:16
Wherefore is there a price in the hand of a fool to get wisdom, seeing
he hath no heart to it? (KJV)

or -
"What profiteth it to a fool to have riches, since he may not buy
wisdom? (since he cannot buy wisdom?) He that maketh his house high,
seeketh falling; and he that escheweth to learn, shall fall into
evils." (The Wycliffe translation ~1390)

--
pyotr filipivich
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
[Book of Proverbs. Chapter 26: Verses 4 & 5]
Decisions, Decisions, decisions...

pyotr filipivich wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" on Wed, 25 Jul 2012
20:25:48 -0400 typed in alt.survival the following:
Dustin wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Gunner Asch wrote:
One assumes you did the legal thing and stopped after the event
and reported it?
Legal?

What law, statute, ordinance, or common sense mandates an individual
risk his life when retreat or escape is possible?
That is from the front cover of the coward's handbook.

cowards handbook? heh... It's a fool who is not armed who faces off
against one who is.

Fools were mentioned quite often in the bible:


OpenBible.info


What does the Bible say about ?

Bible Verses about Fool

thanks for the list.

But I think you missed one


That was just a list I'd found online. I'm sure there are others.


Proverbs 17:16
Wherefore is there a price in the hand of a fool to get wisdom, seeing
he hath no heart to it? (KJV)

or -
"What profiteth it to a fool to have riches, since he may not buy
wisdom? (since he cannot buy wisdom?) He that maketh his house high,
seeketh falling; and he that escheweth to learn, shall fall into
evils." (The Wycliffe translation ~1390)


Fools, fools everywhere and not a clear thought among them.

" on Wed, 25 Jul 2012
22:09:38 -0400 typed in alt.survival the following:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:02:02 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Harry K wrote:

So one only has the "ability to kill someone" if they have a gun or a
lawyer??

You should never point a loaded lawyer at someone, unless you intend
to use it.

A loaded lawyer is safer than a sober one.

Not necessarily. But, just as you can get more with a kind word
and a gun, than with a kind word alone*, so you can steal more with a
briefcase and a gun, than with a briefcase alone.


tschus
pyotr

*attributed to Alphonse "Big Al" Capone, well known Used Furniture
Dealer from Chicago.
--
pyotr filipivich
Most journalists these days couldn't investigate a missing chocolate cake
at a pre-school without a Democrat office holder telling them what to look for,
where, and why it is Geroge Bush's fault.

pyotr filipivich wrote:

" on Wed, 25 Jul 2012
22:09:38 -0400 typed in alt.survival the following:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:02:02 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Harry K wrote:

So one only has the "ability to kill someone" if they have a gun or a
lawyer??

You should never point a loaded lawyer at someone, unless you intend
to use it.

A loaded lawyer is safer than a sober one.

Not necessarily. But, just as you can get more with a kind word
and a gun, than with a kind word alone*, so you can steal more with a
briefcase and a gun, than with a briefcase alone.

tschus
pyotr

*attributed to Alphonse "Big Al" Capone, well known Used Furniture
Dealer from Chicago.



Al was definately against armed citizens.

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:53:37 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:29:06 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:10:56 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:03:21 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:17:49 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
news:b33018tij0jri6do8ni0m1ntj6pmis4l9f@4ax. com...
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:37:05 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Doug wrote:


I wasn't but now I will..... personally I think everyone who wants a
gun (with some restrictions) should be allowed to have a gun legally.
I'm not in favor of taking guns away from people (in most cases).

I'll go farther. Everybody who wants a gun should have one PROVIDED by
the
government (if they can't afford one on their own).

Here's the rationale: The courts have held that an individual charged
with
a
crime is entitled to a lawyer, at state expense if necessary, so that
his
constitutional right to legal representation can be fulfilled.

It follows that if we have a right to own a gun...


Interesting opinion but expense of representation for me doesn't
equate to having the ability to kill someone.

Where do you presume you have to go out and kill someone ?


Presume no, potential yes

The word equate does NOT mean "potential by any stretch of the English
language
And if you're male, then does the fact that you have a penis mean that
you're automatically a "potential" rapist ?
And if you're female does your vagina, mean that your automatically a
"potential" prostitute ?

You're really really grasping at straws.

No, logic is not the leftie's strong suit.


Say that or call me names, doesn't matter.

No "names" at all. You *are* a lefty and logic obviously isn't your strong
suit (it isn't for any lefty but you're special).

I have no problem with people having guns legally as long as they're
qualified to do so.

You're a liar.

I also want some better accountability who has a legal gun.

See! You're a liar.

That reminds me, recently I heard on the radio that the
NRA also believes in restrictions tho I don't know if that's true nor
what restrictions but that's what I heard.

Again, you don't care to find out. All you're interested in is spreading your
"opinions". You "opinion" of what other's have said isn't all that
interesting to anyone.


Liar ??? Cause I told you what I think?? Well okay if that's your
opinion. And I agree with you about the NRA, I don't care to
research it and I stated that I didn't know it to be true but that I
heard it on the radio. Perhaps you think I'm lying about that ???

"Michael A. Terrell" on Thu, 26 Jul 2012
14:07:17 -0400 typed in alt.survival the following:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" on Wed, 25 Jul 2012
20:25:48 -0400 typed in alt.survival the following:
Dustin wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Gunner Asch wrote:
One assumes you did the legal thing and stopped after the event
and reported it?
Legal?

What law, statute, ordinance, or common sense mandates an individual
risk his life when retreat or escape is possible?
That is from the front cover of the coward's handbook.

cowards handbook? heh... It's a fool who is not armed who faces off
against one who is.

Fools were mentioned quite often in the bible:


OpenBible.info


What does the Bible say about ?

Bible Verses about Fool

thanks for the list.

But I think you missed one


That was just a list I'd found online. I'm sure there are others.

Oh there are, there are.


Proverbs 17:16
Wherefore is there a price in the hand of a fool to get wisdom, seeing
he hath no heart to it? (KJV)

or -
"What profiteth it to a fool to have riches, since he may not buy
wisdom? (since he cannot buy wisdom?) He that maketh his house high,
seeketh falling; and he that escheweth to learn, shall fall into
evils." (The Wycliffe translation ~1390)


Fools, fools everywhere and not a clear thought among them.

Lemme hear an 'Amen'.

pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
Most journalists these days couldn't investigate a missing chocolate cake
at a pre-school without a Democrat office holder telling them what to look for,
where, and why it is Geroge Bush's fault.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:06:51 -0400, "
wrote:

I meant to write "proficiency" above.

I'm in early stages of Glaucoma, myself. Time for a larger monitor :-\

Each of the eye doctors I've gone to have been concerned about glaucoma after
they've looked at my eyes. The pressure is fine (middle to low end of the
range) but the optic nerve pad is small, which is the real problem with
glaucoma. Each of them, after watching it every six months for a couple of
years has come to the conclusion that that's just the way it is. The most
recent even commented that perhaps my mother never did have glaucoma, rather I
inherited that trait from her. It wasn't glaucoma that did her eyes in, but
macular degeneration. Ugly! (OTHO, the was 90).

Sounds close to my story. Mom has MD and is now aged 90.

With "early stages of Glaucoma" I can get by fine with just cheap
reading glasses. I really do need to move away from my 15" monitor :-\
--

I only respond to "can I get an Amen!"

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

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message

Fools, fools everywhere and not a clear thought among them.

Lemme hear an 'Amen'.

pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
Most journalists these days couldn't investigate a missing chocolate cake
at a pre-school without a Democrat office holder telling them what to look
for,
where, and why it is Geroge Bush's fault.

"mike" wrote in message
...
On 7/21/2012 5:26 PM, Richard wrote:
On 7/21/2012 7:14 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
During the Colorado shooting, wasn't there one person who said "Oh,
well,
I'm dead anyway" and charged, and tackled the shooter? Or did they all
run
ad hide? I guess not?

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



I think it's a little unfair to ask that of civilians.
They thought they were going to a movie.


But one guy with a CC permit and a clear line of fire might have saved
some lives that day.

That fellow would have been...
1) shot by the police.

Really ?
Why ?

2) sued by everybody in the theater

Really ?
Why ?

3) God help him if he accidentally hit anybody.


Really ?
Why ?


After 911, I got a carry permit, primarily so I could
take a pistol in the car or motorhome without hassle.
I also carried it on the street for a while.
It gave me a false sense of security.
I determined that ANY action that I took would
involve WAY more risk to me than any help it could provide.


That's you
But that does not make it true for anyone else


Ordinary people shouldn't carry guns.
But I'd defend their right to do so.

You're right
And since only 1-2% of the population chooses to carry, they definitely are
not ordinary like you

On 7/26/2012 3:32 PM, Atila Iskander wrote:

"mike" wrote in message
...
On 7/21/2012 5:26 PM, Richard wrote:
On 7/21/2012 7:14 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
During the Colorado shooting, wasn't there one person who said "Oh,
well,
I'm dead anyway" and charged, and tackled the shooter? Or did they all
run
ad hide? I guess not?

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



I think it's a little unfair to ask that of civilians.
They thought they were going to a movie.


But one guy with a CC permit and a clear line of fire might have saved
some lives that day.

That fellow would have been...
1) shot by the police.

Really ?
Why ?
If you have to ask, you haven't thought about it.

2) sued by everybody in the theater

Really ?
Why ?
My hearing was damaged by the cowboy sitting next to me shooting.
I was hit by an ejected shell casing.
I wouldn't have been shot if the cowboy hadn't drawn fire.
The ambulance chaser talked me into joining the suit so I could get some
free $$$.
Everybody's glad they got out alive until the lawyers get in the act.
.....
....

3) God help him if he accidentally hit anybody.


Really ?
Why ?
Probably manslaughter, but I don't know the exact laws involved.
You don't shoot people, period!!!
Sorry, your honor, the guy just stood up when I was shooting at the perp.


After 911, I got a carry permit, primarily so I could
take a pistol in the car or motorhome without hassle.
I also carried it on the street for a while.
It gave me a false sense of security.
I determined that ANY action that I took would
involve WAY more risk to me than any help it could provide.


That's you
But that does not make it true for anyone else


Ordinary people shouldn't carry guns.
But I'd defend their right to do so.

You're right
And since only 1-2% of the population chooses to carry, they definitely
are not ordinary like you


Unless you happened to be very near the shooter with a clear line of
sight, and there's a high probability that YOU will be shot,
the possibility of collateral damage is WAY too high in a theater.


Your questions suggest that you shouldn't be carrying a gun.

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:58:39 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:06:51 -0400, "
wrote:

I meant to write "proficiency" above.

I'm in early stages of Glaucoma, myself. Time for a larger monitor :-\

Each of the eye doctors I've gone to have been concerned about glaucoma after
they've looked at my eyes. The pressure is fine (middle to low end of the
range) but the optic nerve pad is small, which is the real problem with
glaucoma. Each of them, after watching it every six months for a couple of
years has come to the conclusion that that's just the way it is. The most
recent even commented that perhaps my mother never did have glaucoma, rather I
inherited that trait from her. It wasn't glaucoma that did her eyes in, but
macular degeneration. Ugly! (OTHO, the was 90).

Sounds close to my story. Mom has MD and is now aged 90.

With "early stages of Glaucoma" I can get by fine with just cheap
reading glasses. I really do need to move away from my 15" monitor :-\

When you say "early stages of Glaucoma", do you mean you're losing your sight
because of it already? If so, that's not "early". It can often be many years
between when symptoms can be detected and any permanent vision loss. OTOH,
eyes do deteriorate, naturally, with age. Generally, it's just loss of the
ability to focus or Cataracts, which are easily corrected.

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:42:48 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:53:37 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:29:06 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:10:56 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:03:21 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:17:49 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
news:b33018tij0jri6do8ni0m1ntj6pmis4l9f@4ax .com...
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:37:05 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Doug wrote:


I wasn't but now I will..... personally I think everyone who wants a
gun (with some restrictions) should be allowed to have a gun legally.
I'm not in favor of taking guns away from people (in most cases).

I'll go farther. Everybody who wants a gun should have one PROVIDED by
the
government (if they can't afford one on their own).

Here's the rationale: The courts have held that an individual charged
with
a
crime is entitled to a lawyer, at state expense if necessary, so that
his
constitutional right to legal representation can be fulfilled.

It follows that if we have a right to own a gun...


Interesting opinion but expense of representation for me doesn't
equate to having the ability to kill someone.

Where do you presume you have to go out and kill someone ?


Presume no, potential yes

The word equate does NOT mean "potential by any stretch of the English
language
And if you're male, then does the fact that you have a penis mean that
you're automatically a "potential" rapist ?
And if you're female does your vagina, mean that your automatically a
"potential" prostitute ?

You're really really grasping at straws.

No, logic is not the leftie's strong suit.


Say that or call me names, doesn't matter.

No "names" at all. You *are* a lefty and logic obviously isn't your strong
suit (it isn't for any lefty but you're special).

I have no problem with people having guns legally as long as they're
qualified to do so.

You're a liar.

I also want some better accountability who has a legal gun.

See! You're a liar.

That reminds me, recently I heard on the radio that the
NRA also believes in restrictions tho I don't know if that's true nor
what restrictions but that's what I heard.

Again, you don't care to find out. All you're interested in is spreading your
"opinions". You "opinion" of what other's have said isn't all that
interesting to anyone.


Liar ???

Well, at least you can read four letter words.

Cause I told you what I think??

No, because you tell untruths and have no interest in correcting them.

Well okay if that's your opinion.

Eveyone is welcome to their own opinion but they are not welcome to their own
facts. Your facts aren't and you have no interest in correcting them.

And I agree with you about the NRA,

At least now you agree that you're a liar.

I don't care to research it

Bingo! You're a liar.

and I stated that I didn't know it to be true but that I
heard it on the radio. Perhaps you think I'm lying about that ???

If you weren't a liar you wouldn't have repeated an untruth and would at least
look at contrary information. No, your mind is made up and lies are a
perfectly good replacement for a little research.

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:01:48 -0700, mike wrote:

My hearing was damaged by the cowboy sitting next to me shooting.
I was hit by an ejected shell casing.
I wouldn't have been shot if the cowboy hadn't drawn fire.
The ambulance chaser talked me into joining the suit so I could get some
free $$$.
Everybody's glad they got out alive until the lawyers get in the act.

I don't believe you. An ejected HOT casing is not like or the same as
being "shot".

Who shot you? What report did the surgeon issue?

How did this "cowboy" draw fire, exactly?
--

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:05:42 -0400, "
wrote:


When you say "early stages of Glaucoma", do you mean you're losing your sight
because of it already? If so, that's not "early". It can often be many years
between when symptoms can be detected and any permanent vision loss. OTOH,
eyes do deteriorate, naturally, with age. Generally, it's just loss of the
ability to focus or Cataracts, which are easily corrected.

shrugs shoulders The doc called it "early stages". Not being a
doctor I cannot say for sure. I do know my eye balls are getting old.

Every day ...
--

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:32:32 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:05:42 -0400, "
wrote:


When you say "early stages of Glaucoma", do you mean you're losing your sight
because of it already? If so, that's not "early". It can often be many years
between when symptoms can be detected and any permanent vision loss. OTOH,
eyes do deteriorate, naturally, with age. Generally, it's just loss of the
ability to focus or Cataracts, which are easily corrected.

shrugs shoulders The doc called it "early stages". Not being a
doctor I cannot say for sure.

Interesting. As I said above, my mother was in the "early stages" for forty
years with no vision loss (because of Glaucoma).

I do know my eye balls are getting old.

That's the good news.

Every day ...

The bad news: some day they'll stop.

On 7/26/2012 4:26 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:01:48 -0700, wrote:

My hearing was damaged by the cowboy sitting next to me shooting.
I was hit by an ejected shell casing.
I wouldn't have been shot if the cowboy hadn't drawn fire.
The ambulance chaser talked me into joining the suit so I could get some
free $$$.
Everybody's glad they got out alive until the lawyers get in the act.

I don't believe you.
Your belief is not required.
An ejected HOT casing is not like or the same as
being "shot".
Agreed, but when the lawyers get through writing up the
claim, it's still injury for which YOU are at fault.

Who shot you? What report did the surgeon issue?
Don't matter who shot you. IF MY USE OF MY WEAPON caused
the perp to shoot you instead of someone else, I'd not like
to be in the defedant's chair.
You seem to be missing the point that you don't have to be
guilty of anything to be financially ruined or convicted and
go to jail. It's not about right or wrong. It's about politics
and media and 12 people. The outcome of your trial might depend
more on who got shot or who got elected in the time between
your incident and your trial.

How did this "cowboy" draw fire, exactly?
Muzzle flash in view of the perp.
Surely you can't be this dense???

Do you seriously think that average Joe fresh out of the
two hour training course it took to get the carry permit
is gonna pull his shiny new .380 with the 2" barrel
and take out a shooter
with body armor and automatic weapons from 100 feet away
in a darkened theater filled to capacity with people
screaming and running every which way?



Fear of unintended consequences is the primary reason I decided
not to carry a weapon.
I had myself convinced that I have no moral issues with killing
the perp dead! But it's not that simple.

Theater shootings are rare. It's more likely you'll be in
a more personal situation.

It takes a split second or two to assess the situation...
Is what I'm about to do sanctioned behavior in this jurisdiction?
Is the testimony likely to happen in court gonna support my actions?
At what point do I decide that the situation cannot be resolved
and pull the trigger?
Where is the bullet gonna go after it hits (or misses) the target?
Am I trading the loss of a few hundred bux for the probability of
being murdered by his gang buddies?
The answer to most of those questions is, "gee, I don't know."

And what if you're defending someone else?
Do you run away and be done with it?
Or do you stay at great personal risk and try to help?
"The kids were just asking me directions and that guy ran
up and shot one of 'em."

I came to the conclusion that, for me, a weapon would do more
harm than good. I believe that's the same conclusion most thoughtful
people would reach.

We really don't need a bunch of cowboys running around with guns
and an itchy trigger finger.

But, I'd still support the right to bear arms.
People with valid gun permits are not the ones that I worry about.

"mike" wrote in message
...
On 7/26/2012 3:32 PM, Atila Iskander wrote:

"mike" wrote in message

But one guy with a CC permit and a clear line of fire might have saved
some lives that day.

That fellow would have been...
1) shot by the police.

Really ?
Why ?
If you have to ask, you haven't thought about it.


We have lots of incidents where people who packed and used their guns did
not get shot by the police
And although the police shoot about 6 times as many innocent bystanders are
armed citizens, that is not a guarantee that a citizen will be automatically
shot by the police
Try again


2) sued by everybody in the theater

Really ?
Why ?
My hearing was damaged by the cowboy sitting next to me shooting.
I was hit by an ejected shell casing.
I wouldn't have been shot if the cowboy hadn't drawn fire.
The ambulance chaser talked me into joining the suit so I could get some
free $$$.
Everybody's glad they got out alive until the lawyers get in the act.
....
...

1) All of the above can also be ascribed to the shooter who was trying to
kill you
2) Good Samaritan rule would be applicable in this case
3) If not 2), then State law exempting from lawsuit the person who took
on the shooter.



3) God help him if he accidentally hit anybody.


Really ?
Why ?
Probably manslaughter, but I don't know the exact laws involved.

Yes that's is obvious
Maybe you should check the law BEFORE you pronounce yourself in future.


You don't shoot people, period!!!

Well, that's nice in theory
But real life is a different story

Sorry, your honor, the guy just stood up when I was shooting at the perp.

Well, then it's the idiot's fault for standing up while shots are being
exchanged.





After 911, I got a carry permit, primarily so I could
take a pistol in the car or motorhome without hassle.
I also carried it on the street for a while.
It gave me a false sense of security.
I determined that ANY action that I took would
involve WAY more risk to me than any help it could provide.


That's you
But that does not make it true for anyone else


Ordinary people shouldn't carry guns.
But I'd defend their right to do so.

You're right
And since only 1-2% of the population chooses to carry, they definitely
are not ordinary like you


Unless you happened to be very near the shooter with a clear line of
sight, and there's a high probability that YOU will be shot,
the possibility of collateral damage is WAY too high in a theater.


You demonstrate that you haven't thought this through
1) The shooter was standing in front of the screen, which means he was
literally standing in a spotlight
2) Most theaters today, have the seats on rising steps, so that that
audience has a clear line of set to the screen unimpeded buy the audience in
front.
3) Anyone shooting back would have no problem finding a clear shot while
the rest of the audience, if they had any brains would be keeping low and
scurrying for cover or the exits.
The scenario of someone standing straight up, you proposed earlier
is highly unlikely except maybe for an clueless idiot
4) The distances involved would be less than 25 yards. A distance that
handgun shooters shoot at quite often
I can consistently hit within a 5" circle with a 4" S&W 681 in .357
magnum at 50 yards
I can do the same with a 2" snubby at 25 yards
And I know people who can shoot tighter than that doing
double-action double taps.
.. (But they've practiced far more than me)


Your questions suggest that you shouldn't be carrying a gun.


More like my questions were to discover how clueless you are about this
subject

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in
m:

Fools were mentioned quite often in the bible:

Yikes!

I'm much more interested in your soldering techniques. I'd rather not
discuss religion with you. I just can't see any good that would come of
it.

I have already offended you in some fashion.. I'd rather not make things
worse by engaging in a debate concerning philosophy, religion, or
politics.



--
Things look bad from over here. Too much confusion and no solution.
Everyone here knows your fear. Your out of touch and you try too much.
Yesterdays glory will help us today. You wanna retire? Get outta the way.
I ain't got much time. Young ones close behind. I can't wait in line.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
:

I'm sure it was a bit cheaper, since you have the supply lines, and
the skills to put the damn thing in.

I'm sorry? I don't own a glass company. I paid what everybody else who
called the store paid. The skills? Uhh, no. I have mitchelOnDemand; I used
that to show me what I needed to do. Skills=computers. I used that to show
me the required steps to change the glass. [g]

I cheated, in other words.


--
Things look bad from over here. Too much confusion and no solution.
Everyone here knows your fear. Your out of touch and you try too much.
Yesterdays glory will help us today. You wanna retire? Get outta the way.
I ain't got much time. Young ones close behind. I can't wait in line.