"harry" wrote in message
...
On Dec 26, 5:40 pm, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky-
finger.net wrote:
On 12/26/2012 11:37 AM, harry wrote:









On Dec 26, 5:29 pm, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky-
finger.net wrote:
On 12/26/2012 11:06 AM, harry wrote:

On Dec 26, 2:14 pm, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky-
finger.net wrote:
On 12/26/2012 8:02 AM, HeyBub wrote:

harry wrote:

Notable how these massacrists always go for the helpless.
Part oft he innate cowardice of gunowners.

Er, not exactly. These mass shooters do go for the helpless but in a
"gun
free" zone. Ever hear of a mass shooting in a police station or gun
shop?

Yep, in The Terminator movie. Our friend Harry believes Americans get
their education from Hollywood so I'm lead to believe he does the
same. ^_^

TDD

The terminator movie was fiction Duf. Try to get a grasp.

No real life massacrist would do that. They prefer helpless kids. Or
to shoot people down from a long range.
Innate cowards, like all gun owners.

Gosh, how do those fellows in The SAS handle it? All those guns, they
must live in terror but wait, technically your government owns the guns
so your whole government is made up of cowards. ^_^

TDD

The SAS is up against the armies of other countries.
Not school children and firefighters.

But they kill schoolchildren and innocent men and women in other
countries. O_o

TDD
#
#But you are the masters in the USA. Hardly a week goes by without an
# incident.
#
#I also hear your police are militarised now and shoot unarmed
# demonstrators down in the streets too.
#

While your police shoot some poor guy sitting in a subway train.
Or some cabinet-maker walking down the street with a piano leg he's taking
to his shop to fix

You are a pustulent sore.
We can only hope that some thug in the UK will lance you real soon and
make the world a cleaner place.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Dec 26, 2:21 pm, diy savant wrote:
On 12/26/2012 12:21 AM, Home Guy wrote:

Ashton Crusher used improper usenet message composition style by
unnecessarily full-quoting:

One of the major problems with having a "discussion" of guns with
the anti-gunners is that so many of them are just incredibly
ignorant about guns.

We know that guns are used to intentionally kill children, movie-goers,
and fire-fighters.

What else is there to know?

I don't know the answer to this so I need your wisdom, Home Guy.

While I agree that gun deaths are tragic, statistics reveal even more
people are killed by distracted motorists that text/talk while driving.
Should we ban cell phones?
#
# Tch stupid idiot.
# You ban their use in cars.
# As we have done years ago in the UK.

LOL
"Gun free zone"
Tried and failed

You're such a moron.

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:18:39 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:


"harry" wrote

Rubbish. You Have had gun massacres from day one in The USA.
I assume you have run out of indians and now must massacre one
another.
You have been massacring people in other countries, even Canadians in
1812.
It's a national problem as well as a personal problem.

A bit like the Roman empire. Collapsing in violence, depravity and
corruption.

*****

I figure we have a lot of time left if we start with the Canadians next.
Who would miss them?

Steve


I think harry believes Napoleon was burning the Capitol when he was
really in France? I'm confused.


Actually, harry is right for once
The first "gun massacre" was at Concord where Minute Men, massacred the
Redcoats and sent them running back to Boston.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Dec 27, 2:23 pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 12/27/2012 08:41 AM, Winston Churchill wrote:

On 12/27/2012 2:32 AM, harry wrote:
If nobody had a gun, there would be no issue.
Americans can't grasp the fact that even illegal gun ownership here is
insignificant.
Virtually no-one is interested in owning a gun in the UK.
We have more intellectual pursuits.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...12573/UK-is-vi...

Right - if you make guns really really hard to get people will just move
to knives, socks full of quarters, whatever. Tendency towards violence
is somewhat independent of weapon ownership. I would ask if you wanted
to ban sharp knives but we're already moving in that direction! (I'm in
the US not the UK)
#
# Harder to kill people with those weapons.

And ?
They're still dead at the end...

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Dec 28, 4:28 pm, "
wrote:
On Dec 28, 11:15 am, wrote:

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 00:26:18 -0800 (PST), harry

wrote:
At the time of the Me262 we were flying the Meteor.

We are not talking about experimental aircraft. The ME 262 was
operational

Yes, those Britts were the masters of aviation. They
transfered all that superiority into products like the Comet.
Remember that? That was back in the 50's and the end
of the Britts as aviation wizards. Funny how today Boeing and Airbus
rule the roost. Even the last great attempt in aviation by
the Britts went down in flames.....Concorde. How much
money was lost on that fiasco?
#
# A large partof the airbus is made in the UK.
#

Which part ?
The johns ?

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 10:49:40 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:37:10 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
...



I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

Go ahead and list them


If you can't figure out what they are, I give up. I honestly thought
it was intuitive.


What you are really saying is that you can NOT list them to support your
argument
In an intelligent debate, the debaters LIST their arguments instead of
expecting others to "intuit" them

But considering your past performance and all the silly things you assumed
to be true, yet were patently false, that comes as NO surprise
YOU definitely are one of those that Ronald Reagan meant in:
"It's not that our friends on the Left are ignorant..
It's just that so much of what they know is wrong.."


Wrong according to whom ? Please give me the authoritative source.

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 11:07:22 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:52:28 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:

What problems? Teachers are citizens, too.

... and have a right to carry

NOT when their employers, the school boards make a rule that they can NOT
carry.

Simple. The state can pass a preemption law, NOT grandfather any
local, city or county to have gun laws. Only the state legislature can
make the laws.

That will get around the school boards. There!

I think that what we need now are challenges to State laws using Heller and
MacDonald to question the constitutionality of the state laws.

Exactly. We need changes in gun laws. Changes for the better, not more
restrictive.

This is already happening around the country. One small change at a
time. We have a city in the county that has a local law that prohibits
concealed carry, a law grand fathered in 1989. Clearly against the law
now... It was in court. Court ruled against the Plaintiff for not
having standing as he was not harmed by the law.

Basically it all means, you have to be arrested, prosecuted and suffer
so you can have the law removed from the city books.

There are a few other laws being talked about, that need to come off
the books.

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 11:06:19 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:37:10 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
...



I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

Go ahead and list them

Touche'

Did you notice how dougie consistently fails to response when asked to list
anything to support his claims
He'll either disappear in the woodwork, or claim
"don't need to list it, it's intuitive and you should know it.."
"go to the CDC site.."

BUT NEVER a list of reasons or arguments to support his "position".

How could anyone miss his adventures?!

The left easily get their hair on fire. Jumping from one crusade to
another.

....
http://rlv.zcache.com/molon_labe_tshirt-p2356226994863004862pyae_325.jpg

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 12:58:36 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 10:49:40 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:37:10 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
m...



I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

Go ahead and list them


If you can't figure out what they are, I give up. I honestly thought
it was intuitive.


What you are really saying is that you can NOT list them to support your
argument
In an intelligent debate, the debaters LIST their arguments instead of
expecting others to "intuit" them

But considering your past performance and all the silly things you assumed
to be true, yet were patently false, that comes as NO surprise
YOU definitely are one of those that Ronald Reagan meant in:
"It's not that our friends on the Left are ignorant..
It's just that so much of what they know is wrong.."


Wrong according to whom ? Please give me the authoritative source.

We did, Douggie. You didn't read them, instead pulled out CDC.GOV
when talking about the Constitution and CNN.COM, when talking about
current gun laws. You're too funny, Douggie.

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 12:58:36 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 10:49:40 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:37:10 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
m...



I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

Go ahead and list them


If you can't figure out what they are, I give up. I honestly thought
it was intuitive.


What you are really saying is that you can NOT list them to support your
argument
In an intelligent debate, the debaters LIST their arguments instead of
expecting others to "intuit" them

But considering your past performance and all the silly things you assumed
to be true, yet were patently false, that comes as NO surprise
YOU definitely are one of those that Ronald Reagan meant in:
"It's not that our friends on the Left are ignorant..
It's just that so much of what they know is wrong.."


Wrong according to whom ? Please give me the authoritative source.

You want us to list them all? Check at the ;legal desk.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:35:21 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 08:47:41 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 22, 11:39 pm, Doug wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:14:25 -0600, " Attila Iskander"





wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...

Hmmm,
Are you going to arm your self with assault rifle and 200 rounds
magazine
or drum?

"Assault rifles" are and have been strickly controlled since 1934
(They are machine guns don't ya know...)
You have to jump through all kinds of hoops with the Feds and local
police
and pay a $200 tax before you can get one.
If one the other hand you are babbling your ignorance about "assault
weapons" then you are talking about CERTAIN SEMI-automatic (single
shot to
single trigger pull) rifles that have certain cosmetic features like
a
bayonet lug that magically turn them into "assault weapons" while
changing
NOTHING about how they operate, or anything else about their
performance.

Owning a 200 round magazine or drum is really a novelty item that you
would
only use for fun but not for serious shooting
They have a NASTY habit of jamming at the worst moments.
Smart shooters stick with what the firearm was designed to use
normally

You know wackos will come there with such a weapon with mass
killing power
in short time.

And ???
What ??

All I need is just one shot to stop them
And then what ?

I am not against owning fire arm, first step should be banning the
ownership of assault type automatic weapons and high capacity
magazines/clips.

LOL
Are you really this ****ing stupid ?
IN the same sentence you declare, you're OK with owning firearms but
let's
just ban firearms

And owning a gun is one thing using it properly and well is
another,
how many owners are like that?

Just about most who own them
The seem to be much better qualified to using their guns properly
than car
drivers with all the training and licensing they go through...
Let's see
Gun owners with about 330,000,000 guns, have about 600 deadly
accidents a
year, about a thousand injuries, and property damage that is so low
as to be
negligible.
Car owners with about 300,000,000 cars have over 43,000 deaths,
injuries in
the millions and property damage in the Billions

Maybe you should worry more about car owners.

Are always ready for surprise attack? If teachers are armed can
they
concentrate on teaching or be on the look oiut for the sudden
danger?

If you carry, you don't become a defact security guard
It's much closer to carrying an umbrella in case it rains.

IMO, the more gun, the more possibility of trouble. No thanks
no gun for me or my family.

Apparently stupidity is a requirement for hoplophobia.
I feel sorry for your defenseless family.

Hopefully your defective genes will stop with you and yours.

You bypass all the checks and balances if you buy privately and 40% of
all gun purchases are done this way.

If I understood the NRA, I agree only partially with them. I like the
idea of armed guards (professionals) in schools but not armed
teachers. But armed guards in schools will not solve the overall
problem of mass killings because the criminals will just move from
schools to churches, malls, stadiums, train stations, etc... or other
places with less resistance.

I too was in favor of no semi automatic weapons in civilian hands but
I now I prefer to say it differently now.....I don't want civilians to
have guns as good or better than the military or police use, unless
they already own them. In other words, I don't want military or
police to be out gunned by civilians. If they satisfy this, civilians
can get whatever guns they want.

Do you realize that we did ban "assault weapons" and high
capacity magazines for a decade, starting in 1994. Study after
study done by various organizations, including the CDC, which
clearly has no pro-gun agenda, concluded it made no difference
in crime rates, murder rates, etc.


Oh by the way, that's not what the CDC said. If you go to their
website...http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
they say ....
"Evidence was INSUFFICIENT to determine the effectiveness of any of
these laws for the following reasons." They explain this as
depending on which study you go by, some say it went higher and other
studies say it went lower.

Therefore, since it's inconclusive, I'd say to do it because taking no
action is NOT the solution.

That's a dumb as saying "we can't be sure making all bullets pink
won't be a solution so I say pass a law making them pink".


Listening to you idiots, lets skip giving teachers a weapon and arm
the kids.

Funny, how it's idiots like you who make such suggestions

How's that for getting to the root cause.

Nah !
Won't make you any less stupid than you already are


You guys are a joke.

Only because you actually eat and believe the **** you spout.

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 11:33:23 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:

I figure we have a lot of time left if we start with the Canadians next.
Who would miss them?

Steve


I think harry believes Napoleon was burning the Capitol when he was
really in France? I'm confused.


Actually, harry is right for once
The first "gun massacre" was at Concord where Minute Men, massacred the
Redcoats and sent them running back to Boston.

He is right about Americans killing people. Calusa Indians caused the
death of Juan Ponce de León in 1521.

Cattle he left behind when ships left, Cracker Cattle, are still
around today in Florida.

Americans will continue to kill people until you make it legal.

On 01-01-2013 00:51, Steve B wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message

Harry, you may be suffering from H.I.S.I., pronounced "hissy". It stands
for (H)umor (I)rony (S)arcasm (I)mpairment. People with that particular
mental disease are said to have H.I.S.I. fits and often put on a big
display of pseudo-intellectualism about the subject at hand when they
fail to see the humor or bizarreness of statements made by someone who
is attempting to pull their leg. It's also called The Mr. Data response
in some circles. ^_^

It is actually a combination of both. I really have seen some people injure
themselves when fleeing from something that could not cause as much injury
to the person as the person caused to themself. In particular, a woman who
went off a 15 foot rock face when a few bats buzzed her.

Whoosh!


--
Wes Groleau

A bureaucrat is someone who cuts red tape lengthwise.

On 01-01-2013 12:07, Attila Iskander wrote:
I think that what we need now are challenges to State laws using Heller
and MacDonald to question the constitutionality of the state laws.

You would sacrifice the Tenth Amendment for the Second?

Note that such a ploy could backfire. It could reverse 521 U.S. 898,
about which Wikipedia says:

In 1997, the Court again ruled that the Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment (Printz v. United States,
521 U.S. 898 (1997)). The act required state and local law
enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons
attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for
the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law
violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act "forced participation of
the State's executive in the actual administration of a federal
program", it was unconstitutional.

--
Wes Groleau

¡Qué quiero realmente hacer es comer un perrito caliente!
ç§�ã�Œå®Ÿéš›ã�«ã�—ã�Ÿã�„ã�¨æ€�ã�†ä½•ã‚’ホットム‰ãƒƒã‚°ã‚’食ã�¹ã‚‹ã�“ã�¨ã�§ã�‚ã‚‹!
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.org/WWW?itemid=463

On Dec 25 2012, 1:25*pm, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky-
finger.net wrote:
On 12/24/2012 11:00 PM, nestork wrote:











I'm one person who questions the notion that anyone who takes a gun and
kills a whole bunch of people, is, by definition, mentally ill.

The guy that shot up the movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado was a PhD
student for crying out loud. *He certainly had enough gray stuff between
his ears, and he knew the difference between right and wrong.

Doing something horrible does not automatically mean that person is
crazy. *Perfectly level headed people can decide to throw their life
away if they feel their life is so screwed up that it's not salvagable.
It's a stupid decision, it's desperation, but it's not mental illness.

So, if the NRA wants the US Government to put together a list of
mentally ill people, what about everyone who thinks their life has been
wasted and that they're a failure. *We need to make a list of those
people to make sure they never get their hands on a gun, too.

When I tutored kids with learning problems, the hyperactive kids were
not stupid, in fact they were bored out of their minds and really hungry
for knowledge. This was more than 40 years ago before little boys were
drugged for behaving like little boys. Imagine a generation
of children who's developing minds and bodies are fundamentally altered
by the drugs that have been forced on them by foolish educators. What on
earth did they think the consequences of pushing these drugs would
be? What did they think would happen when the essence and impulsiveness
of childhood is suppressed so a developing mind can not be trained to
cope with life and to learn self control. I'm going to hazard a guess
that the young men and teens who committed the mass murders were drugged
as schoolchildren. I wonder if anyone is looking into it and if the
mainstream media will even report it because it might shoot down (pun
intended) one of the sacred cows of the Leftist who infest the
government school educational system? O_o

TDD

There is research shows a lot of disfunctional kids were prematurely
born. Years ago they would not have survived.

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 01:34:33 -0500, Wes Groleau
wrote:

On 01-01-2013 12:07, Attila Iskander wrote:
I think that what we need now are challenges to State laws using Heller
and MacDonald to question the constitutionality of the state laws.

You would sacrifice the Tenth Amendment for the Second?

Certainly, where rights of the people are concerned. Would you allow
slavery in Alabama?

Note that such a ploy could backfire. It could reverse 521 U.S. 898,
about which Wikipedia says:

In 1997, the Court again ruled that the Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment (Printz v. United States,
521 U.S. 898 (1997)). The act required state and local law
enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons
attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for
the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law
violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act "forced participation of
the State's executive in the actual administration of a federal
program", it was unconstitutional.

I thought we were talking about *preventing* the states from
infringing on the right of the people.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 10:49:40 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:37:10 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
m...



I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

Go ahead and list them


If you can't figure out what they are, I give up. I honestly thought
it was intuitive.


What you are really saying is that you can NOT list them to support your
argument
In an intelligent debate, the debaters LIST their arguments instead of
expecting others to "intuit" them

But considering your past performance and all the silly things you assumed
to be true, yet were patently false, that comes as NO surprise
YOU definitely are one of those that Ronald Reagan meant in:
"It's not that our friends on the Left are ignorant..
It's just that so much of what they know is wrong.."


Wrong according to whom ? Please give me the authoritative source.

I'm still waiting for you to list the reasons for teachers not to be armed
You first alphonse

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 10:14:42 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 13:42:41 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

No I don't because that's not what CNN lawyer Jeff Toubin (sp?) said a
few days ago. Care to elaborate?

I guess part of your problem is believing what you hear on CNN...

It's not illegal to own a machine gun in the U.S. Ownership is
restricted,
and heavily taxed,
but it's perfectly legal. Maybe you should do a bit of research on
that...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=is+it+legal+to+...+gun+in+the+us

"Heavily taxed" if you think $200 is a lot of money. You pay more tax
on that for a used car in most states. The only trick is having a
clear criminal record and having a local sheriff who thinks it is OK.

Remember that in 1934, $200 was a lot of money
Today according to:
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
that would be about $3436.

The price is still $200 for a machine gun and only $5 for some other
NFA items.

Now granted with the 1968 FOPA, machines gun prices are highly inflated

The inflation actually happened in 1986 (Reagan) when they froze the
NFA registry at what is was at the time. Since then the number of
transferable machine guns is static so the price went up.

But you could build yourself easily for less than $500.
So that represents a +700% tax.
Which in quite egregious and would quite likely NOT survive a challenge
using USSC "Star Tribune vs. Commissioner" as a basis for the challenge.

There is no way to register a new machine gun into the civilian
registry. The police and military still can but that can't
subsequently be sold to a private citizen.

Other things like silencers are not limited by this law and can still
be made and registered.


We don't disagree
But I'm just saying that the $200 tax can be challenged
So can the restriction of civilian owned current military weapons.
Both are infringements.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 12:58:36 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 10:49:40 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:37:10 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
om...



I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

Go ahead and list them


If you can't figure out what they are, I give up. I honestly thought
it was intuitive.


What you are really saying is that you can NOT list them to support your
argument
In an intelligent debate, the debaters LIST their arguments instead of
expecting others to "intuit" them

But considering your past performance and all the silly things you
assumed
to be true, yet were patently false, that comes as NO surprise
YOU definitely are one of those that Ronald Reagan meant in:
"It's not that our friends on the Left are ignorant..
It's just that so much of what they know is wrong.."


Wrong according to whom ? Please give me the authoritative source.

We did, Douggie. You didn't read them, instead pulled out CDC.GOV
when talking about the Constitution and CNN.COM, when talking about
current gun laws. You're too funny, Douggie.

And yet dougie is UNABLE to list the potential problems that would exist
with armed teachers
We should know them ALL "intuitively" and therefore dougie does not feel the
need to list them to support his argument..
How two-faced and hypocritical can dougie be ??

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 12:58:36 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 10:49:40 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:37:10 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
om...



I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

Go ahead and list them


If you can't figure out what they are, I give up. I honestly thought
it was intuitive.


What you are really saying is that you can NOT list them to support your
argument
In an intelligent debate, the debaters LIST their arguments instead of
expecting others to "intuit" them

But considering your past performance and all the silly things you
assumed
to be true, yet were patently false, that comes as NO surprise
YOU definitely are one of those that Ronald Reagan meant in:
"It's not that our friends on the Left are ignorant..
It's just that so much of what they know is wrong.."


Wrong according to whom ? Please give me the authoritative source.

You want us to list them all? Check at the ;legal desk.

LOL
I'll be more than happy to list them AFTER he as listed all the potential
problems with having armed teachers

Frankly, I expect that to occur sometime AFTER hell freezes over and the
Toronto Maple Leafs win another Stanley Cup.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 10:32:20 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 12:34:07 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:16:50 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:

A .380 in the pocket is better than a .380 in the truck.

Love my little KelTec 3AT. Small enough to carry in any pocket, and
not
arouse any suspicion whatsoever. It does poke small holes vs. 45 cal,
and
all that nonsense, but just a couple of days ago, a PO was killed by a
.380.
I'll take my chances when I take my wimpy little pistol. And when I
want
more confidence, I just put on my .357 on a Safariland paddle. The
muzzle
blast from that one is enough to stop every person in the room, and
that
is
360 degrees from direction of muzzle. Kinda like a stun grenade in an
enclosed room. Don't know, I never had the balls to try it in a closed
room. Might blow the glass out.

Steve

I've said before, my .357 "barks over here and bites over yonder."

The nice thing about a .357 is that you can feed it .38 which is a lot
easier on the ears and wallet. The downside of mine is that it's way
too big to conceal (6" barrel), though that's not why I bought it.
Come to think of it, I didn't. My wife bought it for me. ;-)

I have a 2" Colt Lawman MkIII
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=638433
I use .38Special +P defense ammo in it
It's my car gun with a couple of Bianchi strippers

I've only started carrying, and not always. I bought a Walther PPK
(.380) as a pocket pistol at the last gun show I attended. Before
that, all my guns were just too big to conceal (I don't wear a
jacket). They were bought for targets, anyway. The next will be a
1911 (probably a Springfield Arms), as soon as I can get rid of a
financial boat anchor (house).


Look into the Taurus 1911
It's loaded with all kind of features that are not available on other 1911s
for the same price.

"Wes Groleau" wrote in message
...
On 01-01-2013 12:07, Attila Iskander wrote:
I think that what we need now are challenges to State laws using Heller
and MacDonald to question the constitutionality of the state laws.

You would sacrifice the Tenth Amendment for the Second?


Absolutely NO "sacrifice" there...



Note that such a ploy could backfire. It could reverse 521 U.S. 898,
about which Wikipedia says:

In 1997, the Court again ruled that the Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment (Printz v. United States,
521 U.S. 898 (1997)). The act required state and local law
enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons
attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for
the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law
violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act "forced participation of
the State's executive in the actual administration of a federal
program", it was unconstitutional.


I think you're mixing apples and oranges
Heller and Macdonald have NOTHING to do with "administration of a federal
program"
Nor does enforcing the 2nd Amendment at ALL levels of government, as per
MacDonald.
The 2nd Amendment is NOT a "federal program" by any means.

On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 10:39:42 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 12:58:36 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 10:49:40 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:37:10 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
news:at6fd81p7bjm34afm92siidneahpg2nrig@4ax. com...



I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

Go ahead and list them


If you can't figure out what they are, I give up. I honestly thought
it was intuitive.


What you are really saying is that you can NOT list them to support your
argument
In an intelligent debate, the debaters LIST their arguments instead of
expecting others to "intuit" them

But considering your past performance and all the silly things you
assumed
to be true, yet were patently false, that comes as NO surprise
YOU definitely are one of those that Ronald Reagan meant in:
"It's not that our friends on the Left are ignorant..
It's just that so much of what they know is wrong.."


Wrong according to whom ? Please give me the authoritative source.

We did, Douggie. You didn't read them, instead pulled out CDC.GOV
when talking about the Constitution and CNN.COM, when talking about
current gun laws. You're too funny, Douggie.

And yet dougie is UNABLE to list the potential problems that would exist
with armed teachers
We should know them ALL "intuitively" and therefore dougie does not feel the
need to list them to support his argument..
How two-faced and hypocritical can dougie be ??

I don't think we've even started to plumb those depths yet.

On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 10:21:32 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 10:49:40 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:37:10 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
om...



I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

Go ahead and list them


If you can't figure out what they are, I give up. I honestly thought
it was intuitive.


What you are really saying is that you can NOT list them to support your
argument
In an intelligent debate, the debaters LIST their arguments instead of
expecting others to "intuit" them

But considering your past performance and all the silly things you assumed
to be true, yet were patently false, that comes as NO surprise
YOU definitely are one of those that Ronald Reagan meant in:
"It's not that our friends on the Left are ignorant..
It's just that so much of what they know is wrong.."


Wrong according to whom ? Please give me the authoritative source.

I'm still waiting for you to list the reasons for teachers not to be armed
You first alphonse



You already know the answer !!

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 13:15:32 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 10:39:42 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 12:58:36 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 10:49:40 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
om...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:37:10 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
news:at6fd81p7bjm34afm92siidneahpg2nrig@4ax .com...



I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

Go ahead and list them


If you can't figure out what they are, I give up. I honestly thought
it was intuitive.


What you are really saying is that you can NOT list them to support your
argument
In an intelligent debate, the debaters LIST their arguments instead of
expecting others to "intuit" them

But considering your past performance and all the silly things you
assumed
to be true, yet were patently false, that comes as NO surprise
YOU definitely are one of those that Ronald Reagan meant in:
"It's not that our friends on the Left are ignorant..
It's just that so much of what they know is wrong.."


Wrong according to whom ? Please give me the authoritative source.

We did, Douggie. You didn't read them, instead pulled out CDC.GOV
when talking about the Constitution and CNN.COM, when talking about
current gun laws. You're too funny, Douggie.

And yet dougie is UNABLE to list the potential problems that would exist
with armed teachers
We should know them ALL "intuitively" and therefore dougie does not feel the
need to list them to support his argument..
How two-faced and hypocritical can dougie be ??

I don't think we've even started to plumb those depths yet.


This newsgroup has with both of you. You guys have so much **** in
you, we haven't begun to size it up.

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 13:36:27 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 13:15:32 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 10:39:42 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 12:58:36 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 10:49:40 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
news:li1hd8pvsuu7o6jl9r7c066rve514icnlm@4ax. com...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:37:10 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
news:at6fd81p7bjm34afm92siidneahpg2nrig@4a x.com...



I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

Go ahead and list them


If you can't figure out what they are, I give up. I honestly thought
it was intuitive.


What you are really saying is that you can NOT list them to support your
argument
In an intelligent debate, the debaters LIST their arguments instead of
expecting others to "intuit" them

But considering your past performance and all the silly things you
assumed
to be true, yet were patently false, that comes as NO surprise
YOU definitely are one of those that Ronald Reagan meant in:
"It's not that our friends on the Left are ignorant..
It's just that so much of what they know is wrong.."


Wrong according to whom ? Please give me the authoritative source.

We did, Douggie. You didn't read them, instead pulled out CDC.GOV
when talking about the Constitution and CNN.COM, when talking about
current gun laws. You're too funny, Douggie.

And yet dougie is UNABLE to list the potential problems that would exist
with armed teachers
We should know them ALL "intuitively" and therefore dougie does not feel the
need to list them to support his argument..
How two-faced and hypocritical can dougie be ??

I don't think we've even started to plumb those depths yet.


This newsgroup has with both of you. You guys have so much **** in
you, we haven't begun to size it up.

Of course, I was right. Every time someone thinks that no one can be
as dumb as you, you prove them wrong. Good going. Your record is
perfect.

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 13:25:27 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 10:21:32 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 10:49:40 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:37:10 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
news:at6fd81p7bjm34afm92siidneahpg2nrig@4ax. com...



I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

Go ahead and list them


If you can't figure out what they are, I give up. I honestly thought
it was intuitive.


What you are really saying is that you can NOT list them to support your
argument
In an intelligent debate, the debaters LIST their arguments instead of
expecting others to "intuit" them

But considering your past performance and all the silly things you assumed
to be true, yet were patently false, that comes as NO surprise
YOU definitely are one of those that Ronald Reagan meant in:
"It's not that our friends on the Left are ignorant..
It's just that so much of what they know is wrong.."


Wrong according to whom ? Please give me the authoritative source.

I'm still waiting for you to list the reasons for teachers not to be armed
You first alphonse



You already know the answer !!

Yes, we do; you're stupid.

On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 10:42:17 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 10:32:20 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 12:34:07 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:16:50 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:

A .380 in the pocket is better than a .380 in the truck.

Love my little KelTec 3AT. Small enough to carry in any pocket, and
not
arouse any suspicion whatsoever. It does poke small holes vs. 45 cal,
and
all that nonsense, but just a couple of days ago, a PO was killed by a
.380.
I'll take my chances when I take my wimpy little pistol. And when I
want
more confidence, I just put on my .357 on a Safariland paddle. The
muzzle
blast from that one is enough to stop every person in the room, and
that
is
360 degrees from direction of muzzle. Kinda like a stun grenade in an
enclosed room. Don't know, I never had the balls to try it in a closed
room. Might blow the glass out.

Steve

I've said before, my .357 "barks over here and bites over yonder."

The nice thing about a .357 is that you can feed it .38 which is a lot
easier on the ears and wallet. The downside of mine is that it's way
too big to conceal (6" barrel), though that's not why I bought it.
Come to think of it, I didn't. My wife bought it for me. ;-)

I have a 2" Colt Lawman MkIII
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=638433
I use .38Special +P defense ammo in it
It's my car gun with a couple of Bianchi strippers

I've only started carrying, and not always. I bought a Walther PPK
(.380) as a pocket pistol at the last gun show I attended. Before
that, all my guns were just too big to conceal (I don't wear a
jacket). They were bought for targets, anyway. The next will be a
1911 (probably a Springfield Arms), as soon as I can get rid of a
financial boat anchor (house).


Look into the Taurus 1911
It's loaded with all kind of features that are not available on other 1911s
for the same price.

I haven't looked specifically at their 1911, but all the Taurus
products I've looked at just seem "cheap", in one way or another.

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:01:28 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 13:25:27 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 10:21:32 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 10:49:40 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
om...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:37:10 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
news:at6fd81p7bjm34afm92siidneahpg2nrig@4ax .com...



I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

Go ahead and list them


If you can't figure out what they are, I give up. I honestly thought
it was intuitive.


What you are really saying is that you can NOT list them to support your
argument
In an intelligent debate, the debaters LIST their arguments instead of
expecting others to "intuit" them

But considering your past performance and all the silly things you assumed
to be true, yet were patently false, that comes as NO surprise
YOU definitely are one of those that Ronald Reagan meant in:
"It's not that our friends on the Left are ignorant..
It's just that so much of what they know is wrong.."


Wrong according to whom ? Please give me the authoritative source.

I'm still waiting for you to list the reasons for teachers not to be armed
You first alphonse



You already know the answer !!

Yes, we do; you're stupid.


LOL

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:02:57 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 10:42:17 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 10:32:20 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 12:34:07 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:16:50 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:

A .380 in the pocket is better than a .380 in the truck.

Love my little KelTec 3AT. Small enough to carry in any pocket, and
not
arouse any suspicion whatsoever. It does poke small holes vs. 45 cal,
and
all that nonsense, but just a couple of days ago, a PO was killed by a
.380.
I'll take my chances when I take my wimpy little pistol. And when I
want
more confidence, I just put on my .357 on a Safariland paddle. The
muzzle
blast from that one is enough to stop every person in the room, and
that
is
360 degrees from direction of muzzle. Kinda like a stun grenade in an
enclosed room. Don't know, I never had the balls to try it in a closed
room. Might blow the glass out.

Steve

I've said before, my .357 "barks over here and bites over yonder."

The nice thing about a .357 is that you can feed it .38 which is a lot
easier on the ears and wallet. The downside of mine is that it's way
too big to conceal (6" barrel), though that's not why I bought it.
Come to think of it, I didn't. My wife bought it for me. ;-)

I have a 2" Colt Lawman MkIII
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=638433
I use .38Special +P defense ammo in it
It's my car gun with a couple of Bianchi strippers

I've only started carrying, and not always. I bought a Walther PPK
(.380) as a pocket pistol at the last gun show I attended. Before
that, all my guns were just too big to conceal (I don't wear a
jacket). They were bought for targets, anyway. The next will be a
1911 (probably a Springfield Arms), as soon as I can get rid of a
financial boat anchor (house).


Look into the Taurus 1911
It's loaded with all kind of features that are not available on other 1911s
for the same price.

I haven't looked specifically at their 1911, but all the Taurus
products I've looked at just seem "cheap", in one way or another.


Hell don't be so cheap. Buy the gun and don't worry about your
mortgage payment. Then when they come looking for you, you can blow
them away.

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:02:57 -0500, wrote:

I've said before, my .357 "barks over here and bites over yonder."

The nice thing about a .357 is that you can feed it .38 which is a lot
easier on the ears and wallet. The downside of mine is that it's way
too big to conceal (6" barrel), though that's not why I bought it.
Come to think of it, I didn't. My wife bought it for me. ;-)

I have a 2" Colt Lawman MkIII
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=638433
I use .38Special +P defense ammo in it
It's my car gun with a couple of Bianchi strippers

I've only started carrying, and not always. I bought a Walther PPK
(.380) as a pocket pistol at the last gun show I attended. Before
that, all my guns were just too big to conceal (I don't wear a
jacket). They were bought for targets, anyway. The next will be a
1911 (probably a Springfield Arms), as soon as I can get rid of a
financial boat anchor (house).


Look into the Taurus 1911
It's loaded with all kind of features that are not available on other 1911s
for the same price.

I haven't looked specifically at their 1911, but all the Taurus
products I've looked at just seem "cheap", in one way or another.

Have a look at Kimber 1911 I want one

http://www.kimberamerica.com/1911

"Kimber builds the world's finest 1911 pistols right here in
America—something that makes sense, as few things are as American as a
1911 .45 ACP. Virtually every critical component of every pistol is
manufactured inside the Kimber factory. The finest raw materials come
through the front gate and Kimber does the rest, the only way to
ensure that every part meets unequaled standards"

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:09:15 -0600, Doug
wrote:

Hell don't be so cheap. Buy the gun and don't worry about your
mortgage payment. Then when they come looking for you, you can blow
them away.

But Doug, you'd wait for the police to blow them away, right?

You sound very much like the CNN legal desk.

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:06:37 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:01:28 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 13:25:27 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 10:21:32 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 10:49:40 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
news:li1hd8pvsuu7o6jl9r7c066rve514icnlm@4ax. com...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:37:10 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
news:at6fd81p7bjm34afm92siidneahpg2nrig@4a x.com...



I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

Go ahead and list them


If you can't figure out what they are, I give up. I honestly thought
it was intuitive.


What you are really saying is that you can NOT list them to support your
argument
In an intelligent debate, the debaters LIST their arguments instead of
expecting others to "intuit" them

But considering your past performance and all the silly things you assumed
to be true, yet were patently false, that comes as NO surprise
YOU definitely are one of those that Ronald Reagan meant in:
"It's not that our friends on the Left are ignorant..
It's just that so much of what they know is wrong.."


Wrong according to whom ? Please give me the authoritative source.

I'm still waiting for you to list the reasons for teachers not to be armed
You first alphonse



You already know the answer !!

Yes, we do; you're stupid.


LOL

You can laugh at your stupidity (the insane often do). The rest of us
think it's pretty sad.

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:09:15 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:02:57 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 10:42:17 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 10:32:20 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 12:34:07 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:16:50 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:

A .380 in the pocket is better than a .380 in the truck.

Love my little KelTec 3AT. Small enough to carry in any pocket, and
not
arouse any suspicion whatsoever. It does poke small holes vs. 45 cal,
and
all that nonsense, but just a couple of days ago, a PO was killed by a
.380.
I'll take my chances when I take my wimpy little pistol. And when I
want
more confidence, I just put on my .357 on a Safariland paddle. The
muzzle
blast from that one is enough to stop every person in the room, and
that
is
360 degrees from direction of muzzle. Kinda like a stun grenade in an
enclosed room. Don't know, I never had the balls to try it in a closed
room. Might blow the glass out.

Steve

I've said before, my .357 "barks over here and bites over yonder."

The nice thing about a .357 is that you can feed it .38 which is a lot
easier on the ears and wallet. The downside of mine is that it's way
too big to conceal (6" barrel), though that's not why I bought it.
Come to think of it, I didn't. My wife bought it for me. ;-)

I have a 2" Colt Lawman MkIII
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=638433
I use .38Special +P defense ammo in it
It's my car gun with a couple of Bianchi strippers

I've only started carrying, and not always. I bought a Walther PPK
(.380) as a pocket pistol at the last gun show I attended. Before
that, all my guns were just too big to conceal (I don't wear a
jacket). They were bought for targets, anyway. The next will be a
1911 (probably a Springfield Arms), as soon as I can get rid of a
financial boat anchor (house).


Look into the Taurus 1911
It's loaded with all kind of features that are not available on other 1911s
for the same price.

I haven't looked specifically at their 1911, but all the Taurus
products I've looked at just seem "cheap", in one way or another.


Hell don't be so cheap. Buy the gun and don't worry about your
mortgage payment. Then when they come looking for you, you can blow
them away.

Idiot, I can buy the gun I want with what's in my wallet (around
$1000). There is a reason that I can afford the mortgage on two
fairly large (idiots like you would probably call them McMansions)
houses, though. I'm conservative with my money as well as (try to)
with others.

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 14:42:58 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:02:57 -0500, wrote:

I've said before, my .357 "barks over here and bites over yonder."

The nice thing about a .357 is that you can feed it .38 which is a lot
easier on the ears and wallet. The downside of mine is that it's way
too big to conceal (6" barrel), though that's not why I bought it.
Come to think of it, I didn't. My wife bought it for me. ;-)

I have a 2" Colt Lawman MkIII
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=638433
I use .38Special +P defense ammo in it
It's my car gun with a couple of Bianchi strippers

I've only started carrying, and not always. I bought a Walther PPK
(.380) as a pocket pistol at the last gun show I attended. Before
that, all my guns were just too big to conceal (I don't wear a
jacket). They were bought for targets, anyway. The next will be a
1911 (probably a Springfield Arms), as soon as I can get rid of a
financial boat anchor (house).


Look into the Taurus 1911
It's loaded with all kind of features that are not available on other 1911s
for the same price.

I haven't looked specifically at their 1911, but all the Taurus
products I've looked at just seem "cheap", in one way or another.

Have a look at Kimber 1911 I want one

http://www.kimberamerica.com/1911

They were on the short list. I'd still consider one. I really like
the SA, though.

"Kimber builds the world's finest 1911 pistols right here in
America—something that makes sense, as few things are as American as a
1911 .45 ACP. Virtually every critical component of every pistol is
manufactured inside the Kimber factory. The finest raw materials come
through the front gate and Kimber does the rest, the only way to
ensure that every part meets unequaled standards"

I'd be worried if they said they made crap in China. ;-) Springfields
are made in the USA, also.

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 18:34:40 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:06:37 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:01:28 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 13:25:27 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 10:21:32 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
om...
On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 10:49:40 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
news:li1hd8pvsuu7o6jl9r7c066rve514icnlm@4ax .com...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:37:10 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
news:at6fd81p7bjm34afm92siidneahpg2nrig@4 ax.com...



I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

Go ahead and list them


If you can't figure out what they are, I give up. I honestly thought
it was intuitive.


What you are really saying is that you can NOT list them to support your
argument
In an intelligent debate, the debaters LIST their arguments instead of
expecting others to "intuit" them

But considering your past performance and all the silly things you assumed
to be true, yet were patently false, that comes as NO surprise
YOU definitely are one of those that Ronald Reagan meant in:
"It's not that our friends on the Left are ignorant..
It's just that so much of what they know is wrong.."


Wrong according to whom ? Please give me the authoritative source.

I'm still waiting for you to list the reasons for teachers not to be armed
You first alphonse



You already know the answer !!

Yes, we do; you're stupid.


LOL

You can laugh at your stupidity (the insane often do). The rest of us
think it's pretty sad.


I'm beginning to understand how you think "in your world".

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 18:37:03 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:09:15 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:02:57 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 10:42:17 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 10:32:20 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


wrote in message
news:jnpmd8lgbicpemagseujpvik9t5anb745p@4ax. com...
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 12:34:07 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:16:50 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:

A .380 in the pocket is better than a .380 in the truck.

Love my little KelTec 3AT. Small enough to carry in any pocket, and
not
arouse any suspicion whatsoever. It does poke small holes vs. 45 cal,
and
all that nonsense, but just a couple of days ago, a PO was killed by a
.380.
I'll take my chances when I take my wimpy little pistol. And when I
want
more confidence, I just put on my .357 on a Safariland paddle. The
muzzle
blast from that one is enough to stop every person in the room, and
that
is
360 degrees from direction of muzzle. Kinda like a stun grenade in an
enclosed room. Don't know, I never had the balls to try it in a closed
room. Might blow the glass out.

Steve

I've said before, my .357 "barks over here and bites over yonder."

The nice thing about a .357 is that you can feed it .38 which is a lot
easier on the ears and wallet. The downside of mine is that it's way
too big to conceal (6" barrel), though that's not why I bought it.
Come to think of it, I didn't. My wife bought it for me. ;-)

I have a 2" Colt Lawman MkIII
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=638433
I use .38Special +P defense ammo in it
It's my car gun with a couple of Bianchi strippers

I've only started carrying, and not always. I bought a Walther PPK
(.380) as a pocket pistol at the last gun show I attended. Before
that, all my guns were just too big to conceal (I don't wear a
jacket). They were bought for targets, anyway. The next will be a
1911 (probably a Springfield Arms), as soon as I can get rid of a
financial boat anchor (house).


Look into the Taurus 1911
It's loaded with all kind of features that are not available on other 1911s
for the same price.

I haven't looked specifically at their 1911, but all the Taurus
products I've looked at just seem "cheap", in one way or another.


Hell don't be so cheap. Buy the gun and don't worry about your
mortgage payment. Then when they come looking for you, you can blow
them away.

Idiot, I can buy the gun I want with what's in my wallet (around
$1000). There is a reason that I can afford the mortgage on two
fairly large (idiots like you would probably call them McMansions)
houses, though. I'm conservative with my money as well as (try to)
with others.


WOW, I'm impressed .... LOL.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 10:21:32 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 10:49:40 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:37:10 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
news:at6fd81p7bjm34afm92siidneahpg2nrig@4ax. com...



I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see
potential
problems with this idea.

Go ahead and list them


If you can't figure out what they are, I give up. I honestly thought
it was intuitive.


What you are really saying is that you can NOT list them to support your
argument
In an intelligent debate, the debaters LIST their arguments instead of
expecting others to "intuit" them

But considering your past performance and all the silly things you
assumed
to be true, yet were patently false, that comes as NO surprise
YOU definitely are one of those that Ronald Reagan meant in:
"It's not that our friends on the Left are ignorant..
It's just that so much of what they know is wrong.."


Wrong according to whom ? Please give me the authoritative source.

I'm still waiting for you to list the reasons for teachers not to be armed
You first alphonse



You already know the answer !!

Actually, since you have NOT stated the reasons you mentioned, I DO NOT !
Apparently you are not able to come up with such a list of "potential
problems"

Is that your final word, that you are unable to provide us with a list of
"potential problems" ?

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 18:34:40 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:06:37 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:01:28 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 13:25:27 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 10:21:32 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
news:cdc6e8pm7qvc37hnbs9461sd0ngshii8d6@4ax. com...
On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 10:49:40 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
news:li1hd8pvsuu7o6jl9r7c066rve514icnlm@4a x.com...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:37:10 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
news:at6fd81p7bjm34afm92siidneahpg2nrig@ 4ax.com...



I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm
not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see
potential
problems with this idea.

Go ahead and list them


If you can't figure out what they are, I give up. I honestly
thought
it was intuitive.


What you are really saying is that you can NOT list them to support
your
argument
In an intelligent debate, the debaters LIST their arguments instead
of
expecting others to "intuit" them

But considering your past performance and all the silly things you
assumed
to be true, yet were patently false, that comes as NO surprise
YOU definitely are one of those that Ronald Reagan meant in:
"It's not that our friends on the Left are ignorant..
It's just that so much of what they know is wrong.."


Wrong according to whom ? Please give me the authoritative source.

I'm still waiting for you to list the reasons for teachers not to be
armed
You first alphonse



You already know the answer !!

Yes, we do; you're stupid.


LOL

You can laugh at your stupidity (the insane often do). The rest of us
think it's pretty sad.


I'm beginning to understand how you think "in your world".

Well, no matter what, it's still far, far more thinking than you seem to
have achieved..
So where's that list of "potential problems" ?

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 17:48:55 -0600, Doug
wrote:

You can laugh at your stupidity (the insane often do). The rest of us
think it's pretty sad.


I'm beginning to understand how you think "in your world".

What do you think if I chain you to a wall and only swill for
refreshment?