And so we have another example of how amerika is safer because of the
right to bear arms, the right to free and easy access to personal
firearms.

Yes, 22 year-old Elliot Rodger was a law abiding legal gun owner (for
what, a few days? Weeks?) right up to the millisecond he pulled the
trigger (or triggers) and killed 6 random kids.

And you can go and froth at the mouth about how great it is that he has
the freedom to do just what he did.

But what I'm going to point out below is just how deviant and worthless
your next-generation (which you, the readers of this newsgroup) have
raised with such tender loving irresponsibility and detachment.

=========================

http://www.infowars.com/in-death-gir...mass-murderer/

Like many before him, the mass murderer who killed 6 people in the
coastal California community of Isla Vista Friday has garnered a
following in death he could never amass in life, just the latest
indication of the Stockholm syndrome psychosis and superficiality that
has taken America by storm.

While rants by rejected degenerate Elliot Rodger were aimed at the
fairer sex, over which he held a psychotic obsession, he allegedly
couldn’t figure out a way to approach them with any degree of success.

However, following his death, and the subsequent plastering of his
photos across the web, it seems the girl-hating 22-year-old virgin now
has what he always wanted in life: adoration, and some of it is coming
from dudes as well.

From Twitter, (screen-capped for posterity):

-----------
Shayanne Gonzalez: "sad part is the psyco is hot"

Josh: "the guy who killed everyone in santa barbara is kinda hot lol"

Derrek Leigh: "Sad what happened in Santa Barbara ... Why is it
always the cute ones that go crazy?"

merissa: "the guy that did that shooting in santa barbara is cute"

aff man: "seriously? not one UCSB chick could've bit the bulled and
dated that hot dude with the cool car?"

nena: "such a shame, elliiot rodger was hot"

Lesli Carlos: "the son of the director (hunger games) killed people
at ucsb - he was cute"

JN: "and the shooter was good looking. this is why you don't trust
cute boys because they could be secretly psychotic"

B&B: "apart from his odd nose, elliot rodger was kinda hot. Wonder
why girles turned him down?"

beadsme: "is this guy for real? He's so cute. So wierd how our
minds work"

Reallyrick: "he was hot, I would of ****ed him"
====================

Rodger’s overnight popularization is similar to the cult following
accused Batman shooter James Holmes generated, wherein several women
professed their adulation of him after the supposed slaying of 12
victims in a movie theater in Aurora, Colo.

The same was also seen when New England Patriot Aaron Hernandez was
accused of murder:

------------
camdymkvi: "am I the only one who thinks Aaron Hernandez is still
sexy even if he is a murderer?"

Kelsey proffitt: "why does such a sexy man have to go to jail?"

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

===============================


When are you going to learn that warehousing your kids at colleges and
universities is not the road to US prosperity? They're only going to
get into trouble - like what happened here. And it's costing you a
fortune you don't have to send them to what is really
day-care-for-20-year-olds (ie - college / university).

On 5/26/2014 8:18 AM, HomeGuy wrote:
And so we have another example of how amerika is safer because of the
right to bear arms, the right to free and easy access to personal
firearms.

Yes, he certainly is a nutcase, but what do you think of the mentality
of someone that takes the time to post this stuff?

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

And so we have another example of how amerika is safer because of
the right to bear arms, the right to free and easy access to
personal firearms.

Yes, he certainly is a nutcase, but what do you think of the mentality
of someone that takes the time to post this stuff?

So you'd rather stick you head in the sand and not talk about it?

Yes, as a country that's what you have a habbit of doing. About many
things.

If you can't wave the stars and stripes at it, then you don't want to
talk about it.

HomeGuy wrote:
And so we have another example of how amerika is safer because of the
right to bear arms, the right to free and easy access to personal
firearms.

Yes, 22 year-old Elliot Rodger was a law abiding legal gun owner (for
what, a few days? Weeks?) right up to the millisecond he pulled the
trigger (or triggers) and killed 6 random kids.

And you can go and froth at the mouth about how great it is that he has
the freedom to do just what he did.

But what I'm going to point out below is just how deviant and worthless
your next-generation (which you, the readers of this newsgroup) have
raised with such tender loving irresponsibility and detachment.

=========================



You seem to be in favor of banning guns for American citizens. I would
remind you that Elliot killed three with knifes. Are you in favor of
banning knifes as well? How about matches, cars, ropes, hatchets,
electricity, etc.??? They kill people too. Should they also be banned?
America wants to know.

On 05/26/2014 04:18 AM, HomeGuy wrote:
But what I'm going to point out below is just how deviant and worthless
your next-generation (which you, the readers of this newsgroup) have
raised with such tender loving irresponsibility and detachment.

Americans outsource child rearing to McDayCare because it is cheaper and easier.

Besides, moms need to make sure they have enough money for a Brazilian Wax.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/...ian-mom-867543

Ken wrote:

You seem to be in favor of banning guns for American citizens.

We don't have any sort of universal "ban" on guns in Canada, but there
is something different about either us (as people) or what exactly we
have in terms of retail availability (what exactly can we buy? Usually
not handguns.) combined with licensing and liability schemes that gives
us a far less rate of firearm death (per unit of population) than in the
US.

I would remind you that Elliot killed three with knifes. Are you in
favor of banning knifes as well?

Always the vaccuous argument that knives, cars, cell phones (and any
other consumer product you can imagine) are equally comparable to
firearms in terms of product safety.

Why can't I buy sticks of dynamite, or hand grenades then?

In an increasingly irresponsible and psycopathic society, you either
believe in the concept that some man-made objects should not be made
available for retail sale to the general public, or you don't.

You have a consumer product regulatory infrastructure that heavily
regulates the trade in drugs, and that also has banned lawn darts and
"kinder eggs" for retail sale. These are the precedents that your
presumed right to make and trade any item you wish does have limits.

Don't you think that your various federal, state and local laws in terms
of alchohol, tobacco, controlled substances, pharmaceuticals all
represent unconstitutional restrictions on your individual right to the
pursuit of happiness?

You've agreed, via democratically-elected representatives, that there
are classes of consumer items that MUST be regulated, sometimes heavily
regulated, sometimes prohibited for manufacture/sale, and sometimes
criminalized just for possession. There is no reason that firearms
can't or shouldn't be exposed to the same regulatory considerations,
resulting in a much smaller set of product choices for one thing.

If you believe that knives should be regulated, if the ergonomics and
regulatory infrastructure of such a scheme are affordable, if based on
the number of incidents that knives are used for both legal and illegal
actions that the general public believes that on balance, knives as a
consumer product cause as much harm as good, then there is a way to
institute regulations on knives.

If you were to add up all the hours that all of any given consumer
product is operating / active / being somehow handled, held, turned on
or otherwise in use, and then determine the number of deaths per hour
(or thousand hours) of use, then perhaps we would see just how dangerous
to society knives and cars and guns are.

The only way to rank them is on a scale of injury/death per use or
injury/death per X hours of use.

A knife placed in a kitchen drawer, a hand gun in a bedside table, a car
sitting parked in a garage are all equally safe or unsafe - but they
weren't made to just sit there and do nothing.

On 5/26/2014 8:44 AM, HomeGuy wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

And so we have another example of how amerika is safer because of
the right to bear arms, the right to free and easy access to
personal firearms.

Yes, he certainly is a nutcase, but what do you think of the mentality
of someone that takes the time to post this stuff?

So you'd rather stick you head in the sand and not talk about it?

Yes, as a country that's what you have a habbit of doing. About many
things.

If you can't wave the stars and stripes at it, then you don't want to
talk about it.


Ah, now I get it. Yoy are just trying to save us from ourselves. Thank
you for caring.

On Monday, May 26, 2014 10:03:37 AM UTC-4, H o m e G u y wrote:
Ken wrote:



You seem to be in favor of banning guns for American citizens.



We don't have any sort of universal "ban" on guns in Canada, but there

is something different about either us (as people) or what exactly we

have in terms of retail availability (what exactly can we buy? Usually

not handguns.) combined with licensing and liability schemes that gives

us a far less rate of firearm death (per unit of population) than in the

US.



I would remind you that Elliot killed three with knifes. Are you in

favor of banning knifes as well?



Always the vaccuous argument that knives, cars, cell phones (and any

other consumer product you can imagine) are equally comparable to

firearms in terms of product safety.



Why can't I buy sticks of dynamite, or hand grenades then?



In your case, for the same reason you can't buy liquor at the local
liquor store and why they won't let you into the supermarket.
You've been 86'd because you're a deranged nut.



In an increasingly irresponsible and psycopathic society, you either

believe in the concept that some man-made objects should not be made

available for retail sale to the general public, or you don't.



You have a consumer product regulatory infrastructure that heavily

regulates the trade in drugs, and that also has banned lawn darts and

"kinder eggs" for retail sale. These are the precedents that your

presumed right to make and trade any item you wish does have limits.



There is a difference. The US Constitution doesn't state that citizens
have a right to darts and eggs.




Don't you think that your various federal, state and local laws in terms

of alchohol, tobacco, controlled substances, pharmaceuticals all

represent unconstitutional restrictions on your individual right to the

pursuit of happiness?



You've agreed, via democratically-elected representatives, that there

are classes of consumer items that MUST be regulated, sometimes heavily

regulated, sometimes prohibited for manufacture/sale, and sometimes

criminalized just for possession. There is no reason that firearms

can't or shouldn't be exposed to the same regulatory considerations,

resulting in a much smaller set of product choices for one thing.



They already are, idiot. We've got all kinds of gun laws on the books.
The problem is, criminals don't follow the law.

Maybe you should worry about what goes on in Canada:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2...d _trial.html


CALGARY--The young man accused of killing five young people in Calgary's worst mass murder has been found fit to stand trial.

Matthew de Grood, 22, is charged with first-degree murder after four men and a woman were stabbed to death at a house party that was being held last month to mark the end of the university school year.

De Grood, the son of a senior Calgary police officer, had been ordered to undergo a 30-day assessment to determine whether he was mentally fit to stand trial.

On Mon, 26 May 2014 07:56:24 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Maybe you should worry about what goes on in Canada:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2...d _trial.html


CALGARY--The young man accused of killing five young people in Calgary's worst mass murder has been found fit to stand trial.

Matthew de Grood, 22, is charged with first-degree murder after four men and a woman were stabbed to death at a house party that was being held last month to mark the end of the university school year.

De Grood, the son of a senior Calgary police officer, had been ordered to undergo a 30-day assessment to determine whether he was mentally fit to stand trial.

So they used free government doctors? A fine example of how police in
'canada' raise their children.

The invidious troll continues. You're just ****ed off we have more
entertainment in the US than just watching moose, elk and geese ****ting
on the ground.

Though, if Canada was perfect, then this wouldn't be happening.



Canadian Father Who Killed Daughter With Slap Gets 60 Days In Jail -

A Quebec father who killed his 13-year-old daughter with a single slap
was sentenced to 60 days in jail Wednesday.

Moussa Sidime, 74, pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the October 2010
death of his daughter Noutene.

Sidime hit the girl because he did not like the way she had completed a
chore, a Longueuil court heard. He called 911 a short time later, when
he found Noutene unconscious on the floor bleeding from her nose. An
artery in her brain had ruptured and she died in a local hospital days
later.

Although the Crown prosecutors sought a prison sentence, his attorney
argued for leniency, calling it an exceptional case.

A criminologist testified for the defense stating that Sidime had no
criminal record of violence prior to the incident.

Sidime does not have to serve his time consecutively. He is expected to
serve two days a week over 30 weeks.

He has already served 19 days, CBC News reported.


http://www.opposingviews.com/i/socie...s-60-days-jail


Perhaps he became tired of watching the animals **** and needed some
excitement. He decided to slap his child instead of being a dumb**** on
a newsgroup.

Homeguy:

Three things:

1. There, but for the laws of probability, goes a case that could have equally well happened in Canada.

2. Gun control is something the Americans have talked about amongst themselves for decades. They have not reached any sort of agreement on it, and it's just one of those things, like capital punishment, abortion and drug laws that are a problem with no good solution.

3. Please stop throwing crap in people's faces when there's more than enough crap on our own.

On Mon, 26 May 2014 08:36:13 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote
in

On 5/26/2014 8:18 AM, HomeGuy wrote:
And so we have another example of how amerika is safer because of the
right to bear arms, the right to free and easy access to personal
firearms.

Yes, he certainly is a nutcase, but what do you think of the mentality
of someone that takes the time to post this stuff?

A fool?
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

In Meanie wrote:

The invidious troll continues.

And you read every one of his posts, and worse, reply to them.

--
St. Paul, MN

On Mon, 26 May 2014 18:27:56 +0200, nestork
wrote:

2. Gun control is something the Americans have talked about amongst
themselves for decades. They have not reached any sort of agreement on
it, and it's just one of those things, like capital punishment, abortion
and drug laws that are a problem with no good solution.

Sorry Nestor. Our U.S. Constitution addressed it (thanks to James
Madison), our Supreme Court has addressed it. There is no further
discussion. The gun grabbers lost! End of story.
--
I like Guns and Titties

On 5/26/2014 1:23 PM, Bert wrote:
In Meanie wrote:

The invidious troll continues.

And you read every one of his posts, and worse, reply to them.

as did you.

In Meanie wrote:

On 5/26/2014 1:23 PM, Bert wrote:
In Meanie
wrote:

The invidious troll continues.

And you read every one of his posts, and worse, reply to them.

as did you.

I only read and replied to your post.

Does that mean you're the "invidious troll" posting under another ID?

--
St. Paul, MN

Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2014 18:27:56 +0200, nestork
wrote:

2. Gun control is something the Americans have talked
about amongst
themselves for decades. They have not reached any sort
of agreement
on it, and it's just one of those things, like capital
punishment,
abortion and drug laws that are a problem with no good
solution.

Sorry Nestor. Our U.S. Constitution addressed it (thanks
to James
Madison), our Supreme Court has addressed it. There is no
further
discussion. The gun grabbers lost! End of story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZo4hbGJjVI

some people can't grasp that our 1st amendment is free
speech and the second is the ability to defend that right.
Our forefathers had forthsight to understand that these 2
were the most important(making them 1&2) and without these 2
the rest are all meaningless.
Quite simple, actually

BTW: it's really sad when an *immigrant* understand it
better than our elected officials.
and thats the kind of immigrant I want to come to
this country, damkit!!!

On 5/26/2014 1:40 PM, Bert wrote:
In Meanie wrote:

On 5/26/2014 1:23 PM, Bert wrote:
In Meanie
wrote:

The invidious troll continues.

And you read every one of his posts, and worse, reply to them.

as did you.

I only read and replied to your post.

Does that mean you're the "invidious troll" posting under another ID?

LMFAO! Sure, out of all the other replies, you picked mine? Perhaps I
should be flattered. LMFAO!

Nice try!

On Mon, 26 May 2014 12:43:33 -0500, "ChairMan"
wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2014 18:27:56 +0200, nestork
wrote:

2. Gun control is something the Americans have talked
about amongst
themselves for decades. They have not reached any sort
of agreement
on it, and it's just one of those things, like capital
punishment,
abortion and drug laws that are a problem with no good
solution.

Sorry Nestor. Our U.S. Constitution addressed it (thanks
to James
Madison), our Supreme Court has addressed it. There is no
further
discussion. The gun grabbers lost! End of story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZo4hbGJjVI

some people can't grasp that our 1st amendment is free
speech and the second is the ability to defend that right.
Our forefathers had forthsight to understand that these 2
were the most important(making them 1&2) and without these 2
the rest are all meaningless.
Quite simple, actually

BTW: it's really sad when an *immigrant* understand it
better than our elected officials.
and thats the kind of immigrant I want to come to
this country, damkit!!!

Even if he's an Al QAeda nutbar???Abu Sayyaf, AlL Shabaab, Boca Haram,
or Hezbolla,or Hamas?

Oren:

Democracy has a unique trait that other forms of civil governance don't. It has a built-in pressure relief valve called "elections". When the pressure for change reaches a critical point, then that pressure relief valve starts to function by electing candidates that promise to bring about the changes that the people want. Having such a pressure relief valve built into the political system is one of the reasons why real democracies (like the US and Canada) don't have revolutions like they do in countries that call themselves democracies, but are really dictatorships.

The issue of guns is an American issue and I'm not going to stick my Canadian nose into it. However, to my knowledge James Madison had black powder single shot muskets in mind when he made those changes to your constitution that called for a "well armed militia", and therein lies the difference between gun owners and gun grabbers.

I truly believe, however, that with every public shooting where some crackpot uses a legally registered gun to kill as many innocent people as he/she can, the needle on that pressure gauge moves a bit.

On Mon, 26 May 2014 16:23:39 -0400, wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZo4hbGJjVI

some people can't grasp that our 1st amendment is free
speech and the second is the ability to defend that right.
Our forefathers had forthsight to understand that these 2
were the most important(making them 1&2) and without these 2
the rest are all meaningless.
Quite simple, actually

BTW: it's really sad when an *immigrant* understand it
better than our elected officials.
and thats the kind of immigrant I want to come to
this country, damkit!!!

Even if he's an Al QAeda nutbar???Abu Sayyaf, AlL Shabaab, Boca Haram,
or Hezbolla,or Hamas?

Clare,

Listen closely in the video.. The speaker is a LEGAL immigrant. An
American with his green card. Chairman can speak for himself, but I
think we were talking about the same thing.

I've not seen a free Korean in America , belonging to the groups you
mention. I do know there is one Socialist in congress from VT that
can't read a 3 page bill related to our VA system. Because he is a
socialist!

On Mon, 26 May 2014 22:25:12 +0200, nestork
wrote:

Sorry Nestor. Our U.S. Constitution addressed it (thanks to James
Madison), our Supreme Court has addressed it. There is no further
discussion. The gun grabbers lost! End of story.
--
I like Guns and Titties

Oren:

Democracy has a unique trait that other forms of civil governance don't.
It has a built-in pressure relief valve called "elections". When the
pressure for change reaches a critical point, then that pressure relief
valve starts to function by electing candidates that promise to bring
about the changes that the people want. Having such a pressure relief
valve built into the political system is one of the reasons why real
democracies (like the US and Canada) don't have revolutions like they do
in countries that call themselves democracies, but are really
dictatorships.


I can't wait for November, the midterm election. It should be a hoot.

The issue of guns is an American issue and I'm not going to stick my
Canadian nose into it. However, to my knowledge James Madison had black
powder single shot muskets in mind when he made those changes to your
constitution that called for a "well armed militia", and therein lies
the difference between gun owners and gun grabbers.


James Madison is the Father of the Bill of Rights. The first 10
Amendments afterwards. On my property, I am the "well armed militia".
I don't call 911 first. They reason I have a gun, for moral purposes,
is because a police officer can't fit in my pocket. They get heavy
trying to carry them and when seconds count, police are only minutes
away. I don't own a freakin' musket. SCOTUS says I don't have to. I
have a choice.

I truly believe, however, that with every public shooting where some
crackpot uses a legally registered gun to kill as many innocent people
as he/she can, the needle on that pressure gauge moves a bit.

True. But don't blame the gun because some fool pops a cork. These
are mental problems, lack of treatment and so on. Gun grabbers use it
for political gain, not because they actually care about humanity or
give one ****. They won't to own the narrative.

Never come after my guns, in my state, because some clown becomes
recalcitrant in another location. Know what I mean, Vern?
--
"Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back" - Captain Malcolm Reynolds

I don't think anyone has anything against responsible gun owners having guns in their possession.

The thing EVERYONE wants is to take guns away from irresponsible gun owners. That includes people that use guns to commit crimes, gangsters that will start shooting at another gangster in public and thereby endanger innocent bystanders, the lunatic fringe that have the potential to snap and just start shooting, and young children that find loaded firearms under daddy's pillow and take it to school to show their friends.

It's that Part B that's confounding us. The gun grabbers (as you call them) figure that the only way to do Part B is to take the guns away from everyone, and that's where the arguements start.

I'm hoping that in future there may be weapons that don't kill, but merely stun a person (like on Star Trek) for long enough to allow citizens to protect themselves and their families without causing death. If such weapons existed, there wouldn't be nearly as much controversy about them as there is about fire arms.

In ,
belched:
On Mon, 26 May 2014 12:43:33 -0500, "ChairMan"
wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2014 18:27:56 +0200, nestork
wrote:

2. Gun control is something the Americans have talked
about amongst
themselves for decades. They have not reached any sort
of agreement
on it, and it's just one of those things, like capital
punishment,
abortion and drug laws that are a problem with no good
solution.

Sorry Nestor. Our U.S. Constitution addressed it (thanks
to James
Madison), our Supreme Court has addressed it. There is no
further
discussion. The gun grabbers lost! End of story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZo4hbGJjVI

some people can't grasp that our 1st amendment is free
speech and the second is the ability to defend that right.
Our forefathers had forthsight to understand that these 2
were the most important(making them 1&2) and without these 2
the rest are all meaningless.
Quite simple, actually

BTW: it's really sad when an *immigrant* understand it
better than our elected officials.
and thats the kind of immigrant I want to come to
this country, damkit!!!

Even if he's an Al QAeda nutbar???Abu Sayyaf, AlL Shabaab, Boca Haram,
or Hezbolla,or Hamas?

No more nutbars, we have enough in DC as it tis.
I don't believe any of the above would believe in *OUR* constitution, let
alone work or fight to uphold it.
I'm pretty sure it would go against ALL their religious beliefs.

In ,
Oren belched:
On Mon, 26 May 2014 16:23:39 -0400, wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZo4hbGJjVI

some people can't grasp that our 1st amendment is free
speech and the second is the ability to defend that right.
Our forefathers had forthsight to understand that these 2
were the most important(making them 1&2) and without these 2
the rest are all meaningless.
Quite simple, actually

BTW: it's really sad when an *immigrant* understand it
better than our elected officials.
and thats the kind of immigrant I want to come to
this country, damkit!!!

Even if he's an Al QAeda nutbar???Abu Sayyaf, AlL Shabaab, Boca
Haram, or Hezbolla,or Hamas?

Clare,

Listen closely in the video.. The speaker is a LEGAL immigrant. An
American with his green card. Chairman can speak for himself, but I
think we were talking about the same thing.

Actually, I believe he is a citizen(now), as he said "By choice", but as you
said, a LEGAL immigrant


I've not seen a free Korean in America , belonging to the groups you
mention. I do know there is one Socialist in congress from VT that
can't read a 3 page bill related to our VA system. Because he is a
socialist!


Just one? I think ya missed a few : )

nestork wrote:

'Oren[_2_ Wrote:
;3240746']On Mon, 26 May 2014 18:27:56 +0200, nestork
wrote:
-
2. Gun control is something the Americans have talked about amongst
themselves for decades. They have not reached any sort of agreement on
it, and it's just one of those things, like capital punishment,
abortion
and drug laws that are a problem with no good solution.-

Sorry Nestor. Our U.S. Constitution addressed it (thanks to James
Madison), our Supreme Court has addressed it. There is no further
discussion. The gun grabbers lost! End of story.
--
I like Guns and Titties

Oren:

Democracy has a unique trait that other forms of civil governance don't.
It has a built-in pressure relief valve called "elections". When the
pressure for change reaches a critical point, then that pressure relief
valve starts to function by electing candidates that promise to bring
about the changes that the people want. Having such a pressure relief
valve built into the political system is one of the reasons why real
democracies (like the US and Canada) don't have revolutions like they do
in countries that call themselves democracies, but are really
dictatorships.

The issue of guns is an American issue and I'm not going to stick my
Canadian nose into it. However, to my knowledge James Madison had black
powder single shot muskets in mind when he made those changes to your
constitution that called for a "well armed militia", and therein lies
the difference between gun owners and gun grabbers.

It is worth mentioning that the bad guys also had black powder guns at
the time you cite. Surely you do not expect the citizens of today to
maintain a black powder gun when the intruder is using a modern day weapon?

It is also worth mentioning that during the second world war, the
Japanese feared invading the U.S. because so many of the citizens were
armed?



I truly believe, however, that with every public shooting where some
crackpot uses a legally registered gun to kill as many innocent people
as he/she can, the needle on that pressure gauge moves a bit.

On Mon, 26 May 2014 17:53:39 -0500, "ChairMan"
wrote:

I've not seen a free Korean in America , belonging to the groups you
mention. I do know there is one Socialist in congress from VT that
can't read a 3 page bill related to our VA system. Because he is a
socialist!


Just one? I think ya missed a few : )

Well. I have limited resources to name them all. Sorry I missed a
'bunch'. I wasn't counting those in the White House, either.

On Mon, 26 May 2014 08:18:12 -0400, HomeGuy wrote:

And so we have another example of how amerika is safer because of the
right to bear arms, the right to free and easy access to personal
firearms.

Yes, 22 year-old Elliot Rodger was a law abiding legal gun owner (for
what, a few days? Weeks?) right up to the millisecond he pulled the
trigger (or triggers) and killed 6 random kids.

And you can go and froth at the mouth about how great it is that he has
the freedom to do just what he did.

But what I'm going to point out below is just how deviant and worthless
your next-generation (which you, the readers of this newsgroup) have
raised with such tender loving irresponsibility and detachment.

=========================

http://www.infowars.com/in-death-gir...mass-murderer/

Like many before him, the mass murderer who killed 6 people in the
coastal California community of Isla Vista Friday has garnered a
following in death he could never amass in life, just the latest
indication of the Stockholm syndrome psychosis and superficiality that
has taken America by storm.

While rants by rejected degenerate Elliot Rodger were aimed at the
fairer sex, over which he held a psychotic obsession, he allegedly
couldn’t figure out a way to approach them with any degree of success.

However, following his death, and the subsequent plastering of his
photos across the web, it seems the girl-hating 22-year-old virgin now
has what he always wanted in life: adoration, and some of it is coming
from dudes as well.

From Twitter, (screen-capped for posterity):

-----------
Shayanne Gonzalez: "sad part is the psyco is hot"

Josh: "the guy who killed everyone in santa barbara is kinda hot lol"

Derrek Leigh: "Sad what happened in Santa Barbara ... Why is it
always the cute ones that go crazy?"

merissa: "the guy that did that shooting in santa barbara is cute"

aff man: "seriously? not one UCSB chick could've bit the bulled and
dated that hot dude with the cool car?"

nena: "such a shame, elliiot rodger was hot"

Lesli Carlos: "the son of the director (hunger games) killed people
at ucsb - he was cute"

JN: "and the shooter was good looking. this is why you don't trust
cute boys because they could be secretly psychotic"

B&B: "apart from his odd nose, elliot rodger was kinda hot. Wonder
why girles turned him down?"

beadsme: "is this guy for real? He's so cute. So wierd how our
minds work"

Reallyrick: "he was hot, I would of ****ed him"
====================

Rodger’s overnight popularization is similar to the cult following
accused Batman shooter James Holmes generated, wherein several women
professed their adulation of him after the supposed slaying of 12
victims in a movie theater in Aurora, Colo.

The same was also seen when New England Patriot Aaron Hernandez was
accused of murder:

------------
camdymkvi: "am I the only one who thinks Aaron Hernandez is still
sexy even if he is a murderer?"

Kelsey proffitt: "why does such a sexy man have to go to jail?"

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

===============================


When are you going to learn that warehousing your kids at colleges and
universities is not the road to US prosperity? They're only going to
get into trouble - like what happened here. And it's costing you a
fortune you don't have to send them to what is really
day-care-for-20-year-olds (ie - college / university).

He was rejected by women because he had a 4 inch dick.
(He alluded to that on some forum where he hoped that 4 inches was average)

--
"No ray of sunshine is ever lost, but the green which it awakens into
existence needs time to sprout, and it is not always granted for the sower
to see the harvest. All work that is worth anything is done in faith."
-- Albert Schweitzer


5/26/2014 7:25:53 PM

On Tue, 27 May 2014 00:34:18 +0200, nestork
wrote:

I don't think anyone has anything against responsible gun owners having
guns in their possession.


You might try some further research. I know better.

The thing EVERYONE wants is to take guns away from irresponsible gun
owners. That includes people that use guns to commit crimes, gangsters
that will start shooting at another gangster in public and thereby
endanger innocent bystanders, the lunatic fringe that have the potential
to snap and just start shooting, and young children that find loaded
firearms under daddy's pillow and take it to school to show their
friends.


Legal, responsible gun owners are being persecuted by government
favored gun grabbers by government and freaks that infer they are
superior thinkers, knows all things for all people. Superior thinkers
that say I'm not smart enough to think for myself. I'm not for
permitting guns to the mentally ill. See the difference?


It's that Part B that's confounding us. The gun grabbers (as you call
them) figure that the only way to do Part B is to take the guns away
from everyone, and that's where the arguements start.


That is why I will stand my ground. Saving myself and family from gun
grabbers. It is my duty,my honor and for my country.

I'm hoping that in future there may be weapons that don't kill, but
merely stun a person (like on Star Trek) for long enough to allow
citizens to protect themselves and their families without causing death.
If such weapons existed, there wouldn't be nearly as much controversy
about them as there is about fire arms.

Your hope is a frivolous adventure, Nestor. Men are evil. They are
born that way. Do the right thing, morally, and protect your family.

My laws allow that.
--
I support a woman's right to choose whichever gun she wants

No, Ken, what I'm saying is that finding legitimacy in the US Constitution for people to own assault rifles that can easily be converted into machine guns is no different than turning to either the Bible or the Koran to find answers to modern day problems. What was a good strategy and sound reasoning under one set of circumstances at one time is not good strategy and sound reasoning for all time.

At some point one has to recognise that times have changed. There is no real NEED for a well armed citizenry to protect the country from corrupt governments or foreign invaders anymore. In fact, many would argue that the arming of the citizenry allows for the arming of criminals and crackpots who are the modern day menaces to society.

Anyhow, I'm a Canadian and I don't feel it's my place to argue with any of the Americans in here about their rights and constitutional guarantees. As I said before, guns are a US issue and we Canadians should keep our noses out of it.

On 5/26/14, 7:18 AM, HomeGuy wrote:

When are you going to learn that warehousing your kids at colleges and
universities is not the road to US prosperity? They're only going to
get into trouble - like what happened here. And it's costing you a
fortune you don't have to send them to what is really
day-care-for-20-year-olds (ie - college / university).

If universities are outlawed only outlaws will have universities.

Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2014 17:53:39 -0500, "ChairMan"

wrote:

I've not seen a free Korean in America , belonging to
the groups you
mention. I do know there is one Socialist in congress
from VT that
can't read a 3 page bill related to our VA system.
Because he is a
socialist!


Just one? I think ya missed a few : )

Well. I have limited resources to name them all. Sorry I
missed a
'bunch'. I wasn't counting those in the White House,
either.

Bunches would be more appropriate : )

On Mon, 26 May 2014 22:25:12 +0200, nestork
wrote:


'Oren[_2_ Wrote:
;3240746']On Mon, 26 May 2014 18:27:56 +0200, nestork
wrote:
-
2. Gun control is something the Americans have talked about amongst
themselves for decades. They have not reached any sort of agreement on
it, and it's just one of those things, like capital punishment,
abortion
and drug laws that are a problem with no good solution.-

Sorry Nestor. Our U.S. Constitution addressed it (thanks to James
Madison), our Supreme Court has addressed it. There is no further
discussion. The gun grabbers lost! End of story.
--
I like Guns and Titties

Oren:

Democracy has a unique trait that other forms of civil governance don't.
It has a built-in pressure relief valve called "elections". When the
pressure for change reaches a critical point, then that pressure relief
valve starts to function by electing candidates that promise to bring
about the changes that the people want. Having such a pressure relief
valve built into the political system is one of the reasons why real
democracies (like the US and Canada) don't have revolutions like they do
in countries that call themselves democracies, but are really
dictatorships.

The issue of guns is an American issue and I'm not going to stick my
Canadian nose into it. However, to my knowledge James Madison had black
powder single shot muskets in mind when he made those changes to your
constitution that called for a "well armed militia", and therein lies
the difference between gun owners and gun grabbers.

I truly believe, however, that with every public shooting where some
crackpot uses a legally registered gun to kill as many innocent people
as he/she can, the needle on that pressure gauge moves a bit.


Nestork,

The US is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. Second, do
you have some sort of proof Madison only considered muskets with regar
to the 2nd amendment?

sparkie

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Tue, 27 May 2014 02:26:53 +0200, nestork
wrote:


'Ken[_6_ Wrote:
;3240865']
It is worth mentioning that the bad guys also had black powder guns at
the time you cite. Surely you do not expect the citizens of today to
maintain a black powder gun when the intruder is using a modern day
weapon?

It is also worth mentioning that during the second world war, the
Japanese feared invading the U.S. because so many of the citizens were
armed?


No, Ken, what I'm saying is that finding legitimacy in the US
Constitution for people to own assault rifles that can easily be
converted into machine guns is no different than turning to either the
Bible or the Koran to find answers to modern day problems. What was a
good strategy and sound reasoning under one set of circumstances at one
time is not good strategy and sound reasoning for all time.

At some point one has to recognise that times have changed. There is no
real NEED for a well armed citizenry to protect the country from corrupt
governments or foreign invaders anymore. In fact, many would argue that
the arming of the citizenry allows for the arming of criminals and
crackpots who are the modern day menaces to society.

Anyhow, I'm a Canadian and I don't feel it's my place to argue with any
of the Americans in here about their rights and constitutional
guarantees. As I said before, guns are a US issue and we Canadians
should keep our noses out of it.


You sir need a history lesson unless you prefer to remain an ignorant
gun banner.


Malon labe

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Mon, 26 May 2014 22:25:12 +0200, nestork
wrote:


'Oren[_2_ Wrote:
;3240746']On Mon, 26 May 2014 18:27:56 +0200, nestork
wrote:
-
2. Gun control is something the Americans have talked about amongst
themselves for decades. They have not reached any sort of agreement on
it, and it's just one of those things, like capital punishment,
abortion
and drug laws that are a problem with no good solution.-

Sorry Nestor. Our U.S. Constitution addressed it (thanks to James
Madison), our Supreme Court has addressed it. There is no further
discussion. The gun grabbers lost! End of story.
--
I like Guns and Titties

Oren:

Democracy has a unique trait that other forms of civil governance don't.
It has a built-in pressure relief valve called "elections". When the
pressure for change reaches a critical point, then that pressure relief
valve starts to function by electing candidates that promise to bring
about the changes that the people want. Having such a pressure relief
valve built into the political system is one of the reasons why real
democracies (like the US and Canada) don't have revolutions like they do
in countries that call themselves democracies, but are really
dictatorships.

The issue of guns is an American issue and I'm not going to stick my
Canadian nose into it. However, to my knowledge James Madison had black
powder single shot muskets in mind when he made those changes to your
constitution that called for a "well armed militia", and therein lies
the difference between gun owners and gun grabbers.

I truly believe, however, that with every public shooting where some
crackpot uses a legally registered gun to kill as many innocent people
as he/she can, the needle on that pressure gauge moves a bit.


Oren,

First off the US is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic.
Second, can you provide some sort of proof that Madison only
considered " black powder single shot muskets" when he propose the 2nd
amendment?

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Tue, 27 May 2014 00:34:18 +0200, nestork
wrote:


'Oren[_2_ Wrote:
;3240845']
True. But don't blame the gun because some fool pops a cork. These
are mental problems, lack of treatment and so on. Gun grabbers use it
for political gain, not because they actually care about humanity or
give one ****.
Never come after my guns, in my state, because some clown becomes
recalcitrant in another location. Know what I mean, Vern?


I don't think anyone has anything against responsible gun owners having
guns in their possession.

The thing EVERYONE wants is to take guns away from irresponsible gun
owners. That includes people that use guns to commit crimes, gangsters
that will start shooting at another gangster in public and thereby
endanger innocent bystanders, the lunatic fringe that have the potential
to snap and just start shooting, and young children that find loaded
firearms under daddy's pillow and take it to school to show their
friends.

It's that Part B that's confounding us. The gun grabbers (as you call
them) figure that the only way to do Part B is to take the guns away
from everyone, and that's where the arguements start.

I'm hoping that in future there may be weapons that don't kill, but
merely stun a person (like on Star Trek) for long enough to allow
citizens to protect themselves and their families without causing death.
If such weapons existed, there wouldn't be nearly as much controversy
about them as there is about fire arms.


I'm sorry, i prefer a dead perp as opposed to an recidivistic perp.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Tue, 27 May 2014 02:26:53 +0200, nestork
wrote:


'Ken[_6_ Wrote:
;3240865']
It is worth mentioning that the bad guys also had black powder guns at
the time you cite. Surely you do not expect the citizens of today to
maintain a black powder gun when the intruder is using a modern day
weapon?

It is also worth mentioning that during the second world war, the
Japanese feared invading the U.S. because so many of the citizens were
armed?


No, Ken, what I'm saying is that finding legitimacy in the US
Constitution for people to own assault rifles that can easily be
converted into machine guns is no different than turning to either the
Bible or the Koran to find answers to modern day problems. What was a
good strategy and sound reasoning under one set of circumstances at one
time is not good strategy and sound reasoning for all time.

At some point one has to recognise that times have changed. There is no
real NEED for a well armed citizenry to protect the country from corrupt
governments or foreign invaders anymore. In fact, many would argue that
the arming of the citizenry allows for the arming of criminals and
crackpots who are the modern day menaces to society.

Anyhow, I'm a Canadian and I don't feel it's my place to argue with any
of the Americans in here about their rights and constitutional
guarantees. As I said before, guns are a US issue and we Canadians
should keep our noses out of it.


You need a history lesson unless you prefr to remain an ignorat gun
banner

Malon labe

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Tue, 27 May 2014 02:26:53 +0200, nestork
wrote:

No, Ken, what I'm saying is that finding legitimacy in the US
Constitution for people to own assault rifles that can easily be
converted into machine guns is no different than turning to either the
Bible or the Koran to find answers to modern day problems. What was a
good strategy and sound reasoning under one set of circumstances at one
time is not good strategy and sound reasoning for all time.


Nestor,

I think you have been snookered by the liberal news media. Tell us
what you think is the difference between an "assault rifle" and a
"machine gun". It appears to me that you might think our U.S.
Constitution is a "living breathing document", that changes at the
whim of political winds. That is not the case. Progressive liberals
want people to believe that, though.

It is perfectly legal for a citizen to purchase and own a machine gun.
Buying one is a different process than buying a rifle or hand gun. If
one has the money, one can own a Gatling gun, a Cannon or a tank.

Fun video: _Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot 2014 Highlights_

https://tinyurl.com/lzvk7uj

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBf_LvqUsQ
--
'...we don't wanna bring our guns, but ready if it goes there -- Madison Rising

On Monday, May 26, 2014 8:26:53 PM UTC-4, nestork wrote:
'Ken[_6_ Wrote:

;3240865']

It is worth mentioning that the bad guys also had black powder guns at

the time you cite. Surely you do not expect the citizens of today to

maintain a black powder gun when the intruder is using a modern day

weapon?



It is also worth mentioning that during the second world war, the

Japanese feared invading the U.S. because so many of the citizens were

armed?





No, Ken, what I'm saying is that finding legitimacy in the US

Constitution for people to own assault rifles that can easily be

converted into machine guns is no different than turning to either the

Bible or the Koran to find answers to modern day problems.

Show us some examples of where semi-automatics were turned into
"machine guns" and used for mass slaughter. I'm sure there are a
few out there, but it's an extremely small percentage. It had nothing
to do with the case just cited, not any of the other mass shootings
that I recall.




What was a

good strategy and sound reasoning under one set of circumstances at one

time is not good strategy and sound reasoning for all time.



At some point one has to recognise that times have changed. There is no

real NEED for a well armed citizenry to protect the country from corrupt

governments or foreign invaders anymore.

The SC has heard those arguments, looked into the origins of the second
ammendment and rejected your assertions. It found that the right specifically
rests with the people.



In fact, many would argue that

the arming of the citizenry allows for the arming of criminals and

crackpots who are the modern day menaces to society.



Sure, the loons would. Cocaine and heroine are illegal. We haven't
allowed citizens to have those. Yet the criminals have easy access
to it, you can buy it on many street corners in America. How's that
working?




Anyhow, I'm a Canadian and I don't feel it's my place to argue with any

of the Americans in here about their rights and constitutional

guarantees. As I said before, guns are a US issue and we Canadians

should keep our noses out of it.



Yet here you are.

HomeGuy wrote:
And so we have another example of how amerika is safer because of the
right to bear arms, the right to free and easy access to personal
firearms.

Yes, 22 year-old Elliot Rodger was a law abiding legal gun owner (for
what, a few days? Weeks?) right up to the millisecond he pulled the
trigger (or triggers) and killed 6 random kids.

And you can go and froth at the mouth about how great it is that he has
the freedom to do just what he did.

But what I'm going to point out below is just how deviant and worthless
your next-generation (which you, the readers of this newsgroup) have
raised with such tender loving irresponsibility and detachment.

=========================

http://www.infowars.com/in-death-gir...mass-murderer/

Like many before him, the mass murderer who killed 6 people in the
coastal California community of Isla Vista Friday has garnered a
following in death he could never amass in life, just the latest
indication of the Stockholm syndrome psychosis and superficiality that
has taken America by storm.

While rants by rejected degenerate Elliot Rodger were aimed at the
fairer sex, over which he held a psychotic obsession, he allegedly
couldn’t figure out a way to approach them with any degree of success.

However, following his death, and the subsequent plastering of his
photos across the web, it seems the girl-hating 22-year-old virgin now
has what he always wanted in life: adoration, and some of it is coming
from dudes as well.

From Twitter, (screen-capped for posterity):

-----------
Shayanne Gonzalez: "sad part is the psyco is hot"

Josh: "the guy who killed everyone in santa barbara is kinda hot lol"

Derrek Leigh: "Sad what happened in Santa Barbara ... Why is it
always the cute ones that go crazy?"

merissa: "the guy that did that shooting in santa barbara is cute"

aff man: "seriously? not one UCSB chick could've bit the bulled and
dated that hot dude with the cool car?"

nena: "such a shame, elliiot rodger was hot"

Lesli Carlos: "the son of the director (hunger games) killed people
at ucsb - he was cute"

JN: "and the shooter was good looking. this is why you don't trust
cute boys because they could be secretly psychotic"

B&B: "apart from his odd nose, elliot rodger was kinda hot. Wonder
why girles turned him down?"

beadsme: "is this guy for real? He's so cute. So wierd how our
minds work"

Reallyrick: "he was hot, I would of ****ed him"
====================

Rodger’s overnight popularization is similar to the cult following
accused Batman shooter James Holmes generated, wherein several women
professed their adulation of him after the supposed slaying of 12
victims in a movie theater in Aurora, Colo.

The same was also seen when New England Patriot Aaron Hernandez was
accused of murder:

------------
camdymkvi: "am I the only one who thinks Aaron Hernandez is still
sexy even if he is a murderer?"

Kelsey proffitt: "why does such a sexy man have to go to jail?"

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

===============================


When are you going to learn that warehousing your kids at colleges and
universities is not the road to US prosperity? They're only going to
get into trouble - like what happened here. And it's costing you a
fortune you don't have to send them to what is really
day-care-for-20-year-olds (ie - college / university).

Hey,
I spent almost 20 years at a local university as EIC for their IT main
frame and network plus research lab. Most kids are functionally
illiterate, often I thought only about 1/3 of the deserve to be in
higher learning place. And with fire arm or not, nut cases are every
where. Remember Lepine in Quebec years ago? Only easy access to guns
make things worse.