|
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turn inguns
€śGuns are a way of life for me, really,€ť says Womersley, 48, who
received his first firearm, a .22-calibre rifle, for his 12th birthday, and now hunts with his 15-year-old daughter. The semi-automatics used in the attack will be banned, with exemptions for working hunters, and tougher licensing rules are on the drawing board. €śI think the gun laws were too slack...the laws gave this bad man a gun,€ť says Womersley, who owns eight or nine guns, stored in a safe in the garage of a home decorated with game heads. €śHe ruined it for everyone. Not everyone is like that.€ťAs part of a new national firearm buyback scheme, he expects to hand in one military-style AR-15 assault rifle, a type of weapon used in the Christchurch massacre. €śI dont think we need military-style weapons in our society. I definitely dont need them in my job,€ť he says. €śIts like driving around in a Ferrari, you dont need it.€ť https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ne...-idUKKCN1RF0J3 Fair play to the Kiwis, at least they are doing something about their gun laws. No-one NEEDS an assault gun, except for military etc. -- Bod --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turn in guns
On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 14:01:46 +0100, Bod wrote:
“Guns are a way of life for me, really,” says Womersley, 48, who received his first firearm, a .22-calibre rifle, for his 12th birthday, and now hunts with his 15-year-old daughter. The semi-automatics used in the attack will be banned, with exemptions for working hunters, and tougher licensing rules are on the drawing board. “I think the gun laws were too slack...the laws gave this bad man a gun,” says Womersley, who owns eight or nine guns, stored in a safe in the garage of a home decorated with game heads. “He ruined it for everyone. Not everyone is like that.”As part of a new national firearm buyback scheme, he expects to hand in one military-style AR-15 assault rifle, a type of weapon used in the Christchurch massacre. “I don’t think we need military-style weapons in our society. I definitely don’t need them in my job,” he says. “It’s like driving around in a Ferrari, you don’t need it.” https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ne...-idUKKCN1RF0J3 Fair play to the Kiwis, at least they are doing something about their gun laws. No-one NEEDS an assault gun, except for military etc. And mass murderers. Don't forget them. []'s -- Don't be evil - Google 2004 We have a new policy - Google 2012 |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turn in guns
On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 14:01:46 +0100, Bod wrote:
€śGuns are a way of life for me, really,€ť says Womersley, 48, who received his first firearm, a .22-calibre rifle, for his 12th birthday, and now hunts with his 15-year-old daughter. The semi-automatics used in the attack will be banned, with exemptions for working hunters, and tougher licensing rules are on the drawing board. €śI think the gun laws were too slack...the laws gave this bad man a gun,€ť says Womersley, who owns eight or nine guns, stored in a safe in the garage of a home decorated with game heads. €śHe ruined it for everyone. Not everyone is like that.€ťAs part of a new national firearm buyback scheme, he expects to hand in one military-style AR-15 assault rifle, a type of weapon used in the Christchurch massacre. €śI dont think we need military-style weapons in our society. I definitely dont need them in my job,€ť he says. €śIts like driving around in a Ferrari, you dont need it.€ť https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ne...-idUKKCN1RF0J3 Fair play to the Kiwis, at least they are doing something about their gun laws. No-one NEEDS an assault gun, except for military etc. No one needs a car that will go faster than 100 KMPH either (the national speed limit there) will they have to turn in all of those cars too? I bet a lot more people are killed in speed related car crashes than gun violence. |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turn in guns
wrote in message ... On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 14:01:46 +0100, Bod wrote: €śGuns are a way of life for me, really,€ť says Womersley, 48, who received his first firearm, a .22-calibre rifle, for his 12th birthday, and now hunts with his 15-year-old daughter. The semi-automatics used in the attack will be banned, with exemptions for working hunters, and tougher licensing rules are on the drawing board. €śI think the gun laws were too slack...the laws gave this bad man a gun,€ť says Womersley, who owns eight or nine guns, stored in a safe in the garage of a home decorated with game heads. €śHe ruined it for everyone. Not everyone is like that.€ťAs part of a new national firearm buyback scheme, he expects to hand in one military-style AR-15 assault rifle, a type of weapon used in the Christchurch massacre. €śI dont think we need military-style weapons in our society. I definitely dont need them in my job,€ť he says. €śIts like driving around in a Ferrari, you dont need it.€ť https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ne...-idUKKCN1RF0J3 Fair play to the Kiwis, at least they are doing something about their gun laws. No-one NEEDS an assault gun, except for military etc. No one needs a car that will go faster than 100 KMPH either (the national speed limit there) will they have to turn in all of those cars too? No, because the maximum speed they can do isnt what makes them effective for mass murder. I bet a lot more people are killed in speed related car crashes than gun violence. Very likely but cars are a tad more useful for most than a military assault weapon. |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turn in guns
"Terry Coombs" wrote in message ... On 4/3/2019 10:58 AM, wrote: On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 14:01:46 +0100, Bod wrote: €śGuns are a way of life for me, really,€ť says Womersley, 48, who received his first firearm, a .22-calibre rifle, for his 12th birthday, and now hunts with his 15-year-old daughter. The semi-automatics used in the attack will be banned, with exemptions for working hunters, and tougher licensing rules are on the drawing board. €śI think the gun laws were too slack...the laws gave this bad man a gun,€ť says Womersley, who owns eight or nine guns, stored in a safe in the garage of a home decorated with game heads. €śHe ruined it for everyone. Not everyone is like that.€ťAs part of a new national firearm buyback scheme, he expects to hand in one military-style AR-15 assault rifle, a type of weapon used in the Christchurch massacre. €śI dont think we need military-style weapons in our society. I definitely dont need them in my job,€ť he says. €śIts like driving around in a Ferrari, you dont need it.€ť https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ne...-idUKKCN1RF0J3 Fair play to the Kiwis, at least they are doing something about their gun laws. No-one NEEDS an assault gun, except for military etc. No one needs a car that will go faster than 100 KMPH either (the national speed limit there) will they have to turn in all of those cars too? I bet a lot more people are killed in speed related car crashes than gun violence. The difference is that cars can't be used to overthrow an oppressive government . Socialism can't be far behind the gun grabs . How odd that Australia didnt get any more socialism after its gun grab. |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turn in guns
Terry Coombs writes:
On 4/3/2019 10:58 AM, wrote: On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 14:01:46 +0100, Bod wrote: €śGuns are a way of life for me, really,€ť says Womersley, 48, who received his first firearm, a .22-calibre rifle, for his 12th birthday, and now hunts with his 15-year-old daughter. The semi-automatics used in the attack will be banned, with exemptions for working hunters, and tougher licensing rules are on the drawing board. €śI think the gun laws were too slack...the laws gave this bad man a gun,€ť says Womersley, who owns eight or nine guns, stored in a safe in the garage of a home decorated with game heads. €śHe ruined it for everyone. Not everyone is like that.€ťAs part of a new national firearm buyback scheme, he expects to hand in one military-style AR-15 assault rifle, a type of weapon used in the Christchurch massacre. €śI dont think we need military-style weapons in our society. I definitely dont need them in my job,€ť he says. €śIts like driving around in a Ferrari, you dont need it.€ť https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ne...-idUKKCN1RF0J3 Fair play to the Kiwis, at least they are doing something about their gun laws. No-one NEEDS an assault gun, except for military etc. No one needs a car that will go faster than 100 KMPH either (the national speed limit there) will they have to turn in all of those cars too? I bet a lot more people are killed in speed related car crashes than gun violence. Â* The difference is that cars can't be used to overthrow an oppressive government . Socialism can't be far behind the gun grabs . If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will have any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying attention to recent world history. Face it, when the second amendment was written, "arms" consisted of swords, pikes, knives and the muzzle-loading musket. Using the modern definition of 'arms' to interpret the amendment is misinterpreting the intent of the founders. Where do you draw the line? Physics Packages? |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turn in guns
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 03:42:29 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 14:01:46 +0100, Bod wrote: €śGuns are a way of life for me, really,€ť says Womersley, 48, who received his first firearm, a .22-calibre rifle, for his 12th birthday, and now hunts with his 15-year-old daughter. The semi-automatics used in the attack will be banned, with exemptions for working hunters, and tougher licensing rules are on the drawing board. €śI think the gun laws were too slack...the laws gave this bad man a gun,€ť says Womersley, who owns eight or nine guns, stored in a safe in the garage of a home decorated with game heads. €śHe ruined it for everyone. Not everyone is like that.€ťAs part of a new national firearm buyback scheme, he expects to hand in one military-style AR-15 assault rifle, a type of weapon used in the Christchurch massacre. €śI dont think we need military-style weapons in our society. I definitely dont need them in my job,€ť he says. €śIts like driving around in a Ferrari, you dont need it.€ť https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ne...-idUKKCN1RF0J3 Fair play to the Kiwis, at least they are doing something about their gun laws. No-one NEEDS an assault gun, except for military etc. No one needs a car that will go faster than 100 KMPH either (the national speed limit there) will they have to turn in all of those cars too? No, because the maximum speed they can do isnt what makes them effective for mass murder. That is certainly the main difference between a semi auto and a bolt action. |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turn in guns
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 03:52:42 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote: "Terry Coombs" wrote in message ... On 4/3/2019 10:58 AM, wrote: On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 14:01:46 +0100, Bod wrote: €śGuns are a way of life for me, really,€ť says Womersley, 48, who received his first firearm, a .22-calibre rifle, for his 12th birthday, and now hunts with his 15-year-old daughter. The semi-automatics used in the attack will be banned, with exemptions for working hunters, and tougher licensing rules are on the drawing board. €śI think the gun laws were too slack...the laws gave this bad man a gun,€ť says Womersley, who owns eight or nine guns, stored in a safe in the garage of a home decorated with game heads. €śHe ruined it for everyone. Not everyone is like that.€ťAs part of a new national firearm buyback scheme, he expects to hand in one military-style AR-15 assault rifle, a type of weapon used in the Christchurch massacre. €śI dont think we need military-style weapons in our society. I definitely dont need them in my job,€ť he says. €śIts like driving around in a Ferrari, you dont need it.€ť https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ne...-idUKKCN1RF0J3 Fair play to the Kiwis, at least they are doing something about their gun laws. No-one NEEDS an assault gun, except for military etc. No one needs a car that will go faster than 100 KMPH either (the national speed limit there) will they have to turn in all of those cars too? I bet a lot more people are killed in speed related car crashes than gun violence. The difference is that cars can't be used to overthrow an oppressive government . Socialism can't be far behind the gun grabs . How odd that Australia didnt get any more socialism after its gun grab. You were already socialist or the grab would not have worked in the first place. I doubt a grab like that would get more than 30-40% compliance in the US and then only if the compensation was reasonable. I can already see the lawsuits demanding 100% of retail value, based on the 5th amendment rule on "taking". |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turn in guns
wrote in message ... On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 03:52:42 +1100, "Rod Speed" wrote: "Terry Coombs" wrote in message ... On 4/3/2019 10:58 AM, wrote: On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 14:01:46 +0100, Bod wrote: €śGuns are a way of life for me, really,€ť says Womersley, 48, who received his first firearm, a .22-calibre rifle, for his 12th birthday, and now hunts with his 15-year-old daughter. The semi-automatics used in the attack will be banned, with exemptions for working hunters, and tougher licensing rules are on the drawing board. €śI think the gun laws were too slack...the laws gave this bad man a gun,€ť says Womersley, who owns eight or nine guns, stored in a safe in the garage of a home decorated with game heads. €śHe ruined it for everyone. Not everyone is like that.€ťAs part of a new national firearm buyback scheme, he expects to hand in one military-style AR-15 assault rifle, a type of weapon used in the Christchurch massacre. €śI dont think we need military-style weapons in our society. I definitely dont need them in my job,€ť he says. €śIts like driving around in a Ferrari, you dont need it.€ť https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ne...-idUKKCN1RF0J3 Fair play to the Kiwis, at least they are doing something about their gun laws. No-one NEEDS an assault gun, except for military etc. No one needs a car that will go faster than 100 KMPH either (the national speed limit there) will they have to turn in all of those cars too? I bet a lot more people are killed in speed related car crashes than gun violence. The difference is that cars can't be used to overthrow an oppressive government . Socialism can't be far behind the gun grabs . How odd that Australia didnt get any more socialism after its gun grab. You were already socialist or the grab would not have worked in the first place. You wouldnt know what real socialist was if it bit you on your lard arse. You lot are just as socialist with SS and Medicare, the USPS, govt schools, the cops, the legal system, the military system, who does most of the roads, the US corps of engineers etc etc etc. In fact much more socialist than we are with the US corps of engineers. I doubt a grab like that would get more than 30-40% compliance in the US It isnt even possible given your stupid constitutional right to bear arms. and then only if the compensation was reasonable. I can already see the lawsuits demanding 100% of retail value, based on the 5th amendment rule on "taking". Nothing to do with socialism. |
Lonely Psychopathic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! LOL
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 03:42:29 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: No one needs a car that will go faster than 100 KMPH either (the national speed limit there) will they have to turn in all of those cars too? No, because the maximum speed they can do isnt what makes them effective for mass murder. It's mainly your psychopathic brethren that are the cause of mass murders and other distructive and revolting behaviour, senile Rot -- Bod addressing abnormal senile quarreller Rot: "Do you practice arguing with yourself in an empty room?" MID: |
Lonely Psychopathic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! LOL
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 03:52:42 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: The difference is that cars can't be used to overthrow an oppressive government . Socialism can't be far behind the gun grabs . How odd that Australia didn˘t get any more socialism after its gun grab. You certainly profited from it, senile pest. I'm sure quite a few of your neighbours resented the gun grab. -- FredXX to Rot Speed: "You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder we shippe the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity and criminality is inherited after all?" Message-ID: |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turn in guns
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 05:04:30 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote: You wouldn’t know what real socialist was if it bit you on your lard arse. You lot are just as socialist with SS and Medicare, the USPS, govt schools, the cops, the legal system, the military system, who does most of the roads, the US corps of engineers Schooling, pensions, social assistance, welfare etc In fact much more socialist than we are with the US corps of engineers. +1 Australia was considered the "ideal socialist country" by Lula's party in Brazil and adopting its system was one of their goals. Of course, for just wanting everything Australia has today he was labeled a "communist" by the right wing nutters and the American "think tanks". And so ... the coup. BTW, I'm the president of Venezuela. If some spoilt brat in his thirtys can "self proclaim" himself president, so can I. So more respect, please. []'s -- Don't be evil - Google 2004 We have a new policy - Google 2012 |
Lonely Psychopathic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! LOL
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 05:04:30 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: You wouldn˘t know what real socialist was if it bit you on your lard arse. ....says, of course, the senile idiot from Oz who keeps claiming that Norway is "socialist"! LOL FLUSH the rest of your usual troll **** -- Bod addressing abnormal senile quarreller Rot: "Do you practice arguing with yourself in an empty room?" MID: |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turn in guns
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote: Terry Coombs writes: On 4/3/2019 10:58 AM, wrote: On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 14:01:46 +0100, Bod wrote: €œGuns are a way of life for me, really,€? says Womersley, 48, who received his first firearm, a .22-calibre rifle, for his 12th birthday, and now hunts with his 15-year-old daughter. The semi-automatics used in the attack will be banned, with exemptions for working hunters, and tougher licensing rules are on the drawing board. €œI think the gun laws were too slack...the laws gave this bad man a gun,€? says Womersley, who owns eight or nine guns, stored in a safe in the garage of a home decorated with game heads. €œHe ruined it for everyone. Not everyone is like that.€?As part of a new national firearm buyback scheme, he expects to hand in one military-style AR-15 assault rifle, a type of weapon used in the Christchurch massacre. €œI don€„˘t think we need military-style weapons in our society. I definitely don€„˘t need them in my job,€? he says. €œIt€„˘s like driving around in a Ferrari, you don€„˘t need it.€? https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ne...-idUKKCN1RF0J3 Fair play to the Kiwis, at least they are doing something about their gun laws. No-one NEEDS an assault gun, except for military etc. No one needs a car that will go faster than 100 KMPH either (the national speed limit there) will they have to turn in all of those cars too? I bet a lot more people are killed in speed related car crashes than gun violence. Ă‚Â* The difference is that cars can't be used to overthrow an oppressive government . Socialism can't be far behind the gun grabs . If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will have any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying attention to recent world history. What? you mean like Afghanistan where goat herders with AKMs are giving the US military a run for their money? Face it, when the second amendment was written, "arms" consisted of swords, pikes, knives and the muzzle-loading musket. Using the modern definition of 'arms' to interpret the amendment is misinterpreting the intent of the founders. The "arms" (rifles) held by farmers and woodsmen were superior to the Brown Bess muskets carried by the red coats. That is a bad analogy. The whole concept that rights are limited to 18th century technology is flawed If I want to take that to it's logical conclusion, the 1st amendment would only protect the spoken word and printed page because that was all the forefathers knew about. |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turn in guns
Shadow wrote
Rod Speed wrote You wouldn't know what real socialist was if it bit you on your lard arse. You lot are just as socialist with SS and Medicare, the USPS, govt schools, the cops, the legal system, the military system, who does most of the roads, the US corps of engineers Schooling, pensions, social assistance, welfare etc In fact much more socialist than we are with the US corps of engineers. +1 Australia was considered the "ideal socialist country" by Lula's party in Brazil He got that a bit wrong, we were stupid enough to have the govt do the phone service for a long time but scrapped that decades ago now and privatised that. And currently have the govt do the national broadband service, something few other countrys are stupid enough to do although it isnt a govt monopoly. And the govt is only a little involved with the mobile/cellphone system, just paying for bases in some of the more remote areas which arent economic to provide a cellphone service to for the non govt service providers And sold off the govt satellite service too. and adopting its system was one of their goals. Of course, for just wanting everything Australia has today he was labeled a "communist" by the right wing nutters and the American "think tanks". Yeah, they have always been too stupid to work out the difference between socialism and communism. And so ... the coup. BTW, I'm the president of Venezuela. If some spoilt brat in his thirtys can "self proclaim" himself president, so can I.So more respect, please. No way, I fart in the face of all those who claim to be a president of anything, specially a country. |
Lonely Psychopathic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! LOL
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 08:14:15 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: FLUSH What has all this sick **** got to do with a group like ahr, you senile Ozzie pest? -- Bill Wright to Rot Speed: "That confirms my opinion that you are a despicable little ****." MID: |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turnin guns
On 4/3/19 1:25 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Terry Coombs writes: On 4/3/2019 10:58 AM, wrote: On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 14:01:46 +0100, Bod wrote: €œGuns are a way of life for me, really,€ says Womersley, 48, who received his first firearm, a .22-calibre rifle, for his 12th birthday, and now hunts with his 15-year-old daughter. The semi-automatics used in the attack will be banned, with exemptions for working hunters, and tougher licensing rules are on the drawing board. €œI think the gun laws were too slack...the laws gave this bad man a gun,€ says Womersley, who owns eight or nine guns, stored in a safe in the garage of a home decorated with game heads. €œHe ruined it for everyone. Not everyone is like that.€As part of a new national firearm buyback scheme, he expects to hand in one military-style AR-15 assault rifle, a type of weapon used in the Christchurch massacre. €œI don€„˘t think we need military-style weapons in our society. I definitely don€„˘t need them in my job,€ he says. €œIt€„˘s like driving around in a Ferrari, you don€„˘t need it.€ https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ne...-idUKKCN1RF0J3 Fair play to the Kiwis, at least they are doing something about their gun laws. No-one NEEDS an assault gun, except for military etc. No one needs a car that will go faster than 100 KMPH either (the national speed limit there) will they have to turn in all of those cars too? I bet a lot more people are killed in speed related car crashes than gun violence. Ă‚Â* The difference is that cars can't be used to overthrow an oppressive government . Socialism can't be far behind the gun grabs . If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will have any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying attention to recent world history. Face it, when the second amendment was written, "arms" consisted of swords, pikes, knives and the muzzle-loading musket. Using the modern definition of 'arms' to interpret the amendment is misinterpreting the intent of the founders. Where do you draw the line? Physics Packages? Since the First Amendment was written to insure the freedom of hand operated printing presses cranking out fouir-page newspapers, notices tacked to the town hall door and comments by the town crier....by your logic- radio, TV, internet, broadband, SiriusXM, texting, etc. aren't covered ;-) -- Ever notice the shortage of "armed law-abiding citizen€ť victim tragedy stories in the news? |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turn in guns
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 08:14:15 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote: Shadow wrote Rod Speed wrote You wouldn't know what real socialist was if it bit you on your lard arse. You lot are just as socialist with SS and Medicare, the USPS, govt schools, the cops, the legal system, the military system, who does most of the roads, the US corps of engineers Schooling, pensions, social assistance, welfare etc In fact much more socialist than we are with the US corps of engineers. +1 Australia was considered the "ideal socialist country" by Lula's party in Brazil He got that a bit wrong, we were stupid enough to have the govt do the phone service for a long time but scrapped that decades ago now and privatised that. Sounds great. All over the world people are reaping the "benefits" of privatization: https://web.archive.org/web/20190330154710/https://www.tni.org/en/publication/reclaiming-public-services Our phone tariffs went up 600% after the privatization. How about yours ? And currently have the govt do the national broadband service, something few other countrys are stupid enough to do although it isnt a govt monopoly. And the govt is only a little involved with the mobile/cellphone system, just paying for bases in some of the more remote areas which arent economic to provide a cellphone service to for the non govt service providers And sold off the govt satellite service too. and adopting its system was one of their goals. Of course, for just wanting everything Australia has today he was labeled a "communist" by the right wing nutters and the American "think tanks". Yeah, they have always been too stupid to work out the difference between socialism and communism. +1 And so ... the coup. BTW, I'm the president of Venezuela. If some spoilt brat in his thirtys can "self proclaim" himself president, so can I.So more respect, please. No way, I fart in the face of all those who claim to be a president of anything, specially a country. I'll have Trump **build a Wall around you. He recognized my status. You'll be locked in with your farts. []'s ** The Mexicans will pay for it -- Don't be evil - Google 2004 We have a new policy - Google 2012 |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turn in guns
"Shadow" wrote in message ... On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 08:14:15 +1100, "Rod Speed" wrote: Shadow wrote Rod Speed wrote You wouldn't know what real socialist was if it bit you on your lard arse. You lot are just as socialist with SS and Medicare, the USPS, govt schools, the cops, the legal system, the military system, who does most of the roads, the US corps of engineers Schooling, pensions, social assistance, welfare etc In fact much more socialist than we are with the US corps of engineers. +1 Australia was considered the "ideal socialist country" by Lula's party in Brazil He got that a bit wrong, we were stupid enough to have the govt do the phone service for a long time but scrapped that decades ago now and privatised that. Sounds great. All over the world people are reaping the "benefits" of privatization: https://web.archive.org/web/20190330154710/https://www.tni.org/en/publication/reclaiming-public-services Our phone tariffs went up 600% after the privatization. How about yours ? Some things like line rent went up substantially, by about 300%, that the price was controlled by the govt regulator so that isnt directly comparable. Calls out of the country dropped dramatically with real competition. The mobile/cellphone system saw a very dramatic drop indeed. I now get unlimited calls and texts and MMSs to any mobile/cellphone or landline in the country and 1GB of data for just $10 a month. For $30 a month, unlimited calls to the 10 most important international countrys and 1-GB of data. That's cheaper than the old landline line rent with no calls included at all. The cheapest landline line rent is $35 a month and there are no calls included in that and we never had free local calls like the yanks did. But the landline service on the broadband service which no longer has any line rent charge, is free and so are calls to landlines anywhere in the country. For $10 a month calls to mobiles/cellphones are free too. More complicated with electricity, it has gone up quite a bit but nothing like 600%, closer to double. Water and sewer is still done by local govt here. And currently have the govt do the national broadband service, something few other countrys are stupid enough to do although it isnt a govt monopoly. And the govt is only a little involved with the mobile/cellphone system, just paying for bases in some of the more remote areas which arent economic to provide a cellphone service to for the non govt service providers And sold off the govt satellite service too. and adopting its system was one of their goals. Of course, for just wanting everything Australia has today he was labeled a "communist" by the right wing nutters and the American "think tanks". Yeah, they have always been too stupid to work out the difference between socialism and communism. +1 And so ... the coup. BTW, I'm the president of Venezuela. If some spoilt brat in his thirtys can "self proclaim" himself president, so can I.So more respect, please. No way, I fart in the face of all those who claim to be a president of anything, specially a country. I'll have Trump **build a Wall around you. He recognized my status. You'll be locked in with your farts. ** The Mexicans will pay for it A likely story. |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turn in guns
|
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turn in guns
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:48:21 -0700, Oren wrote:
Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and has 42% of the guns in the world. I believe you. You have a serious problem. It can't be just little tiny dicks and insecurity. There must be something more. My condolences. []'s -- Don't be evil - Google 2004 We have a new policy - Google 2012 |
Lonely Psychopathic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! LOL
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 10:59:10 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: FLUSH another 103 lines of troll**** What has all this **** got do with ahr, you two driveling prize idiots? -- Bod addressing abnormal senile quarreller Rot: "Do you practice arguing with yourself in an empty room?" MID: |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turnin guns
On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal) wrote: If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will have any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying attention to recent world history. Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and has 42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein. Then read about the Oath Keepers. Guns are my natural right birth. If you are offended, ask me if I give ****. spit Â* What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a large percentage of those arms are owned by people with military training and COMBAT EXPERIENCE . You don't have to own your own tank to kill one of "theirs" . And antipersonnel armaments rely on catching the "enemy" in groups . Ask any 'Nam vet how well that worked . Plus the fact that at least a percentage of current military will be sympathetic to the cause .... and will either refuse to fight or defect - with their gear and as much armament as they can carry off . I don't own an AR type rifle , don't feel the need . But I support the rights of those who do . -- Snag Yes , I'm old and crochety - and armed . Get outta my woods ! |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turn in guns
Terry Coombs writes:
On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote: On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal) wrote: If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will have any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying attention to recent world history. Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and has 42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein. Then read about the Oath Keepers. Guns are my natural right birth. If you are offended, ask me if I give ****. spit Â* What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a large percentage of those arms are owned by people with military training and COMBAT EXPERIENCE . The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists, and criminals. Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you can't complete with a government on that count. Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history. Show one example where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own government without any aid from an external government (even the American Revolution was provided arms and ammunition by the French). I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles, limited-magazine shotguns). I'm less convinced about handguns, but could support revolver possession. Not assault rifles, weapons that can easily be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified semi-auto handguns) or actual real automatic weapons. |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turn in guns
On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:02:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote: Terry Coombs writes: On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote: On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal) wrote: If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will have any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying attention to recent world history. Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and has 42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein. Then read about the Oath Keepers. Guns are my natural right birth. If you are offended, ask me if I give ****. spit Ă‚Â* What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a large percentage of those arms are owned by people with military training and COMBAT EXPERIENCE . The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists, and criminals. What's your point? The military is composed of ordinary Americans too, most with minimal training. A agree they have the weapons of mass destruction but a government that turns that kind of indiscriminate power against it's own population is going to lose support pretty fast. The same thing in the American spirit that makes us the most murdering population in the western world will make us a pretty hard population to subjugate. Bear in mind, we trained most of the insurgents in the world, including the ones we could not beat with all of our military might. Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you can't complete with a government on that count. As long as the government has ammo, you can get it. That is one advantage in owning "military" calibers. Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history. Show one example where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own government without any aid from an external government (even the American Revolution was provided arms and ammunition by the French). Why do you think there would not be other countries lining up to support an insurgency against an oppressive government here? I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles, limited-magazine shotguns). I'm less convinced about handguns, but could support revolver possession. Not assault rifles, weapons that can easily be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified semi-auto handguns) or actual real automatic weapons. The flaw in your logic is defining an assault weapon. We are also put far to much emphasis on a very few murders. Most of the 11,000 murders in the US are gang related and involve handguns. Rifles, all types, assault or otherwise are not involved in as many murders as "bare hands" killings. (AKA "personal weapons" in the UCR) It is really just racists who put far more importance on white suburban lives than inner city people of color who are pushing this "assault weapon" bull****. BTW you all seem to forget the first famous "active shooter" was Charles Whitman who killed 17 people and wounded 30 more with that benign bolt action rifle you speak of.1 |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turnin guns
On 04/04/2019 17:21, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:02:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal) wrote: Terry Coombs writes: On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote: On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal) wrote: If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will have any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying attention to recent world history. Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and has 42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein. Then read about the Oath Keepers. Guns are my natural right birth. If you are offended, ask me if I give ****. spit Ă‚Â* What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a large percentage of those arms are owned by people with military training and COMBAT EXPERIENCE . The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists, and criminals. What's your point? The military is composed of ordinary Americans too, most with minimal training. A agree they have the weapons of mass destruction but a government that turns that kind of indiscriminate power against it's own population is going to lose support pretty fast. The same thing in the American spirit that makes us the most murdering population in the western world will make us a pretty hard population to subjugate. Bear in mind, we trained most of the insurgents in the world, including the ones we could not beat with all of our military might. Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you can't complete with a government on that count. As long as the government has ammo, you can get it. That is one advantage in owning "military" calibers. Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history. Show one example where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own government without any aid from an external government (even the American Revolution was provided arms and ammunition by the French). Why do you think there would not be other countries lining up to support an insurgency against an oppressive government here? I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles, limited-magazine shotguns). I'm less convinced about handguns, but could support revolver possession. Not assault rifles, weapons that can easily be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified semi-auto handguns) or actual real automatic weapons. The flaw in your logic is defining an assault weapon. We are also put far to much emphasis on a very few murders. Most of the 11,000 murders in the US are gang related and involve handguns. Rifles, all types, assault or otherwise are not involved in as many murders as "bare hands" killings. (AKA "personal weapons" in the UCR) It is really just racists who put far more importance on white suburban lives than inner city people of color who are pushing this "assault weapon" bull****. BTW you all seem to forget the first famous "active shooter" was Charles Whitman who killed 17 people and wounded 30 more with that benign bolt action rifle you speak of.1 25% of mass shooters used assault rifles, the majority of the rest used either and auto rifle or an auto handgun. -- Bod --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turnin guns
On 04/04/2019 17:37, Bod wrote:
On 04/04/2019 17:21, wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:02:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal) wrote: Terry Coombs writes: On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote: On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal) wrote: If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will have any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying attention to recent world history. Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and has 42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein. Then read about the Oath Keepers.Â* Guns are my natural right birth. If you are offended, ask me if I give ****. spit Ă‚Â* What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a large percentage of those arms are owned by people with military training and COMBAT EXPERIENCE . Â* The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists, and criminals. What's your point? The military is composed of ordinary Americans too, most with minimal training. A agree they have the weapons of mass destruction but a government that turns that kind of indiscriminate power against it's own population is going to lose support pretty fast. The same thing in the American spirit that makes us the most murdering population in the western world will make us a pretty hard population to subjugate. Bear in mind, we trained most of the insurgents in the world, including the ones we could not beat with all of our military might. Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you can't complete with a government on that count. As long as the government has ammo, you can get it. That is one advantage in owning "military" calibers. Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history.Â* Show one example where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own government without any aid from an external government (even the American Revolution was provided arms and ammunition by the French). Why do you think there would not be other countries lining up to support an insurgency against an oppressive government here? I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles, limited-magazine shotguns).Â*Â* I'm less convinced about handguns, but could support revolver possession.Â*Â* Not assault rifles, weapons that can easily be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified semi-auto handguns) or actual real automatic weapons. The flaw in your logic is defining an assault weapon. We are also put far to much emphasis on a very few murders. Most of the 11,000 murders in the US are gang related and involve handguns. Rifles, all types, assault or otherwise are not involved in as many murders as "bare hands" killings.Â* (AKA "personal weapons" in the UCR) It is really just racists who put far more importance on white suburban lives than inner city people of color who are pushing this "assault weapon" bull****. BTW you all seem to forget the first famous "active shooter" was Charles Whitman who killed 17 people and wounded 30 more with that benign bolt action rifle you speak of.1 25% of mass shooters used assault rifles, the majority of the rest used either an auto rifle or an auto handgun. If you wanted to kill lots of people, then an auto firing gun would seem to be an obvious choice. -- Bod --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turnin guns
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 12:38:04 PM UTC-4, Bod wrote:
On 04/04/2019 17:21, wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:02:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal) wrote: Terry Coombs writes: On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote: On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal) wrote: If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will have any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying attention to recent world history. Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and has 42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein. Then read about the Oath Keepers. Guns are my natural right birth. If you are offended, ask me if I give ****. spit Ă‚Â* What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a large percentage of those arms are owned by people with military training and COMBAT EXPERIENCE . The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists, and criminals. What's your point? The military is composed of ordinary Americans too, most with minimal training. A agree they have the weapons of mass destruction but a government that turns that kind of indiscriminate power against it's own population is going to lose support pretty fast. The same thing in the American spirit that makes us the most murdering population in the western world will make us a pretty hard population to subjugate. Bear in mind, we trained most of the insurgents in the world, including the ones we could not beat with all of our military might. Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you can't complete with a government on that count. As long as the government has ammo, you can get it. That is one advantage in owning "military" calibers. Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history. Show one example where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own government without any aid from an external government (even the American Revolution was provided arms and ammunition by the French). Why do you think there would not be other countries lining up to support an insurgency against an oppressive government here? I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles, limited-magazine shotguns). I'm less convinced about handguns, but could support revolver possession. Not assault rifles, weapons that can easily be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified semi-auto handguns) or actual real automatic weapons. The flaw in your logic is defining an assault weapon. We are also put far to much emphasis on a very few murders. Most of the 11,000 murders in the US are gang related and involve handguns. Rifles, all types, assault or otherwise are not involved in as many murders as "bare hands" killings. (AKA "personal weapons" in the UCR) It is really just racists who put far more importance on white suburban lives than inner city people of color who are pushing this "assault weapon" bull****. BTW you all seem to forget the first famous "active shooter" was Charles Whitman who killed 17 people and wounded 30 more with that benign bolt action rifle you speak of.1 25% of mass shooters used assault rifles, the majority of the rest used either and auto rifle or an auto handgun. Semi-auto, I think you'll find. Cindy Hamilton |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turn in guns
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:37:59 +0100, Bod wrote:
On 04/04/2019 17:21, wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:02:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal) wrote: Terry Coombs writes: On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote: On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal) wrote: If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will have any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying attention to recent world history. Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and has 42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein. Then read about the Oath Keepers. Guns are my natural right birth. Over a hundred thousand Americans were rounded up by the government and put in concentration camps. Trumpologists: But they used chopsticks !!! Thousands of Americans were jailed and persecuted by the government because of their political beliefs. Trumpologists: But they were communists and anarchists !!! Thousands of Americans .... Nope, in one ear out the other. You can't argue with a Trumpologist. If the government DID go rogue, they'd support it. If they didn't, the government would use nerve gas on them, and say the "number of innocent civilian casualties was acceptable". And they'd agree. []'s -- Don't be evil - Google 2004 We have a new policy - Google 2012 |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turnin guns
On 04/04/2019 17:59, wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 12:38:04 PM UTC-4, Bod wrote: On 04/04/2019 17:21, wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:02:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal) wrote: Terry Coombs writes: On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote: On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal) wrote: If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will have any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying attention to recent world history. Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and has 42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein. Then read about the Oath Keepers. Guns are my natural right birth. If you are offended, ask me if I give ****. spit Ă‚Â* What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a large percentage of those arms are owned by people with military training and COMBAT EXPERIENCE . The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists, and criminals. What's your point? The military is composed of ordinary Americans too, most with minimal training. A agree they have the weapons of mass destruction but a government that turns that kind of indiscriminate power against it's own population is going to lose support pretty fast. The same thing in the American spirit that makes us the most murdering population in the western world will make us a pretty hard population to subjugate. Bear in mind, we trained most of the insurgents in the world, including the ones we could not beat with all of our military might. Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you can't complete with a government on that count. As long as the government has ammo, you can get it. That is one advantage in owning "military" calibers. Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history. Show one example where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own government without any aid from an external government (even the American Revolution was provided arms and ammunition by the French). Why do you think there would not be other countries lining up to support an insurgency against an oppressive government here? I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles, limited-magazine shotguns). I'm less convinced about handguns, but could support revolver possession. Not assault rifles, weapons that can easily be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified semi-auto handguns) or actual real automatic weapons. The flaw in your logic is defining an assault weapon. We are also put far to much emphasis on a very few murders. Most of the 11,000 murders in the US are gang related and involve handguns. Rifles, all types, assault or otherwise are not involved in as many murders as "bare hands" killings. (AKA "personal weapons" in the UCR) It is really just racists who put far more importance on white suburban lives than inner city people of color who are pushing this "assault weapon" bull****. BTW you all seem to forget the first famous "active shooter" was Charles Whitman who killed 17 people and wounded 30 more with that benign bolt action rifle you speak of.1 25% of mass shooters used assault rifles, the majority of the rest used either and auto rifle or an auto handgun. Semi-auto, I think you'll find. Cindy Hamilton Ok, you know better, thanks. -- Bod --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turnin guns
On 4/4/2019 11:59 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 12:38:04 PM UTC-4, Bod wrote: On 04/04/2019 17:21, wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:02:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal) wrote: Terry Coombs writes: On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote: On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal) wrote: If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will have any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying attention to recent world history. Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and has 42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein. Then read about the Oath Keepers. Guns are my natural right birth. If you are offended, ask me if I give ****. spit Ă‚Â* What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a large percentage of those arms are owned by people with military training and COMBAT EXPERIENCE . The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists, and criminals. What's your point? The military is composed of ordinary Americans too, most with minimal training. A agree they have the weapons of mass destruction but a government that turns that kind of indiscriminate power against it's own population is going to lose support pretty fast. The same thing in the American spirit that makes us the most murdering population in the western world will make us a pretty hard population to subjugate. Bear in mind, we trained most of the insurgents in the world, including the ones we could not beat with all of our military might. Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you can't complete with a government on that count. As long as the government has ammo, you can get it. That is one advantage in owning "military" calibers. Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history. Show one example where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own government without any aid from an external government (even the American Revolution was provided arms and ammunition by the French). Why do you think there would not be other countries lining up to support an insurgency against an oppressive government here? I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles, limited-magazine shotguns). I'm less convinced about handguns, but could support revolver possession. Not assault rifles, weapons that can easily be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified semi-auto handguns) or actual real automatic weapons. The flaw in your logic is defining an assault weapon. We are also put far to much emphasis on a very few murders. Most of the 11,000 murders in the US are gang related and involve handguns. Rifles, all types, assault or otherwise are not involved in as many murders as "bare hands" killings. (AKA "personal weapons" in the UCR) It is really just racists who put far more importance on white suburban lives than inner city people of color who are pushing this "assault weapon" bull****. BTW you all seem to forget the first famous "active shooter" was Charles Whitman who killed 17 people and wounded 30 more with that benign bolt action rifle you speak of.1 25% of mass shooters used assault rifles, the majority of the rest used either and auto rifle or an auto handgun. Semi-auto, I think you'll find. Cindy Hamilton Â* Bod is one of those "useful idiots" that can't tell the difference . He hears the word "auto" and automatically thinks every time you pull the trigger the magazine gets emptied . -- Snag Yes , I'm old and crochety - and armed . Get outta my woods ! |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turn in guns
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 14:22:52 -0500, Terry Coombs
wrote: * Bod is one of those "useful idiots" that can't tell the difference . He hears the word "auto" and automatically thinks every time you pull the trigger the magazine gets emptied . That IS the definition of "auto". The gun fires non-stop until you take your finger off the trigger. When a new cartridge is re-chambered but not fired it's called a semi-auto. Criminals can easily convert semi-autos to auto. It's illegal, but they ARE criminals. They often couple that with large capacity magazines so the magazine is NOT emptied on a brief trigger-pull. HTH []'s -- Don't be evil - Google 2004 We have a new policy - Google 2012 |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turn in guns
wrote in message ... On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:02:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal) wrote: Terry Coombs writes: On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote: On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal) wrote: If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will have any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying attention to recent world history. Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and has 42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein. Then read about the Oath Keepers. Guns are my natural right birth. If you are offended, ask me if I give ****. spit Ă‚ What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a large percentage of those arms are owned by people with military training and COMBAT EXPERIENCE . The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists, and criminals. What's your point? Clearly that Coombs' claim is completely silly. The military is composed of ordinary Americans too, Thats very arguable. most with minimal training. A agree they have the weapons of mass destruction Thats not what that phrase means. but a government that turns that kind of indiscriminate power against it's own population is going to lose support pretty fast. The same thing in the American spirit that makes us the most murdering population in the western world will make us a pretty hard population to subjugate. In fact it was very easy to do with the Black Panthers, Simbionese Liberation Army, etc etc etc. Bear in mind, we trained most of the insurgents in the world, Thats bull**** too. including the ones we could not beat with all of our military might. Very few of those were actually insurgents. Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you can't complete with a government on that count. As long as the government has ammo, you can get it. In theory. In practice thats easier said than done. That is one advantage in owning "military" calibers. Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history. Show one example where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own government without any aid from an external government (even the American Revolution was provided arms and ammunition by the French). Why do you think there would not be other countries lining up to support an insurgency against an oppressive government here? Because that is something some like russia would be happy to do. I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles, limited-magazine shotguns). I'm less convinced about handguns, but could support revolver possession. Not assault rifles, weapons that can easily be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified semi-auto handguns) or actual real automatic weapons. The flaw in your logic is defining an assault weapon. Nope, its obvious what has been designed for use by the military. We are also put far to much emphasis on a very few murders. Most of the 11,000 murders in the US are gang related and involve handguns. But the mass shootings in schools etc and las vegas etc didnt. Most dont care too much about gangs shooting each given that most of those are better off dead so they can't shoot anyone else. But that isnt the case with little kids in school etc. Rifles, all types, assault or otherwise are not involved in as many murders as "bare hands" killings. (AKA "personal weapons" in the UCR) Sure, but its much harder to do something about bare hands killings. It is really just racists who put far more importance on white suburban lives than inner city people of color who are pushing this "assault weapon" bull****. Even sillier than you usually manage, and thats saying something. BTW you all seem to forget the first famous "active shooter" was Charles Whitman who killed 17 people and wounded 30 more with that benign bolt action rifle you speak of.1 Sure, but its harder to do something about those given that they do have a valid use for hunting. Military assault weapons dont. |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turnin guns
On 4/4/2019 4:54 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 14:22:52 -0500, Terry Coombs wrote: Â* Bod is one of those "useful idiots" that can't tell the difference . He hears the word "auto" and automatically thinks every time you pull the trigger the magazine gets emptied . That IS the definition of "auto". The gun fires non-stop until you take your finger off the trigger. When a new cartridge is re-chambered but not fired it's called a semi-auto. Criminals can easily convert semi-autos to auto. It's illegal, but they ARE criminals. They often couple that with large capacity magazines so the magazine is NOT emptied on a brief trigger-pull. HTH []'s Â*I know the difference , but many people don't . They think if "auto" is part of the name that must mean full auto regardless of the "semi" designation . You apparently don't know much about firearms . SOME semi auto RIFLES are easily converted to full auto . Mostly those that were originally designed to have that capability , such as the AK and AR series - I dare you to convert a Remington model 742 ... Handguns are not easily and in most cases impossible to convert . Again , those that are easy were designed that way . Another fact , some conversions do indeed cycle until the magazine is empty even if you let go of the trigger . Generally those firearms that weren't originally designed to be capable of full auto . For an AR conversion you must use the military full auto bolt and a couple of other parts . Those are getting hard to find ... I wonder why ? The rest you have to make yourself . Are you a machinist ? -- Snag Yes , I'm old and crochety - and armed . Get outta my woods ! |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turn in guns
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 07:28:39 -0500, Terry Coombs
wrote: On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote: On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal) wrote: If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will have any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying attention to recent world history. Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and has 42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein. Then read about the Oath Keepers. Guns are my natural right birth. If you are offended, ask me if I give ****. spit * What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a large percentage of those arms are owned by people with military training and COMBAT EXPERIENCE . You don't have to own your own tank to kill one of "theirs" . And antipersonnel armaments rely on catching the "enemy" in groups . Ask any 'Nam vet how well that worked . Plus the fact that at least a percentage of current military will be sympathetic to the cause ... and will either refuse to fight or defect - with their gear and as much armament as they can carry off . I don't own an AR type rifle , don't feel the need . But I support the rights of those who do . Exactly. Generals and any solider can refuse an unlawful command. What does their Oath, they swore mean to them. They gots the keys to the arsenals. Blowing a track off ain't hard. The Interlopers here just don't understand how ****ing things work! -- "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." -- Winston Churchill |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turn in guns
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:37:59 +0100, Bod wrote:
On 04/04/2019 17:21, wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:02:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal) wrote: Terry Coombs writes: On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote: On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal) wrote: If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will have any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying attention to recent world history. Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and has 42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein. Then read about the Oath Keepers. Guns are my natural right birth. If you are offended, ask me if I give ****. spit Ă‚Â* What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a large percentage of those arms are owned by people with military training and COMBAT EXPERIENCE . The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists, and criminals. What's your point? The military is composed of ordinary Americans too, most with minimal training. A agree they have the weapons of mass destruction but a government that turns that kind of indiscriminate power against it's own population is going to lose support pretty fast. The same thing in the American spirit that makes us the most murdering population in the western world will make us a pretty hard population to subjugate. Bear in mind, we trained most of the insurgents in the world, including the ones we could not beat with all of our military might. Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you can't complete with a government on that count. As long as the government has ammo, you can get it. That is one advantage in owning "military" calibers. Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history. Show one example where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own government without any aid from an external government (even the American Revolution was provided arms and ammunition by the French). Why do you think there would not be other countries lining up to support an insurgency against an oppressive government here? I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles, limited-magazine shotguns). I'm less convinced about handguns, but could support revolver possession. Not assault rifles, weapons that can easily be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified semi-auto handguns) or actual real automatic weapons. The flaw in your logic is defining an assault weapon. We are also put far to much emphasis on a very few murders. Most of the 11,000 murders in the US are gang related and involve handguns. Rifles, all types, assault or otherwise are not involved in as many murders as "bare hands" killings. (AKA "personal weapons" in the UCR) It is really just racists who put far more importance on white suburban lives than inner city people of color who are pushing this "assault weapon" bull****. BTW you all seem to forget the first famous "active shooter" was Charles Whitman who killed 17 people and wounded 30 more with that benign bolt action rifle you speak of.1 25% of mass shooters used assault rifles, the majority of the rest used either and auto rifle or an auto handgun. .... But mass shootings are a minuscule percentage of our murders, at least in the sense you are talking about. The media has had to expand "Mass shooting" to include 3 or 4 gang bangers having a turf battle on some urban street corner. Even with that it still pales in comparison to the single thug taking one in the ear over some kind of drug beef. The police are even reluctant to attribute as many murders to the drug war as are happening because it further points out their dismal failure in that war. |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turn in guns
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:56:48 +0100, Bod wrote:
On 04/04/2019 17:37, Bod wrote: On 04/04/2019 17:21, wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:02:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal) wrote: Terry Coombs writes: On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote: On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal) wrote: If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will have any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying attention to recent world history. Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and has 42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein. Then read about the Oath Keepers.Â* Guns are my natural right birth. If you are offended, ask me if I give ****. spit Ă‚Â* What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a large percentage of those arms are owned by people with military training and COMBAT EXPERIENCE . Â* The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists, and criminals. What's your point? The military is composed of ordinary Americans too, most with minimal training. A agree they have the weapons of mass destruction but a government that turns that kind of indiscriminate power against it's own population is going to lose support pretty fast. The same thing in the American spirit that makes us the most murdering population in the western world will make us a pretty hard population to subjugate. Bear in mind, we trained most of the insurgents in the world, including the ones we could not beat with all of our military might. Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you can't complete with a government on that count. As long as the government has ammo, you can get it. That is one advantage in owning "military" calibers. Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history.Â* Show one example where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own government without any aid from an external government (even the American Revolution was provided arms and ammunition by the French). Why do you think there would not be other countries lining up to support an insurgency against an oppressive government here? I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles, limited-magazine shotguns).Â*Â* I'm less convinced about handguns, but could support revolver possession.Â*Â* Not assault rifles, weapons that can easily be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified semi-auto handguns) or actual real automatic weapons. The flaw in your logic is defining an assault weapon. We are also put far to much emphasis on a very few murders. Most of the 11,000 murders in the US are gang related and involve handguns. Rifles, all types, assault or otherwise are not involved in as many murders as "bare hands" killings.Â* (AKA "personal weapons" in the UCR) It is really just racists who put far more importance on white suburban lives than inner city people of color who are pushing this "assault weapon" bull****. BTW you all seem to forget the first famous "active shooter" was Charles Whitman who killed 17 people and wounded 30 more with that benign bolt action rifle you speak of.1 25% of mass shooters used assault rifles, the majority of the rest used either an auto rifle or an auto handgun. If you wanted to kill lots of people, then an auto firing gun would seem to be an obvious choice. Only if you were too ignorant to come up with another idea. |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turn in guns
wrote in message ... On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:37:59 +0100, Bod wrote: On 04/04/2019 17:21, wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:02:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal) wrote: Terry Coombs writes: On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote: On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal) wrote: If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will have any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying attention to recent world history. Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and has 42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein. Then read about the Oath Keepers. Guns are my natural right birth. If you are offended, ask me if I give ****. spit Ă‚ What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a large percentage of those arms are owned by people with military training and COMBAT EXPERIENCE . The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists, and criminals. What's your point? The military is composed of ordinary Americans too, most with minimal training. A agree they have the weapons of mass destruction but a government that turns that kind of indiscriminate power against it's own population is going to lose support pretty fast. The same thing in the American spirit that makes us the most murdering population in the western world will make us a pretty hard population to subjugate. Bear in mind, we trained most of the insurgents in the world, including the ones we could not beat with all of our military might. Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you can't complete with a government on that count. As long as the government has ammo, you can get it. That is one advantage in owning "military" calibers. Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history. Show one example where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own government without any aid from an external government (even the American Revolution was provided arms and ammunition by the French). Why do you think there would not be other countries lining up to support an insurgency against an oppressive government here? I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles, limited-magazine shotguns). I'm less convinced about handguns, but could support revolver possession. Not assault rifles, weapons that can easily be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified semi-auto handguns) or actual real automatic weapons. The flaw in your logic is defining an assault weapon. We are also put far to much emphasis on a very few murders. Most of the 11,000 murders in the US are gang related and involve handguns. Rifles, all types, assault or otherwise are not involved in as many murders as "bare hands" killings. (AKA "personal weapons" in the UCR) It is really just racists who put far more importance on white suburban lives than inner city people of color who are pushing this "assault weapon" bull****. BTW you all seem to forget the first famous "active shooter" was Charles Whitman who killed 17 people and wounded 30 more with that benign bolt action rifle you speak of.1 25% of mass shooters used assault rifles, the majority of the rest used either and auto rifle or an auto handgun. ... But mass shootings are a minuscule percentage of our murders, at least in the sense you are talking about. But the murders that most with a clue care about. The media has had to expand "Mass shooting" to include 3 or 4 gang bangers having a turf battle on some urban street corner. Even with that it still pales in comparison to the single thug taking one in the ear over some kind of drug beef. Not just a drug beef, any sort of beef. The police are even reluctant to attribute as many murders to the drug war as are happening because it further points out their dismal failure in that war. It was never going to be a winnable war. |
'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it' - New Zealanders set to turn in guns
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:11:28 -0500, Terry Coombs
wrote: On 4/4/2019 4:54 PM, Shadow wrote: On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 14:22:52 -0500, Terry Coombs wrote: Â* Bod is one of those "useful idiots" that can't tell the difference . He hears the word "auto" and automatically thinks every time you pull the trigger the magazine gets emptied . That IS the definition of "auto". The gun fires non-stop until you take your finger off the trigger. When a new cartridge is re-chambered but not fired it's called a semi-auto. Criminals can easily convert semi-autos to auto. It's illegal, but they ARE criminals. They often couple that with large capacity magazines so the magazine is NOT emptied on a brief trigger-pull. HTH []'s Â*I know the difference , but many people don't . They think if "auto" is part of the name that must mean full auto regardless of the "semi" designation . You apparently don't know much about firearms . SOME semi auto RIFLES are easily converted to full auto . Mostly those that were originally designed to have that capability , such as the AK and AR series - I dare you to convert a Remington model 742 ... Handguns are not easily and in most cases impossible to convert . Again , those that are easy were designed that way . Another fact , some conversions do indeed cycle until the magazine is empty even if you let go of the trigger . Generally those firearms that weren't originally designed to be capable of full auto . For an AR conversion you must use the military full auto bolt and a couple of other parts . Those are getting hard to find ... I wonder why ? The rest you have to make yourself . Are you a machinist ? It would be as easy to make a bolt action into a "blowback" machine gun as most semi autos that were not first designed as machine guns. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:55 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter