No Gunner, it means you are wiser and matured. Take it as a
compliment.

E.B.

Well John, your response was kind of garbled and incoherently written.
I sort of get your point. Defining homophobia as paranoia may be
reasonably argued, though still an excuse, but ignorance? Most
"normal" people are not ignorant of what gay people's sexual
preferences are. Most "normal" males know that many homosexuals have
intimate relationships with each other. Either way, it still wants to
make me vomit.

E.B.

"E.B." wrote in message oups.com...
Well John, your response was kind of garbled and incoherently written.
I sort of get your point. Defining homophobia as paranoia may be
reasonably argued, though still an excuse, but ignorance? Most
"normal" people are not ignorant of what gay people's sexual
preferences are. Most "normal" males know that many homosexuals have
intimate relationships with each other. Either way, it still wants to
make me vomit.

E.B.


You ask me to define what is "normal", it is the summit
of a mountain and the depression in the valley, it is sunrise
and sunset, it is night and day and everything in between,
it is not one color but many of different shape and size,
it is the spirit of man and the spirit of god. Normal is a
rainbow of colors at sunset but like a rock that skips
across the water, you will never see the same one again.
Normal is in the eye of beholder. One box that may seem
normal upon first glance, when we open it up to look inside,
behold all the wonders inside.

John

John,

I can really tell you are gay now. But, unlike Lot's wife, I will not
turn back and look, turning into a pillar of salt. The Sodomites still
make me vomit. God said they weren't normal. Read about it, they even
wanted to rape the Angels who came to warn. Normalcy is not debatible
with me. I really don't care what you think about my religion either.

E.B.

"E.B." wrote in message ups.com...
John,

I can really tell you are gay now.

How can you tell ?

John

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 05:14:00 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Although law enforcement, security guards and others who require
weapons for work are exempt from the measure, current handgun owners
would have to surrender their firearms by April.

I find this offensive and oppressive over-government -- but I gotta
say that some of the swaggerwide gunslinger crap I read makes me
think that handgun control really is a good idea in urban areas
populated by folks who did not learn about guns while growing up other
than from what they've seen on TV and in movies.

You know, like the guy who thinks he'll be ready to deal with a rude
dork at Home Depot when he gets his CCW. We may have reached a point
where even non-criminal urban Americans really shouldn't be allowed
to bear arms because allowing them to do so presents a danger to the
general populace in urban areas -- like at Home Depot.

Ain't that a hell of a note! Drunk drivers are enough of a peril,
don't need hotdog gunslingers to add to the risk of everyday
peacetime life.

A requirement for some rigorous tactical training (at applicant
expense) and passing a situational test with popup targets before
issue of permit would make me feel a lot better. Shoot one
friendly or innocent, you flunk: buy another ticket, take the course
again ... and again, until you pass.

It ain't as easy as it looks on TV. I would certainly seek such
refresher training before I'd carry again after 40 years. It's on my
ta-do list, but not very high on the list.

The training I've found costs about as much as a good handgun. I
don't support abolitionist brainless ban because it won't work -- but
I would strongly support mandatory training in persuit of issue.

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 02:21:43 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:


A requirement for some rigorous tactical training (at applicant
expense) and passing a situational test with popup targets before
issue of permit would make me feel a lot better. Shoot one
friendly or innocent, you flunk: buy another ticket, take the course
again ... and again, until you pass.

It ain't as easy as it looks on TV. I would certainly seek such
refresher training before I'd carry again after 40 years. It's on my
ta-do list, but not very high on the list.

The training I've found costs about as much as a good handgun. I
don't support abolitionist brainless ban because it won't work -- but
I would strongly support mandatory training in persuit of issue.

As it stands at the moment...civilian ccw holders have a lower crime
rate than do cops, and shoot the wrong person something like a tiny
fraction of what the cops do.

As a side note...California requires one to requal every 2 years for
their ccw..which means about 2 hours of classroom refershers, then
demonstrate safegun handling and the ability to shoot a simple pistol
course of fire.

Oddly enough..Ive failed to see the anti-gun crowd pointing to data to
indicate that CCW holders are a threat to society..and if they had
even the smallest iota of data such was fact..you can damnbetcha that
they would be touting it from the roof tops.

So your concerns are unwarranted..and frankly..put you in the moderate
end of the Anti-s catagory.

Oh..btw...every shoot a "shoot/dont shoot" course of fire? Few cops
can do it either....

Ive aced them several times..but even in my prime..Ive wacked the
"innocent" target more than once..and Im..or was...very very very
good.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:


Oh..btw...every shoot a "shoot/dont shoot" course of fire? Few cops
can do it either....

Ive aced them several times..but even in my prime..Ive wacked the
"innocent" target more than once..and Im..or was...very very very
good.

But when the cops shoot an innocent it is ruled a 'justifiable shooting'
by the cops own review board. I just wish I could pick my own judge &
jury.

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 08:57:12 GMT, Gunner Asch
wrote:

As it stands at the moment...civilian ccw holders have a lower crime
rate than do cops, and shoot the wrong person something like a tiny
fraction of what the cops do.

As a side note...California requires one to requal every 2 years for
their ccw..which means about 2 hours of classroom refershers, then
demonstrate safegun handling and the ability to shoot a simple pistol
course of fire.

That sounds like a good idea.


Oddly enough..Ive failed to see the anti-gun crowd pointing to data to
indicate that CCW holders are a threat to society..and if they had
even the smallest iota of data such was fact..you can damnbetcha that
they would be touting it from the roof tops.

I've seen no data beyond the rantings of a few on a newgroup. I'm not
referring to you, by the way.

So your concerns are unwarranted..and frankly..put you in the moderate
end of the Anti-s catagory.

Perhaps they are. I hope so. Dont catagorize me yet, please.

Oh..btw...every shoot a "shoot/dont shoot" course of fire? Few cops
can do it either....

That's the one I had in mind. Perhaps it needn't be as rigorous
(speed) for civilians, but not shooting wrong is as important as
shooting right -- the difference being in who it's important to.

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 12:49:47 GMT, Nick Hull
wrote:

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:


Oh..btw...every shoot a "shoot/dont shoot" course of fire? Few cops
can do it either....

Ive aced them several times..but even in my prime..Ive wacked the
"innocent" target more than once..and Im..or was...very very very
good.

But when the cops shoot an innocent it is ruled a 'justifiable shooting'
by the cops own review board. I just wish I could pick my own judge &
jury.

Not always..depending on the jusristiction..shooting a bad guy may get
a cops dick in a sling. There are no hard and fast rules to your
claim..Ive seen it both ways.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 12:49:47 GMT, Nick Hull
wrote:

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:


Oh..btw...every shoot a "shoot/dont shoot" course of fire? Few cops
can do it either....

Ive aced them several times..but even in my prime..Ive wacked the
"innocent" target more than once..and Im..or was...very very very
good.

But when the cops shoot an innocent it is ruled a 'justifiable shooting'
by the cops own review board. I just wish I could pick my own judge &
jury.

Not always..depending on the jusristiction..shooting a bad guy may get
a cops dick in a sling. There are no hard and fast rules to your
claim..Ive seen it both ways.

I agree, if a cop shoots a bad guy that has paid off the chief, he is in
a world of hurt

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/