I grew up in Nevada, an open carry state. It used to be more lax than it
is, but it still is open carry. People in other states just can't seem to
grok the situation.

I have always been interested in old west history. In the old west days, it
was in the years shortly after the War Between The States. People were
migrating west, and a lot of them were ex soldiers with some severe cases of
PTSD, as well as regular non military citizens.

One of the leading causes of deaths on wagon trains was accidental gunshot
wounds. Either someone pulling a weapon out of a wagon, or people shot
while doing their business in the bushes, shot by people who would shoot at
any sound thinking it was an Indian.

But the interesting part is life in these wild west towns. I went to an old
gold mining town in Nevada, and in their museum for free was several
articles regarding the events of the day. There was one on grand jury
actions, and the other was about how bad guys met their ends. This city,
Pioche, Nevada, had 72 funerals before the first person died of natural
causes.

In the book about the bad guys, there were many accounts of how this and
that bad guy was shot by a "respectable citizen" for insulting their wives,
coming on their property, or who were just bushwhacked by "persons unknown"
in a dark alley. Those were mostly career chronic criminals who were
dispatched by lawmen who knew no one would make a fuss. Other cases where
business feuds and lovers triangle quarrels went on in the grand jury
system, but a lot were dismissed within a couple of days.

Point is that a lot of people carried firearms, and justice was often
dispatched immediately. The Hollywood scenario of cowering townspeople is
not the case. As in the Northfield Minnesota Raid, they were alerted to
bank robbers, and shot them to pieces when they ambushed them. A lot of the
people were former military who were intimately familiar with weapons, and
who hunted for sustenance.

Towns were divided in districts, and there were laws regarding low lifes
from going into the "good" sections of towns. And when they did wander off
in there, little was done about the frontier justice dispensed by the
citizens who lived there. Everyone knew that if you were a decent person,
you just went about your business. They also knew that if you were up to no
good, you may get what you had coming to you. There were also loose
alliances of townsfolks, both in neighborhoods, and larger areas, who would
go and "talk" to some of the badasses and give attitude adjustments and
sometimes worse.

So, in today's society, where we have a predator/prey situation, I can't for
the life of me understand these little lambs who pronk around among the
wolves singing Kumbaya and thinking that the world is a rosy place where, if
everyone just got along, we'd all be fine. Yes, that is true, but not among
the human species.

And I also cannot comprehend the people who want to cancel a Constitutional
right, and in addition a right given by the state, to carry a weapon, either
concealed or exposed. Shall we all start carrying machetes or shingle axes?
It says the same thing: "Don't **** with me if you're up to no good." The
next thing, they'll be collecting Catcher in the Rye and Norman Mailer books
for public barbecues.

So, until the law changes, I'll just continue to do what I do legally.

Rant off.

Steve

So your new lathe doesn't work or what are you trying to tell us?



"SteveB" wrote in message
...
I grew up in Nevada, an open carry state. It used to be more lax than it

Being a cynical person, I cannot believe that an ability of lawmen to
dispatch those they disliked "with minimum fuss" was a good thing.

I would much rather prefer a modern society under the rule of law, a
polite society where guns are carried, but not used much. When I lived
in Oklahoma, it was much like that.

i

Without comment on your beliefs, could you post this to a group that consists
of people who give a damn?

"Up North" wrote in message
...
So your new lathe doesn't work or what are you trying to tell us?



"SteveB" wrote in message
...
I grew up in Nevada, an open carry state. It used to be more lax than it



New here, huh?

"Ignoramus22805" wrote in message
...
Being a cynical person, I cannot believe that an ability of lawmen to
dispatch those they disliked "with minimum fuss" was a good thing.

I would much rather prefer a modern society under the rule of law, a
polite society where guns are carried, but not used much. When I lived
in Oklahoma, it was much like that.

i

I'm 60. I remember "the way things were" when I was a kid. There was a lot
of instant enforcement and punishment. If you smarted off to a cop, you got
what you got. Today, there's cameras and civil rights people everywhere.
In Las Vegas, it was common for the police to escort a person to the city
limits, give them a tune up, and tell them the next time they came to town,
they'd be cactus food.

Yes, the practice of lawmen dispatching bad guys with little accountability
was a fact. Read about it in any history book that details day to day life
in frontier towns. Even the gang at the OK corral (the lawmen) had shady
careers, and had left several towns because they were just a little too gung
ho on law enforcement, and left a trail of bodies. Guess it was the dawning
years of liberalism, but I would say a lot of citizens were glad to be rid
of the pond scum the lawmen got rid of.

I think there are a lot of people living today that could be dispatched with
minimum fuss, and the whole planet would be better in about fifteen minutes.
There are people who are walking the streets that don't deserve to live
among us, yet there are kids sitting in prison for a small bag of dope.
Look at the current kidnap case in California. I rest my case.

Steve

"Moi" wrote in message
...
Without comment on your beliefs, could you post this to a group that
consists
of people who give a damn?

New here, huh?

"Moi" wrote in message
...
Without comment on your beliefs, could you post this to a group that
consists
of people who give a damn?

I'm sorry. Was I drunk or absent the day you were put in charge?

I'm sorry. Was I drunk or absent the day you were put in charge?

This isn't a private club. I know you think it's just a bunch of "good ol'
boys" talking over whatever they want, but it is a worldwide pubic forum for
(read the title): metalworking.

General "get along with the rest of the world" suggestions are to keep
subjects at least a little on-topic.

There's plenty of forums where you'll find lots of folks who want to talk
about this, and cheerfully so.

And no, I'm not new to usenet. Been using it for decades.

Steve, enjoyed the post. Wish we had open carry in Texas.


Moi wrote:
Without comment on your beliefs, could you post this to a group that consists
of people who give a damn?

Every thread has a subject line.
If it does not interest you skip it and read the ones that do.

SteveB wrote:

So, in today's society, where we have a predator/prey situation, I can't for
the life of me understand these little lambs who pronk around among the
wolves singing Kumbaya and thinking that the world is a rosy place where, if
everyone just got along, we'd all be fine. Yes, that is true, but not among
the human species.

Blame Disney for foisting an absurd, idealized, anthropomorphized (sp?)
fantasy of talking animals of all different species happily getting
along, vs. the real world of those different species killing and eating
each other.

On Sep 2, 1:18*pm, "SteveB" wrote:
"Ignoramus22805" wrote in message

...

Being a cynical person, I cannot believe that an ability of lawmen to
dispatch those they disliked "with minimum fuss" was a good thing.

I would much rather prefer a modern society under the rule of law, a
polite society where guns are carried, but not used much. When I lived
in Oklahoma, it was much like that.

i

I'm 60. *I remember "the way things were" when I was a kid. *There was a lot
of instant enforcement and punishment. *If you smarted off to a cop, you got
what you got. *Today, there's cameras and civil rights people everywhere.
In Las Vegas, it was common for the police to escort a person to the city
limits, give them a tune up, and tell them the next time they came to town,
they'd be cactus food.

Yes, the practice of lawmen dispatching bad guys with little accountability
was a fact. *Read about it in any history book that details day to day life
in frontier towns. *Even the gang at the OK corral (the lawmen) had shady
careers, and had left several towns because they were just a little too gung
ho on law enforcement, and left a trail of bodies. *Guess it was the dawning
years of liberalism, but I would say a lot of citizens were glad to be rid
of the pond scum the lawmen got rid of.

I think there are a lot of people living today that could be dispatched with
minimum fuss, and the whole planet would be better in about fifteen minutes.
There are people who are walking the streets that don't deserve to live
among us, yet there are kids sitting in prison for a small bag of dope.
Look at the current kidnap case in California. *I rest my case.

Steve

Yeah Steve, those civil rights and due process really suck. Like I've
said before, the world did not come to a complete halt the moment the
final period was penned at the end of the second amendment.

Pete C. wrote:
SteveB wrote:
So, in today's society, where we have a predator/prey situation, I can't for
the life of me understand these little lambs who pronk around among the
wolves singing Kumbaya and thinking that the world is a rosy place where, if
everyone just got along, we'd all be fine. Yes, that is true, but not among
the human species.

Blame Disney for foisting an absurd, idealized, anthropomorphized (sp?)
fantasy of talking animals of all different species happily getting
along, vs. the real world of those different species killing and eating
each other.

My personal plan is "teach a college kid to shoot".

I've helped introduce at least a half a dozen of them
to punching paper with my M14A. They all enjoyed it.
Despite whatever political indoctrination they've had,
they all seem to be craving some outlet for their warrior
nature.

Even if they don't end up being gun owners, they will
support the 2nd amendment and understand the gun owner's
point of view.

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 10:43:42 -0500, Ignoramus22805
wrote:

Being a cynical person, I cannot believe that an ability of lawmen to
dispatch those they disliked "with minimum fuss" was a good thing.

I would much rather prefer a modern society under the rule of law, a
polite society where guns are carried, but not used much. When I lived
in Oklahoma, it was much like that.

i
And why do you think that guns are carried, but not used much?

Think before replying.



Gunner

"Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with
minimum food or water,in austere conditions, day and night. The only thing
clean on him is his weapon. He doesn't worry about what workout to do---
his rucksack weighs what it weighs, and he runs until the enemy stops chasing him.
The True Believer doesn't care 'how hard it is'; he knows he either wins or he dies.
He doesn't go home at 1700; he is home. He knows only the 'Cause.' Now, who wants to quit?"

NCOIC of the Special Forces Assessment and Selection Course in a welcome speech to new SF candidates

On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 09:17:53 -0700, Moi wrote:

Without comment on your beliefs, could you post this to a group that consists
of people who give a damn?


I give a damn, and thought it was a fine post.

Btw...who the **** are you? Its the first time Ive seen your email
addy..a bogus one.

So it would appear that you are nothing more than an antigun shill.

Care to correct my surmise?

Hummmmm?

Gunner

"Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with
minimum food or water,in austere conditions, day and night. The only thing
clean on him is his weapon. He doesn't worry about what workout to do---
his rucksack weighs what it weighs, and he runs until the enemy stops chasing him.
The True Believer doesn't care 'how hard it is'; he knows he either wins or he dies.
He doesn't go home at 1700; he is home. He knows only the 'Cause.' Now, who wants to quit?"

NCOIC of the Special Forces Assessment and Selection Course in a welcome speech to new SF candidates

On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 10:38:30 -0700, Moi wrote:

I'm sorry. Was I drunk or absent the day you were put in charge?

This isn't a private club. I know you think it's just a bunch of "good ol'
boys" talking over whatever they want, but it is a worldwide pubic forum for
(read the title): metalworking.

General "get along with the rest of the world" suggestions are to keep
subjects at least a little on-topic.

There's plenty of forums where you'll find lots of folks who want to talk
about this, and cheerfully so.

And no, I'm not new to usenet. Been using it for decades.


and your experience with firearms is zero. Correct?

Get used to it, you are hanging out with the People now.

Gunner

"Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with
minimum food or water,in austere conditions, day and night. The only thing
clean on him is his weapon. He doesn't worry about what workout to do---
his rucksack weighs what it weighs, and he runs until the enemy stops chasing him.
The True Believer doesn't care 'how hard it is'; he knows he either wins or he dies.
He doesn't go home at 1700; he is home. He knows only the 'Cause.' Now, who wants to quit?"

NCOIC of the Special Forces Assessment and Selection Course in a welcome speech to new SF candidates

"Moi" wrote in message
...
I'm sorry. Was I drunk or absent the day you were put in charge?

This isn't a private club. I know you think it's just a bunch of "good ol'
boys" talking over whatever they want, but it is a worldwide pubic forum
for
(read the title): metalworking.

General "get along with the rest of the world" suggestions are to keep
subjects at least a little on-topic.

There's plenty of forums where you'll find lots of folks who want to talk
about this, and cheerfully so.

And no, I'm not new to usenet. Been using it for decades.

Are you the same Moi that got kicked off the crab boats in Alaska?

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Up North" wrote in message
...
So your new lathe doesn't work or what are you trying to tell us?



"SteveB" wrote in message
...
I grew up in Nevada, an open carry state. It used to be more lax than it



New here, huh?


Nope, you just crawled out of my killfile. See ya!

On 2009-09-02, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 10:43:42 -0500, Ignoramus22805
wrote:

Being a cynical person, I cannot believe that an ability of lawmen to
dispatch those they disliked "with minimum fuss" was a good thing.

I would much rather prefer a modern society under the rule of law, a
polite society where guns are carried, but not used much. When I lived
in Oklahoma, it was much like that.

i
And why do you think that guns are carried, but not used much?

Think before replying.

As opposed to places where guns are carried, and used a lot, like that
town where only the 72nd person died a natural death?

Maybe for two reasons:

1) People are less desperate to risk their lives for a buck
or
2) The ones who would risk their lives for violent confrontations did
not leave offspring.

i

On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 09:05:32 -0600, "SteveB" wrote:


But the interesting part is life in these wild west towns. I went to an old
gold mining town in Nevada, and in their museum for free was several
articles regarding the events of the day. There was one on grand jury
actions, and the other was about how bad guys met their ends. This city,
Pioche, Nevada, had 72 funerals before the first person died of natural
causes.



And I also cannot comprehend the people who want to cancel a Constitutional
right, and in addition a right given by the state, to carry a weapon, either
concealed or exposed. Shall we all start carrying machetes or shingle axes?
It says the same thing: "Don't **** with me if you're up to no good." The
next thing, they'll be collecting Catcher in the Rye and Norman Mailer books
for public barbecues.

So, until the law changes, I'll just continue to do what I do legally.

Rant off.

Steve



The upper paragraph probably has some bearing on the lower one ;-)


Mark Rand
RTFM

Moi wrote:
Without comment on your beliefs, could you post this to a group that
consists of people who give a damn?

He did .

--
Snag
Davis Ind D38 for daily carry .
Ruger P90 for when I feel
the need for more firepower ...

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:36:39 -0500, Ignoramus22805
wrote:

On 2009-09-02, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 10:43:42 -0500, Ignoramus22805
wrote:

Being a cynical person, I cannot believe that an ability of lawmen to
dispatch those they disliked "with minimum fuss" was a good thing.

I would much rather prefer a modern society under the rule of law, a
polite society where guns are carried, but not used much. When I lived
in Oklahoma, it was much like that.

i
And why do you think that guns are carried, but not used much?

Think before replying.

As opposed to places where guns are carried, and used a lot, like that
town where only the 72nd person died a natural death?

Which town was that..and in which year? And who died..the good guys..or
the bad guys?
G

Maybe for two reasons:

1) People are less desperate to risk their lives for a buck
or
2) The ones who would risk their lives for violent confrontations did
not leave offspring.

i

#2 of course.

Gunner

"Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with
minimum food or water,in austere conditions, day and night. The only thing
clean on him is his weapon. He doesn't worry about what workout to do---
his rucksack weighs what it weighs, and he runs until the enemy stops chasing him.
The True Believer doesn't care 'how hard it is'; he knows he either wins or he dies.
He doesn't go home at 1700; he is home. He knows only the 'Cause.' Now, who wants to quit?"

NCOIC of the Special Forces Assessment and Selection Course in a welcome speech to new SF candidates

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:36:39 -0500, Ignoramus22805
wrote:

On 2009-09-02, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 10:43:42 -0500, Ignoramus22805
wrote:

Being a cynical person, I cannot believe that an ability of lawmen to
dispatch those they disliked "with minimum fuss" was a good thing.

I would much rather prefer a modern society under the rule of law, a
polite society where guns are carried, but not used much. When I lived
in Oklahoma, it was much like that.

i
And why do you think that guns are carried, but not used much?

Think before replying.

As opposed to places where guns are carried, and used a lot, like that
town where only the 72nd person died a natural death?

Which town was that..and in which year? And who died..the good guys..or
the bad guys?
G

Maybe for two reasons:

1) People are less desperate to risk their lives for a buck
or
2) The ones who would risk their lives for violent confrontations did
not leave offspring.

i

#2 of course.

Gunner

The town was Pioche, Nevada, year circa 1875. And I have noticed that lazy
welfare people, criminals, and ne'er do wells are usually incredibly
fertile.

Steve

On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 11:10:43 -0600, the infamous "SteveB"
scrawled the following:


"Up North" wrote in message
...
So your new lathe doesn't work or what are you trying to tell us?



"SteveB" wrote in message
...
I grew up in Nevada, an open carry state. It used to be more lax than it

New here, huh?

Don't reply to them, just Plonk 'em and Forget 'em, Steve.

--
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority.
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to
be good masters, but they mean to be masters. --Daniel Webster

On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 17:44:01 -0600, the infamous "SteveB"
scrawled the following:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:36:39 -0500, Ignoramus22805
wrote:

On 2009-09-02, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 10:43:42 -0500, Ignoramus22805
wrote:

Being a cynical person, I cannot believe that an ability of lawmen to
dispatch those they disliked "with minimum fuss" was a good thing.

I would much rather prefer a modern society under the rule of law, a
polite society where guns are carried, but not used much. When I lived
in Oklahoma, it was much like that.

i
And why do you think that guns are carried, but not used much?

Think before replying.

As opposed to places where guns are carried, and used a lot, like that
town where only the 72nd person died a natural death?

Which town was that..and in which year? And who died..the good guys..or
the bad guys?
G

Maybe for two reasons:

1) People are less desperate to risk their lives for a buck
or
2) The ones who would risk their lives for violent confrontations did
not leave offspring.

i

#2 of course.

Gunner

The town was Pioche, Nevada, year circa 1875. And I have noticed that lazy
welfare people, criminals, and ne'er do wells are usually incredibly
fertile.

My niece, whom I excommunicated before my sister divorced her dad, is
a lifer on welfare and she's had EIGHT kids so far. I'm still for the
idea of forced sterility if they want to stay on welfare after the
first kid. That or a burlap bag, string, a few heavy rocks, and a
river bridge. shrug

The kicker is that niecey liked bad boys. Hubby #3 ended up in jail
after he molested both the boy and oldest girl. Hubby #5 only molested
one girl, and she's in the psych ward now.

Let them eat burlap!

--
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority.
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to
be good masters, but they mean to be masters. --Daniel Webster

On Sep 2, 7:44*pm, "SteveB" wrote:


[ ..].*And I have noticed that lazy
welfare people, criminals, and ne'er do wells are usually incredibly
fertile.

Steve

You just described your buddy, Gunner.

On Sep 2, 9:47*pm, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 17:44:01 -0600, the infamous "SteveB"
scrawled the following:





"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:36:39 -0500, Ignoramus22805
wrote:

On 2009-09-02, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 10:43:42 -0500, Ignoramus22805
wrote:

Being a cynical person, I cannot believe that an ability of lawmen to
dispatch those they disliked "with minimum fuss" was a good thing.

I would much rather prefer a modern society under the rule of law, a
polite society where guns are carried, but not used much. When I lived
in Oklahoma, it was much like that.

i
And why do you think that guns are carried, but not used much?

Think before replying.

As opposed to places where guns are carried, and used a lot, like that
town where only the 72nd person died a natural death?

Which town was that..and in which year? *And who died..the good guys...or
the bad guys?
G

Maybe for two reasons:

1) People are less desperate to risk their lives for a buck
or
2) The ones who would risk their lives for violent confrontations did
not leave offspring.

i

#2 of course.

Gunner

The town was Pioche, Nevada, year circa 1875. *And I have noticed that lazy
welfare people, criminals, and ne'er do wells are usually incredibly
fertile.

My niece, whom I excommunicated before my sister divorced her dad, is
a lifer on welfare and she's had EIGHT kids so far. *I'm still for the
idea of forced sterility if they want to stay on welfare after the
first kid. *That or a burlap bag, string, a few heavy rocks, and a
river bridge. *shrug

You've got to have a pretty ****ed up mind to even think of such a
thing. And now you've caught Gunners shrugging disease? That's not
something to be proud of.


The kicker is that niecey liked bad boys. Hubby #3 ended up in jail
after he molested both the boy and oldest girl. Hubby #5 only molested
one girl, and she's in the psych ward now.

Let them eat burlap!

--
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority.
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to
be good masters, but they mean to be masters. * * * * * --Daniel Webster

On 2009-09-03, Larry Jaques novalidaddress@di wrote:
My niece, whom I excommunicated before my sister divorced her dad, is
a lifer on welfare and she's had EIGHT kids so far. I'm still for the
idea of forced sterility if they want to stay on welfare after the
first kid. That or a burlap bag, string, a few heavy rocks, and a
river bridge. shrug

The kicker is that niecey liked bad boys. Hubby #3 ended up in jail
after he molested both the boy and oldest girl. Hubby #5 only molested
one girl, and she's in the psych ward now.

Let them eat burlap!


So why did you excommunicate her?

i

Ignoramus22805 wrote:
On 2009-09-03, Larry Jaques novalidaddress@di wrote:
My niece, whom I excommunicated before my sister divorced her dad, is
a lifer on welfare and she's had EIGHT kids so far. I'm still for
the idea of forced sterility if they want to stay on welfare after
the first kid. That or a burlap bag, string, a few heavy rocks, and
a river bridge. shrug

The kicker is that niecey liked bad boys. Hubby #3 ended up in jail
after he molested both the boy and oldest girl. Hubby #5 only
molested one girl, and she's in the psych ward now.

Let them eat burlap!


So why did you excommunicate her?

The kid probably had some standards.
Everyone draws the line somewhere.


--
John R. Carroll

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 21:03:50 -0500, Ignoramus22805
wrote:

On 2009-09-03, Larry Jaques novalidaddress@di wrote:
My niece, whom I excommunicated before my sister divorced her dad, is
a lifer on welfare and she's had EIGHT kids so far. I'm still for the
idea of forced sterility if they want to stay on welfare after the
first kid. That or a burlap bag, string, a few heavy rocks, and a
river bridge. shrug

The kicker is that niecey liked bad boys. Hubby #3 ended up in jail
after he molested both the boy and oldest girl. Hubby #5 only molested
one girl, and she's in the psych ward now.

Let them eat burlap!


So why did you excommunicate her?

i

Blink blink....because he didnt want to get arrested in one of the
periodic roundups that evidently happen to her?

Or let anyone know he was a relation...it would be bad for his
reputation. Think of what Hitlers family thought about Adolph ****ing
up their reputations.


Gunner


"Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with
minimum food or water,in austere conditions, day and night. The only thing
clean on him is his weapon. He doesn't worry about what workout to do---
his rucksack weighs what it weighs, and he runs until the enemy stops chasing him.
The True Believer doesn't care 'how hard it is'; he knows he either wins or he dies.
He doesn't go home at 1700; he is home. He knows only the 'Cause.' Now, who wants to quit?"

NCOIC of the Special Forces Assessment and Selection Course in a welcome speech to new SF candidates

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 21:03:50 -0500, the infamous Ignoramus22805
scrawled the following:

On 2009-09-03, Larry Jaques novalidaddress@di wrote:
My niece, whom I excommunicated before my sister divorced her dad, is
a lifer on welfare and she's had EIGHT kids so far. I'm still for the
idea of forced sterility if they want to stay on welfare after the
first kid. That or a burlap bag, string, a few heavy rocks, and a
river bridge. shrug

The kicker is that niecey liked bad boys. Hubby #3 ended up in jail
after he molested both the boy and oldest girl. Hubby #5 only molested
one girl, and she's in the psych ward now.

Let them eat burlap!

So why did you excommunicate her?

Assuming that you're serious, it was because she was a stupid, vapid
bitch who had only 2 interests: having babies & collecting welfare.
Hubby #2 said sex was only for impregnation, not for fun. I
excommunicated the 6 hubbies, too, by default.

I get mad just thinking about her...and people like her.

--
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority.
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to
be good masters, but they mean to be masters. --Daniel Webster

"SteveB" wrote:
In Las Vegas, it was common for the police to escort a person to the city
limits, give them a tune up, and tell them the next time they came to town,
they'd be cactus food.

Hi Steve,

Um, is "tune up" code for "slap around a bit" or is the cigar actually
a cigar?

"SteveB" wrote:
The town was Pioche, Nevada, year circa 1875. And I have noticed that lazy
welfare people, criminals, and ne'er do wells are usually incredibly
fertile.
Steve


LOL - roll the movie "Idiocracy" where the dumb repro like wabbits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

On 2009-09-03, Larry Jaques novalidaddress@di wrote:
So why did you excommunicate her?

Assuming that you're serious, it was because she was a stupid, vapid
bitch who had only 2 interests: having babies & collecting welfare.
Hubby #2 said sex was only for impregnation, not for fun. I
excommunicated the 6 hubbies, too, by default.

I get mad just thinking about her...and people like her.


Thank you Larry. It was a serious question.

i

rangerssuck wrote:


Yeah Steve, those civil rights and due process really suck. Like I've
said before, the world did not come to a complete halt the moment the
final period was penned at the end of the second amendment.

Here is a scenario and question for you.

YOU are walking down the sidewalk.
A Police officer is walking down the sidewalk in front of you.
A criminal who just robbed a jewelery store comes out of said store,
When he exits the store he fires and kills another person on the
sidewalk in front of you and the officer.

YOU saw the criminal fire the shot.
The Officer saw the criminal fire the shot.

You see the Officer pull his weapon, shoot the criminal twice (killing
the criminal).

Now for the question.

YOU are called into court by the Internal Affairs section.
Will YOU tell them it was a justifiable action?

"Steve W." wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:


Yeah Steve, those civil rights and due process really suck. Like I've
said before, the world did not come to a complete halt the moment the
final period was penned at the end of the second amendment.

Here is a scenario and question for you.

YOU are walking down the sidewalk.
A Police officer is walking down the sidewalk in front of you.
A criminal who just robbed a jewelery store comes out of said store,
When he exits the store he fires and kills another person on the
sidewalk in front of you and the officer.

YOU saw the criminal fire the shot.
The Officer saw the criminal fire the shot.

You see the Officer pull his weapon, shoot the criminal twice (killing
the criminal).

Now for the question.

YOU are called into court by the Internal Affairs section.
Will YOU tell them it was a justifiable action?

You won't be asked if it was a "justifiable action." They don't ask for
conclusions from witnesses.

What he WILL be asked is what he saw happen. He won't be asked his opinions
about good or bad, justifiable or nonjustifiable.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Steve W." wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:

Yeah Steve, those civil rights and due process really suck. Like I've
said before, the world did not come to a complete halt the moment the
final period was penned at the end of the second amendment.
Here is a scenario and question for you.

YOU are walking down the sidewalk.
A Police officer is walking down the sidewalk in front of you.
A criminal who just robbed a jewelery store comes out of said store,
When he exits the store he fires and kills another person on the
sidewalk in front of you and the officer.

YOU saw the criminal fire the shot.
The Officer saw the criminal fire the shot.

You see the Officer pull his weapon, shoot the criminal twice (killing
the criminal).

Now for the question.

YOU are called into court by the Internal Affairs section.
Will YOU tell them it was a justifiable action?

You won't be asked if it was a "justifiable action." They don't ask for
conclusions from witnesses.

What he WILL be asked is what he saw happen. He won't be asked his opinions
about good or bad, justifiable or nonjustifiable.

--
Ed Huntress


And the way HE slants his responses to the questions will determine what
they decided. IE was it justifiable or not.


--
Steve W.

"Steve W." wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Steve W." wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:

Yeah Steve, those civil rights and due process really suck. Like I've
said before, the world did not come to a complete halt the moment the
final period was penned at the end of the second amendment.
Here is a scenario and question for you.

YOU are walking down the sidewalk.
A Police officer is walking down the sidewalk in front of you.
A criminal who just robbed a jewelery store comes out of said store,
When he exits the store he fires and kills another person on the
sidewalk in front of you and the officer.

YOU saw the criminal fire the shot.
The Officer saw the criminal fire the shot.

You see the Officer pull his weapon, shoot the criminal twice (killing
the criminal).

Now for the question.

YOU are called into court by the Internal Affairs section.
Will YOU tell them it was a justifiable action?

You won't be asked if it was a "justifiable action." They don't ask for
conclusions from witnesses.

What he WILL be asked is what he saw happen. He won't be asked his
opinions
about good or bad, justifiable or nonjustifiable.

--
Ed Huntress


And the way HE slants his responses to the questions will determine what
they decided. IE was it justifiable or not.

Are you basing this on experience, Steve, or on guesswork?

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Steve W." wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Steve W." wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:

Yeah Steve, those civil rights and due process really suck. Like I've
said before, the world did not come to a complete halt the moment the
final period was penned at the end of the second amendment.
Here is a scenario and question for you.

YOU are walking down the sidewalk.
A Police officer is walking down the sidewalk in front of you.
A criminal who just robbed a jewelery store comes out of said store,
When he exits the store he fires and kills another person on the
sidewalk in front of you and the officer.

YOU saw the criminal fire the shot.
The Officer saw the criminal fire the shot.

You see the Officer pull his weapon, shoot the criminal twice (killing
the criminal).

Now for the question.

YOU are called into court by the Internal Affairs section.
Will YOU tell them it was a justifiable action?
You won't be asked if it was a "justifiable action." They don't ask for
conclusions from witnesses.

What he WILL be asked is what he saw happen. He won't be asked his
opinions
about good or bad, justifiable or nonjustifiable.

--
Ed Huntress


And the way HE slants his responses to the questions will determine what
they decided. IE was it justifiable or not.

Are you basing this on experience, Steve, or on guesswork?

--
Ed Huntress



BTDT. I simply told them what I saw. I was the only one who came forward
and gave the cop my info JIC. After the hearing was over the IA guys
thanked me because without a witness they have a hell of a time in those
situations.

Also have been a witness for a LOT of MVA.

The IA questioning is more civilized. However they also expect you to
have missing information in what you say simply because of human
emotions andthe way the mind processes information.

My SOP for ANYTHING where I may get called in as a witness now is to set
down ASAP after the event and write down everything I can recall. In ink.

Makes the lawyers set up and take notice when you sit down and they ask
you about something like the weather at the time or what you were doing
prior to the event, and you reach into your pocket and pull out a
notepad with it all written down. The ones who hoped to punch holes to
escape through tend to curl up like you hit them with a stick!

Plus with the statute of limitations and the way the court systems drag
it could be a couple years before you get called in.

--
Steve W.

"Steve W." wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Steve W." wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Steve W." wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:

Yeah Steve, those civil rights and due process really suck. Like I've
said before, the world did not come to a complete halt the moment the
final period was penned at the end of the second amendment.
Here is a scenario and question for you.

YOU are walking down the sidewalk.
A Police officer is walking down the sidewalk in front of you.
A criminal who just robbed a jewelery store comes out of said store,
When he exits the store he fires and kills another person on the
sidewalk in front of you and the officer.

YOU saw the criminal fire the shot.
The Officer saw the criminal fire the shot.

You see the Officer pull his weapon, shoot the criminal twice (killing
the criminal).

Now for the question.

YOU are called into court by the Internal Affairs section.
Will YOU tell them it was a justifiable action?
You won't be asked if it was a "justifiable action." They don't ask for
conclusions from witnesses.

What he WILL be asked is what he saw happen. He won't be asked his
opinions
about good or bad, justifiable or nonjustifiable.

--
Ed Huntress


And the way HE slants his responses to the questions will determine what
they decided. IE was it justifiable or not.

Are you basing this on experience, Steve, or on guesswork?

--
Ed Huntress



BTDT. I simply told them what I saw. I was the only one who came forward
and gave the cop my info JIC. After the hearing was over the IA guys
thanked me because without a witness they have a hell of a time in those
situations.

Also have been a witness for a LOT of MVA.

The IA questioning is more civilized. However they also expect you to
have missing information in what you say simply because of human
emotions andthe way the mind processes information.

My SOP for ANYTHING where I may get called in as a witness now is to set
down ASAP after the event and write down everything I can recall. In ink.

Makes the lawyers set up and take notice when you sit down and they ask
you about something like the weather at the time or what you were doing
prior to the event, and you reach into your pocket and pull out a
notepad with it all written down. The ones who hoped to punch holes to
escape through tend to curl up like you hit them with a stick!

Plus with the statute of limitations and the way the court systems drag
it could be a couple years before you get called in.

--
Steve W.

That's interesting, and I'm sure that there's an influence on a jury that
depends on how witnesses answer questions. The courts try to tune that out
of the case, but some of it must be hard to avoid.

I should have asked, though, how your hypothetical relates to what Ranger
was saying about civil rights and due process. The justice system is far
from perfect, but if you were trying to relate something about the 2nd to
the justice system, it didn't connect for me.

--
Ed Huntress