On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 05:38:11 -0800, "Alex Clayton"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
It's been a very good week for the NRA.
--
Cliff



Sure has. Maybe now the damn lawmakers will finally pass some laws making it
illegal to kill people.

If you don't understand that killing people is already illegal, try
killing someone.

Possible outcomes:
1) they (legally) kill you in self defense
2) you succeed, get caught, get incarcerated
3) you get away with it

3 is possible but highly unlikely.

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:31:22 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 05:38:11 -0800, "Alex Clayton"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
. ..
It's been a very good week for the NRA.
--
Cliff



Sure has. Maybe now the damn lawmakers will finally pass some laws making it
illegal to kill people.

If you don't understand that killing people is already illegal, try
killing someone.

Possible outcomes:
1) they (legally) kill you in self defense
2) you succeed, get caught, get incarcerated
3) you get away with it

3 is possible but highly unlikely.


Don...#3 is far more possible than you evidently think. It happens
daily in the US

Gunner

"IMHO, some people here give Jeff far more attention than he deserves,
but obviously craves. The most appropriate response, and perhaps the
cruelest, IMO, is to simply killfile and ignore him. An alternative, if
you must, would be to post the same standard reply to his every post,
listing the manifold reasons why he ought to be ignored. Just my $0.02
worth."

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 11:31:01 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:31:22 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 05:38:11 -0800, "Alex Clayton"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
It's been a very good week for the NRA.
--
Cliff



Sure has. Maybe now the damn lawmakers will finally pass some laws making it
illegal to kill people.

If you don't understand that killing people is already illegal, try
killing someone.

Possible outcomes:
1) they (legally) kill you in self defense
2) you succeed, get caught, get incarcerated
3) you get away with it

3 is possible but highly unlikely.


Don...#3 is far more possible than you evidently think. It happens
daily in the US

Gunner

You speak in support of redundant legislation?

In context that I thought was obvious but apparently needs to be
explained: #3 is possible but highly unlikely for the vacuously
naive OP to whom my post was addressed.

Do you disagree?

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:51:01 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 11:31:01 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:31:22 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 05:38:11 -0800, "Alex Clayton"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
m...
It's been a very good week for the NRA.
--
Cliff



Sure has. Maybe now the damn lawmakers will finally pass some laws making it
illegal to kill people.

If you don't understand that killing people is already illegal, try
killing someone.

Possible outcomes:
1) they (legally) kill you in self defense
2) you succeed, get caught, get incarcerated
3) you get away with it

3 is possible but highly unlikely.


Don...#3 is far more possible than you evidently think. It happens
daily in the US

Gunner

You speak in support of redundant legislation?

Not at all.

In context that I thought was obvious but apparently needs to be
explained: #3 is possible but highly unlikely for the vacuously
naive OP to whom my post was addressed.


But in real life..#3 is highly LIKELY.

Check the unsolved murder rates. They back me up.

Do you disagree?

With what?

Gunner








"IMHO, some people here give Jeff far more attention than he deserves,
but obviously craves. The most appropriate response, and perhaps the
cruelest, IMO, is to simply killfile and ignore him. An alternative, if
you must, would be to post the same standard reply to his every post,
listing the manifold reasons why he ought to be ignored. Just my $0.02
worth."

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:42:55 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:51:01 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 11:31:01 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:31:22 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 05:38:11 -0800, "Alex Clayton"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
om...
It's been a very good week for the NRA.
--
Cliff



Sure has. Maybe now the damn lawmakers will finally pass some laws making it
illegal to kill people.

If you don't understand that killing people is already illegal, try
killing someone.

Possible outcomes:
1) they (legally) kill you in self defense
2) you succeed, get caught, get incarcerated
3) you get away with it

3 is possible but highly unlikely.


Don...#3 is far more possible than you evidently think. It happens
daily in the US

Gunner

You speak in support of redundant legislation?

Not at all.

In context that I thought was obvious but apparently needs to be
explained: #3 is possible but highly unlikely for the vacuously
naive OP to whom my post was addressed.


But in real life..#3 is highly LIKELY.

Check the unsolved murder rates. They back me up.

They seem to. One reference said:
"In 2006, approximately 37.4%, or 6,035, of the murders went
unsolved."

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:54:11 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:42:55 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:51:01 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 11:31:01 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:31:22 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 05:38:11 -0800, "Alex Clayton"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
news:2tiaf5lgl27r93dn779s2tjeg97botivda@4ax. com...
It's been a very good week for the NRA.
--
Cliff



Sure has. Maybe now the damn lawmakers will finally pass some laws making it
illegal to kill people.

If you don't understand that killing people is already illegal, try
killing someone.

Possible outcomes:
1) they (legally) kill you in self defense
2) you succeed, get caught, get incarcerated
3) you get away with it

3 is possible but highly unlikely.


Don...#3 is far more possible than you evidently think. It happens
daily in the US

Gunner

You speak in support of redundant legislation?

Not at all.

In context that I thought was obvious but apparently needs to be
explained: #3 is possible but highly unlikely for the vacuously
naive OP to whom my post was addressed.


But in real life..#3 is highly LIKELY.

Check the unsolved murder rates. They back me up.

They seem to. One reference said:
"In 2006, approximately 37.4%, or 6,035, of the murders went
unsolved."

Bingo.

Over 1 in 3.

Shrug...hardly "unlikely", no?

Gunner



"IMHO, some people here give Jeff far more attention than he deserves,
but obviously craves. The most appropriate response, and perhaps the
cruelest, IMO, is to simply killfile and ignore him. An alternative, if
you must, would be to post the same standard reply to his every post,
listing the manifold reasons why he ought to be ignored. Just my $0.02
worth."

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:22:51 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:49:35 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:54:11 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:42:55 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:51:01 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 11:31:01 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:31:22 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 05:38:11 -0800, "Alex Clayton"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
news:2tiaf5lgl27r93dn779s2tjeg97botivda@4a x.com...
It's been a very good week for the NRA.
--
Cliff



Sure has. Maybe now the damn lawmakers will finally pass some laws making it
illegal to kill people.

If you don't understand that killing people is already illegal, try
killing someone.

Possible outcomes:
1) they (legally) kill you in self defense
2) you succeed, get caught, get incarcerated
3) you get away with it

3 is possible but highly unlikely.


Don...#3 is far more possible than you evidently think. It happens
daily in the US

Gunner

You speak in support of redundant legislation?

Not at all.

In context that I thought was obvious but apparently needs to be
explained: #3 is possible but highly unlikely for the vacuously
naive OP to whom my post was addressed.


But in real life..#3 is highly LIKELY.

Check the unsolved murder rates. They back me up.

They seem to. One reference said:
"In 2006, approximately 37.4%, or 6,035, of the murders went
unsolved."

Bingo.

Over 1 in 3.

Shrug...hardly "unlikely", no?

How emphatically or repeatedly must I acknowledge your point to
satisfy you? G

If 50% is "likely" then 50% is "unlikely". The probability
threshold of "highly unlikely" is undefined but certainly less than
.374.

That does not alter the fact that it is already illegal to kill people
except in self defense.

The NRA does not seek to change this. They do seek to block needless
impositions on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

If you want more laws, seek laws that remove all ambiguity and
screwing around with those convicted of using firearms in violent
crimes. Let those who prefer to shirk any responsibility for self
defense have their legislators pursue draconian penalties for those
who employ firearms in commission of violent crimes. Hang them from a
high-tension line with wet rope and stone them while they dance and
smoke. Don't give them three pro-bono lawyers and a plea bargain
penalty of picking litter along the highway for two summer months.


I LIKE IT!!! Well done! You got MY vote!!

G

Gunner

"IMHO, some people here give Jeff far more attention than he deserves,
but obviously craves. The most appropriate response, and perhaps the
cruelest, IMO, is to simply killfile and ignore him. An alternative, if
you must, would be to post the same standard reply to his every post,
listing the manifold reasons why he ought to be ignored. Just my $0.02
worth."

In article ,
Don Foreman wrote:

The NRA does not seek to change this. They do seek to block needless
impositions on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

If you want more laws, seek laws that remove all ambiguity and
screwing around with those convicted of using firearms in violent
crimes. Let those who prefer to shirk any responsibility for self
defense have their legislators pursue draconian penalties for those
who employ firearms in commission of violent crimes. Hang them from a
high-tension line with wet rope and stone them while they dance and
smoke. Don't give them three pro-bono lawyers and a plea bargain
penalty of picking litter along the highway for two summer months.

Damn! You have a gruesome and vindictive concept of justice for violent
crime! I like that in a person.

If you don't understand that killing people is already illegal, try
killing someone.

Possible outcomes:
1) they (legally) kill you in self defense
2) you succeed, get caught, get incarcerated
3) you get away with it

3 is possible but highly unlikely.

If anyone is experienced with remote desert areas, such as occur in the
Great Basin, or even San Bernardino County, one knows how easy it is to
dispose of someone and have them never ever surface.

Steve

"John Husvar" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Don Foreman wrote:

The NRA does not seek to change this. They do seek to block needless
impositions on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

If you want more laws, seek laws that remove all ambiguity and
screwing around with those convicted of using firearms in violent
crimes. Let those who prefer to shirk any responsibility for self
defense have their legislators pursue draconian penalties for those
who employ firearms in commission of violent crimes. Hang them from a
high-tension line with wet rope and stone them while they dance and
smoke. Don't give them three pro-bono lawyers and a plea bargain
penalty of picking litter along the highway for two summer months.

Damn! You have a gruesome and vindictive concept of justice for violent
crime! I like that in a person.

What's that word that's overused, and doesn't mean anything
.........................

deterrent? Yeah, that's it. I think that a few public executions of such
entertaining ways would definitely make some, but not all, people think.

Or maybe not.

Steve

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:04:05 -0700, "SteveB"
wrote:



If you don't understand that killing people is already illegal, try
killing someone.

Possible outcomes:
1) they (legally) kill you in self defense
2) you succeed, get caught, get incarcerated
3) you get away with it

3 is possible but highly unlikely.

If anyone is experienced with remote desert areas, such as occur in the
Great Basin, or even San Bernardino County, one knows how easy it is to
dispose of someone and have them never ever surface.

Steve

Then there is Kern County...with its countless "abandoned" oil
wells...most simply with a manhole cover or sheet of plate steel over
the hole.

G

Gunner

DISCLAIMER: The content does not reflect the thoughts or opinions of either
my ISP, myself, my company or employer, my friends (if any,) my goldfish or
my neighbour's mad dog; don't quote me on that; don't quote me on anything;
all rights reserved; the post is distribution copyrighted to the extent that
you may distribute the post and all its associated parts freely but you may
not make a profit from it or include the post in commercial publications
without written permission from the Prime Minister of Hutt Province; other
copyright laws for specific posts apply wherever noted or not noted, either
deliberately, negligently, or otherwise; posts are subject to change without
notice; posts are slightly enlarged to show detail; any resemblance to
actual persons, living or dead, is unintentional and purely coincidental;
hand wash only, tumble dry on low heat; do not bend, fold, mutilate, or
spindle; do not pass go; do not collect $200; your mileage may vary; no
substitutions allowed; for a limited time only; the post is void where
prohibited, taxed, or otherwise restricted; the post is provided "as is"
without any warranties expressed or implied; user assumes full liabilities;
not liable for damages due to use or misuse; an equal opportunity abuse
employer; no shoes, no shirt; quantities are limited while supplies last; if
defects are discovered, do not attempt to fix them yourself but return to an
authorised post service centre; caveat emptor; read at your own risk;
parental advisory - explicit words; text may contain material some readers
may find objectionable, parental guidance is advised; not suitable for
children; not suitable for adults; not for human consumption; keep away from
sunlight, pets and small children; limit one-per-family; no money down; no
purchase necessary; to approved purchasers only; facsimiles are acceptable
in South Australia; you need not be present to read this post; some assembly
required; batteries not included; action figures sold separately; no
preservatives added; tools not included; safety goggles may be required
during use; sealed for your protection, do not use if the safety seal is
broken; call before you dig; for external use only; if a rash, redness,
irritation or swelling develops, discontinue use; use only with proper
ventilation; avoid extreme temperatures and store in a cool, dry place; keep
away from open flames, naked flames and old flames; avoid inhaling fumes;
avoid contact with mucous membranes; do not puncture, incinerate, or store
above 60 degrees Centigrade; do not place near flammable or magnetic source;
smoking the post may be hazardous to your health; the best safeguard, second
only to abstinence, is the use of a good laugh; text used on the post is
made from 100% recycled electrons and magnetic particles; no animals were
used to test the hilarity of this post other than Synapse Syndrome; no salt,
MSG, artificial colour or flavour added; may contain traces of replies to
peanuts; if ingested, do not induce vomiting, if symptoms persist, consult
your humourologist; post is ribbed for your pleasure; slippery when wet;
must be 18 to read; possible penalties for early withdrawal; post offer
valid only in participating newsgroups; slightly higher in South Australia;
allow four to six weeks for delivery; damage from hurricane, lightning,
tornado, tsunami, volcanic eruption, earthquake, flood, orgasm, misuse,
self-abuse, neglect, unauthorised repair, damage from improper installation,
broken antenna, marred cabinet, incorrect line voltage, missing or altered
serial numbers, sonic boom vibrations, electromagnetic radiation from
nuclear blasts or other Acts of God are not covered; incidents owing to
aeroplane crash, ship sinking, motor vehicle accidents, leaky roof, broken
glass, falling rocks, mud

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:29:00 -0500, John Husvar
wrote:

In article ,
Don Foreman wrote:

The NRA does not seek to change this. They do seek to block needless
impositions on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

If you want more laws, seek laws that remove all ambiguity and
screwing around with those convicted of using firearms in violent
crimes. Let those who prefer to shirk any responsibility for self
defense have their legislators pursue draconian penalties for those
who employ firearms in commission of violent crimes. Hang them from a
high-tension line with wet rope and stone them while they dance and
smoke. Don't give them three pro-bono lawyers and a plea bargain
penalty of picking litter along the highway for two summer months.

Damn! You have a gruesome and vindictive concept of justice for violent
crime! I like that in a person.

Violence is indeed gruesome. Mary and I are gentle seniors who abhor
violence. I don't think we're vindictive, more like zero-tolerance of
violent behavior relevant to us. We're not defenders of the realm,
just try not to be easy prey.

Vindictive is about vengeance. We have no vengeance motivation because
we've avoided harm thus far.

Harm gentle Mary, discover protracted painfull and eventually lethal
and untracable vengeance. Harming me might not be a real good idea
either. It's a bad idea to **** her off.

We seriously have zero tolerance for violent crime.

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:04:05 -0700, "SteveB"
wrote:



If you don't understand that killing people is already illegal, try
killing someone.

Possible outcomes:
1) they (legally) kill you in self defense
2) you succeed, get caught, get incarcerated
3) you get away with it

3 is possible but highly unlikely.

If anyone is experienced with remote desert areas, such as occur in the
Great Basin, or even San Bernardino County, one knows how easy it is to
dispose of someone and have them never ever surface.

Steve

It's impossible to prove murder without substantial evidence that the
allegedly murdered person is dead, so proximity to the regions you
describe does present opportunity for the careful assassin. The devil
is in the details. Transport of a body having any leaks must be done
with great care. Transport of a live body to a kill site also has
risks of left trace evidence. Chorus: the devil is in the details.

It's not impossible to get a jury to convict without such evidentiary
proof and it has been done with circumstantial evidence, clear
evidence of motive and opportunity, but few prosecutors would attempt
it except in high-profile cases. FWIW, my cousin Marf was a
prosecutor.

I suspect that most unsolved murders are gang interactions and drug
deals gone bad. They tend to be somewhat random which means few leads
for investigation, people who know anything about them are
disinclined to tell cops what they know, and political motivation to
solve them is low. Good folks in the 'hood want the kill rate to be
reduced but they don't care much about what's already gone down
because they fatalistically accept that done is done.

A critical key to getting away with murder is to have no guilt about
having done it. Guilt is very powerful and a skilled interrogator
knows how to use it.

That just says don't kill anyone other than vermin urgently requiring
extermination even if their relatives who love them will grieve for
their loss. Don't do it unless you're very sure you'll be able to
live with it without guilt for the rest of your life. A skilled
interrogator can and will parlay your guilt to put your tender ass in
the slammer.

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:19:29 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:04:05 -0700, "SteveB"
wrote:



If you don't understand that killing people is already illegal, try
killing someone.

Possible outcomes:
1) they (legally) kill you in self defense
2) you succeed, get caught, get incarcerated
3) you get away with it

3 is possible but highly unlikely.

If anyone is experienced with remote desert areas, such as occur in the
Great Basin, or even San Bernardino County, one knows how easy it is to
dispose of someone and have them never ever surface.

Steve

It's impossible to prove murder without substantial evidence that the
allegedly murdered person is dead, so proximity to the regions you
describe does present opportunity for the careful assassin. The devil
is in the details. Transport of a body having any leaks must be done
with great care. Transport of a live body to a kill site also has
risks of left trace evidence. Chorus: the devil is in the details.

It's not impossible to get a jury to convict without such evidentiary
proof and it has been done with circumstantial evidence, clear
evidence of motive and opportunity, but few prosecutors would attempt
it except in high-profile cases. FWIW, my cousin Marf was a
prosecutor.

I suspect that most unsolved murders are gang interactions and drug
deals gone bad. They tend to be somewhat random which means few leads
for investigation, people who know anything about them are
disinclined to tell cops what they know, and political motivation to
solve them is low. Good folks in the 'hood want the kill rate to be
reduced but they don't care much about what's already gone down
because they fatalistically accept that done is done.

A critical key to getting away with murder is to have no guilt about
having done it. Guilt is very powerful and a skilled interrogator
knows how to use it.

That just says don't kill anyone other than vermin urgently requiring
extermination even if their relatives who love them will grieve for
their loss. Don't do it unless you're very sure you'll be able to
live with it without guilt for the rest of your life. A skilled
interrogator can and will parlay your guilt to put your tender ass in
the slammer.



All very valid comments indeed.

Only kill those that need it, or those you consider to be less than
human..which fortunately includes most Leftards.

Gunner, ex-deputy sheriff once upon a time.
"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton