On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 02:07:49 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote: On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:43:39 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Cliff" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 01:03:19 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: nutballs, and murderers love 'dem big magazines. How would that ever be a problem were they, per statements, never used? As I said, they create an image problem, and a real problem. The real problem is that they make for dramatic stories that wind up totally dissembling the facts about guns and crime...such as the story about the deer hunter. Nope, the magazines don't create the image problem OR the real problem. The problems are created by people who have irrational problems with these inanimate objects. (snip) You mean the people that were shot & killed? How in the world can they have any remaining problems? Ummm .... they are dead, right? You'd better check. -- Cliff |
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 04:54:53 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote: If you have a deathly fear of snakes, is the problem Ummm .. Ashcroft is a Pentecostal ? And he likes guns? Can you shoot imagined snakes? -- Cliff |
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 04:54:53 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote: If you have a deathly fear of snakes, is the problem snakes or your fear of them? Suppose you manage to get treatment for an irrational fear of snakes and get it dealt with so you no longer fear them. The problem goes away without anything happening to the snakes, so apparently, the snakes weren't the problem in the first place. What if you actually have snakes? Are they out to get you? LOL ..... -- Cliff |
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 04:59:56 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote: Well, you guys do tend to run in packs. I hadn't noticed, until I saw Robert, which newsgroups were involved here. Well, if you can't address the argument, attack the messenger, right? Whatever works(or distracts), right? (snip) True enough. What I'm talking about is the good sens of gun owners, not of anti-gunners. Nope, you're talking about caving in to the demands of gun grabbers. I'm a gun owner and I have no desire to give up high-capacity magazine because some people don't like them or have neurotic problems with them. Other peoples' neuroses are not MY problems. (snip) Well, maybe you have a scenario like the one Larry was talking about to suggest to us. I feel quite comfortable with the standard magazine in my .45 ACP, and a couple of loaded ones in my pocket. How many do you need to feel comfortable? Which hoard is out to get YOU? Do you mean "horde"? Either way, it doesn't matter. I didn't see anywhere in my copy of the 2nd Amendment where I need to justify anything to you or anyone else. So, you want to be able to carry 21 rounds for your .45, but have a problem with other people being able to carry 20 or 30-round magazines for their weapons? Doesn't sound too logical to me. :/ What's interesting is the way that anytime someone uses logical discussion the gunnuts, instead of reasoning: A) Whine about "attacking the messenger" B) Brag about their guns C) Call on the second amendment to the US constitution, as if it had anything to do with any of the arguments. D) Usually get upset if the other guy has more or bigger guns E) Get really, really upset if the other guys have reason or logic. -- Cliff |
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 02:16:17 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote: On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:10:08 -0500, Cliff wrote: On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 04:32:49 GMT, Gunner wrote: Something evidently you are totally unfamiliar with, basing your posts on fear, paranoia and phobia and nothing else. Tell us again why you *need* guns? Tell us again why you think anybody needs to prove any "need" to YOU. LMAO. ;) I'm not the one claiming any need BSEG. -- Cliff |
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 02:22:37 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote: On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:10:14 -0500, Cliff wrote: On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 06:26:03 GMT, Mike In Santa Cruz wrote: Most stolen guns are handguns Victims report to the Victim Survey that in 53% of the thefts of guns, handguns were stolen. The FBI's stolen gun file's 2 million reports include information on-- 1.26 million handguns (almost 60%) 470,000 rifles (22%) 356,000 shotguns (17%). Like I keep saying .... they make the owner a taget. Saying it's one thing. Proving it's another. You ever gonna prove it? In those ~2,000,000 cases, how many times did the gun get used in self-defense? Looks like about none. Based on............? How many thefts would NOT have happened, including all associated injuries & deaths, had they NOT had thse guns to steal? Based on...........? OTOH We now have probably ~2,000,000 more people armed to protect themselves with guns, do we not? Dunno. You don't seem to know much of anything, do you? :/ In addition to comprehension problems you have other problems too? How much is 1+1? Just testing. -- Cliff |
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 19:40:19 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 01:53:41 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote: You reveal your ignorance here. This guy obviously did NOT go "spraying rounds trying to make up for an lack of skill". He appeared to have some degree of skill with the weapon and seems to have employed it fairly skillfully. You're saying mass murder was his objective and you will defend to the death his right to have the proper weapons to do it? Thought so. http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/top/sto...,78130,00.html "I killed them because they called me a GOOK" Well, he does have a perfect right ro defend himself, right? Even poor confused Gunner would probably agree. Look at all the names he calls people G. -- Cliff |
|
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:26:55 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: Nope, the magazines don't create the image problem OR the real problem. Yeah, it did. Half the copy written about it concerns the size of the magazine -- which everyone seems to think is different, but they all think is big. That's the big bogeyman, Watcher. While you're spinning cockamamie justifications for ridiculous magazines, you're digging a big hole for gun owners everywhere. Have fun cooking up another story. Maybe, like Larry, you anticipate a swarming hoard of Muslims who got past the US Navy, the US Air Force, the US Army and the National Guard, and who decided to attack your front porch. Pathological paranoia is not an argument that sits well in gun-control debates. Ed Huntress Neither is ignoring the intent of the Second Amendment, or the fact that Writers...folks like You, Ed, have done most of the damage via propaganda and the Big Lie. Its not the NRA, Ed..its your ilk that is the problem. Gunner Come shed a tear for Michael Moore- Though he smirked and lied like a two-bit whore George Bush has just won another four. Poor, sad little Michael Moore Diogenes |
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 23:18:34 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: Well, maybe you have a scenario like the one Larry was talking about to suggest to us. I feel quite comfortable with the standard magazine in my .45 ACP, and a couple of loaded ones in my pocket. How many do you need to feel comfortable? Which hoard is out to get YOU? Ed Huntress Gee Ed...7 in the mag, one up the spout, and 14 more in your pockets? Thats 22 rounds Ed..more than the magazine in the average "assault rifle" What hoard is out to get YOU? Gunner Come shed a tear for Michael Moore- Though he smirked and lied like a two-bit whore George Bush has just won another four. Poor, sad little Michael Moore Diogenes |
"Gunner" wrote in message
... On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:26:55 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: Nope, the magazines don't create the image problem OR the real problem. Yeah, it did. Half the copy written about it concerns the size of the magazine -- which everyone seems to think is different, but they all think is big. That's the big bogeyman, Watcher. While you're spinning cockamamie justifications for ridiculous magazines, you're digging a big hole for gun owners everywhere. Have fun cooking up another story. Maybe, like Larry, you anticipate a swarming hoard of Muslims who got past the US Navy, the US Air Force, the US Army and the National Guard, and who decided to attack your front porch. Pathological paranoia is not an argument that sits well in gun-control debates. Ed Huntress Neither is ignoring the intent of the Second Amendment, or the fact that Writers...folks like You, Ed, have done most of the damage via propaganda and the Big Lie. "Writers"? You mean, it doesn't matter what they write, just whether or not they're "writers"? If you follow that logic, Gunner, you're the same as any mass murderer. You're both gun owners. Its not the NRA, Ed..its your ilk that is the problem. No, you're the problem, Gunner. And I mean that sincerely. You, and people like you, are the reason there is gun control. And that's because a lot of the people in this country just don't trust you. And *that's* because you posture about guns as if they have no relation to the levels of violent crime, as if they are irrelevant. You play a game of "pretend," confusing transparent denial with the principle of rights. Almost everyone knows you're full of it in that regard; some of them are as wacky as you, and go along with your wackiness because it supports what they want, too; but a substantial number of people refuse to buy into your wackiness. And then they consider the fact that you, and your wacky ideas, are in possession of guns. That's the whole genesis of it. The people who are most adamantly for and against gun control tend to be a little nutty -- clowns to the left, jokers to the right. Not that it's nutty to oppose gun control. It's just that the nuttiest ones tend to be most adamantly against it. And thus, you've convinced a significant part of the population that somebody had better keep some reigns on you and your ilk, and, while they're at it, the rest of us gun owners. Thanks a lot. Ed Huntress |
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:51:18 -0500, Cliff wrote:
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 02:16:17 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote: On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:10:08 -0500, Cliff wrote: On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 04:32:49 GMT, Gunner wrote: Something evidently you are totally unfamiliar with, basing your posts on fear, paranoia and phobia and nothing else. Tell us again why you *need* guns? Tell us again why you think anybody needs to prove any "need" to YOU. LMAO. ;) I'm not the one claiming any need BSEG. Sure you are. With every post you are claiming a need for education as well as attention. And I guess the BSEG is why your breath smells so bad. Kirk "Moe, Larry, the cheese!", Curly |
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:26:55 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
calmly ranted: Have fun cooking up another story. Maybe, like Larry, you anticipate a swarming hoard of Muslims who got past the US Navy, the US Air Force, the US Army and the National Guard, and who decided to attack your front porch. Well, you got that one completely wrong, too, Ed. I'm more concerned how our own people will react when the electricity/gas/fuel all stop flowing. bin Laden is counting on our self-destruction, and judging by past riots, where people tore up their own neighborhoods, that's not a bad assessment of how things might be. If you don't want to stock up on food/water/cooking fuel/ammo, etc. that's up to you. But don't label me a whacko for common sense preparedness. Pathological paranoia is not an argument that sits well in gun-control debates. Nor are misquoting people and using illogic good arguments. -- SAVE THE PARROTS! Eschew the use of poly! ---------- http://diversify.com Poly-free Website Development |
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 23:18:34 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
calmly ranted: This is an off-the-reservation thing to say, but I believe they should be sacrificed in the name of sanity and social comity. Remember what Thomas Jefferson had to say about that? "The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither." Why does society deserve comity? Especially the way they're reacting to our government, which knowingly brings terrorism to our doors. Big magazines ARE very sensible. Only to very strange people, Robert. Yeah, strange and logical people who want to accomplish the job of self-defense. Well, maybe you have a scenario like the one Larry was talking about to suggest to us. I feel quite comfortable with the standard magazine in my .45 ACP, and a couple of loaded ones in my pocket. How many do you need to feel comfortable? Which hoard is out to get YOU? So running around with 3 full clips is sane while having one with the same (or less) capacity is insane? The guy in question had 22 rounds while you have 24-30 rounds at your immediate disposal. Time to look at your real motives, Ed. What's driving this fear of larger mags? Reread my post you keep referring to. I was referring to our OWN population coming unglued and attacking each other, not Muslim hoardes invading. BTW, which post ARE you referring to? I'd like to know what I said that caused you to misread it so completely. -- SAVE THE PARROTS! Eschew the use of poly! ---------- http://diversify.com Poly-free Website Development |
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:50:49 GMT, BottleBob
wrote: Ed Huntress wrote: The people who are most adamantly for and against gun control tend to be a little nutty -- clowns to the left, jokers to the right. Ed: IMHO, that just about sums up the whole shebang of emotional rhetoric and attempted demonizing that substitutes for reason/debate/evidence in both the fanatically anti-gun, AND just as fanatic pro-gun, crowds. I don't see what the big deal is. Seems like it was, *at worst*, a preemptive attack. After all, someday they might have had guns, right? And anyway, all you have to do is claim that you thought that they had or used to have guns too, right? -- Cliff |
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 06:25:07 -0800, 'Captain' Kirk DeHaan
wrote: On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:51:18 -0500, Cliff wrote: On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 02:16:17 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote: On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:10:08 -0500, Cliff wrote: On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 04:32:49 GMT, Gunner wrote: Something evidently you are totally unfamiliar with, basing your posts on fear, paranoia and phobia and nothing else. Tell us again why you *need* guns? Tell us again why you think anybody needs to prove any "need" to YOU. LMAO. ;) I'm not the one claiming any need BSEG. Sure you are. With every post you are claiming a need for education Thinking of getting any as a result? as well as attention. You need more & bigger guns, right? And I guess the BSEG is why your breath smells so bad. You been sniffing thet NRA stuff again? Kirk "Moe, Larry, the cheese!", Curly -- Cliff (Who can properly sign the posts G.) |
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 07:53:59 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: Its not the NRA, Ed..its your ilk that is the problem. No, you're the problem, Gunner. And I mean that sincerely. You, and people like you, are the reason there is gun control. And that's because a lot of the people in this country just don't trust you. And *that's* because you posture about guns as if they have no relation to the levels of violent crime, as if they are irrelevant. You play a game of "pretend," confusing transparent denial with the principle of rights. Almost everyone knows you're full of it in that regard; some of them are as wacky as you, and go along with your wackiness because it supports what they want, too; but a substantial number of people refuse to buy into your wackiness. And then they consider the fact that you, and your wacky ideas, are in possession of guns. That's the whole genesis of it. The people who are most adamantly for and against gun control tend to be a little nutty -- clowns to the left, jokers to the right. Not that it's nutty to oppose gun control. It's just that the nuttiest ones tend to be most adamantly against it. And thus, you've convinced a significant part of the population that somebody had better keep some reigns on you and your ilk, and, while they're at it, the rest of us gun owners. Thanks a lot. Ed Huntress Sorry Ed..your denial is pathetic in its substance. Its not pro-gun groups attempting to force everyone to own a firearm. Its the anti-gun groups who are attempting to take them all away, one increment at a time. Its not the pro-gun groups who cry that tools are evil, spawn of the devil, and twist and spin the actions of a bad individual into a condemnation of inanimate objects. Its writers and the media who spew the "if it bleeds, it leads" propaganda. Im reminded of desperate Southerners who condemned Rosa Parks for attempting to exercise her Constitutional rights, and the bigoted ignorant hate filled writers and media that portrayed blacks as an evil, lazy, murderous group of people. Dr. King as a communist anarchist for attempting to exercise his Constitutional Rights, and so forth. Lets face it Ed..the 2nd Amendment is not about duck hunting. Its about the ability to protect ones self, ones family and ones nation for bad government and foreign enemies. Those evil bad black guns are the Most protected of all firearms, as they have military utility in doing exactly that. If a minute number of them are misused, it is not surprising. Anything can and will be misused. Its the whiney Libs and anti-gun fanatics who attempt and often do limit our Constitutional Rights in so many ways..including this ultimately important one. If you look at your statements Ed..you are whimpering that we should appease those fanatics. "If we give up the arms most protected..surely they will leave the rest of them alone." Bull****. In each and every case where gun owners have compromised (and I fault the NRA for going along with appeasement), new and more infringements were right around the corner. The anti-gun fanatics don't care about black guns with 3 features Ed...they want to take ALL guns from everyone except the police and the military. And they are damned sure not happy about either of those groups having guns either. Are you willing to let anyone remove your rights to read books on certain subjects, or to write about certain things? But why not Ed? Its for the Children! And we can damned sure bet that next week, it will be other books and other subjects, And the week after, even more books and even more subjects. Appeasement is for idiots and pie in the sky optimists. And it never works. Period. End Program. Full Stop. Alto. Haltensi. Mouthy in your face folks like me, Ed are the ones that keep the fires burning, that don't let you forget that people are attempting to rob you of not only your Constitutional Rights,, but of your freedom, liberty and heritage. The Lefties here keep babbling about how our liberties and freedoms are being taken away from us by the Patriot Act..but they are the same group of utter idiots that want to remove the ONLY PROTECTION to loss of Liberty and Freedom. We have 4 boxes to ensure ourselves and our families and our nation remains free.... 1. Soap Box 2. Ballot Box 3. Jury Box 4. Cartridge Box Remove #4..and the rest become symbolic with no teeth. Remove the 2nd Amendment..and there damned sure will be no First Amendment, or any other. And the 2nd Amendment aint about .22s and double barreled shotguns and deer hunting and trap shooting. Its about being able to kill politicians, tyrants, their minions and those who would enslave you or kill you, if they could. There will be no appeasement Ed..not from me, not from anyone who understands that "Peace in our times" is a death sentence for ourselves, our families and our nation. "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! " So **** your appeasement Ed. Its slow suicide by increment. And Ed? It appears that the voters agree with me. Rabid anti-gun candidates are not being elected and those that are in office, are getting their sorry totalitarian asses voted OUT of office in record numbers. Touching the 2nd Amendment has become the kiss of death anyone other then the most in trenched Leftist. So **** appeasement Ed..and those who preach it. And Double **** those Anti-gun fanatics who try to implement their agendas. rant/off Gunner Come shed a tear for Michael Moore- Though he smirked and lied like a two-bit whore George Bush has just won another four. Poor, sad little Michael Moore Diogenes |
"Gunner" wrote in message
... On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 23:18:34 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: Well, maybe you have a scenario like the one Larry was talking about to suggest to us. I feel quite comfortable with the standard magazine in my ..45 ACP, and a couple of loaded ones in my pocket. How many do you need to feel comfortable? Which hoard is out to get YOU? Ed Huntress Gee Ed...7 in the mag, one up the spout, and 14 more in your pockets? Thats 22 rounds Ed..more than the magazine in the average "assault rifle" What hoard is out to get YOU? Here's what you're missing, Gunner: The only time I've ever walked around with three loaded magazines was when I was shooting action pistol; nobody is likely to complain about 7-round magazines, and it isn't likely to garner too many news stories; the loaded gun makes boring photos. If you don't get that, then you don't get it at all. People who don't get it are the ones who say, "what's the big deal about 20-round magazines?," and they actually mean it. Ed Huntress |
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:45:35 GMT, Gunner
wrote: Lets face it Ed..the 2nd Amendment is not about duck hunting. Its about the ability to protect ones self, ones family and ones nation for bad government and foreign enemies. Those evil bad black guns are the Most protected of all firearms, as they have military utility in doing exactly that. Then your right to have nuclear bombs & poison gasses & biological agents is even more so. HTH -- Cliff |
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:45:35 GMT, Gunner
wrote: "Peace in our times" is a death sentence for ourselves, our families and our nation. And endless wars based on winger lies make you immortal? -- Cliff |
I rarely read Ed's posts any more, and am even less inclined to read
Cliff's. Both seem a little off balance to me, but they have no clue. I just made an exception. The irony is that they and others post so negatively about Gunner's posts... the best source of sanity on this subject. This post of Cliff's is a perfect example of loony! George Willer "Cliff" wrote in message ... On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:45:35 GMT, Gunner wrote: Lets face it Ed..the 2nd Amendment is not about duck hunting. Its about the ability to protect ones self, ones family and ones nation for bad government and foreign enemies. Those evil bad black guns are the Most protected of all firearms, as they have military utility in doing exactly that. Then your right to have nuclear bombs & poison gasses & biological agents is even more so. HTH -- Cliff |
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
... On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:07:55 -0500, "Ed Huntress" calmly ranted: I said: Question 1: If you were inside your house and a mob came up to get you, would you want a standard magazine or a high-capacity magazine in your handgun or rifle to defend yourself? Be honest. Answer 1: Honesty says that no mob ever came up to get me in my house. And it never will. If that doesn't satisfy you, then you don't understand the political problem. Ah, the Indestructible American denial bug. Well, when the Shrub succeeds in getting 1.3 billion Muslims united against us and they take out the American infrastructure, bringing anarchy to your door, you just may change your stance on that...a bit too late. I'd rather play it safe and stock up on necessities now. You know, Larry, there is a long continuum of risk-aversion, running from the Boy Scouts and "Be Prepared" at one end, to paranoid psychopathology -- Howard Hughes collecting his urine in Mason jars and stacking them on a shelf, just in case -- at the other. Your scenario sounds a lot closer to Howard Hughes than to the Boy Scouts. I'd rather spend my time doing things that are creative, or productive, or otherwise satisfying (these messages are good examples of things to avoid in that regard g), rather than collecting maggot recipes and training cockroaches to bring in the newspaper, in anticipation of a nuclear holocaust. So, I'm not anticipating any mobs trying to break in my front door. OTOH, people who love to wave those 20-round magazines around are a creepy lot; taking one into the woods to hunt deer is likely evidence of some simmering pathology; in fact, it's a pretty good identifier of nutballs, based on my range experience. I'll go with the odds and my instincts -- they've both served me pretty well in this short life. No Muslim hoards are likely to make it necessary for me to replace my six- and seven-round magazines with 20-round magazines. Ignoring libertarian impulses in favor of normal human insight and the values of stereotyping for a moment (if you don't stereotype, you don't live long), anyone with a head screwed on tight and who has spent a lot of time with guns and shooters knows that the people who like them are the risky fringe, and that they're the ones you most worry about when you go hunting or otherwise find yourself around them. With that in mind, I think that knowing how to shoot and having access to a gun isn't a bad idea at all, even though the chance I'll ever *need* it is quite remote (I've lived 56 years without that "need," and I see nothing on the horizon to suggest the trend is changing). Besides, shooting is fun, I'm pretty harmless, and my guns have nothing to do with anyone else's crime problem. But the guy over the next hill may not be. And he's one hell of a lot more likely to show up on a turkey shoot than the Mongol hoards are to break down my door. It's a question of whether you prefer to see some common sense when you're around people with guns, or you'd rather get into a debate about philosophy. Ed Huntress |
|
"Dave Mundt" wrote in message
... Well, inflammatory headlines sell papers. Since the report is that there had been a NUMBER of incidents between asian and white hunters in the area over the past few years, perhaps there is quite a bit more to find out. The article also calls into question the number of rounds in Vang's gun, as it reports he had to reload five or six rounds...hardly the killing machine portrayed elsewhere. Still, there is a lot more of the story to come out, I think...and I am still not convinced that any kind of a gun ban should show up from this. Regardless of WHAT the facts turn out to be, there's nothing here that argues for any kind of gun ban. One incident, among people who are obviously half out of their minds (at least some of them were), isn't a sound basis for any kind of policy -- unless you can figure out who is a nut, and how to keep the nuts away from guns. Ed Huntress |
"The Watcher" wrote in message
... ) True enough. What I'm talking about is the good sens of gun owners, not of anti-gunners. Nope, you're talking about caving in to the demands of gun grabbers. No, you don't get it. I didn't see YOU at the NJ statehouse lobbying like hell against "assault rifle" bans, when I was there. I didn't see YOU testifying at state senate hearings. When we see what you've actually done, then maybe you can judge what I'm "talking about." Until then, I know what I'm talking about, and you don't. Ed Huntress |
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:07:22 -0500, "George Willer"
wrote: (Moved newbie's reply to the bottom.) "Cliff" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:45:35 GMT, Gunner wrote: Lets face it Ed..the 2nd Amendment is not about duck hunting. Its about the ability to protect ones self, ones family and ones nation for bad government and foreign enemies. Those evil bad black guns are the Most protected of all firearms, as they have military utility in doing exactly that. Then your right to have nuclear bombs & poison gasses & biological agents is even more so. HTH I rarely read Ed's posts any more, and am even less inclined to read Cliff's. Nobody can make you think, can they? Both seem a little off balance to me, but they have no clue. Got Nukes do you? What was Gunner posting ABOUT? Did you read his posts? Explain in your own words, please. I just made an exception. The irony is that they and others post so negatively about Gunner's posts... the best source of sanity on this subject. If guns make you safer then you have the least deaths by gunfire when everyone is *very* well armed and it follows that almost everyone will be killed or injured by gunfire when nobody has any guns. Gunner's good, right? Did they check your sanity at the door? This post of Cliff's is a perfect example of loony! Probably got your hat. George Willer -- Cliff |
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:17:00 GMT, Russ wrote:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:28:51 -0600, e wrote: On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 01:53:41 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote: You reveal your ignorance here. This guy obviously did NOT go "spraying rounds trying to make up for an lack of skill". He appeared to have some degree of skill with the weapon and seems to have employed it fairly skillfully. You're saying mass murder was his objective and you will defend to the death his right to have the proper weapons to do it? Thought so. Yes, that's the risk in a free and open society. Of course, we all have the means to defend outselves against such nuts and others who would do us harm as well. Russ As the guy that shoots first often wins you need to shoot first if you even suspect anything. Better yet, just shoot anyway ... see how easy that all was? WingerWorld is such a simple place ... -- Cliff |
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:27:16 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Dave Mundt" wrote in message .. . Well, inflammatory headlines sell papers. Since the report is that there had been a NUMBER of incidents between asian and white hunters in the area over the past few years, perhaps there is quite a bit more to find out. The article also calls into question the number of rounds in Vang's gun, as it reports he had to reload five or six rounds...hardly the killing machine portrayed elsewhere. Still, there is a lot more of the story to come out, I think...and I am still not convinced that any kind of a gun ban should show up from this. Regardless of WHAT the facts turn out to be, there's nothing here that argues for any kind of gun ban. One incident, among people who are obviously half out of their minds (at least some of them were), isn't a sound basis for any kind of policy -- unless you can figure out who is a nut, Could you start with the NRA membership rolls? Under the "Patriot Act"? -- Cliff |
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:26:22 -0500, Cliff wrote:
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 01:53:41 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote: And the idiots that think outlawing extended magazines because some people use them in crimes is sound logic don't seem to want to apply the same "logic" to all the other things that are used in crimes. I guess they don't really think the logic is valid, but are just looking for an excuse to further their agenda. Too bad they're not honest enough to come right out and say so. Being intellectually dishonest like that really tends to make many people distrust anything they say later. All of which makes one wonder what possible valid use those things have. Valid use? I hadn't read anywhere in the Constitution where I'm required to prove that I NEED a valid use for something to YOU before I can own it. While we're on the red herring subject of "valid use", do you have a "valid use" for a car that will drive above the speed limit? Since there's no place in the US with a speed limit of 120 mph or so, we should just go ahead and outlaw any of those dangerous cars, shouldn't we? Of course, that would be ASSuming YOUR "logic" was really valid and not just a pretense to further your real agenda. Are you going to claim that they make fine hammers? Nope, they don't go much good for driving nails. Please supply some logic here. A bit of foorp would be nice too. How would you know? Logic would be lost on you, I think. |
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:28:08 -0500, Cliff wrote:
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 01:53:41 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote: Untainted fact, Ed, six people are dead because one kook with a huge magazine was allowed to legally carry that piece of **** into the woods, and commit murder. Six dead, others wounded, one huge clip against only one sporting weapon. Either admit that those huge clips aren't needed, Needed? My copy of the Constitution doesn't have a requirement that anything pass a standard of "need". Does yours? What does it say about your neighbor's craven desire for nukes? Those are "arms" too, right? Nothing. I notice you didn't anwer my question. A Freudian avoidance, maybe? |
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:50:26 -0500, Cliff wrote:
(snip) What's interesting is the way that anytime someone uses logical discussion the gunnuts, instead of reasoning: A) Whine about "attacking the messenger" Yeah, since your "logical" discussion was to attack the messenger. :/ B) Brag about their guns ????? C) Call on the second amendment to the US constitution, as if it had anything to do with any of the arguments. Yeah, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with gun control. :/ D) Usually get upset if the other guy has more or bigger guns Quotes? E) Get really, really upset if the other guys have reason or logic. Really couln't quote any of that, since it isn't possible. |
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:30:28 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "The Watcher" wrote in message ... ) True enough. What I'm talking about is the good sens of gun owners, not of anti-gunners. Nope, you're talking about caving in to the demands of gun grabbers. No, you don't get it. I didn't see YOU at the NJ statehouse lobbying like hell against "assault rifle" bans, when I was there. I didn't see YOU testifying at state senate hearings. When we see what you've actually done, then maybe you can judge what I'm "talking about." Until then, I know what I'm talking about, and you don't. That's funny. I was referring to what you are talking about HERE, and what you are talking about HERE is caving in to the demands of the gun grabbers because you don't want to hurt their feelings. Personally, I say **** their feelings. If they have problems with high-capacity magazines, black rifles, or anything else, they can just get over it. It's not my problem. Their little neuroses(and anybody else's neuroses) are their problems. |
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:51:18 -0500, Cliff wrote:
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 02:16:17 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote: On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:10:08 -0500, Cliff wrote: On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 04:32:49 GMT, Gunner wrote: Something evidently you are totally unfamiliar with, basing your posts on fear, paranoia and phobia and nothing else. Tell us again why you *need* guns? Tell us again why you think anybody needs to prove any "need" to YOU. LMAO. ;) I'm not the one claiming any need BSEG. Nope, you're the moron claiming there's a reason to provide a need. :/ |
When I see somebody at the range with a big clip hanging down from some little semiauto gun, my blood boils. You need ice water in the veins. Stick with the mind, not the emotions. And I don't give a flying **** what arguments Gunner makes about it. g Ed Huntress Don't retreat from reality. The second amendment is not for gun collectin, target practice, hunting, or self defense. It is about poltitical power. The power to make a revoultion and the power to stop a revolution. This is the last balance of power. We need the same kind of magazines that governments have. When I take my old eyes and old bolt rifle to the range, and see a young man shooting with a high capactiry magazine, I am inspired that there IS hope for the future. Clark -- Be careful what you pray for, it can happen. |
In article , Ed Huntress says...
No, you don't get it. I didn't see YOU at the NJ statehouse lobbying like hell against "assault rifle" bans, when I was there. I didn't see YOU testifying at state senate hearings. One of the real problems with the usenet-inhabiting second amendment supporter, in general. Lots of smoke but precious little fire. Talks a good line, goes and drinks beer. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
"Gunner" wrote in message
... On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 07:53:59 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: Its not the NRA, Ed..its your ilk that is the problem. No, you're the problem, Gunner. And I mean that sincerely. You, and people like you, are the reason there is gun control. And that's because a lot of the people in this country just don't trust you. And *that's* because you posture about guns as if they have no relation to the levels of violent crime, as if they are irrelevant. You play a game of "pretend," confusing transparent denial with the principle of rights. Almost everyone knows you're full of it in that regard; some of them are as wacky as you, and go along with your wackiness because it supports what they want, too; but a substantial number of people refuse to buy into your wackiness. And then they consider the fact that you, and your wacky ideas, are in possession of guns. That's the whole genesis of it. The people who are most adamantly for and against gun control tend to be a little nutty -- clowns to the left, jokers to the right. Not that it's nutty to oppose gun control. It's just that the nuttiest ones tend to be most adamantly against it. And thus, you've convinced a significant part of the population that somebody had better keep some reigns on you and your ilk, and, while they're at it, the rest of us gun owners. Thanks a lot. Ed Huntress Sorry Ed..your denial is pathetic in its substance. Its not pro-gun groups attempting to force everyone to own a firearm. Its the anti-gun groups who are attempting to take them all away, one increment at a time. Its not the pro-gun groups who cry that tools are evil, spawn of the devil, and twist and spin the actions of a bad individual into a condemnation of inanimate objects. Its writers and the media who spew the "if it bleeds, it leads" propaganda. Gunner, here's the bottom line. You've fought this battle like a blind man with a brain hemorrhage. For half of my life I've been on the defending end of gun rights, and for a couple of years I did it damned near full-time, in it up to my elbows, working just enough to pay the bills while I met, wrote, lobbied, and damned near wrecked my life over it. Having seen these legislative gun battles from the inside, I finally got close enough to see what the real dynamic is: They set you up, and you play right into their hands, time after time. You took a situation in which support for gun rights was *overwhelming* in this country, and you let it get chiselled away, one piece at a time, until it's now a divisive issue on which you have to rally your base and fight like hell over every piece of legislation. You've gone from being mainstream to becoming what looks more and more like a faction -- a large one, to be sure, but every political conflict now requires an outright battle. You've squandered more political capital than Bill Clinton ever did. The reason, without going into detail, is that your posturing has been toward *dividing* yourself from the public interest. Of course, you won't see it that way. That's your blindness. But look at the words and the positioning used in this battle: It's none of your business. It's my right. You have no right to question me unless I break the law. I have a right to arm myself against the government. You don't hear yourself the way the general public, and the press, and your antagonists hear you. So you have some people who are on your side, and some from whom you divide yourself ever more sharply with time. It's you, and them. Now you need to keep your numbers up or you'll lose the battle. By catering ever more to the fringes -- the people who want to carry Tec-9s on city streets and who see nothing wrong with 20-round magazines in the deer woods -- you push the division further. You're going to wind up completely on one side of a great divide, with everyone either identifying completely with you or completely against you. It didn't used to be that way. Every cause has a fringe of antagonists, but not every cause so foolishly lets them gain so much ground. Given public opinion 40 years ago, you should have been able to keep them on the fringes forever, like the people who want to eliminate cars and replace them all with public transportation. That cause has a huge general interest keeping the fringes on the fringe. Your cause did, too...until you squandered it. So your arguments all sound silly, and worse. And they're all beside the point. Now you have to keep cultivating the pure vision, keeping yourselves ideologically pure and absolute, because you'll lose your identity as a cause if you don't keep the dividing lines clear and sharp. You wind up defending nutty things like 20-round magazines, for little purpose, and with the consequence of convincing large numbers of people in this country that you really have no sense, and that you're losing more of it all the time. The NRA chose to fight the battle on those terms some time ago. It's one way to fight a battle. It's the divisive way. The question is, whether they'll find themselves on the smaller side of the divide one day. It hasn't happened yet, and it wavers back and forth. But neither winning the day, nor losing it, is going to justify the fact that you, and they, squandered widespread public support for the sake of building a cadre of True Believers. Ed Huntress |
"The Watcher" wrote in message ... Since there's no place in the US with a speed limit of 120 mph or so, we should just go ahead and outlaw any of those dangerous cars, shouldn't we? Probably, yes. I think. Coulda fooled me......... -- SVL |
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
... On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 23:18:34 -0500, "Ed Huntress" calmly ranted: This is an off-the-reservation thing to say, but I believe they should be sacrificed in the name of sanity and social comity. Remember what Thomas Jefferson had to say about that? "The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither." So, if 20-shot magazines are what people buy for personal security, what do they then deserve? Why does society deserve comity? Because other people live here, too. Close to 300 million of them. And it's their country as much as it is yours. Especially the way they're reacting to our government, which knowingly brings terrorism to our doors. Well, then, convince them that they're all stupid, and that they should make you king. Big magazines ARE very sensible. Only to very strange people, Robert. Yeah, strange and logical people who want to accomplish the job of self-defense. Well, maybe you have a scenario like the one Larry was talking about to suggest to us. I feel quite comfortable with the standard magazine in my ..45 ACP, and a couple of loaded ones in my pocket. How many do you need to feel comfortable? Which hoard is out to get YOU? So running around with 3 full clips is sane while having one with the same (or less) capacity is insane? If I ever had to run around with three full magazines, which is unlikely in the extreme, I wouldn't worry about what people thought. When people run around in the woods with 20-shot magazines, I assume they're a little nutz. And I believe that's a common, as well as a generally accurate, perception. The guy in question had 22 rounds while you have 24-30 rounds at your immediate disposal. Time to look at your real motives, Ed. What's driving this fear of larger mags? 'Time for you to listen to yourself, Larry. What do you think this is, a philosophy debate? We're talking about POLITICS here, Larry. I realize you have a rather strained view of what it takes to win or lose political contests g, but that's what's going on here. I have no fear of larger magazines. But I think you could do a psychological profile of the people who own them, and it wouldn't be a pretty sight. That isn't science. That's politics, and common sense, and experience. Reread my post you keep referring to. I was referring to our OWN population coming unglued and attacking each other, not Muslim hoardes invading. That's even nuttier than the Muslim hordes. Is that how libertarians think? You worry about invading hordes of unglued Americans? BTW, which post ARE you referring to? I'd like to know what I said that caused you to misread it so completely. It was the one where you were justifying 20-shot magazines because you might need them if a horde invaded your house. Ed Huntress |
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
... On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:26:55 -0500, "Ed Huntress" calmly ranted: Have fun cooking up another story. Maybe, like Larry, you anticipate a swarming hoard of Muslims who got past the US Navy, the US Air Force, the US Army and the National Guard, and who decided to attack your front porch. Well, you got that one completely wrong, too, Ed. I'm more concerned how our own people will react when the electricity/gas/fuel all stop flowing. Jeez, Larry, you worry too much. That's wackier than the story about the hordes and the 20-round magazines. Since GE Miniguns are a little tough to come by these days, here's something you can do: Have the siding on your house replaced by 2-inch-thich armor plate. Cut gun slots through it at judicious intervals. Buy a shotshell reloader and make 10,000 or 20,000 buckshot loads. Stock them near the gun slots. Have a pump-action shotgun ready at each gun slot station, along with a gas mask and a flak jacket. You'll be relatively safe from the hordes and from the people who are looking for your secret cache of gasoline. And you'll be truly free. bin Laden is counting on our self-destruction, and judging by past riots, where people tore up their own neighborhoods, that's not a bad assessment of how things might be. If you don't want to stock up on food/water/cooking fuel/ammo, etc. that's up to you. But don't label me a whacko for common sense preparedness. You don't store your urine in Mason jars by any chance, do you? g Ed Huntress |
Cliff wrote:
And anyway, all you have to do is claim that you thought that they had or used to have guns too, right? Remember guns don't kill people gun owners do. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:29 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter