Arnold Walker wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Ron Purvis wrote:
. Regardless, the facts are that the firearm is a weapon
that can protect the citizen.
...by killing another citizen..
So when are you going to right this terrible wrong by disarming the military
and police.

The police are effectively disarmed, and they make enough mistakes when
they are not to render it a sane decision.

The military does not use its wepaonry to defend individual citizens on
UK soil..


To save England from this terrible uncivilized behavior.
Absolute gun ban for safety and well being of England.
Rah,etc.....

Its happened already by and large.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:25:26 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:


After all they do have a higher
crime rate than the US. The truth is that if criminals know that they
have
just as great a chance of getting hurt or killed as the intended victim,
they are not going to commit the crime.

The truth is that if the stakes are raised, they are raised.

The truth has been shown repeatedly. If they think they are too likely to be
killed, they are not going to commit the crime.

Better to avoid the issue in the first place

Bro, is that you?
--
I found the right man but I *married* the one who I thought would best
suit my own, personal goals. Don't make my mistake, when you find the
man who takes your heart, don't ever let him go.

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:41:58 +0000, Owain wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
"over paid, over sexed and over here"

After comparing (purely in the interests of research, it's a hard life
and someone's got to do it, etc) American vs European adult DVDs, I
don't think much of Americans' ideas about sex.

Owain

Then you will have none of me, IckyPoo.
--
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/Preesi/Martha.htm
E-Mail:
Yahoo ID: misspreesi
ICQ #: 179414081
MSN Messenger:
PalTalk: Preesi
Odigo: Preesi
AOL: PreesiGirl

Pogo: MissPreesi

THERE.COM: preesi

Ron Purvis wrote:
"Balanced View" wrote in message
...

Ron Purvis wrote:

"Balanced View" wrote in message
...


Jim wrote:


"Balanced View" wrote in message
...


Jim wrote:


"Ron Purvis" wrote


Since the police can't be on the spot to protect the citizens, it
unfortunately is going to come down to what the citizens can do for
themselves. The firearm is the best weapon that a citizen can use to
protect them self.


Went out and did some practice shooting in the yard today; my son
and I can both nail a 12" box at 25 yards, his /a .40 S&W semi-auto,
and me w/a S&W .357 magnum. None of my neighbors complained, no
police were called etc etc.
In America, we have the guts to stand up and fight to the death
for what is ours; the rest of the world? Unofficial Frenchmen....


Sounds more like you're all paranoid



paranoia implies no threat exists, when one clearly does


LOL, stats don't back you up, you are paranoid by your own statement.
Paranoia is a tendency on
the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational
suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others


You really don't have a clue. The stats do back up that a person should
be willing to defend themselves. In no country are there enough police to
ensure the safety of the citizens. There is plenty of proof that there is
crime in every country in the world. Therefore it is not being paranoid,
it is being diligent.


In a case of reasonable risk yes, but you've made it seem the risk is far
worse than it actually is.


No, I didn't. There is a chance for it so you take precautions. This is the
same thing as wearing your seat belt in a car. I have never had an injury
from a car ride. Yet it reasonable to assume that at some point that I
might.

Again we are talking about reasonable risk, stats show you are more
likely by far to be injured or die in a car than
by attack from a stranger, you'd have to be a fool not to wear a seat belt
Therefore it is reasonable and intelligent to wear one. I would not
think it is reasonable to carry a firearm at all times. Yet if you are going
to be out late at night and in an area that has a high rate of violent
crime, I believe that it is reasonable to carry a handgun. If you don't live
in the US, you might not realize that time and locale makes a huge
difference in your chances of being the victim of a violent crime. Overall
Washington D.C. is more than three times the national average of per capita
deaths by firearms. If you go to certain neighborhoods in D.C., that rate
will more than double again. Same with many other inner city areas that have
large problems with gangs and drugs. Going into a place like that, it is
entirely reasonable to carry a firearm.



..Why are you going to such places if they are such hell holes? It almost
sounds like you want to go trolling in
those place just have an excuse to use your weapon.
BTW, just because one is paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to
get you.



cowards,


a coward runs from danger, a man stands up to evil and conquers it.
Are you a man or a mouse?



Cowards are always fearful of attack, I'm not.


Anyone with brains enough to come in out of the rain shows fear when
there is cause.

When it rains you use an umbrella, not a circus tent, when you swat flies
you use a flyswatter, not a baseball bat.

Those with courage face it the best that they can regardless of the
danger.

True enough

A coward does not. That is the difference between the two. I served with
true heroes and I can tell you they were scared.

To be scared when you now your going to be exposed to certain death under
fire is one thing, to be
expecting to be attacked or shot at everyday is paranoid, probability does
not bear out your concerns.

What you are describing is nothing more than a persone who is too stupid
to understand things. Of course that describes you perfectly.


What I know from traveling all over Europe, the USA and Canada is that
I've never had to resort to the use
of a weapon, or been attacked, mugged etc.. Nor never felt any fear of it.


Then you didn't go into the worst areas of either country at times that the
criminals are most prevalent.


And it's unlikely you or most Americans do either, unless they are
looking to buy drugs or pick up a prostitute.
Common sense should tell you to not walk about in inner city dark alleys
with 100 dollar bills hanging out of
your pocket.


feeling naked without a


firearm.


They are kinda shiny, and the holster is fine Italian leather....
You do whatever is legal where you live, if you want, and so will
I, OK?!


Sex with animals is legal is some places, but it doesn't make it
rational or excuse it.


Since that is more prevalent outside the US, and even worse it accepted
to a degree in Europe, it is ironic that you would bring it up.

That stereotype is American Bill Billy, not European. "Squeal like a piggy
boy"


Just because some people have that stereotype doesn't make it true. The
truth is that most Americans are far more conservative when it comes to sex
than in Europe or Asia. Those kind of things are done and accepted far more
overseas than here in the US.


LOL, that family values thing? Please, you must be joking, every day
there's another scandal of a senator,
congressman, minister, priest or farmer caught with their pants down
with boys , underage girls and gay
prostitutes
etc....

"Ron Purvis" wrote in message
.. .

"Jim" wrote

It's about freedom, and giving it to all, including former slaves and
their now psychopathic fifth generation of freed children........

You are just as stupid as the other guys. There is no more excuse for that
kind of bigotry than the the rabid anti-Americanism that is so prevalent
on this forum.
I used to think so; but then I noticed a sea of chocolate colored
suspects apprehended whilst doing the most horrid things. And I thought
about those who had attempted to take my own life, or steal my things etc.
And I kinda noticed that they all looked pretty much the same.
I live in a very large city in thre midwest and it is amazing. The city
is 97% one color and 97% of the crooks are that other color......
It is a simple fact. And people who can't see that are insane....

"Ron Purvis" wrote in message
.. .

"Jim" wrote in message
t...

"Ron Purvis" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message
...

"Neil Barker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...


no spam wrote:
Nope he's correct here. Not only do they have very minimal
firearms
training they are given firearms that do not have enough stopping
power and
therefore are trained the fire multiple shots at each target. Note
the fact
that 4 LEOs fired a total of 41 rounds at an unarmed man in NYC.

Interesting point. The armed police here have some seriously heavy
duty guns.

You think so ?

What do you class as "seriously heavy duty guns" ?

My friend the cop here in the USA has a fully automatic M-16
IIRC.....

That is not the standard issue weapon for officers in most police
departments unless they are on a SWAT team.

He is the SWAT sniper; he can make a child kidnapper's head explode
like a firecracker at 400 yards. :-)


Like I said, it is not a standard weapon that is not a weapon that is in
common use in police forces outside of SWAT teams.

BTW, if your friend is a sniper, he doesn't use a M16, and certainly not
at 400 yards.

Of course not. I want to say a .300 Winchester magnum, but I don't "talk
shop" with him generally.... I just recall the M16 mg....

"Arnold Walker" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Ron Purvis wrote:
. Regardless, the facts are that the firearm is a weapon
that can protect the citizen.

...by killing another citizen..
So when are you going to right this terrible wrong by disarming the
military and police.
To save England from this terrible uncivilized behavior.
Absolute gun ban for safety and well being of England.
Rah,etc.....
Yes, yes; when will this happen? The mullahs are very anxiously
awaiting your answer??????

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
geoff wrote:
In message , Ron Purvis
writes
It's about freedom, and giving it to all, including former slaves and
their now psychopathic fifth generation of freed children........

You are just as stupid as the other guys. There is no more excuse
for that
kind of bigotry than the the rabid anti-Americanism that is so
prevalent on
this forum.

a) it's not a forum, it's a newsgroup
b) it's not rabid, it's just the natural dislike of Septics

"over paid, over sexed and over here"

Nothing has changed ;-)

just had "American Nightmare" on BBC2 - looks like 2 million septics are
going to lose their homes over this sub prime fiasco

Jim, Ron - better get those fortifications sorted - they'll be over the
wall and raping your mum before you know it

Your country's ****ed ...

--
geoff

In message , Owain
writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
"over paid, over sexed and over here"

After comparing (purely in the interests of research, it's a hard life
and someone's got to do it, etc) American vs European adult DVDs, I
don't think much of Americans' ideas about sex.

Doesn't it mostly involve pigs and goats ?

--
geoff

In message , Preesi
writes
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:41:58 +0000, Owain wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
"over paid, over sexed and over here"

After comparing (purely in the interests of research, it's a hard life
and someone's got to do it, etc) American vs European adult DVDs, I
don't think much of Americans' ideas about sex.

Owain

Then you will have none of me, IckyPoo.

DYTIUTA ?

--
geoff

On 2007-10-29 19:47:13 +0000, geoff said:

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
geoff wrote:
In message , Ron Purvis
writes
It's about freedom, and giving it to all, including former slaves and
their now psychopathic fifth generation of freed children........

You are just as stupid as the other guys. There is no more excuse for that
kind of bigotry than the the rabid anti-Americanism that is so prevalent on
this forum.

a) it's not a forum, it's a newsgroup
b) it's not rabid, it's just the natural dislike of Septics

"over paid, over sexed and over here"

Nothing has changed ;-)

just had "American Nightmare" on BBC2 - looks like 2 million septics
are going to lose their homes over this sub prime fiasco

Jim, Ron - better get those fortifications sorted - they'll be over the
wall and raping your mum before you know it

Shouldn't be a problem - they probably live in trailers.....

"Owain" wrote in message
...
geoff wrote:
After comparing (purely in the interests of research, it's a hard life
and someone's got to do it, etc) American vs European adult DVDs, I
don't think much of Americans' ideas about sex.
Doesn't it mostly involve pigs and goats ?

It's mostly grunts of "oh yeah baby you like that doncha" when it's fairly
obvious that they don't like that and are only doing it to pay their way
through college - all reminiscent of a cheap production of "Roseanne"
without a wardrobe budget.

Owain

Owain, you really do lead an exciting life :-)

Mary

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
geoff wrote:
In message , Ron Purvis
writes
It's about freedom, and giving it to all, including former slaves
and
their now psychopathic fifth generation of freed children........

You are just as stupid as the other guys. There is no more excuse for
that
kind of bigotry than the the rabid anti-Americanism that is so
prevalent on
this forum.

a) it's not a forum, it's a newsgroup
b) it's not rabid, it's just the natural dislike of Septics

"over paid, over sexed and over here"

Nothing has changed ;-)

just had "American Nightmare" on BBC2 - looks like 2 million septics are
going to lose their homes over this sub prime fiasco

Jim, Ron - better get those fortifications sorted - they'll be over the
wall and raping your mum before you know it

Your country's ****ed ...

You better hope not; we're the only thing keeping Abdul and his buddies
from ****ing yours.


--
geoff

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-29 19:47:13 +0000, geoff said:

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
geoff wrote:
In message , Ron Purvis
writes
It's about freedom, and giving it to all, including former slaves
and
their now psychopathic fifth generation of freed children........

You are just as stupid as the other guys. There is no more excuse for
that
kind of bigotry than the the rabid anti-Americanism that is so
prevalent on
this forum.

a) it's not a forum, it's a newsgroup
b) it's not rabid, it's just the natural dislike of Septics

"over paid, over sexed and over here"

Nothing has changed ;-)

just had "American Nightmare" on BBC2 - looks like 2 million septics are
going to lose their homes over this sub prime fiasco

Jim, Ron - better get those fortifications sorted - they'll be over the
wall and raping your mum before you know it

Shouldn't be a problem - they probably live in trailers.....

Uh, no. I live in a quarter million dollar home in the country with 3
acres. And 250k buys a =lot= of house in the country....

On 2007-10-30 14:45:11 +0000, "Jim" said:

Uh, no. I live in a quarter million dollar home in the country with 3
acres. And 250k buys a =lot= of house in the country....

Here it would buy a trailer in many parts of the country.

"Jim" wrote in message
t...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-29 19:47:13 +0000, geoff said:

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
geoff wrote:
In message , Ron Purvis
writes
It's about freedom, and giving it to all, including former slaves
and
their now psychopathic fifth generation of freed children........

You are just as stupid as the other guys. There is no more excuse for
that
kind of bigotry than the the rabid anti-Americanism that is so
prevalent on
this forum.

a) it's not a forum, it's a newsgroup
b) it's not rabid, it's just the natural dislike of Septics

"over paid, over sexed and over here"

Nothing has changed ;-)

just had "American Nightmare" on BBC2 - looks like 2 million septics are
going to lose their homes over this sub prime fiasco

Jim, Ron - better get those fortifications sorted - they'll be over the
wall and raping your mum before you know it

Shouldn't be a problem - they probably live in trailers.....

Uh, no. I live in a quarter million dollar home in the country with 3
acres. And 250k buys a =lot= of house in the country....
PS- I paid cash.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-30 14:45:11 +0000, "Jim" said:

Uh, no. I live in a quarter million dollar home in the country with 3
acres. And 250k buys a =lot= of house in the country....

Here it would buy a trailer in many parts of the country.

Yes, I have lived in places like that. :-) Ridiculous isn't it? You are
in Britian, IIRC?

In message , Jim
writes

just had "American Nightmare" on BBC2 - looks like 2 million septics are
going to lose their homes over this sub prime fiasco

Jim, Ron - better get those fortifications sorted - they'll be over the
wall and raping your mum before you know it

Shouldn't be a problem - they probably live in trailers.....

Uh, no. I live in a quarter million dollar home in the country with 3
acres. And 250k buys a =lot= of house in the country....
PS- I paid cash.

Your point being ?

--
geoff

In message , Jim
writes

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-29 19:47:13 +0000, geoff said:

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
geoff wrote:
In message , Ron Purvis
writes
It's about freedom, and giving it to all, including former slaves
and
their now psychopathic fifth generation of freed children........

You are just as stupid as the other guys. There is no more excuse for
that
kind of bigotry than the the rabid anti-Americanism that is so
prevalent on
this forum.

a) it's not a forum, it's a newsgroup
b) it's not rabid, it's just the natural dislike of Septics

"over paid, over sexed and over here"

Nothing has changed ;-)

just had "American Nightmare" on BBC2 - looks like 2 million septics are
going to lose their homes over this sub prime fiasco

Jim, Ron - better get those fortifications sorted - they'll be over the
wall and raping your mum before you know it

Shouldn't be a problem - they probably live in trailers.....

Uh, no. I live in a quarter million dollar home in the country with 3
acres. And 250k buys a =lot= of house in the country....

.... should provide plenty of accommodation for the dispossessed when
they steal your house at gunpoint then


--
geoff

Even today the laws are used to make sure that the poor underclass (read
intercity minorities) as easy targets for criminals.
The innercity minorities =are= the criminals. Don't you watch the news?
Why do you think we have 'white flight'? Because the laws do NOT prevent
them from having guns...... duh.

Better read the laws once again. NYC, DC, LA, and almost many major city in
the US has laws to make owing a firearm very difficult, if not impossible.
Any yet these cities are the ones with the highest crime rates. For some
reason it seems that criminals don't follow these laws. Strange huh?

Nope he's correct here. Not only do they have very minimal firearms
training they are given firearms that do not have enough stopping
power and
therefore are trained the fire multiple shots at each target. Note
the fact
that 4 LEOs fired a total of 41 rounds at an unarmed man in NYC.

Interesting point. The armed police here have some seriously heavy
duty guns.

You think so ?

What do you class as "seriously heavy duty guns" ?

My friend the cop here in the USA has a fully automatic M-16
IIRC.....

That is not the standard issue weapon for officers in most police
departments unless they are on a SWAT team.

He is the SWAT sniper; he can make a child kidnapper's head explode
like a firecracker at 400 yards. :-)

Not to be flippant but big honk! With a little training many, most?, people
can hit a head sized target at 400 yds. with a modern rifle. There are a
lot of people out there who hit prairie dogs at that range.

What do you class as "seriously heavy duty guns" ?

My friend the cop here in the USA has a fully automatic M-16
IIRC.....

That is not the standard issue weapon for officers in most police
departments unless they are on a SWAT team.

He is the SWAT sniper; he can make a child kidnapper's head explode
like a firecracker at 400 yards. :-)


Like I said, it is not a standard weapon that is not a weapon that is in
common use in police forces outside of SWAT teams.

BTW, if your friend is a sniper, he doesn't use a M16, and certainly not
at 400 yards.

Of course not. I want to say a .300 Winchester magnum, but I don't
"talk shop" with him generally.... I just recall the M16 mg....

Try 308 Win (7.62 NATO). No PD in the US would use anything with "magnum"
in the name any more. Its lawyer bait at a trial.

Give everyone a break, its threaded as OT. If you don't want to read it
just skip it.


Its OK - I'll just call your sister a prostitute until you desist

Go ahead, I'm old enough that actions of children don't bother me.

If I'm in a good mood I might even come up with a imaginative insult or two.

If I could
find him I'm sure the guy might disagree with you as well.

Probably best if you don't find him.

If I could found him back then I can tell you I would not have used a
firearm on him. A baseball bat, a razor, a pair of pliers maybe but not a
firearm. I used to be a rather mean and nasty type and in this case I would
want something that would make the work up close and personal as well as
making sure he could never harm another human for as long as he lived.

I have mellowed as well as grown closer to Christ since then.

Do you have a wife or sister or niece? Just how would she protect
herself
from a possible rapist or mugger? Years ago my sister had started
working
as a nurse and was working different shifts in an ER in a hospital in a
not
so good area. One night she was approached by a large man who
suggested
that she provide him with some physical recreation. Even after
explaining
to him that she appreciated to offer of physical recreation she would
have
to decline the offer. He retorted that he was going to do rather bad
things
to her if continued to decline his offer. At which point she reached
into
her purse and used a small handgun to emphasize just how strongly she
was
declining his offer. It seems he felt that there was somewhere else he
need
to be and he needed to be there in quite a hurry.

Because of the laws she did not shoot the SOB so some other poor
unarmed
woman probably became the object of his physical recreation. I'm sorry
of
that but I'm glad that she was so unsafe to carry a firearm.

The issue that you describe resulted from inadequate security in the
hospital.
It has nothing to do with firearms.

At no point in the narrative does he state that this event occurred
within the hospital building.

Quite right, it doesn't, and I was referring to the organisation, not the
building. If the hospital expects vulnerable employees to work hours and
in places where they may be at risk, there is a duty of care on the
hospital's part to make sure that that risk is minimised. It should not
involve a nurse feeling a need to equip herself like Bonnie Parker.

Let's see. . .what could the hospital done. Well lite parking lot? Had
that. Security on premises? Had that. Fenced in employee parking? Yep.

All of that and yet some criminal still was there. Now my sister isn't that
big of a girl but even w/o the handgun she probably would have changed the
guys mind but the odds are she'd be injured. With a handgun she wasn't.
Again I have to wonder if there was some poor unarmed woman who WAS raped
because she thought others would protect her.


And yes, it has everything to do with
firearms; she's alive, isn't she???
What a complete F^ck!ng idiot.......

For tolerating a situation where there is a need to carry around a lethal
weapon as part of everyday life because an employer doesn't make proper
security arrangements, absolutely.

Must be nice to have be a nurse there with a full time body guard following
you around. That would be about the only way to make sure that a person was
never a victim of a violent crime.

For tolerating a situation where there is a need to carry around a
lethal
weapon as part of everyday life because an employer doesn't make proper
security arrangements, absolutely.

I was referring to you as the idiot.
Why is it always =someone= else's duty to ensure =your= safety?
plonk

That is why you pay taxes. Notice, apart from the odd plantpot, all the
people from the UK on this thread are firmly against guns and the police
being armed. While the Americans are the opposite. Why? Because our
society doesn't need them for us to walk around safely. If your society
entails that you need a gun to safely go to the shops for some milk, then
start looking at your society and aim to change it at the root level. Aim
for the best.

Again pointing out the different mind sets. In the UK you want someone to
take care of and protect you. In the US we want to be able to take care of
and protect ourselves.

In the UK mind set you have to have a nearly all powerful government. One
that watches you like big brother and has to power to tell you what you need
and don't need. If you like that fine but don't be so pig headed to realize
that some people don't want to live that way.

Some people like living in cities where people are pack together like rats
in a cage. Others like living out in the boonies where their nearest
neighbor is miles away. Still others like the in-between. Each life style
has advantages and disadvantages but is one than the other? IMO, no. Some
people think so and will go on and on about why their way is better and how
the other way stinks.

As for me, I'm an independent type. I live out in the boonies (not as far
as before but still well out of suburbia), hunt, fish, raise a lot of my own
food and don't depend on nor want the government to protect me. Mainly
because when other people start protecting you they start telling you how to
live.

If you don't like living that way, fine. But don't go telling me how much
better you way of life is. For every 'bad' point you bring up I have a
'good' point.

The US culture may be different than what you like,
but only an idiot would say that we have almost no culture.

Please enlighten us what your contribution to culture has been over
ther last 1000 years or so when my forefathers landed on these
islands. ...

You are confusing culture with history. You culture is much different today
than it was 1000, 500, 100 or even 50 years ago. Look around you. How many
farmers do you see today? 500 years ago almost every one around you would
have been linked to the local farm in some way or another. And your culture
activities would have shown it. How much heavy industry? 100 years ago
that is what formed the culture.


Our art is
different but it is no less excellent

"No less excellent" That's a phrase to conjur with.

IMO, 'modern art' is crap. The new digital stuff has promise though.

It could be if you have allowed there to be a gun culture in the first
place. Undoubtedly if low yield tactical nuclear weapons were allowed
to the average man in the street, you would be making a case for those as
well.

I feel the need to point out to you that while nuke weapons are illegal in
the US it is legal to own cannons.

I don't think you hear much about cannon crime do you?


The question really becomes one of whether the average person carries a
gun (or for that matter any other weapon) as part of their daily life
because of a perceived need to defend themselves against criminals, or
whether criminals are carrying such items in order to be able to ply their
trade when their victims are equipped to that level.

Criminals are, for the most part, cowards. They want victims that are not
able and not willing to fight back. In areas where the people have shown
that they are neither the crime rate is rather low. You will note that in
areas where the opposite is true crime is very high. This is true if the
way the people are fighting back is by demanding that there be a cop on
every street corner and a CCT camera on every light pole or if it is by
using physical means to protect themselves. If you want to be safe and live
in a nearly crime free environment all you have to do is take most
individual freedom from people and give the police great powers. Once a
criminal knows that his criminal actions are going to cause him pain he
will, usually, stop.

The major problem with this is the fact that once you start down that road
its dang hard to slow down the government's control. Once you are safe from
the criminals the government suddenly discovers that you are a threat to
youself and therefore it must protect you from yourself. Then you get it
telling you what medical care you should have, what saftey equipment you
should wear, what activites you are forbiden to do. At some point you will
find that it may start telling you what job you should have and where you
may live.

I have seen it in my life time. If you had told me a few years ago that I
would be forced to have my kid wear a helmet when he rode his bike I'd
thought you were nuts. If you had told me that the government would be able
to tell me what kind of toilet I could put in my water closet (do you still
use that term?) or shower head in my shower I would have suggested you stop
reading all those 'who really shot JFK' books. More and more the government
is 'protecting' us from ourselves. I ask; At what cost to us?

In message , Jim
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
geoff wrote:
In message , Ron Purvis
writes
It's about freedom, and giving it to all, including former slaves
and
their now psychopathic fifth generation of freed children........

You are just as stupid as the other guys. There is no more excuse for
that
kind of bigotry than the the rabid anti-Americanism that is so
prevalent on
this forum.

a) it's not a forum, it's a newsgroup
b) it's not rabid, it's just the natural dislike of Septics

"over paid, over sexed and over here"

Nothing has changed ;-)

just had "American Nightmare" on BBC2 - looks like 2 million septics are
going to lose their homes over this sub prime fiasco

Jim, Ron - better get those fortifications sorted - they'll be over the
wall and raping your mum before you know it

Your country's ****ed ...

You better hope not; we're the only thing keeping Abdul and his buddies
from ****ing yours.

Well, I happen to be married to a moslem, I'm OK

I can come and laugh when they come and bumrape you

--
geoff

You didn't "give" them. We bought them. OK, you loaned us the money, but
you got
it paid back. There was very little charity involved.

I also failed to bring up the fact it was illegal for us to 'lease' or
sell them to you,

Under what law?

The Laws of Land Warfare. The same laws that were in the trials at
Nuremberg.

Perhaps we shouldn't have given all those guns and bombs to
Britain when Churchill requested them.....

You didn't. You sold them to us on credit at a crippling rate of
interest.


Be glad of it too, orer du bist eine Deutschlander......
The Americans saved Europe's ass and they want to bitch about
it.....


Actually, they didn't. As far as Herr Hitler was concerned the Russians
won the European war. the only reason Churchill wanted you involved, was
to stop the REST of Europe becoming RUSSIAN. As it was they got nearly
half of it.

You might want to read a little more history.
At one point before the US tossed the Laws of Land Warfare in the trash
and started pumping supplies into it, the UK was down to, IIRC, about 6
months worth of food.

Nope. The UK had imported US wheat and other food before WW2. The US
thinking of stopping the supply. The UK could have grown its own food,
which it started to do. US wheat was convenient as the system was geared
up for it.

The biggest thing that saved the UK

Saved the UK. Here we go......another one....

was the fact that Hitler had gone totally nuts by the time the "Battle
for Britain" started.

...I told you all...

He could have crippled the RAF in a few weeks

He tried and lost it was called the Battle of Britain.

Lost only because he had gone nuts and failed to follow sound tactics. His
switching from bombing military bases to bombing London just because he was
upset.

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Jim
writes

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-29 19:47:13 +0000, geoff said:

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
geoff wrote:
In message , Ron Purvis
writes
It's about freedom, and giving it to all, including former
slaves
and
their now psychopathic fifth generation of freed children........

You are just as stupid as the other guys. There is no more excuse
for
that
kind of bigotry than the the rabid anti-Americanism that is so
prevalent on
this forum.

a) it's not a forum, it's a newsgroup
b) it's not rabid, it's just the natural dislike of Septics

"over paid, over sexed and over here"

Nothing has changed ;-)

just had "American Nightmare" on BBC2 - looks like 2 million septics
are
going to lose their homes over this sub prime fiasco

Jim, Ron - better get those fortifications sorted - they'll be over the
wall and raping your mum before you know it

Shouldn't be a problem - they probably live in trailers.....

Uh, no. I live in a quarter million dollar home in the country with 3
acres. And 250k buys a =lot= of house in the country....

... should provide plenty of accommodation for the dispossessed when they
steal your house at gunpoint then

What are the dispossessed? People who have been through an exorcism? Do
you in fact have functioning neurons?

--
geoff

"no spam" wrote in message
. net...


Even today the laws are used to make sure that the poor underclass (read
intercity minorities) as easy targets for criminals.
The innercity minorities =are= the criminals. Don't you watch the
news? Why do you think we have 'white flight'? Because the laws do NOT
prevent them from having guns...... duh.

Better read the laws once again. NYC, DC, LA, and almost many major city
in the US has laws to make owing a firearm very difficult, if not
impossible. Any yet these cities are the ones with the highest crime
rates. For some reason it seems that criminals don't follow these laws.
Strange huh?
Many years ago I used to live in a chocolate city; and I discovered in
the process of attempting to protect myself that it was illegal to openly
carry a pistol in a holster on your hip. It was "Carrying a concealed
weapon". Utter lunacy. Add to this the fact that 40% of the population over
18 carried a concealed weapon, i.e., one that was NOT in a holster in plain
sight.
Fortunately, I live in a civilized place now....

"no spam" wrote in message
et...

What do you class as "seriously heavy duty guns" ?

My friend the cop here in the USA has a fully automatic M-16
IIRC.....

That is not the standard issue weapon for officers in most police
departments unless they are on a SWAT team.

He is the SWAT sniper; he can make a child kidnapper's head explode
like a firecracker at 400 yards. :-)


Like I said, it is not a standard weapon that is not a weapon that is in
common use in police forces outside of SWAT teams.

BTW, if your friend is a sniper, he doesn't use a M16, and certainly not
at 400 yards.

Of course not. I want to say a .300 Winchester magnum, but I don't
"talk shop" with him generally.... I just recall the M16 mg....

Try 308 Win (7.62 NATO). No PD in the US would use anything with "magnum"
in the name any more. Its lawyer bait at a trial.
Lawyers don't need bait.....

"no spam" wrote in message
. net...

Nope he's correct here. Not only do they have very minimal
firearms
training they are given firearms that do not have enough stopping
power and
therefore are trained the fire multiple shots at each target. Note
the fact
that 4 LEOs fired a total of 41 rounds at an unarmed man in NYC.

Interesting point. The armed police here have some seriously heavy
duty guns.

You think so ?

What do you class as "seriously heavy duty guns" ?

My friend the cop here in the USA has a fully automatic M-16
IIRC.....

That is not the standard issue weapon for officers in most police
departments unless they are on a SWAT team.

He is the SWAT sniper; he can make a child kidnapper's head explode
like a firecracker at 400 yards. :-)

Not to be flippant but big honk! With a little training many, most?,
people can hit a head sized target at 400 yds. with a modern rifle. There
are a lot of people out there who hit prairie dogs at that range.

May not impress you, but it impresses me. He has to do this the first
time, absolutely with no room for error. Think what happens to the hostage
if the brain is not destroyed instantly..... Not good.

"no spam" wrote in message
news
Give everyone a break, its threaded as OT. If you don't want to read it
just skip it.


Its OK - I'll just call your sister a prostitute until you desist

Go ahead, I'm old enough that actions of children don't bother me.

If I'm in a good mood I might even come up with a imaginative insult or
two.
"Your mom goes to college!" - Kip Dynamite -

"no spam" wrote
For tolerating a situation where there is a need to carry around a lethal
weapon as part of everyday life because an employer doesn't make proper
security arrangements, absolutely.

Must be nice to have be a nurse there with a full time body guard
following you around. That would be about the only way to make sure that
a person was never a victim of a violent crime.

These people think we all should be like Madonna; eight hulking dudes
with .45's around at all times....
Other people with guns makes me nervous.....

"no spam" wrote in message
news

If I could
find him I'm sure the guy might disagree with you as well.

Probably best if you don't find him.

If I could found him back then I can tell you I would not have used a
firearm on him. A baseball bat, a razor, a pair of pliers maybe but not a
firearm. I used to be a rather mean and nasty type and in this case I
would want something that would make the work up close and personal as
well as making sure he could never harm another human for as long as he
lived.

I have mellowed as well as grown closer to Christ since then.
Amen! I tell people who want to get nasty with me that I wasn't born
with that Bible in my hand! LOL!!! I still remember how to do things I wish
I didn't....

"no spam" wrote
I have seen it in my life time. If you had told me a few years ago that I
would be forced to have my kid wear a helmet when he rode his bike I'd
thought you were nuts.

It's a hefty fine against =you= if the kid takes the helmet off once he
leaves the block. Oh yeah, that makes sense.....

If you had told me that the government would be able
to tell me what kind of toilet

Six liters don't always do da trick, huh? Me neither.... They tell you
to eat a high fiber diet, but what about the consequences? LOL!!!


I could put in my water closet (do you still
use that term?) or shower head in my shower I would have suggested you
stop reading all those 'who really shot JFK' books. More and more the
government is 'protecting' us from ourselves. I ask; At what cost to us?
Nanny state, here we come.....

"no spam" wrote
If you don't like living that way, fine. But don't go telling me how much
better you way of life is. For every 'bad' point you bring up I have a
'good' point.
I can come up with two! LOL!!!