In article ,
"Solar Flare" wrote:

The criminals will always have guns, 'cause they are cowards, but not
so many people get shot in a crime. The criminals feel they don't have
to use them and the victims aren't shooting their children and all the
bystanders in an attempt to defend themselves too late.

Solar FART, when was the last time you heard of a VICTIM, Shooting
their children and innocent Bystanders..... and even IF you find
ONE example, compare that with the hundreds of examples of Victims,
shooting, or causing Perpitraters, to depart by the use of a weapon.

Kennedy wanted the tax cuts to be temporary, and he didn't cut them to
the level that would bring about a huge debt. Comparing
Kennedy to Bush is a joke.

True, Kennedy put troops into combat in a country where we had no clear
strategic interest, only a political interest.
Which one Vietnan or Cuba....comes to mind.

We had a strategic interest in Cuba (still do) but it is a good example of
what I call the democratic war strategy which started with Truman. You
don't fight to win. You fight only until the other side agrees to stop then
you return to the status quo or you claim victory and run leaving someone
else to pay the price of your failure. Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and many
'brush wars' in Africa are other examples.

Amazing that you can't see what is right in your own backyard.

yes I can - I have a fish pond

I'm married to a moslem, does it look like I've been "islamified"?

I don't think so

At least I have a more balanced view than the jaundiced homophobic one
that you obviously seem to have

I think what we are seeing today is the Islamic version of the Spanish
Inquisition and the Crusades rolled into one. You have a group of people
who think they have the only correct version of the religion and are willing
to use force to make sure everyone else in the world follows that version.
If you are not willing to follow that version then they have to kill you.
Of course it was a reach to twist the Bible to where it says that but it
doesn't take much to make the Koran to say that.

Given the need for insults ....he won the debate.
But then ,how many liberals actually do something that is supportable in a
debate.
Little wonder they dive into insults and emotional/financial extortism to
cover that which they can't support.
And have little comfort with anyone having freedom of speech ,when it is
in
disagreement with them .



You're free to say what you like

as am I

I just enjoy insulting you

Its been my experience that liberals can't support their arguments with
facts and must resort to insults. The gun control topic is a good example.
The pro gunners can point out many cases where there are many guns and low
crime to which the anti gunners just toss insults.

Guns are population control promoted by your government.

If guns are so great what is the problem with registering them?

The thing Americans used to fear the most was is the American government (a
lot of us still do) and history has shown the world that registration of
firearms is nothing more than a precursor to government control. And in the
case of firearms a precursor to confiscation. Germany, England and Canada
are prime recent examples.

Look mate, if you honestly feel there is a threat where virtually no
threat exists, you're simply paranoid.
According to the CDC you are at far greater risk of being killed by eating
at McDonalds.

The only thing is there are threats out there. Do or would you let your
small child wonder around a major shopping center? Or are you too paranoid?
There is very little threat but there is enough threat that most people
won't do it.

In most cases there is not enough threat to feel the need to carry a weapon
but there is always a threat out there. Example, if you ride the train to
and from work every day the odds are you'll never face a life threatening
situation. But there is always that chance the car on your train is the one
that some mentally ill person decides that the voices in his head is coming
from and if he kills every one in that car with a machete. Even if you are
in that car the odds are that you will not be one of the first people
attacked, meaning you will have a chance to run. For most people these odds
are enough, for others they like having even more odds on their side and
they carry a weapon. That weapon may be in the form of themselves via
martial arts training, pepper spray, a stun gun or a firearm.

I don't know a person who has needed to use any concealed weapon to protect
themselves. But I know many who carry them.

As I have said before just having a weapon saved my sister from being, at
the least, raped. I don't consider the weapon being used because no shots
were fired.

sounds like there was a mental **** on each side of the door, just that
one was more sober than the other
The bottom line is that with gun control .....the homeowener would be
dead.

How do you work that out ?

neither would have had ready access to a firearm

Check the number of home invasions and strong arm robberies in the UK since
the gun ban went effect. Firearms tend to level the field a lot more than
they sway it toward the criminals.

But then if guns hadn't been freely available to either of you the
incident wouldn't have happened. He obviously wasn't a crim, like you, he
was a mental defective in legal possession of a firearm

sounds like there was a mental **** on each side of the door, just that
one was more sober than the other

How about this story. My sister was leaving the ER after work. She was
approached by a gentleman who made it clear to her that his plan was to rape
her. Even though he didn't have a firearm he was much larger and stronger
then her (or should that be she?). The only thing that prevented this rape
was the fact that she had a pistol in her purse. Once he saw this he left
her alone.

If "guns hadn't been freely available to either of" them the story would
have been much different.

no one wrote:
Look mate, if you honestly feel there is a threat where virtually no
threat exists, you're simply paranoid.
According to the CDC you are at far greater risk of being killed by
eating at McDonalds.

The only thing is there are threats out there.

There are more signifigant threats out there than being shot
Do or would you let your small child wonder around a major shopping
center? Or are you too paranoid? There is very little threat but
there is enough threat that most people won't do it.

No, because common sense tells us kids need supervision for any number
of reasons

In most cases there is not enough threat to feel the need to carry a
weapon but there is always a threat out there.

Yeah sure, birds **** on your car, it might rain etc...... But very few
require the need of a gun to prevent.
Example, if you ride the train to and from work every day the odds
are you'll never face a life threatening situation.

Glad you agree with that.

But there is always that chance the car on your train is the one that
some mentally ill person decides that the voices in his head is coming
from and if he kills every one in that car with a machete.

About as much chance of that happening as getting eaten by a mutant
Crocodile from the sewers.

Even if you are in that car the odds are that you will not be one of
the first people attacked, meaning you will have a chance to run. For
most people these odds are enough, for others they like having even
more odds on their side and they carry a weapon. That weapon may be
in the form of themselves via martial arts training, pepper spray, a
stun gun or a firearm.

If you think about threats like that that everyday you are paranoid


I don't know a person who has needed to use any concealed weapon to
protect themselves. But I know many who carry them.


Paranoid friends as well?


As I have said before just having a weapon saved my sister from being,
at the least, raped. I don't consider the weapon being

The odds are anything can happen anywhere, but for the average person to
feel the need to carry a gun everyday,
it is not a rational act.

In message , no one
writes
Given the need for insults ....he won the debate.
But then ,how many liberals actually do something that is supportable in a
debate.
Little wonder they dive into insults and emotional/financial extortism to
cover that which they can't support.
And have little comfort with anyone having freedom of speech ,when it
is in
disagreement with them .



You're free to say what you like

as am I

I just enjoy insulting you

Its been my experience that liberals can't support their arguments with
facts and must resort to insults.

I'm not a liberal, dickhead

--
geoff

In message , no one
writes
But then if guns hadn't been freely available to either of you the
incident wouldn't have happened. He obviously wasn't a crim, like you,
he was a mental defective in legal possession of a firearm

sounds like there was a mental **** on each side of the door, just
that one was more sober than the other

How about this story. My sister was leaving the ER after work. She
was approached by a gentleman who made it clear to her that his plan
was to rape her. Even though he didn't have a firearm he was much
larger and stronger then her (or should that be she?). The only thing
that prevented this rape was the fact that she had a pistol in her
purse. Once he saw this he left her alone.

The same story you roll out every time


If "guns hadn't been freely available to either of" them the story
would have been much different.

she could have struck lucky

--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Arnold Walker
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Neon John
writes
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:02:17 -0500, "NapalmHeart"
wrote:


Why is it that people that are anti-gun ownership are so smug? Oh
well,
at least some of them are likely one mugging away from changing their
mind.

I wasn't going to get into this but....

How 'bout an a story with a happy ending, one real close to home. For
me
at least.

But then if guns hadn't been freely available to either of you the
incident wouldn't have happened. He obviously wasn't a crim, like you,
he
was a mental defective in legal possession of a firearm

sounds like there was a mental **** on each side of the door, just that
one was more sober than the other
The bottom line is that with gun control .....the homeowener would be
dead.

How do you work that out ?

neither would have had ready access to a firearm
For folks with common sense you can look at the gun control areas like New
York .
The drug freak would have a gun anyway .....if for no reason other than he
stole it off a cop in a burglary.
Burglars tend to do that at times when they break in homes and businesses.
Video equipment isn't the only thing that they take.
He was doing just that in the example.
When confronted at the door....he has a garbage line to confuse the
homeowner while he sized up the house.
When he thought the detraction worked ,pulled his gun for a forced entry.
The homeowner would be more likely to be obeying the law ,than the drug
freak that had already broke at least three laws before he even pulled the
gun.
Of course liberals like yourself think they are above the law ... and won't
understand what I said.

In message , Arnold Walker
writes
The bottom line is that with gun control .....the homeowener would be
dead.

How do you work that out ?

neither would have had ready access to a firearm
For folks with common sense you can look at the gun control areas like New
York .

Sorry - not a clue what you're on about there, one septic's much the
same as another to me

The drug freak would have a gun anyway .....if for no reason other than he
stole it off a cop in a burglary.

No, you total retard

You don't seem to understand that the police in this country do not keep
weapons at home as a matter of course

and gun possession amongst druggies, although it exists, is hardly
universal

Burglars tend to do

You are very good at inventing generalisations to suit your argument


When he thought the detraction worked ,pulled his gun for a forced entry.


You seem unable to grasp what life is like in more civilised countries

The homeowner would be more likely to be obeying the law ,than the drug
freak that had already broke at least three laws before he even pulled the
gun.
Of course liberals like yourself think they are above the law ... and won't
understand what I said.

I don't think anyone understood what you said there

There has just been a program (the late edition) on the TV here - just
put the argument much better than I do - "if we killed all americans,
the world would be a safer place" - this from someone who lives in
america

I'll post a link if it comes up on Youtube


--
geoff

We don't hear of random people shooting people here because we have
gun control laws that prevent you from carrying one needlessly.

We don't live in paranoia.

"You" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Solar Flare" wrote:

The criminals will always have guns, 'cause they are cowards, but
not
so many people get shot in a crime. The criminals feel they don't
have
to use them and the victims aren't shooting their children and all
the
bystanders in an attempt to defend themselves too late.

Solar FART, when was the last time you heard of a VICTIM, Shooting
their children and innocent Bystanders..... and even IF you find
ONE example, compare that with the hundreds of examples of Victims,
shooting, or causing Perpitraters, to depart by the use of a weapon.

Canada has had gun control laws for many..many years. We have
introduced stronger laws due to the success of it.

Obviously you don't trust your same government that allows you to be
rednecks, running around with loaded weapons.

We choose freedom from government promoted hysteria. Some don't have
that freedom of choice.


"no one" wrote in message
news

Guns are population control promoted by your government.

If guns are so great what is the problem with registering them?

The thing Americans used to fear the most was is the American
government (a lot of us still do) and history has shown the world
that registration of firearms is nothing more than a precursor to
government control. And in the case of firearms a precursor to
confiscation. Germany, England and Canada are prime recent
examples.

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , no one
writes
Given the need for insults ....he won the debate.
But then ,how many liberals actually do something that is supportable in
a
debate.
Little wonder they dive into insults and emotional/financial extortism
to
cover that which they can't support.
And have little comfort with anyone having freedom of speech ,when it is
in
disagreement with them .



You're free to say what you like

as am I

I just enjoy insulting you

Its been my experience that liberals can't support their arguments with
facts and must resort to insults.

I'm not a liberal, dickhead
You are liberal inpersonator.....cute.

--
geoff

"Balanced View" wrote in message
...
Arnold Walker wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...

In message , NapalmHeart
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...

In message , NapalmHeart
writes

The point is that the "gun free zone" designation doesn't deter
those
who don't respect the rule of law. The only people who are
deterred
are those who might have made a difference in the outcome.

Ken

You can't reason with an ass like geoff.
That mall is not too far from me; too bad there weren't any real
men with real weapons there, just a boy with an AK knockoff.... One
of
my 230grain .45acp's would have taken his ass straight to hell
faster
than he did on his own......

It is rather funny that they would refer to us as "Ameristan" when
Europe is getting Islamified from the inside out. Their countries
and
culture will be taken from them and flushed before they can do a damn
thing about it.


An attitude which just goes to show just how clueless you are


--
geoff

Amazing that you can't see what is right in your own backyard.


yes I can - I have a fish pond

I'm married to a moslem, does it look like I've been "islamified"?

I don't think so

At least I have a more balanced view than the jaundiced homophobic one
that you obviously seem to have

Given the need for insults ....he won the debate.
But then ,how many liberals actually do something that is supportable in
a debate.


LOL, that's funny, what you claim is opposite to the truth. The Iraq war
is a good example, anytime anyone
asked " where are the WMD", or "how come we are no longer after Osama"
they were called traitors and
cowards?
Mainly because they are .........and make every effort to prove it more
everyday.
Little wonder they dive into insults and emotional/financial extortism to
cover that which they can't support.


The reverse is true
And have little comfort with anyone having freedom of speech ,when it is
in disagreement with them .


Only when it's been proven wrong and misguided by cites from reputable
sources.

no one wrote:
Amazing that you can't see what is right in your own backyard.

yes I can - I have a fish pond

I'm married to a moslem, does it look like I've been "islamified"?

I don't think so

At least I have a more balanced view than the jaundiced homophobic one
that you obviously seem to have

I think what we are seeing today is the Islamic version of the Spanish
Inquisition and the Crusades rolled into one. You have a group of
people who think they have the only correct version of the religion and
are willing to use force to make sure everyone else in the world follows
that version. If you are not willing to follow that version then they
have to kill you. Of course it was a reach to twist the Bible to where
it says that but it doesn't take much to make the Koran to say that.

Or Mein Kampf, or Karl Marx..

Or indeed the Republican party..

no one wrote:
Look mate, if you honestly feel there is a threat where virtually no
threat exists, you're simply paranoid.
According to the CDC you are at far greater risk of being killed by
eating at McDonalds.

The only thing is there are threats out there. Do or would you let your
small child wonder around a major shopping center?

Sure. If I had one.


Or are you too
paranoid? There is very little threat but there is enough threat that
most people won't do it.


I wouldn't let a very small child wander around my own home. Far more
chance of injury there.


In most cases there is not enough threat to feel the need to carry a
weapon but there is always a threat out there. Example, if you ride the
train to and from work every day the odds are you'll never face a life
threatening situation. But there is always that chance the car on your
train is the one that some mentally ill person decides that the voices
in his head is coming from and if he kills every one in that car with a
machete.

Sure. Talk to him first. Even totally deranged people are not usually
beyond communication. Why,its even possible to have a primitive sort opf
dialogue with GW Bush, apparently.

Even you are almost capable of some sort of conversation.

Even if you are in that car the odds are that you will not be
one of the first people attacked, meaning you will have a chance to
run. For most people these odds are enough, for others they like having
even more odds on their side and they carry a weapon. That weapon may
be in the form of themselves via martial arts training, pepper spray, a
stun gun or a firearm.


Or simply a judo hold. Disarming a knife wielding attacker was about te
only thing I learned in my first few and only judo classes..

I don't know a person who has needed to use any concealed weapon to
protect themselves. But I know many who carry them.

As I have said before just having a weapon saved my sister from being,
at the least, raped. I don't consider the weapon being used because no
shots were fired.

May other things could have saved her from being raped. A steel chastity
belt, for one fairly ridiculous example. Lessons in self defence, a
sharp wit.

Why a GUN? because you LIKE GUNS. You LIKE the feeling of POWER and SECURITY

But why do you feel powerless and insecure without a gun?

Because you are a septic! And its drummed into you from the day that you
are born, by the BRA and the gun manufacturers, that having a gun is
cool, sexy, nacho, and makes you safe.

Whereas in reality it just increases the likelihood that you will get
shot. As the statistics show.

Arnold Walker wrote:
"Balanced View" wrote in message



LOL, that's funny, what you claim is opposite to the truth. The Iraq war
is a good example, anytime anyone
asked " where are the WMD", or "how come we are no longer after Osama"
they were called traitors and
cowards?

Mainly because they are .........and make every effort to prove it more
everyday.


So anyone who kisses the Government's ass without question is not a
coward? Based on that guideline the USA
would still be part of Britain.

Arnold Walker wrote:
That is the reason we should ban them from all sources.
Since it would be more brave for a military or police person to talk thier
way out of every problem.
Imagine how brave a soldier would be to rush a machine gun or rpg site with
a wooden toothpick.




Now you are being totally ridiculous. To compare a combat situation with
everyday living is proof of your
paranoia and xenophobia.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
no one wrote:
Amazing that you can't see what is right in your own backyard.

yes I can - I have a fish pond

I'm married to a moslem, does it look like I've been "islamified"?

I don't think so

At least I have a more balanced view than the jaundiced homophobic one
that you obviously seem to have

I think what we are seeing today is the Islamic version of the Spanish
Inquisition and the Crusades rolled into one. You have a group of people
who think they have the only correct version of the religion and are
willing to use force to make sure everyone else in the world follows that
version. If you are not willing to follow that version then they have to
kill you. Of course it was a reach to twist the Bible to where it says
that but it doesn't take much to make the Koran to say that.

Or Mein Kampf
You hit pretty close to the story about the great leader of islam.
Like Hitler he started out pretty much a jewish kid about 1200 years ago.
And had medical problem with siezures which he believed were visions from
god.
With these siezures he saw a new religion.
He was still basically dorimaent jewish husband.
But with these new visions he wrote the initial sections of the Koran.
Jewish scribes of the time,noted that the Koran as written "stole" enorgh of
the jewish
writings to be considered a new section or division of Judism.
And that he was not a complete different religion.
Shortky after that he took a second wife(a 4 year old girl) and wrote a
firestorm of islamic scripture.
That was with it's dealings with infidels ,multi marriage, and other
oddities separating itself from judism.
Could with very little effort be read as the Mien Kampt of islam,especially
if you looked at his second book that was studied with the Koran..

"Balanced View" wrote in message
...
Arnold Walker wrote:
That is the reason we should ban them from all sources.
Since it would be more brave for a military or police person to talk
thier way out of every problem.
Imagine how brave a soldier would be to rush a machine gun or rpg site
with a wooden toothpick.




Now you are being totally ridiculous. To compare a combat situation with
everyday living is proof of your
paranoia and xenophobia.
No ,illustration of the insanity of some gun control logic.
Almost as insane as UK citizen talking about gun/weapon control with the
abuses
of gun control that have sparked multi rebellions over thier history.Can the
EU name a king/queen
era that didn't have trouble with abuse of power ......which is what gun
control boils down to .
If the leaders abuses power.... you don't want the citizens to have much
more than bare hands to
oppose your abuse. We had state churches,others like socialist who banned
religion , we had church whore houses ,
we had merchant sin offsets,we had in recent times if anything worse with
Hilter ,the czars,and Stalin.
And we are talking about the ciivlized Europeans ....not them barbaric
Americans.
The US was a brit colony at one time...
Let's see how many of those old colonies are better off than the barbaric
American's.
South Africa, Nigeria, etc.......Pakistan,India isn't all that bad,parts of
south east asia,etc.
Maybe some of them need to get american barbarism instead of what they got
for political ideas.

Arnold Walker wrote:
"Balanced View" wrote in message
...

Arnold Walker wrote:

That is the reason we should ban them from all sources.
Since it would be more brave for a military or police person to talk
thier way out of every problem.
Imagine how brave a soldier would be to rush a machine gun or rpg site
with a wooden toothpick.




Now you are being totally ridiculous. To compare a combat situation with
everyday living is proof of your
paranoia and xenophobia.

No ,illustration of the insanity of some gun control logic.
Almost as insane as UK citizen talking about gun/weapon control with the
abuses
of gun control that have sparked multi rebellions over thier history.Can the
EU name a king/queen
era that didn't have trouble with abuse of power ......which is what gun
control boils down to .
If the leaders abuses power.... you don't want the citizens to have much
more than bare hands to
oppose your abuse. We had state churches,others like socialist who banned
religion , we had church whore houses ,
we had merchant sin offsets,we had in recent times if anything worse with
Hilter ,the czars,and Stalin.
And we are talking about the ciivlized Europeans ....not them barbaric
Americans.
The US was a brit colony at one time...
Let's see how many of those old colonies are better off than the barbaric
American's.
South Africa, Nigeria, etc.......Pakistan,India isn't all that bad,parts of
south east asia,etc.
Maybe some of them need to get american barbarism instead of what they got
for political ideas.





Australia and Canada come to mind, both have far lower incidents of gun
homicide and both have tough gun laws.
Strangely enough both also have extensive social programs and have had
budget surpluses for the last ten years.

In message , Arnold Walker
writes
At least I have a more balanced view than the jaundiced homophobic one
that you obviously seem to have

Given the need for insults ....he won the debate.
But then ,how many liberals actually do something that is supportable in
a debate.


LOL, that's funny, what you claim is opposite to the truth. The Iraq war
is a good example, anytime anyone
asked " where are the WMD", or "how come we are no longer after Osama"
they were called traitors and
cowards?
Mainly because they are .........and make every effort to prove it more
everyday.

****, are you stupid

--
geoff

In message , Arnold Walker
writes

"Balanced View" wrote in message
...
Arnold Walker wrote:
That is the reason we should ban them from all sources.
Since it would be more brave for a military or police person to talk
thier way out of every problem.
Imagine how brave a soldier would be to rush a machine gun or rpg site
with a wooden toothpick.




Now you are being totally ridiculous. To compare a combat situation with
everyday living is proof of your
paranoia and xenophobia.
No ,illustration of the insanity of some gun control logic.

You're a drug addict

It's only that your addiction is to firearms and you use any lame
argument to try and justify your habit


--
geoff

Arnold Walker wrote:
"Balanced View" wrote in message
...
Arnold Walker wrote:
That is the reason we should ban them from all sources.
Since it would be more brave for a military or police person to talk
thier way out of every problem.
Imagine how brave a soldier would be to rush a machine gun or rpg site
with a wooden toothpick.



Now you are being totally ridiculous. To compare a combat situation with
everyday living is proof of your
paranoia and xenophobia.
No ,illustration of the insanity of some gun control logic.
Almost as insane as UK citizen talking about gun/weapon control with the
abuses
of gun control that have sparked multi rebellions over thier history.Can the
EU name a king/queen
era that didn't have trouble with abuse of power ......which is what gun
control boils down to .

No. it doesn't.

Do you really think I am gong to go up against the army, with challenger
tamks. teargas, stun grenades infra red surveillance and the rest with a
handgun?

You utter stupid prat.

Who controls the army, controls the nation.

Military coup., is the phrase.

Never a 'civilian coup' is it?

For all the wepaons the US kindly supplied the IRA, they were not able
to take over N. Ireland. Merely make everyone bitter and sick enough
finally after 30 years of indecisive bloodshed to actually sit down and
talk about it.

Look at Iraq. Blew the country to bits, but what happens? you cant hold
the ground.

The net result will be to turn a sectarian dictatorship into civil war
between two opposing theocracies.



If the leaders abuses power.... you don't want the citizens to have much
more than bare hands to
oppose your abuse. We had state churches,others like socialist who banned
religion , we had church whore houses ,
we had merchant sin offsets,we had in recent times if anything worse with
Hilter ,the czars,and Stalin.
And we are talking about the ciivlized Europeans ....not them barbaric
Americans.
The US was a brit colony at one time...

should have stayed that way too.

Let's see how many of those old colonies are better off than the barbaric
American's.
South Africa, Nigeria, etc.......Pakistan,India isn't all that bad,parts of
south east asia,etc.
Maybe some of them need to get american barbarism instead of what they got
for political ideas.


Australia, canada, new zealand. All better places than the USA.

And for the same reasons really,.The indigenous population was
essentially sidelined or ethnically cleansed.

Its where you leave the population in place that you end up having to
move out again.

But you fail to see the point of Empire. It was a commercial
arrangemnent. We didn't take over counrries unless we had to, and we
only had to if they had something we wanted, and when we didn't want it
that much any more, we left again.

We didn't pretend we were spreading 'freedom, democracy, and the rule of
law' we were there to trade, and make a profit, and if that profit
supported an army to keep the trade going, well fine. If not, time to
shut shop chaps and go home.

America, Canad, australia and new zealand, were largely settled by
Europeans who wanted a place to live.

After slaughtering the population,thats what they did.

The rest of the Empire was not settled by people looking for a place to
live. It was work for profit, pure and simple. Then back home and buy a
peerage. If possible keep the natives killing each other, not us. Aslong
aqs pil came out of Iraq, gold out of south africa, cotton out of india,
and tea from ceylon, that was all we wanted. We didn't want Nigeria any
more than you want Iraq..55th state of the USA?, Iraq?. Imagine all
those voters..nah. They would have Bush out in an instant.

It was all sheer gun toting bloody stupidity, exactly what you would expect.

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:21:24 -0500, NapalmHeart wrote:

I am a Corrections Officer (prison guard to you). People don't get
incarcerated for a justified homicide.

Explain James Earl Ray.

Canada has had gun control laws for many..many years. We have
introduced stronger laws due to the success of it.

And Mexico has as well and we know how well it works there don't we? After
all you'd have no problem walking down a dark street in any Mexican city
carrying a lap top would you?


Obviously you don't trust your same government that allows you to be
rednecks, running around with loaded weapons.

Governments are ran by people and people are not that trust worthy when it
comes to power and money. Look at what FDR did and more scary what he tried
to do. Heck, Bill Clinton took several thousands of acres of land from a
state with nothing more than a stroke of a pen. G.H. Bush made a group of
firearms illegal with nothing more than a stroke of a pen.


We choose freedom from government promoted hysteria. Some don't have that
freedom of choice.

For the most part people get the form of government they deserve. If a
people are cowards they get a government that has no problem killing anyone
who tries to stand up against it. If a people are weak the get a government
that runs their lives. If a people are strong they get a government that
respects them.

Through out history 'governments' have killed a lot more of the people they
were governing than criminals have. And to be honest with you I rather sit
in my house with a firearm and worry if a criminal might try to rob me than
sit in my home with or without a firearm and worry that the government might
try arrest me because I don't support it.


"no one" wrote in message
news

Guns are population control promoted by your government.

If guns are so great what is the problem with registering them?

The thing Americans used to fear the most was is the American government
(a lot of us still do) and history has shown the world that registration
of firearms is nothing more than a precursor to government control. And
in the case of firearms a precursor to confiscation. Germany, England
and Canada are prime recent examples.

I'm married to a moslem, does it look like I've been "islamified"?

I don't think so

At least I have a more balanced view than the jaundiced homophobic one
that you obviously seem to have

I think what we are seeing today is the Islamic version of the Spanish
Inquisition and the Crusades rolled into one. You have a group of people
who think they have the only correct version of the religion and are
willing to use force to make sure everyone else in the world follows that
version. If you are not willing to follow that version then they have to
kill you. Of course it was a reach to twist the Bible to where it says
that but it doesn't take much to make the Koran to say that.

Or Mein Kampf, or Karl Marx..

Or indeed the Republican party..

Ever read either of those? If so you will note how much more of the demos
speeches sound like it could have been included in them.

"Balanced View" wrote in message
...
no one wrote:
Look mate, if you honestly feel there is a threat where virtually no
threat exists, you're simply paranoid.
According to the CDC you are at far greater risk of being killed by
eating at McDonalds.

The only thing is there are threats out there.

There are more signifigant threats out there than being shot

True.

Do or would you let your small child wonder around a major shopping
center? Or are you too paranoid? There is very little threat but there
is enough threat that most people won't do it.

No, because common sense tells us kids need supervision for any number of
reasons

So you keep an eye on your kids at all times? Isn't that a little paranoid?


In most cases there is not enough threat to feel the need to carry a
weapon but there is always a threat out there.

Yeah sure, birds **** on your car, it might rain etc...... But very few
require the need of a gun to prevent.

A firearm is like a seatbelt, you'll probably never need one but when you do
need it you need it quickly or you get hurt.


Example, if you ride the train to and from work every day the odds are
you'll never face a life threatening situation.

Glad you agree with that.

But there is always that chance the car on your train is the one that
some mentally ill person decides that the voices in his head is coming
from and if he kills every one in that car with a machete.

About as much chance of that happening as getting eaten by a mutant
Crocodile from the sewers.

Or getting blown up on the 'tube' or gassed on the subway? Small odds but
it has happened.


Even if you are in that car the odds are that you will not be one of the
first people attacked, meaning you will have a chance to run. For most
people these odds are enough, for others they like having even more odds
on their side and they carry a weapon. That weapon may be in the form of
themselves via martial arts training, pepper spray, a stun gun or a
firearm.

If you think about threats like that that everyday you are paranoid

Let's see: I wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle; I wear a seatbelt when
I drive; I have smoke alarms in my house; I unplug my saw when I replace the
blade; when I check into a hotel room I make sure I know where the fire
exits are. Paranoid or just being safe?


I don't know a person who has needed to use any concealed weapon to
protect themselves. But I know many who carry them.


Paranoid friends as well?

Lots of cops and ex-cops.


As I have said before just having a weapon saved my sister from being, at
the least, raped. I don't consider the weapon being

The odds are anything can happen anywhere, but for the average person to
feel the need to carry a gun everyday,
it is not a rational act.

But not for being 'irrational' my sister would have been a rape victim.
Which would you rather YOUR sister be? FYI; this wasn't in a darken parking
lot in some 'crime infested' major city slum area.

In most cases there is not enough threat to feel the need to carry a
weapon but there is always a threat out there. Example, if you ride the
train to and from work every day the odds are you'll never face a life
threatening situation. But there is always that chance the car on your
train is the one that some mentally ill person decides that the voices in
his head is coming from and if he kills every one in that car with a
machete.

Sure. Talk to him first. Even totally deranged people are not usually
beyond communication. Why,its even possible to have a primitive sort opf
dialogue with GW Bush, apparently.

Never dealt with some having a psychotic episode have you. You'd have
better luck trying to talk a charging brahma bull into stopping.


Even if you are in that car the odds are that you will not be
one of the first people attacked, meaning you will have a chance to run.
For most people these odds are enough, for others they like having even
more odds on their side and they carry a weapon. That weapon may be in
the form of themselves via martial arts training, pepper spray, a stun
gun or a firearm.


Or simply a judo hold. Disarming a knife wielding attacker was about te
only thing I learned in my first few and only judo classes..

You watch to many movies. Someone REALLY skilled and practiced in martial
arts might be able to disarm someone like that in an open setting but NO ONE
could do it bare handed while sitting in a train seat.


I don't know a person who has needed to use any concealed weapon to
protect themselves. But I know many who carry them.

As I have said before just having a weapon saved my sister from being, at
the least, raped. I don't consider the weapon being used because no
shots were fired.

May other things could have saved her from being raped. A steel chastity
belt, for one fairly ridiculous example. Lessons in self defense, a sharp
wit.

Sure, a satellite could have fallen out of orbit and hit the guy on the head
but, personally, I think the handgun was the surest option.


Why a GUN? because you LIKE GUNS. You LIKE the feeling of POWER and
SECURITY

I admit I like firearms. I also like cooking, reading (currently on a
science fiction binge, ever read any Larry Niven?), working on cars and many
other things.


But why do you feel powerless and insecure without a gun?

But I don't. FYI, I haven't carried a firearm for self defense in probably
15 years. I keep firearms in my home for many reasons; to kill the various
varmints who cause problems around the farm, to put a little free meat on
the dinner table and yes just in case some criminal picks my home for his
criminal actions.

I have no problem walking into places that you probably would never think of
going without an armed escort. Places where I'm the just about the only
person of my color, places where violent crimes are a regular occurrence,
places where known violent mentally ill people are known to be. I'm fat,
old and in bad shape yet I have no fear in these places with or without a
firearm because I'm prepared. As I have stated your only weapon is your
brain, everything else is just a tool.


Because you are a septic! And its drummed into you from the day that you
are born, by the BRA and the gun manufacturers, that having a gun is cool,
sexy, nacho, and makes you safe.

Shows just how much you know about me. There are times when I would feel
unsafe without a firearm. Just like there are times when I would feel safe
riding a motorcycle w/o a helmet but those times are few and far between.

But then if guns hadn't been freely available to either of you the
incident wouldn't have happened. He obviously wasn't a crim, like you, he
was a mental defective in legal possession of a firearm

sounds like there was a mental **** on each side of the door, just that
one was more sober than the other

How about this story. My sister was leaving the ER after work. She was
approached by a gentleman who made it clear to her that his plan was to
rape her. Even though he didn't have a firearm he was much larger and
stronger then her (or should that be she?). The only thing that prevented
this rape was the fact that she had a pistol in her purse. Once he saw
this he left her alone.

The same story you roll out every time

Yep. Because its a first hand, close to home, happened to my family story
where a gun prevented a crime.


If "guns hadn't been freely available to either of" them the story would
have been much different.

she could have struck lucky

Even with the nasty note I hope no one if your family is ever raped. I've
know two women who DIDN'T have a firearm with them and WERE raped. Their
lives will never be the same.

That is the reason we should ban them from all sources.
Since it would be more brave for a military or police person to talk
thier way out of every problem.
Imagine how brave a soldier would be to rush a machine gun or rpg site
with a wooden toothpick.




Now you are being totally ridiculous. To compare a combat situation with
everyday living is proof of your
paranoia and xenophobia.

Maybe but the last time I checked the stats more police were killed with
their own weapons than by criminal's weapons. IIRC, in most years more cops
kill themselves than are killed by criminals. So by the stats cops would be
safer if we took away their firearms.

Australia and Canada come to mind, both have far lower incidents of gun
homicide and both have tough gun laws.
Strangely enough both also have extensive social programs and have had
budget surpluses for the last ten years.

Mexico has some strong gun control laws and we know how low their rate of
gun homicide is.

At least I have a more balanced view than the jaundiced homophobic one
that you obviously seem to have

Given the need for insults ....he won the debate.
But then ,how many liberals actually do something that is supportable
in
a debate.


LOL, that's funny, what you claim is opposite to the truth. The Iraq war
is a good example, anytime anyone
asked " where are the WMD", or "how come we are no longer after Osama"
they were called traitors and
cowards?
Mainly because they are .........and make every effort to prove it more
everyday.

****, are you stupid

I don't think Osama will ever be found, he will disappear. If we catch him
alive then he becomes a lighting rod. If we kill him he becomes a martyr.
Both actions could boost his cause. If he is caught, killed and buried deep
in the sand or a cave he becomes nothing more a mystery.

no one wrote:

Canada has had gun control laws for many..many years. We have
introduced stronger laws due to the success of it.

And Mexico has as well and we know how well it works there don't we?
After all you'd have no problem walking down a dark street in any
Mexican city carrying a lap top would you?

If you have laws you have to enforce them. It also helps if the society
in which you live has a more even spread of income
and social programs. Country's that have the vast majority of the wealth
concentrated in the hands of a small percentage
of their population tend to have higher rates of crime, and Mexico is a
very good example of that


Obviously you don't trust your same government that allows you to be
rednecks, running around with loaded weapons.

Governments are ran by people and people are not that trust worthy
when it comes to power and money. Look at what FDR did and more scary
what he tried to do. Heck, Bill Clinton took several thousands of
acres of land from a state with nothing more than a stroke of a pen.
G.H. Bush made a group of firearms illegal with nothing more than a
stroke of a pen.


We choose freedom from government promoted hysteria. Some don't have
that freedom of choice.

For the most part people get the form of government they deserve. If
a people are cowards they get a government that has no problem killing
anyone who tries to stand up against it. If a people are weak the get
a government that runs their lives. If a people are strong they get a
government that respects them.

Through out history 'governments' have killed a lot more of the people
they were governing than criminals have. And to be honest with you I
rather sit in my house with a firearm and worry if a criminal might
try to rob me than sit in my home with or without a firearm and worry
that the government might try arrest me because I don't support it.


"no one" wrote in message
news

Guns are population control promoted by your government.

If guns are so great what is the problem with registering them?

The thing Americans used to fear the most was is the American
government (a lot of us still do) and history has shown the world
that registration of firearms is nothing more than a precursor to
government control. And in the case of firearms a precursor to
confiscation. Germany, England and Canada are prime recent examples.



If Americans truly fear the Government, why do they not get out and
vote? You have 20% of the population dictating to the rest of you
because they do.

no one wrote:

"Balanced View" wrote in message
...
no one wrote:
Look mate, if you honestly feel there is a threat where virtually
no threat exists, you're simply paranoid.
According to the CDC you are at far greater risk of being killed by
eating at McDonalds.

The only thing is there are threats out there.

There are more signifigant threats out there than being shot

True.

Do or would you let your small child wonder around a major shopping
center? Or are you too paranoid? There is very little threat but
there is enough threat that most people won't do it.

No, because common sense tells us kids need supervision for any
number of reasons

So you keep an eye on your kids at all times? Isn't that a little
paranoid?

Never said I did, only that kids need supervision



In most cases there is not enough threat to feel the need to carry a
weapon but there is always a threat out there.

Yeah sure, birds **** on your car, it might rain etc...... But very
few require the need of a gun to prevent.

A firearm is like a seatbelt, you'll probably never need one but when
you do need it you need it quickly or you get hurt.

Your chances of getting killed in an vehicle accident, 1 in 6,535, are
far, far greater than being assaulted and killed,1 in 80,366.



Example, if you ride the train to and from work every day the odds
are you'll never face a life threatening situation.

Glad you agree with that.

But there is always that chance the car on your train is the one
that some mentally ill person decides that the voices in his head is
coming from and if he kills every one in that car with a machete.

About as much chance of that happening as getting eaten by a mutant
Crocodile from the sewers.

Or getting blown up on the 'tube' or gassed on the subway? Small odds
but it has happened.


LOL, the chances of that happening are almost nil, one in 10,876,179
for a railway accident of any kind


Even if you are in that car the odds are that you will not be one of
the first people attacked, meaning you will have a chance to run.
For most people these odds are enough, for others they like having
even more odds on their side and they carry a weapon. That weapon
may be in the form of themselves via martial arts training, pepper
spray, a stun gun or a firearm.

If you think about threats like that that everyday you are paranoid

Let's see: I wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle; I wear a
seatbelt when I drive; I have smoke alarms in my house; I unplug my
saw when I replace the blade; when I check into a hotel room I make
sure I know where the fire exits are. Paranoid or just being safe?


All , with the exception of the saw, are legitimate risks of which have
far greater chance of causing death than being shot


I don't know a person who has needed to use any concealed weapon to
protect themselves. But I know many who carry them.


Paranoid friends as well?

Lots of cops and ex-cops.


All of which deal with the worst element of society every day, hardly
representative of the average persons life.
In New York during the 20th Century gunshot wounds accounted for 51.6%
of all occupational police deaths


As I have said before just having a weapon saved my sister from
being, at the least, raped. I don't consider the weapon being

The odds are anything can happen anywhere, but for the average person
to feel the need to carry a gun everyday,
it is not a rational act.

But not for being 'irrational' my sister would have been a rape
victim. Which would you rather YOUR sister be? FYI; this wasn't in a
darken parking lot in some 'crime infested' major city slum area.

Fearing attack to the point of feeling the need to be armed when in
public is irrational and paranoid given the odds.
My sister was a nurse for 25 years, worked all shifts and the only thing
found dead in the parking lot was batteries
in January.

no one wrote:

Australia and Canada come to mind, both have far lower incidents of
gun homicide and both have tough gun laws.
Strangely enough both also have extensive social programs and have
had budget surpluses for the last ten years.

Mexico has some strong gun control laws and we know how low their rate
of gun homicide is.


Laws don't work if they are not enforced, nor will they work very well
when the income spread between rich and
poor is so wide.

no one wrote:

Canada has had gun control laws for many..many years. We have
introduced stronger laws due to the success of it.

And Mexico has as well and we know how well it works there don't we?
After all you'd have no problem walking down a dark street in any
Mexican city carrying a lap top would you?


Obviously you don't trust your same government that allows you to be
rednecks, running around with loaded weapons.

Governments are ran by people and people are not that trust worthy when
it comes to power and money. Look at what FDR did and more scary what
he tried to do. Heck, Bill Clinton took several thousands of acres of
land from a state with nothing more than a stroke of a pen. G.H. Bush
made a group of firearms illegal with nothing more than a stroke of a pen.


We choose freedom from government promoted hysteria. Some don't have
that freedom of choice.

For the most part people get the form of government they deserve. If a
people are cowards they get a government that has no problem killing
anyone who tries to stand up against it. If a people are weak the get a
government that runs their lives. If a people are strong they get a
government that respects them.

And if they are *incredibly* stupid, they get GW Bush, and the NRA.

No need to say more.