On 17 Nov 2005 16:10:22 -0800, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Actually owning a gun is a PRIVILEDGE.

If it were a RIGHT, felons and children would be allowed to own them.

Felons have no rights.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:52:01 GMT, Vic Baron wrote:
.....And their daddy is in jail.

For shooting a DOG? Where the hell do you live? I sure wouldn't want
to be there.

You bet your sweet ass. Every hear of animal cruelty?

Nothing cruel about a dog going from threatening my kids, to dead, in a
few seconds. You'd rather I let my kids get bit, would you? Hell of a
nice guy you are.

IN the OP situation,
the dog was GROWLING at the kids. IMHO a good attorney would argue that
growling did not constitute an iminent danger. If the dog were ATTACKING -
no problem.

If a dog is making what I think is a threatening move towards my kids,
the dog will die. The end.

Seems like a ridiculous situation but unless you live in the boonies of cow
country

Yes, I do. And what's the problem with that?

you better have a damn good reason to shoot ANYTHING or you will go
to jail or at least get sued by the animal's owner.

Go ahead and try. I want a jury.

So you would have my kids mauled while I stand by watching it. Lovely.

What an idiotic comment - needs no response.

You say above it's only ok if the dog has started to actually attack.
I'm not going to wait.

Yes. You wouldn't want someone who doesn't know what they're doing,
using deadly force. I guess those people get to dial 911 and wait, and
hope for the best.

Frankly, the way most people shoot, and especially under a pressure
situation - they'd probably miss the dog and hit the kids.

What specifically is your direct personal experience with firearms? I
have a guess: "none at all". How right am I?

I repeat - if the
dog is standing there growling - you have no right to shoot it. And if it's
a rapidly moving target running towards your kids - you have just as good a
chance at hitting your kids.

You have no idea of my qualifications as a marksman, my training, or my
equipment.

On 17 Nov 2005 16:07:14 -0800, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Go find someone else to fight with Dave...I stand by what I said.

That's fine, you can be wrong all you want.

Pull a trigger only if you are willing to be fully responsible for
whatever happens....

No ****.

same thing goes for driving a car, owning a dog,
etc.

How in the world do you get from "I value my kids over a threatening
dog" into some sort of abandonment of personal responsibility?

Thu, Nov 17, 2005, 11:17pm (EST-3)
(Too_Many_Tools) doth claim:
A right that can and is taken away is a priviledge. snip

Isn't that fascism?




JOAT
Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.

On 18 Nov 2005 07:27:17 -0800, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Exactly Alex....there are very few "true" rights.
Gun ownership is not one of them.

It's the one that, if you live in the US, preserves the rest of your
rights. How long do you think you'd be free to disagree with the
government if the citizens were disarmed?

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:18:59 GMT, Lawrence Wasserman wrote:
In article ,
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:18:50 -0700, Charles Spitzer wrote:

whilst it may be ethically justified, can you ensure that the OP will
ensure that the bullet won't go through the dog and the next house,
especially if the next house may only be 4' away like in some
developments?

Yep - it's called Hydra-Shok.

From an SKS?

Sure, 7.62x39 is available with dozens of options for loads.

Thu, Nov 17, 2005, 11:19pm (EST-3)
(Too_Many_Tools) doth pontificate:
snip
Use a gun incorrectly and see how long your right remains intact.

That sure doesn't apply to cars, otherwise Kennedy wouldn't have a
driver's license. As for guns, it only applies to honest citizens, not
criminals.



JOAT
Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.

Fri, Nov 18, 2005, 1:47am (EST-3)
(Fly-by-Night*CC) doth say:
snip Most dog bites aren't by pit bulls, or any of the other breeds
deemed "dangerous", but by the labradors and retrievers snip What you
don't hear about are the every day bites by Gramma Nell's nice little
Yorkie, or the family's Golden who was startled by the 2 year old
jumping on it while it was sleeping. snip

The however is, not a lot of people, children or adults, seem to
get killed by Yorkies, it's pit bulls, rotweillers, etc., and large
mixed breeds, that do that. On my personal hate list are those nasty
little rat dogs (Chiwawa or something), that'll come up behind you, ry
to bite your ankle, then run unter the couth when you turn around.
Nasty little things.



JOAT
Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.

Dave Hinz wrote:

On 17 Nov 2005 16:10:22 -0800, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Actually owning a gun is a PRIVILEDGE.

If it were a RIGHT, felons and children would be allowed to own them.

Felons have no rights.

Wrong. They lose some rights, retain others, and gain still others.

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Fri, Nov 18, 2005, 2:23pm (J*T) whose damn
keyboard did say:
snip ry to bite your ankle, then run unter the couth snip

Of course, that should read:
try to bite your ankle, then run under the couch

Steenkin' keys stick. That's my story. Gusss I may have to start
using the spell chequer, I hate it when I can't right write.



JOAT
Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.

In article . com, "Too_Many_Tools" wrote:
Exactly Alex....there are very few "true" rights.

Gun ownership is not one of them.

Perhaps not where you live. In the United States, it is.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article . com, "Too_Many_Tools" wrote:
Voting is a privilege as is gun ownership and having a driving license.

Wrong, wrong, and right, in that order.

All can be revoked by the government if you don't behave.

Which does not affect their status as rights vs. privileges. Despite what you
think.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
ups.com...
While I am very much for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership, when I hear of
As society administers a driving test before issuing a driver's
license, I think it would be a great idea to administer similar testing
prior to allowing a gun purchase....or when buying a dog.


How would you feel about testing voters?

Well Doug, you have your right to your opinion and I to mine....isn't
this country great!!!

My point still stands....Misbehave and you can lose them all.

TMT

Fri, Nov 18, 2005, 3:08pm (EST-3)
(Too_Many_Tools) doth burbleth:
snip My point still stands....Misbehave and you can lose them all.

Ah, but that only applies to law-abiding individuals, not
criminals. Lawyers and politicians have seen to that.



JOAT
Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.

To a point...the mighty fall too...it just takes longer.

TMT

You make a very good case for being armed at all times.

"John Girouard" wrote in message
...

1) Notice the dog
2) Run inside to get yer gun
3) Find the key (you keep your guns locked up, right?)
4) Unlock the case
5) Find the bullets
6) Load the gun
7) Run back outside
8) Aim
9) Kaboom

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 01:45:51 GMT, CW wrote:
You make a very good case for being armed at all times.

He does, but I can be armed in say 30-45 seconds when I'm at home, so
I'm OK with that delay.

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:09:52 -0500, (J T) wrote:

Thu, Nov 17, 2005, 11:17pm (EST-3)
(Too_Many_Tools) doth claim:
A right that can and is taken away is a priviledge. snip

Isn't that fascism?



Probably more precisely statism: The idea that all benefits derive from
the government and are dispensed or withdrawn at the whim and discretion of
the government. In a statist government, there are no such things as
"rights" and certainly not "inalienable rights". Everything is a privilege
that can be given or taken away based upon expediency for the government.
Fascism and communism are two instances of rampant statism.

One of the reasons that the "modern" idea of the constitution as a
"living" document is so dangerous is that this approach promotes statism.
The idea that the constitution means whatever is expedient at the time
rather than what it states in clear language allows statist judges to make
decisions based upon their feelings and beliefs, not upon what the
constitution actually states as limits on the government.




JOAT
Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:09:45 -0500, (J T) wrote:

Fri, Nov 18, 2005, 2:23pm (J*T) whose damn
keyboard did say:
snip ry to bite your ankle, then run unter the couth snip

Of course, that should read:
try to bite your ankle, then run under the couch


Had an aunt whose family had one of those chihuahuas (or as Les Nesman
used to say" Chi-hooa-hooas"). When I encountered it, it was pretty old,
but still mean as all get out. The stupid thing would go out of its way to
come up to you and bite you -- of course, as I said, it was old, so it had
no teeth -- it pretty much would try to gum you to death. Just evil, evil
little mutts. IMO of course.


Steenkin' keys stick. That's my story. Gusss I may have to start
using the spell chequer, I hate it when I can't right write.


I hate it when that happens



JOAT
Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

in 1249707 20051118 191003 Dave Hinz wrote:
On 18 Nov 2005 07:27:17 -0800, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Exactly Alex....there are very few "true" rights.
Gun ownership is not one of them.

It's the one that, if you live in the US, preserves the rest of your
rights. How long do you think you'd be free to disagree with the
government if the citizens were disarmed?

I think you've lost it, Dave. I'm quite free to disagree with my (UK) government
and neither I nor anyone I know owns a gun or is ever likely to.

in 1249652 20051118 152717 "Too_Many_Tools" wrote:

As society administers a driving test before issuing a driver's
license, I think it would be a great idea to administer similar testing
prior to allowing a gun purchase....or when buying a dog.

Isn't it strange that we need a licence or permission for all the trivial
things in life yet anyone (even if drunk, mad, convicted murderer etc)
can bring children into the world.

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

My point exactly....a priviledge can be taken from you..a right cannot.

Guns are regulated as to who can have them....just like whether or not
you are allowed to drive a car.

Both priviledges come with responsibilites. To drive a car you require
insurance. To shoot a gun requires the shooter to be responsible from a
financial and civil standpoint. If you doubt this, check into what
happens when you use either product incorrectly and someone is hurt or
killed.

TMT


So life and liberty are privileges, too? After all, they can
be taken from you.

So all we have are privileges then, no rights at all.
Hmmm...where is my copy of the Bill of Privileges?

--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX

Bob Martin (in ) said:

| in 1249707 20051118 191003 Dave Hinz wrote:
|| On 18 Nov 2005 07:27:17 -0800, Too_Many_Tools
|| wrote:
||| Exactly Alex....there are very few "true" rights.
||| Gun ownership is not one of them.
||
|| It's the one that, if you live in the US, preserves the rest of
|| your
|| rights. How long do you think you'd be free to disagree with the
|| government if the citizens were disarmed?
|
| I think you've lost it, Dave. I'm quite free to disagree with my
| (UK) government and neither I nor anyone I know owns a gun or is
| ever likely to.

That's a tough argument to make to Americans, Bob. In the restored
(British) Governor's Mansion in Colonial Williamsburg, in the
Commonwealth of Virginia, the most prominent display was of *large*
arrays of muzzle-loading rifles - to impress upon the colonists just
who exercised the power to govern and by what means that governance
would be enforced.

Neither the colonists nor their decendants have forgotten either how
that power was abused nor what was required to to dismantle that
misgovernance and to distribute its power among ordinary citizens.

We recognize fully that government /can/ be benevolent; but will
remain so over the long term _only_ if the general citizenry are
ready, willing, and *able* to say: "Thus far and no farther."

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 08:08:38 GMT, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1249707 20051118 191003 Dave Hinz wrote:
On 18 Nov 2005 07:27:17 -0800, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Exactly Alex....there are very few "true" rights.
Gun ownership is not one of them.

It's the one that, if you live in the US, preserves the rest of your
rights. How long do you think you'd be free to disagree with the
government if the citizens were disarmed?

I think you've lost it, Dave. I'm quite free to disagree with my (UK) government
and neither I nor anyone I know owns a gun or is ever likely to.

Yes, I didn't expect that a subject would understand. Guns aren't just
to deter individual criminal acts, they also deter governmental criminal
acts. Don't worry though, we'll bail you out yet again, next time.

alexy (in ) said:

| "Too_Many_Tools" wrote:
|
|| As I have said before, a right can be denied is a privilege.
||
|| Use a gun incorrectly and see how long your right remains intact.
|
| Cute semantic distinction, but I don't believe it is correct. What
| exactly do you think falls in the category of "rights" as you define
| the word? Some counter examples for you to ponder (at least making a
| distinction between how you want the word to be defined and how
| others use it) is the "certain inalienable rights" of life,
| liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Since we routinely deny felons
| of their liberty and pursuit of happiness, and occasionally of
| their lives, I guess our forefathers should have said "certain
| privileges" to meet your semantic benchmark?

Alex...

You're quoting from a document that set forth principles - not law.
It's the Constitution that attempts to codify those principles and
which clearly sets forth that keeping and bearing arms is a *right*
which may not be impaired or discontinued (look up /infringe/).

The Declaration of Independence is an interesting legacy. It's more
than an old "Up yours!" to King George: It's a statement of philosophy
and principles. It's also a quiet trap for those individuals who feel
that ordinary persons are unfit to share among themselves the powers
of self-government.

The Declaration sets forth, as a matter of principle, conditions
necessary and sufficient for replacement of an entire governmental
system. Because of this, it's an "orphan" document and has never had
legal standing of any kind - not with the Brits, and certainly not
within the American government.

Notwithstanding, it's the biggest elephant to ever sit in any corner.

Oh yes, I did allude to a trap aspect didn't I? The trap lies in the
obstacle posed to those who would abuse the powers granted them by the
Constitution and the citizenry: In order to usurp power, they must
first succeed in voiding the principles set forth in that simple
one-page document. It's a "soft" trap; but it gives the alarm to every
person who, in their heart of hearts, believes in those principles.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

In article , Bob Martin wrote:
in 1249707 20051118 191003 Dave Hinz wrote:
On 18 Nov 2005 07:27:17 -0800, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:
Exactly Alex....there are very few "true" rights.
Gun ownership is not one of them.

It's the one that, if you live in the US, preserves the rest of your
rights. How long do you think you'd be free to disagree with the
government if the citizens were disarmed?

I think you've lost it, Dave. I'm quite free to disagree with my (UK)
government
and neither I nor anyone I know owns a gun or is ever likely to.

The part of this you're missing is that -- currently -- your government is
willing to tolerate subjects who disagree with it. What would you do if that
changed, and the authorities began to forcefully suppress dissent?

More to the point: what *could* you do?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 08:08:38 GMT, Bob Martin wrote:

in 1249707 20051118 191003 Dave Hinz wrote:
On 18 Nov 2005 07:27:17 -0800, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Exactly Alex....there are very few "true" rights.
Gun ownership is not one of them.

It's the one that, if you live in the US, preserves the rest of your
rights. How long do you think you'd be free to disagree with the
government if the citizens were disarmed?

I think you've lost it, Dave. I'm quite free to disagree with my (UK) government
and neither I nor anyone I know owns a gun or is ever likely to.

Having seen various reports regarding censure for what British citizens
and businesses say; I would dispute that you are free to say what you want,
when you want freely in Britain. Your rules regarding what is considered
to be "harassing" speech or "offensive" speech -- particularly if one is a
business are becoming quite restrictive (not that the statists here in the
US are far behind in trying to make that happen -- try expressing
principals of Jeffersonian democracy or calling into question some of the
tenets of modern nanny-state protectionism on a college campus)

BTW, how are those restrictions on law abiding citizens working out over
there? Has it kept the criminal element from being any more dangerous? I
understand you've got somebody over there who is now seriously advocating
restricting the ability to own pointy kitchen knives.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mark & Juanita (in ) said:

| BTW, how are those restrictions on law abiding citizens working
| out over there? Has it kept the criminal element from being any
| more dangerous?

Last night the BBC reported that one female police "probationer"
(trainee?) had been shot to death and another wounded in the shoulder
by not-law-abiding persons. I'd assume that the answer to your
questions are "questionably" and "no".

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

"Morris Dovey" wrote:

That's a tough argument to make to Americans, Bob. In the restored
(British) Governor's Mansion in Colonial Williamsburg, in the

Seen elsewhere, but relevant to this discussion:

BRITS REVOKE USA INDEPENDENCE

A Message from John Cleese To the citizens of the United States of
America:

In light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA
and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation
of your independence, effective immediately. Her Sovereign Majesty
Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states,
commonwealths, and territories (excepting Kansas, which she does not
fancy).

Your new prime minister, Tony Blair, will appoint a governor for
America without the need for further elections. Congress and the
Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year
to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to
a British Crown Dependency, the following! rules are introduced with
immediate effect:

You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary.
Then look up aluminium, and check the pronunciation guide. You will
be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. The letter
'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour.'
Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half
the letters, and the suffix 'ize' ; will be replaced by the suffix
'ise'.

Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to
acceptable levels. (look up vocabulary). Using the same twenty-seven
words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is
an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no
such thing as US English. We will let Microsoft know on your
behalf.The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of
the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of -ize. You will
relearn your original national anthem, God Save The Queen.

July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.

You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers,
or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists
shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only
be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out
without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not
grown up enough to handle a gun. Therefore, you will no longer be
allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable
peeler. A permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable
peeler in public.

Permits for vegetable peelers must be obtained from the R.C.M.P.

All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and this is for
your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what
we mean. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you
will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same
time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the
benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will
help you understand the British sense of humour.

The Former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been
calling gasoline)-roughly $6/US gallon. Get used to it.

You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries
are not real chips, and t! hose things you insist on calling potato
chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in
animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.

The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually
beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred
to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will
be referred to as Lager. American ! brands will be referred to as
Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine, so that all can be sold without risk of
further confusion. British Bitter will be served at room temperature.

Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good
guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play
English characters. Watching Andie MacDowell attempt E! nglish
dialogue
in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's
ears removed with a cheese grater. You will cease playing American
football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it
soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play
rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not
involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or weari! ng full
kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies).

Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reason! able to
host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played
outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware that there is a
world beyond your borders, your error is understandable.

You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.

An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's
Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all
monies due (backdated to 1776).

Thank you for your co-operation.

John

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

alexy (in ) said:

| "Morris Dovey" wrote:
|
|| That's a tough argument to make to Americans, Bob. In the restored
|| (British) Governor's Mansion in Colonial Williamsburg, in the
|
| Seen elsewhere, but relevant to this discussion:
|
| BRITS REVOKE USA INDEPENDENCE
|
| A Message from John Cleese To the citizens of the United States of
| America:
|
| In light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA
| and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the
| revocation of your independence, effective immediately. Her
| Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties
| over all states, commonwealths, and territories (excepting Kansas,
| which she does not fancy).

remainder snipped

Great humor! I would imagine that Mr. Cleese would be proud to have
written it. :-)

Why wouldn't she like Kansas? Is she agoraphobic? (Seems unlikely.)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

Does this mean we have to do this again? Okay, come on over and prepare to
have your butt kicked. This time, we'll even do it without the French.

"alexy" wrote in message
...
"Morris Dovey" wrote:

That's a tough argument to make to Americans, Bob. In the restored
(British) Governor's Mansion in Colonial Williamsburg, in the

Seen elsewhere, but relevant to this discussion:

BRITS REVOKE USA INDEPENDENCE

A Message from John Cleese To the citizens of the United States of
America:

In light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA
and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation
of your independence, effective immediately. Her Sovereign Majesty
Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states,
commonwealths, and territories (excepting Kansas, which she does not
fancy).

Your new prime minister, Tony Blair, will appoint a governor for
America without the need for further elections. Congress and the
Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year
to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to
a British Crown Dependency, the following! rules are introduced with
immediate effect:

You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary.
Then look up aluminium, and check the pronunciation guide. You will
be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. The letter
'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour.'
Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half
the letters, and the suffix 'ize' ; will be replaced by the suffix
'ise'.

Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to
acceptable levels. (look up vocabulary). Using the same twenty-seven
words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is
an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no
such thing as US English. We will let Microsoft know on your
behalf.The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of
the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of -ize. You will
relearn your original national anthem, God Save The Queen.

July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.

You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers,
or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists
shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only
be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out
without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not
grown up enough to handle a gun. Therefore, you will no longer be
allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable
peeler. A permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable
peeler in public.

Permits for vegetable peelers must be obtained from the R.C.M.P.

All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and this is for
your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what
we mean. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you
will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same
time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the
benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will
help you understand the British sense of humour.

The Former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been
calling gasoline)-roughly $6/US gallon. Get used to it.

You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries
are not real chips, and t! hose things you insist on calling potato
chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in
animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.

The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually
beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred
to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will
be referred to as Lager. American ! brands will be referred to as
Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine, so that all can be sold without risk of
further confusion. British Bitter will be served at room temperature.

Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good
guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play
English characters. Watching Andie MacDowell attempt E! nglish
dialogue
in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's
ears removed with a cheese grater. You will cease playing American
football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it
soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play
rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not
involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or weari! ng full
kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies).

Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reason! able to
host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played
outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware that there is a
world beyond your borders, your error is understandable.

You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.

An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's
Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all
monies due (backdated to 1776).

Thank you for your co-operation.

John

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked
infrequently.

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 11:01:07 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
wrote:

Mark & Juanita (in ) said:

| BTW, how are those restrictions on law abiding citizens working
| out over there? Has it kept the criminal element from being any
| more dangerous?

Last night the BBC reported that one female police "probationer"
(trainee?) had been shot to death and another wounded in the shoulder
by not-law-abiding persons. I'd assume that the answer to your
questions are "questionably" and "no".

Yep. Sarcasm is difficult to render in text-only systems. Various
reports I've seen indicate that in many instances the criminal element is
gaining the upper hand, particularly youth gangs who have no fear of
private citizens protecting themselves and little to fear from the
authorities since long periods of incarceration are considered "inhumane"
and "unjust".


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"CW" wrote in message
ink.net...
Does this mean we have to do this again? Okay, come on over and prepare to
have your butt kicked. This time, we'll even do it without the French.

How 'bout we do it TO the French? God knows they've been askin' for it.

B.

Buddy Matlosz (in ) said:

| "CW" wrote in message
| ink.net...
|| Does this mean we have to do this again? Okay, come on over and
|| prepare to have your butt kicked. This time, we'll even do it
|| without the French.
||
| How 'bout we do it TO the French? God knows they've been askin' for
| it.

How so? They were a major help at the battle of Yorktown, they were an
ally in two world wars and during the police action in Korea, they
warned us about Indo-China, they shed tears with us on and after 9-11,
and they did their best to tell us that our intelligence on Iraqi WMDS
was incorrect so that we would not make ourselves look like liars
and/or idiots to the rest of the world.

What have you noticed that I missed? Or does all of the above
constitute "askin' for it"?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:30:37 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:

How so? They were a major help at the battle of Yorktown,

OK, so what about the _last_ 230 years?

they were an
ally in two world wars and during the police action in Korea,

"ally" in the definition of "load to carry", yes.

they
warned us about Indo-China,

They _caused_ the cluster**** in Vietnam.

they shed tears with us on and after 9-11,

So did everyone else that matters.

and they did their best to tell us that our intelligence on Iraqi WMDS
was incorrect so that we would not make ourselves look like liars
and/or idiots to the rest of the world.

Funny; they _sold_ a bunch of those WMDs to Iraq, so no wonder they
didn't want us looking too closely at the situation. You _do_
acknowledge the tens of thousands of Kurds killed by the Iraquis with
WMDs sold to them by France, do you not?

What have you noticed that I missed? Or does all of the above
constitute "askin' for it"?

The French are useless on a good day.

In article , alexy
wrote:

In light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA
and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation
of your independence, effective immediately. Her Sovereign Majesty
Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states,
commonwealths, and territories (excepting Kansas, which she does not
fancy).

And The U.S. will pay just as much attention to the monarch as do
Australian, Canada, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and most of
England. To wit: not much. :-)

Kevin

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:30:37 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
wrote:

Buddy Matlosz (in ) said:

| "CW" wrote in message
| ink.net...
|| Does this mean we have to do this again? Okay, come on over and
|| prepare to have your butt kicked. This time, we'll even do it
|| without the French.
||
| How 'bout we do it TO the French? God knows they've been askin' for
| it.

Actually, looks like they are doing that to themselves these past several
weeks. Problem is that their answer to the problem is more of what got
them into this predicament in the first place -- they just don't think they
have appeased their immigrants enough, they just need to give them more
money.


How so? They were a major help at the battle of Yorktown,

I think the OP mentioned this

they were an
ally in two world wars

... umm, they were the battlefield for two world wars, it was other
countries that came in to bail them out. Granted, the French resistance
performed admirably. If they had stood up to Hitler to start with, they
probably wouldn't have been a battlefield. Actually, if they hadn't been
among those imposing huge war reparations upon Germany following the first
world war, the second most likely would not have happened.

and during the police action in Korea, they
warned us about Indo-China,

They bailed out of Indo-China, leaving it to us.

they shed tears with us on and after 9-11,

Which all civilized countries did.

and they did their best to tell us that our intelligence on Iraqi WMDS
was incorrect so that we would not make ourselves look like liars
and/or idiots to the rest of the world.


Not exactly, they were trying to keep the US from finding out just how
much in bed they had been with Saddam and what a mockery they had helped
make of the "oil for Saddam's palaces" program.

What have you noticed that I missed? Or does all of the above
constitute "askin' for it"?


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

In article , George George@least wrote:

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
ups.com...
While I am very much for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership, when I hear of
As society administers a driving test before issuing a driver's
license, I think it would be a great idea to administer similar testing
prior to allowing a gun purchase....or when buying a dog.


How would you feel about testing voters?

Or requiring a license to operate a printing press, or practice
religion?

Kevin

Dave Hinz (in ) said:

| On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:30:37 -0600, Morris Dovey
| wrote:
|
|| How so? They were a major help at the battle of Yorktown,
|
| OK, so what about the _last_ 230 years?
|
|| they were an ally in two world wars and during the police action in
Korea,
|
| "ally" in the definition of "load to carry", yes.

The attitude of the time as best I can recall was close to "He ain't
heavy - he's my brother". By the time the US entered the war all of
the other allied participants had already taken a beating. I don't
recall anyone ever singling out the French as especially burdensome. I
_do_ recall disgust with the Vichey government and total admiration
for the Resistance, along with gratitude for the willingness of French
civilians to take enormous risks to help allied aviators and GI's
avoid capture by axis forces.

|| they warned us about Indo-China,
|
| They _caused_ the cluster**** in Vietnam.

They also warned that we would also find ourselves in over our heads -
as we realized after too many of our young men (also) were killed.

|| they shed tears with us on and after 9-11,
|
| So did everyone else that matters.

Exactly who, in your opinion, does not matter? There were a lot of
people in the world who were not sorry to see the US take one on the
chin. To say that those people do not matter would seem a most
dangerous form of denial.

|| and they did their best to tell us that our intelligence on Iraqi
|| WMDS was incorrect so that we would not make ourselves look like
|| liars and/or idiots to the rest of the world.
|
| Funny; they _sold_ a bunch of those WMDs to Iraq, so no wonder they
| didn't want us looking too closely at the situation. You _do_
| acknowledge the tens of thousands of Kurds killed by the Iraquis
| with WMDs sold to them by France, do you not?

My understanding is that the US also provided Sadam's government with
weaponry. It would be comforting to be able to believe that we weren't
guilty of enabling those behaviors; but I doubt it'd be very
realistic. I don't think we're in a very good position to criticize
other arms suppliers on this issue - because we all screwed up.

|| What have you noticed that I missed? Or does all of the above
|| constitute "askin' for it"?

IMO, even if I accepted every assertion you made, that would still not
provide any kind of sane justification for advocating action of any
kind against the French.

| The French are useless on a good day.

To you, perhaps. I don't see 'em that way - and I confess that I've
never felt that I had so many friends that I could afford to discard
any.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html