"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message

Here is the Arizona summary of gun laws:
http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbys...gunlaws_az.htm

Again, no comment on good, bad, etc. One interesting point is training
is required for concealed carry, but not for open carry.

What does that training entail? There's two types of training. I can see
basic gun training as learning how to safely handle a gun and perhaps some
target shooting so when one uses a gun, they at least have a decent chance
of hitting what they're aiming at.

Then there's the dozens of hours of situational training where one learns
how to handle dangerous situations. Learning when a situation is
threatening, how to possible avoid that threat or handle the situation with
the possibility of minimizing violence and the need to shoot someone ~
similar things like that.

Don't you think the situational training is at least if not more important
to know and learn than the basic training? The average person on the street
has very little idea of how to extricate themselves from a dangerous
situation other than shooting someone. Is it different in the US? Have you
all been exposed to so much violence that you have the instincts to know
what's best for most situations?

Does this make any sense? Of what use is basic training when all it comes
down to is shooting a gun? There's much more to know and learn.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message

Here is the Arizona summary of gun laws:
http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbys...gunlaws_az.htm

Again, no comment on good, bad, etc. One interesting point is training
is required for concealed carry, but not for open carry.

What does that training entail? There's two types of training. I can see
basic gun training as learning how to safely handle a gun and perhaps some
target shooting so when one uses a gun, they at least have a decent chance
of hitting what they're aiming at.

Then there's the dozens of hours of situational training where one learns
how to handle dangerous situations. Learning when a situation is
threatening, how to possible avoid that threat or handle the situation
with
the possibility of minimizing violence and the need to shoot someone ~
similar things like that.

Don't you think the situational training is at least if not more important
to know and learn than the basic training? The average person on the
street
has very little idea of how to extricate themselves from a dangerous
situation other than shooting someone. Is it different in the US? Have you
all been exposed to so much violence that you have the instincts to know
what's best for most situations?

Does this make any sense? Of what use is basic training when all it comes
down to is shooting a gun? There's much more to know and learn.

Is anyone [ Y - A - W - N ] still reading this [ Y - A - W - N ]
thread?

Dave in Houston

"Dave in Houston" wrote in message
Is anyone [ Y - A - W - N ] still reading this [ Y - A - W - N ]
thread?

You're here so apparently your life is pretty boring.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
Does this make any sense? Of what use is basic training when all it comes
down to is shooting a gun? There's much more to know and learn.

Think of it as meaningful in the same sense that driver education is
meaningful in relation to a drivers license. It amounts to squat. Forget I
mentioned it. I agree with that entirely.

OTOH, the parallels are appropriate at many levels. Suppose I didn't like
automobiles. Mortality and morbidity rates are on my side. Explain to me
your need to own an operate private transportation.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Upscale" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
There's one significant difference that appears to have eluded you: unlike
you
with your health insurance, I paid for my guns myself, instead of
expecting
other people to buy them for me.
What's different? I pay my share of taxes. It's money taken out of my
paycheck that goes into government coffers and is partially redistributed
back as health insurance. So you paid cash for a gun. I paid cash too, only
the money went a slightly different route. Either way, we both paid money.
Is that so hard to comprehend? Is there really so much difference?

Yes, there is indeed a difference: you can (and from some of the comments
you've made about your own health issues, probably *do*) receive much more
back from that program than you put into it. I, on the other hand, get what I
pay for, and no more -- and if what I *want* is more than I can afford, I'm
*not* expecting my fellow citizens to pick up the tab for the difference. Is
that so hard to comprehend?
Why do want to deprive me of the means of defending myself?
I don't want to deprive you of defending yourself. I just feel that the
average person does not have the experience, knowledge or proper training to
handle a firearm in the proper way.

And therefore (in your opinion) shouldn't be allowed to have one.
Thus depriving him of the means of defending himself.

Maybe it's difference for most people in
the US. You tell me.

No, I think it's a question of philosophical differences between you and me,
and, by extension, between typical Canadians and typical Americans (if there
is such a thing, on either side of the border). We don't trust our government
to do what's in our interests -- including protecting us from predators. When
seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Take the right to bear arms one step further. Forget about hand guns. Why
doesn't everybody in the US have a sub machine gun instead? Why isn't
everybody driving around with a bazooka in the car trunk?

Because most of us are realistic enough to understand that a handgun is
sufficient for personal self-defense. Perhaps if you had any experience with
firearms, you'd understand that too.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled several years ago that the
average citizen DOES NOT have a Constitutional right to PERSONAL police
protection. The Police are there to protect society not the indivicual.

Dave N

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "MikeWhy" wrote:
"Upscale" wrote in message
...
I don't want to deprive you of defending yourself. I just feel that the
average person does not have the experience, knowledge or proper training
to
handle a firearm in the proper way. Maybe it's difference for most people
in
the US. You tell me.
Training is required by law for those who carry in public.

Where??

Certainly not in Indiana, where I live. The only requirements for obtaining a
permit for concealed carry are (a) passing a criminal background
investigation, (b) being fingerprinted, and (c) payment of a modest fee.

Please note that I'm *not* commenting on, and don't intend to start a debate
on, whether this is good, bad, or indifferent. Just stating that's the way it
is.
Missouri has a concealed carry law that requires both class room
training and range skills testing. Costs about US$120.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "David G. Nagel" wrote:
Some years ago a congressman speaking before Congress stated that the
2nd amendment wasn't about shooting Bambi. It was about shooting
politicians who were screwing with the voting public. His speech was
deleted from the Congressional Record.

LOL -- wonder who that was. Wouldn't surprise me if it was Dan Burton
(R-Indiana).

No I don't think that it was Dapper Dan.

The point is valid, though: all of the rights and freedoms guaranteed to us by
the Constitution and Bill of Rights are only so many empty promises if we the
people lack the means to compel the government to honor those guarantees
should it ever become reluctant to do so on its own.

In a compromise the original Congress agreed to adopt amendments to the
Constitution to cover certain rights that were left out of the original
document. These became the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.
What most people don't know or realize what became the 1st amendment was
originally the THIRD of thirteen resolutions that were submitted to the
13 states. The first resolution became the 2nd amendment upon
ratification by 7 states. You can look up the dates yourself.

Doctors vs. Gun owners

Doctors

(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.

(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.

(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of

Health and Human Services.

Now think about this:

Guns

(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.

(Yes, that's 80 million)

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups,is 1,500.

(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188.

Statistics courtesy of FBI

So,statistically, doctors are approximately

9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

REMEMBER, GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE - DOCTORS DO

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat.

We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!

Out of concern for the public at large,

I withheld the statistics on lawyers

for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention!

Tom

"Tom Bunetta" wrote

Out of concern for the public at large,

I withheld the statistics on lawyers

for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention!

ROTFLMAO! ... good one, Tom.

But it might be the other way around. Brought to mind the video of that
lawyer, and a disgruntled client with a pistol, dancing around a tree a
couple of years back.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "MikeWhy" wrote:
"Upscale" wrote in message
...
I don't want to deprive you of defending yourself. I just feel that the
average person does not have the experience, knowledge or proper training
to
handle a firearm in the proper way. Maybe it's difference for most people
in
the US. You tell me.
Training is required by law for those who carry in public.

Where??

Certainly not in Indiana, where I live. snipped

Used to be you learned firearms skills from your father, but not so much
any more. I think it would good to have a mandatory marksmanship and
gun safety class in high school. But it would never happen; imagine the
noise the politically correct left wingnuts would make if you tried.

"Tom Bunetta" wrote in message
We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!

Now that's funny.

This has been around.

Enjoy

................................................. ...........
A BILL to Regulate the HUNTING & HARVESTING of ATTORNEYS

372.00
372.01 Any person with a valid Texas state rodent or armadillo
hunting license may hunt and harvest attorneys for
recreational and sporting (non-commerical) purposes.

372.02 Taking attorneys with traps or deadfalls is permitted. The
use of United States currency as bait; however, is prohibited.

372.03 The willful killing of attorneys with a motor vehicle is
prohibited, unless such vehicle is an ambulance being driven
in reverse. If an attorney is accidently struck and killed
by a motor vehille, the dead attorney should be removed to
the roadside and said vehicle should proceed to the nearest
car wash.

372.04 It is unlawful to chase, herd or harvest attorneys from a
power boat, helicopter or fixed wing aircraft.

372.05 It is unlawful to shout "WHIPLASH", AMBULANCE" OR
"FREE SCOTCH" for the purpose of trapping attorneys.

372.06 It is unlawful to hunt attorneys within 100 yards of BMW,
Mercedes or Porsche dealerships, except on Wednesday
afternoons.

372.07 It is unlawful to hunt attorneys within 200 yards of
courtrooms, law libraries, health clubs, country clubs,
yacht clubs or hospitals.

372.08 If an attorney gains elective office, it is not necessary
to have a license to hunt, trap or possess the same.

372.09 It is unlawful for a hunter to wear a disguise as a reporter,
accident victim, physician, chiropractor or tax accountant
for the purpose of hunting attorneys.

372.10 Bag limits per day:

Yellow-Bellied Sidewinders: ................ 2
Two-Faced Tortfeasors: ..................... 1
Back-Stabbing Divorce Litigators: .......... 3
Horn-Rimmed Cut-Throats: ................... 2
Minutiac-Advocating Chicken-****s: ......... 4
Honest Attorney: ........................... Protected
(Endangered
Species)

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
This has been around.

Enjoy

First time for me. Thanks.


................................................ ............
A BILL to Regulate the HUNTING & HARVESTING of ATTORNEYS

....
Minutiac-Advocating Chicken-****s: ......... 4

Likely, "Minutiae-..."

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:40:22 -0700, Just Wondering
wrote:

Used to be you learned firearms skills from your father, but not so much
any more. I think it would good to have a mandatory marksmanship and
gun safety class in high school. But it would never happen; imagine the
noise the politically correct left wingnuts would make if you tried.

Could require a military boot camp semester for all high school
students to graduate.

Now where will this end up

::stir::

Mark

Markem wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:40:22 -0700, Just Wondering
wrote:

Used to be you learned firearms skills from your father, but not so much
any more. I think it would good to have a mandatory marksmanship and
gun safety class in high school. But it would never happen; imagine the
noise the politically correct left wingnuts would make if you tried.

Could require a military boot camp semester for all high school
students to graduate.

Now where will this end up

::stir::

Mark


I recommend a mandatory fire arms training course. Mandatory completion
and minimum target score to graduate.

The gang bangers will still shoot each other but at least they will know
that you don't hold the gun sideways and they will be able to miss the
innocent bystanders.

Dave

On Dec 8, 9:25*pm, Markem wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:40:22 -0700, Just Wondering

wrote:
Used to be you learned firearms skills from your father, but not so much
any more. *I think it would good to have a mandatory marksmanship and
gun safety class in high school. *But it would never happen; imagine the
noise the politically correct left wingnuts would make if you tried.

Could require a military boot camp semester for all high school
students to graduate.

I'm all for that! Wimmin too! And upon completion, allow them to take
their weapon of choice home.

"David G. Nagel" wrote in message
The gang bangers will still shoot each other but at least they will know
that you don't hold the gun sideways and they will be able to miss the
innocent bystanders.

Depends on who he's shooting at. If he's shooting at you, then by all means,
let him hold the gun sideways. And when he's shot by someone else, at least
he can say he was being fashionable when he was shot down.

Markem wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:40:22 -0700, Just Wondering
wrote:

Used to be you learned firearms skills from your father, but not so
much any more. I think it would good to have a mandatory
marksmanship and gun safety class in high school. But it would
never happen; imagine the noise the politically correct left
wingnuts would make if you tried.

Could require a military boot camp semester for all high school
students to graduate.

Now where will this end up

I understand that Vietnam has 3 years of mandatory military training
for everybody. Not service--there's additional training if they
actually get called up--but training as part of the normal education.
Now given that Vietnam is a certified ultraleftist liberal workers'
paradise, one suspects that the Dems would jump right on such a plan.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 23:27:03 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Markem wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:40:22 -0700, Just Wondering
wrote:

Used to be you learned firearms skills from your father, but not so
much any more. I think it would good to have a mandatory
marksmanship and gun safety class in high school. But it would
never happen; imagine the noise the politically correct left
wingnuts would make if you tried.

Could require a military boot camp semester for all high school
students to graduate.

Now where will this end up

I understand that Vietnam has 3 years of mandatory military training
for everybody. Not service--there's additional training if they
actually get called up--but training as part of the normal education.
Now given that Vietnam is a certified ultraleftist liberal workers'
paradise, one suspects that the Dems would jump right on such a plan.

....don't the Swiss have something similar? No question, though, they
take their weapons home; for the duration. We don't hear much about
the Swiss Berserkers...oh, Isreal's service commitment is unigender
and required...interesting juxtaposition...

cg
--

Charlie Groh wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 23:27:03 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Markem wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:40:22 -0700, Just Wondering
wrote:

Used to be you learned firearms skills from your father, but not
so
much any more. I think it would good to have a mandatory
marksmanship and gun safety class in high school. But it would
never happen; imagine the noise the politically correct left
wingnuts would make if you tried.

Could require a military boot camp semester for all high school
students to graduate.

Now where will this end up

I understand that Vietnam has 3 years of mandatory military
training
for everybody. Not service--there's additional training if they
actually get called up--but training as part of the normal
education.
Now given that Vietnam is a certified ultraleftist liberal workers'
paradise, one suspects that the Dems would jump right on such a
plan.

...don't the Swiss have something similar? No question, though,
they
take their weapons home; for the duration. We don't hear much about
the Swiss Berserkers...oh, Isreal's service commitment is unigender
and required...interesting juxtaposition...

And in Israel people regularly get shot up, blown up, and otherwise
killed, but not by people who are legally armed and despite the best
efforts of the Israeli government the people they don't want to be
armed seem to be getting all the weapons they want.



--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Dec 9, 6:48*am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Charlie Groh wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 23:27:03 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Markem wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:40:22 -0700, Just Wondering
wrote:

Used to be you learned firearms skills from your father, but not
so
much any more. *I think it would good to have a mandatory
marksmanship and gun safety class in high school. *But it would
never happen; imagine the noise the politically correct left
wingnuts would make if you tried.

Could require a military boot camp semester for all high school
students to graduate.

Now where will this end up

I understand that Vietnam has 3 years of mandatory military
training
for everybody. *Not service--there's additional training if they
actually get called up--but training as part of the normal
education.
Now given that Vietnam is a certified ultraleftist liberal workers'
paradise, one suspects that the Dems would jump right on such a
plan.

...don't the Swiss have something similar? *No question, though,
they
take their weapons home; for the duration. *We don't hear much about
the Swiss Berserkers...oh, Isreal's service commitment is unigender
and required...interesting juxtaposition...

And in Israel people regularly get shot up, blown up, and otherwise
killed, but not by people who are legally armed and despite the best
efforts of the Israeli government the people they don't want to be
armed seem to be getting all the weapons they want.


You know WHY they're getting attacked. They are on land that doesn't
belong to them.
Other than that, next time you go trolling, don't use bait that looks
as artificial as this ...

Robatoy wrote:
SNIP

You know WHY they're getting attacked. They are on land that doesn't
belong to them.
Other than that, next time you go trolling, don't use bait that looks
as artificial as this ...


I'm buying you a history book with large print and small words. The
above is a vast trivialization of the issue. Here's a clue: The land
they occupy was mostly given them by the UN in 1948. The rest of it
they took while being *attacked*. They have since offered to return it
(Camp David Accords, for example) in exchange for a durable peace,
only to have it rebuffed by the Islamic tribal scumbags who need an
enemy or they'd turn on each other in a heartbeat.

Here's a bit more reality for you:

Israel's neighbors have about 500x the land, but say that it is
Israel's job to make room for the "Palestinians" - a people without a
distinct racial identity that are, in fact, mostly Hashemites - the
folks living in modern *Jordan*, not historic Israel. They want a
nation that is *22 miles wide* to solve a problem that they, the oil
rich multi-billionaires with huge amounts of land, refuse to address.

When the Jews were given the land in 1948, it was almost entirely
undeveloped and ran at a very low level agrarian subsistence. Today it
has modern technology, highways, schools, water, and flushing toilets.
Suddenly the "Palestinians" claim it is theirs. Moreover, the Jews
manufacture goods, export and import things, and generally run a
more-or-less modern economy. Their hundreds of millions of neighbors
on the Arab peninsula sit around doing nothing, while foreigners drill
and process their oil reserves. If you take petrodollars out of the
equation over there, the entire Arab peninsula outside of Israel has a
total GDP less than Denmark's - a very small nation by comparsion.

Prior to 1948, when the word "Palestinian" appeared on a birth
certificate or password, as often as not, it referred to a Jew born in
that region.

There are some 350-400 million Arabs & other Muslims living in the
region with less than 10 million Jews. But the Jews are the ones cited
as being a problem all the time by folks like you.

In the time since the modern state of Israel was formed, something
like 100,000 people have died in Israeli-Muslim conflict - that's
soldiers AND civilians on all sides. In that same period of time, over
3 *million* Muslims have butchered *each other*, yet somehow it ends
up being Israel's fault. The truth is that if they shut down the
Jewish state tomorrow, not much would change - it might possibly even
get worse - because the primary source of the violence is the tribal
Islamists that infest that part of the world.

I'm not Jewish, nor particularly defending Israel here, but I think the
truth ought to have some small currency in this discussion ...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
I'm not Jewish, nor particularly defending Israel here, but I think the
truth ought to have some small currency in this discussion ...

In a firearm troll thread? Fer sure not at all required, but always
welcome for the difficulty points.

On Dec 9, 9:56*am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

SNIP



You know WHY they're getting attacked. They are on land that doesn't
belong to them.
Other than that, next time you go trolling, don't use bait that looks
as artificial as this ...

I'm buying you a history book with large print and small words.

Now, now, Timbo,,, no need for insults. I guess Clarke's bait /was/
too shiny to resist, eh?

I'm not Jewish, nor particularly defending Israel here, but I think the
truth ought to have some small currency in this discussion ...

Ah yess. the Zionist party line. Boy, did you ever buy into that,
hook, line and sinker.

It was supposed to be God's decision when the Jews were allowed back
into their land, NOT the Bauer's.
But this topic cannot be discussed intelligently, regardless of your
eloquence, when your head is THAT far up your ass.

And the way you talk about muslims, makes you a bigot.

No more from me on this one, Timbo.

r
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
Tim Daneliuk * *
PGP Key: * * * *http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 9, 9:56 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

SNIP



You know WHY they're getting attacked. They are on land that doesn't
belong to them.
Other than that, next time you go trolling, don't use bait that looks
as artificial as this ...
I'm buying you a history book with large print and small words.

Now, now, Timbo,,, no need for insults. I guess Clarke's bait /was/
too shiny to resist, eh?
I'm not Jewish, nor particularly defending Israel here, but I think the
truth ought to have some small currency in this discussion ...

Ah yess. the Zionist party line. Boy, did you ever buy into that,
hook, line and sinker.

Absolutely not. There are any number of thing wherein I disagree
with Israel's actions. But to blame them for the current mess is
absurd. They aren't remotely the bad guys in the region.


It was supposed to be God's decision when the Jews were allowed back
into their land, NOT the Bauer's.
But this topic cannot be discussed intelligently, regardless of your
eloquence, when your head is THAT far up your ass.

Your anti-Semitism is well noted here and thus your unwillingness
to respond to factual discourse not surprising.


And the way you talk about muslims, makes you a bigot.


I have no particular problem with Muslims (it *is* capitalized)
as a group. I merely cited *facts* about the Muslims of that
region, none of which makes me remotely a bigot:

1) They are disproportionately violent in that region compared
to the other inhabitants - to the tune of 30x. This
makes them "scumbags" for failing to honestly attempt
to make peace - something Israel has done repeatedly.

2) The Muslims of the region *are* tribal. That's why there's
so much internecine violence. It seems that Sunnis and Shias
would much rather kill each other than even Jews or Christian
"infidels".

3) They have no GDP of any significance outside of oil and the
bulk of the actual labor is performed by foreigners.

Which of these facts do you find indicative of bigotry?
I assure you that none was intended. I was primarily
focused on flattening your vicious (and often demonstrated)
hatred of ... you know ... whispering in Robotoy's tone
of voice and terminology "the money lenders".


No more from me on this one, Timbo.


Till the next time you feel the need to purge yourself of
an anti-Semitic swipe. Why not go whole hog and take
a whack at the Amer-Indians that cohabit your nation,
or the blacks, or the brown people or the Asians. You
may as well get it all off your chest. It will feel good
to take off the hood and just be what you are without
restraint ...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Dec 9, 11:55*am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


Till the next time you feel the need to purge yourself of
an anti-Semitic swipe. *Why not go whole hog and take
a whack at the Amer-Indians that cohabit your nation,
or the blacks, or the brown people or the Asians. *You
may as well get it all off your chest. *It will feel good
to take off the hood and just be what you are without
restraint ...


Just when I thought you couldn't get any lower...

In article , "Upscale" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message

Because most of us are realistic enough to understand that a handgun is
sufficient for personal self-defense. Perhaps if you had any experience
with
firearms, you'd understand that too.

So now you're going to be patronizing? I've had and have considerable
experience with firearms, rifles, target rifles and hand guns. I've also
owned all three at one time or another including having a transport permit
to take the hand guns to the gun range. 22-250 target rifle, Colt 45 hand
gun, browning challenger 22 and a few other odds and ends.

Pardon me if I allow my skepticism to show...

I have not had
nor ever desire to have a concealed carry permit, something that is
exceeding difficult to get in Canada.

*Those* claims, on the other hand, I believe without reservation.

Perhaps that's not sufficient for what you consider experience, but if
that's the case I pity you for thinking more experience than that is needed.
Don't for one second let your arrogance make you look like a fool Doug.

So if you really have that level of experience with firearms, why would you
imagine that anyone wants or needs a "sub machine gun ... or a bazooka in the
trunk" (your words, not mine) for personal self defense?

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
sufficient for personal self-defense. Perhaps if you had any experience
with firearms, you'd understand that too.
Don't for one second let your arrogance make you look like a fool Doug.

Pardon me if I allow my skepticism to show...

Then you are a fool. Let me ask you. What if I was able to prove some of it
to your satisfaction? What would it do to this discussion?

So if you really have that level of experience with firearms, why would
you
imagine that anyone wants or needs a "sub machine gun ... or a bazooka in
the
trunk" (your words, not mine) for personal self defense?

You're so gung ho about self protection. If everybody has a gun, then why
haven't you ramped up your protection to outdo everybody else? That's partly
why I asked the question and also because it *was* a ridiculous question to
ask. Of course, you bit on it right away.

In article , "Upscale" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
sufficient for personal self-defense. Perhaps if you had any experience
with firearms, you'd understand that too.
Don't for one second let your arrogance make you look like a fool Doug.

Pardon me if I allow my skepticism to show...

Then you are a fool.

To the contrary, I would be a fool if I accepted at face value the claims of
someone as rabidly anti-gun as yourself to be a gun owner with extensive
shooting experience. To put it bluntly, I think you're lying about that.

Let me ask you. What if I was able to prove some of it
to your satisfaction? What would it do to this discussion?

That ought to be interesting...

So if you really have that level of experience with firearms, why would you
imagine that anyone wants or needs a "sub machine gun ... or a bazooka in the
trunk" (your words, not mine) for personal self defense?

You're so gung ho about self protection. If everybody has a gun, then why
haven't you ramped up your protection to outdo everybody else?

All the more reason why I think you're lying about having, or knowing anything
about, guns. You clearly don't understand the concepts involved.

That's partly
why I asked the question and also because it *was* a ridiculous question to
ask. Of course, you bit on it right away.


So you only said that for "effect". Riiiiiiiiight.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
All the more reason why I think you're lying about having, or knowing
anything
about, guns. You clearly don't understand the concepts involved.

I'll tell you what I want if you're proven wrong. I want you to publicly
apologize to me for thinking I was lying and admit you're a fool for
thinking so. Nothing less, nothing more. What would you want in return if I
don't offer that proof? How about it big man, put yourself on the line. I'm
willing to. This is going to be fun. One person would trust is Robatoy. He
makes the occasional trip to Toronto. Him I would agree to meet. What it if
he agrees to be arbiter?

You said this would be interesting, take it one step further. I ask you
again. What would it take to prove otherwise while maintaining a certain
level of my privacy?

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
All the more reason why I think you're lying about having, or knowing
anything
about, guns. You clearly don't understand the concepts involved.

I'll tell you what I want if you're proven wrong. I want you to publicly
apologize to me for thinking I was lying and admit you're a fool for
thinking so. Nothing less, nothing more. What would you want in return if
I
don't offer that proof? How about it big man, put yourself on the line.
I'm
willing to. This is going to be fun. One person would trust is Robatoy. He
makes the occasional trip to Toronto. Him I would agree to meet. What it
if
he agrees to be arbiter?

You said this would be interesting, take it one step further. I ask you
again. What would it take to prove otherwise while maintaining a certain
level of my privacy?

Speaking only for myself, and presuming others might feel the same, it isn't
worth even the crust on my one day old PBJ sandwich. It might be worth
something to you, however, as your earlier "ramp up" escalation comment
makes you look churlish, foolish, and ill informed.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:EaO%k.6509
To the contrary, I would be a fool if I accepted at face value the claims
of
someone as rabidly anti-gun as yourself to be a gun owner with extensive
shooting experience.

Something you said made me think a bit and I'm come to the conclusion that
you don't understand fully what I've trying to say. Perhaps it's partly the
cause of the friction between us. I'm not "anti-gun". I'm anti-everybody
having a gun and the average citizen being able to get a carry permit.
There's a big difference between the first and the second as far as I'm
concerned.

Does that make any sense to you? Owning a gun comes with a significant sense
of responsibility. Your firearms laws negate any real responsibility.

One other thing. I don't cheat and I don't lie. As far as you accepting
anything at face value, that's up to you, but you'd be 100% wrong in this
case.

On Dec 10, 2:27*pm, "Upscale" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:EaO%k.6509
To the contrary, I would be a fool if I accepted at face value the claims
of
someone as rabidly anti-gun as yourself to be a gun owner with extensive
shooting experience.

Something you said made me think a bit and I'm come to the conclusion that
you don't understand fully what I've trying to say. Perhaps it's partly the
cause of the friction between us. I'm not "anti-gun". I'm anti-everybody
having a gun and the average citizen being able to get a carry permit.
There's a big difference between the first and the second as far as I'm
concerned.

Does that make any sense to you? Owning a gun comes with a significant sense
of responsibility. Your firearms laws negate any real responsibility.

One other thing. I don't cheat and I don't lie. As far as you accepting
anything at face value, that's up to you, but you'd be 100% wrong in this
case.

Give it up. NObody has EVER been able to make Miller see anything
other than his own (often wrong) viewpoints. You, my friend, are
wasting your time. I'd put him close to par with Timbo The Hot Air-
inflatable Clown.

Upscale wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:EaO%k.6509
To the contrary, I would be a fool if I accepted at face value the claims
of
someone as rabidly anti-gun as yourself to be a gun owner with extensive
shooting experience.

Something you said made me think a bit and I'm come to the conclusion that
you don't understand fully what I've trying to say. Perhaps it's partly the
cause of the friction between us. I'm not "anti-gun". I'm anti-everybody
having a gun and the average citizen being able to get a carry permit.
There's a big difference between the first and the second as far as I'm
concerned.

Another manifestation of the "I Know What's Good For Everybody Else"
syndrome. "Everybody" cannot get a gun in the US, nor can "Everyone"
carry - concealed or otherwise. But it's convenient to prop up these
ideological strawmen in the face of contrary facts - stunning coming
from someone who does not "cheat {or] lie". But, as always, you
and yours love your self anointed role as Saviors Of Mankind and
*you* of course should get to decide just who fits into what
category. It's precisely because of the liberty robbers with
that attitude that the US Framers made personal gun ownership
an explicitly protected right.


Does that make any sense to you? Owning a gun comes with a significant sense
of responsibility. Your firearms laws negate any real responsibility.

The latter statement is absurd on its face and can only be uttered by
someone with a complete lack of (or completely sophomoric) understanding
of US laws, how power is divided between states and the Fed government,
and just what firearms laws are in place in the US. To legally purchase
a firearm in the US, you are under Federal, State, and sometimes local
government scrutiny. Ditto purchasing ammo. If and when you discharge
the weapon - whether in a range or at an intruder - you are once again
under the supervision, and potentially the lockup of the state and local
authorities respectively. Lethal force is legal in the US in only the
narrowest of circumstances - defense of life and/or property, and even
these vary considerably by State.

Then again, crimes tend to be committed by ... criminals ... for whom
no amount of law makes much difference.

One other thing. I don't cheat and I don't lie. As far as you accepting
anything at face value, that's up to you, but you'd be 100% wrong in this
case.



You support theft - we established that long ago in your vigorous
defense of taking from some citizens and giving to others. This
is a kind of cheating.

I can't speak to the lying issue - you seem truthful enough, however
utterly wrong you are on most issues.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 10, 2:27 pm, "Upscale" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:EaO%k.6509
To the contrary, I would be a fool if I accepted at face value the claims
of
someone as rabidly anti-gun as yourself to be a gun owner with extensive
shooting experience.
Something you said made me think a bit and I'm come to the conclusion that
you don't understand fully what I've trying to say. Perhaps it's partly the
cause of the friction between us. I'm not "anti-gun". I'm anti-everybody
having a gun and the average citizen being able to get a carry permit.
There's a big difference between the first and the second as far as I'm
concerned.

Does that make any sense to you? Owning a gun comes with a significant sense
of responsibility. Your firearms laws negate any real responsibility.

One other thing. I don't cheat and I don't lie. As far as you accepting
anything at face value, that's up to you, but you'd be 100% wrong in this
case.

Give it up. NObody has EVER been able to make Miller see anything
other than his own (often wrong) viewpoints. You, my friend, are
wasting your time. I'd put him close to par with Timbo The Hot Air-
inflatable Clown.

You honor me deeply by association with one of the few clear thinkers
in this blabfest. And its good to know that I bug you enough that
you feel the need to invent pet names of aggravation.
Game ... set ... match (as always).

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:27:40 -0500, "Upscale"
wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:EaO%k.6509
To the contrary, I would be a fool if I accepted at face value the claims
of
someone as rabidly anti-gun as yourself to be a gun owner with extensive
shooting experience.

Something you said made me think a bit and I'm come to the conclusion that
you don't understand fully what I've trying to say. Perhaps it's partly the
cause of the friction between us. I'm not "anti-gun". I'm anti-everybody
having a gun and the average citizen being able to get a carry permit.
There's a big difference between the first and the second as far as I'm
concerned.

Does that make any sense to you? Owning a gun comes with a significant sense
of responsibility. Your firearms laws negate any real responsibility.

....the *laws* don't negate responsibility, the criminal part of our
culture does. The *laws* are fine as written, the problem is in the
enforcement. You're still on the arrogant side...you consider the
"average" citizen to be pretty far down on the evolutionary scale,
apparently. What *is* average?

cg

One other thing. I don't cheat and I don't lie. As far as you accepting
anything at face value, that's up to you, but you'd be 100% wrong in this
case.

In article , "Upscale" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
All the more reason why I think you're lying about having, or knowing
anything
about, guns. You clearly don't understand the concepts involved.

I'll tell you what I want if you're proven wrong. I want you to publicly
apologize to me for thinking I was lying and admit you're a fool for
thinking so. Nothing less, nothing more. What would you want in return if I
don't offer that proof? How about it big man, put yourself on the line. I'm
willing to. This is going to be fun. One person would trust is Robatoy.

You've got to be kidding. He's clinically insane.

In article , "Upscale" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:EaO%k.6509
To the contrary, I would be a fool if I accepted at face value the claims
of
someone as rabidly anti-gun as yourself to be a gun owner with extensive
shooting experience.

Something you said made me think a bit and I'm come to the conclusion that
you don't understand fully what I've trying to say. Perhaps it's partly the
cause of the friction between us. I'm not "anti-gun". I'm anti-everybody
having a gun and the average citizen being able to get a carry permit.

In other words, you think most people shouldn't be allowed to have them.

That makes you anti-gun.

There's a big difference between the first and the second as far as I'm
concerned.

Hardly.
Does that make any sense to you? Owning a gun comes with a significant sense
of responsibility. Your firearms laws negate any real responsibility.

You're clearly ignorant of our firearms laws.


One other thing. I don't cheat and I don't lie. As far as you accepting
anything at face value, that's up to you, but you'd be 100% wrong in this
case.

Whatever. You're obviously strongly anti-gun, and your claim to own them is
simply not plausible.

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , "Upscale"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
All the more reason why I think you're lying about having, or knowing
anything
about, guns. You clearly don't understand the concepts involved.

I'll tell you what I want if you're proven wrong. I want you to publicly
apologize to me for thinking I was lying and admit you're a fool for
thinking so. Nothing less, nothing more. What would you want in return if I
don't offer that proof? How about it big man, put yourself on the line. I'm
willing to. This is going to be fun. One person would trust is Robatoy.

You've got to be kidding. He's clinically insane.

Uh-oh. That'd be libel.
Expect some paperwork on that soon. You're about to find out how well
connected I am south of the border.

Doug Miller wrote:
SNIP

One other thing. I don't cheat and I don't lie. As far as you accepting
anything at face value, that's up to you, but you'd be 100% wrong in this
case.

Whatever. You're obviously strongly anti-gun, and your claim to own them is
simply not plausible.


Not necessarily. Almost without exception, lefty ideologues think they
are above the huddled masses (the rest of us) and feel no particular
compunction in granting themselves permission to do and own things
they feel others should be forbidden from doing/having. It is entirely
possible our dear Upscale wants for himself that which he wishes to
deny others. The examples of such behaviors on the left are numerous
(and nauseating). Among them, we find Our Savior Of The Earth, Al
Gore, flying around in private jets. Our Savior Of The Downtrodden,
Michael Moore, living the life of a wealthy millionaire. And, of
course, Our Savior Of Everything, Comrade St. Obama, denying the
average citizen (or trying to) the same protections afforded by
firearms that he personally possesses (and we all pay for). They're
not really liars - they're arrogant hypocrites...


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/