Josepi wrote:

I just find it very ironic that it that the "Weapons of mass
destruction do not kill people. People kill people" slogan doesn't
apply to other races of people.


Remember the mantra: "Bows and arrows don't kill people. The ****in' INDIANS
kill people!"

On 01 Mar 2011 10:39:21 GMT, Han wrote:

"ChairMan" wrote in news:XF_ap.2$6A6.0
:

In ,
Josepi spewed forth:
Real easy!

Just remove ALL the guns from society at large.

No, the criminals will still have them, because they are "criminals"

please take a course in logic. Once all guns are removed, there are no
more guns. I'm not saying it would be easy, but ...

Taking the guns away from society is like taking all the bars down
from the zoo. Wild animals would be everywhere, with no constraint.
Please take some logic courses yourself, and think it through!

If you think a criminal is no longer a criminal or a threat just
because he doesn't have a gun, you're _sorely_ mistaken.

When a criminal sees that their victim is totally unarmed, it
emboldens them to do more and worse. How can you sleep at night with
those thoughts?

--
That is what learning is. You suddenly understand something
you've understood all your life, but in a new way.
-- Doris Lessing

On Mar 1, 5:39*am, Han wrote:
"ChairMan" wrote in news:XF_ap.2$6A6.0
@unlimited.newshosting.com:

,
Josepi spewed forth:
Real easy!

Just remove ALL the guns from society at large.

No, the criminals will still have them, because they are "criminals"

please take a course in logic. *Once all guns are removed, there are no
more guns. *I'm not saying it would be easy, but ...


I do see what you're trying to get across. I see a problem though, and
that (aside from sheer logistic impossibility) is that the only way to
get the criminals to hand over their guns, or to forcibly take away
those guns....would be at 'gun point'. The cops would have the only
guns left and with it, absolute power...and we all know where _that_
leads us.
Guns, like knives, like clubs, like bows/arrows are a fact of life.
Weapons are a fact of life. To wish them away is not an option.. it
would be awesome if that could be made to happen, but it would be
easier to reverse the rotation of planet.
Having said that, as long as there is some schmuck with ill intent,
wandering the streets of my town, it is my DUTY to protect myself and
my family. The cops won't, so I will.
I reserve the right to be 'equal' to those who wish me and mine, harm.
If you're looking for a model, look no further that Switzerland....
even though the place is full of Switzers.

Take the logic to ridiculous heights anf then point out it's weaknesses that
do not even apply.

Why would a mugger shoot you if you don't have a weapon? Totally stupid
logic.

"Let's see! If I get caught I can spend two years or a suspended sentence
for robbing this old guy or I can just shoot him right away and risk life or
the death penalty??? Now if he has a gun I could claim it as self defense
and get away with it, so let's just shoot the old guy right away and be done
with all the hard thinking!"

"Damn! He's on the ground dead! Now **I*** have to do all the hard work
looking for his wallet!.....duh!"

The USA people need guns to protect themselves against all the other guns
that were bought to protect themselves from all the other guns that were
bought to protect themselves..... We save our money to sit on beaches in
Mexico and Spain and laugh about it.

You (the USAnians) have themselves a problem and just can't get out of it.
The government has the people tied up in logic over "their basic rights"
while they screw them from the back with wars and donating their children to
them.

---------------------
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
Taking the guns away from society is like taking all the bars down
from the zoo. Wild animals would be everywhere, with no constraint.
Please take some logic courses yourself, and think it through!

If you think a criminal is no longer a criminal or a threat just
because he doesn't have a gun, you're _sorely_ mistaken.

When a criminal sees that their victim is totally unarmed, it
emboldens them to do more and worse. How can you sleep at night with
those thoughts?

--
That is what learning is. You suddenly understand something
you've understood all your life, but in a new way.
-- Doris Lessing

Josepi wrote:
Take the logic to ridiculous heights anf then point out it's
weaknesses that do not even apply.

Why would a mugger shoot you if you don't have a weapon? Totally
stupid logic.

I used to doubt that you even had a head, based on past posts by you. I now
am convinced that you do, indeed have a head as made obvious by where you
have it...


"Let's see! If I get caught I can spend two years or a suspended
sentence for robbing this old guy or I can just shoot him right away
and risk life or the death penalty??? Now if he has a gun I could
claim it as self defense and get away with it, so let's just shoot
the old guy right away and be done with all the hard thinking!"

Don't leave - reality is coming your way.


The USA people need guns to protect themselves against all the other
guns that were bought to protect themselves from all the other guns
that were bought to protect themselves..... We save our money to sit
on beaches in Mexico and Spain and laugh about it.


That's good. You sit there - but why don't you just sit there quietly
instead of making such a fool of yourself? You really don't believe that
the US is the only country with guns in the hands of private citizens, do
you?


You (the USAnians) have themselves a problem and just can't get out
of it. The government has the people tied up in logic over "their
basic rights" while they screw them from the back with wars and
donating their children to them.

Sigh... would you consent to coming over here and showing us the right way?
Oh wonderful, knowledgeable one? On second thought - don't bother...


--

-Mike-

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:13:01 -0600, HeyBub wrote:

It may be difficult, but wrap your mind around this concept: When it
comes to guns, "need" or "real use" or "hunting" has no traction with
the gun community.

One more time: the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with either hunting or
need. It's an insurance policy against tyrants.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

"Han" wrote in message ...

Just remove ALL the guns from society at large.

No, the criminals will still have them, because they are "criminals"

please take a course in logic. Once all guns are removed, there are no
more guns. I'm not saying it would be easy, but ...


Criminals can bring illegal drugs into the country at times by the truckload
or shipload, not to mention illegal immigrants in similar fashion, but we're
supposed to think they wouldn't meet a criminal demand for guns by smuggling
them too? Perhaps you should sign up for that course in logic you're
recommending.

A former head of Scotland Yard testified to a parliamentary committee in
Britain that any criminal in the UK who wanted a gun could get one within a
day despite Britain's harsh gun law, he even described the prices various
sorts of weapons brought. You can ban anything you please, but so long as
there is a demand for it then someone will supply that demand for profit.
By pushing firearms underground a policy such as you endorse would ensure
that only criminals would be armed.

"Han" wrote in message ...


If we could keep firearms out of the hands of lunatics and criminals
then they could have all the high-capacity magazines they wanted and
it wouldn't matter. It's *guns* in the hands of violent people that
are the problem, solve that and the rest is easy.

Fine by me. You have my vote. Go ahead.

Let's start by enforcing the thousands of laws concerning firearms already
on the books in America at local, state and federal levels. A tiny fraction
of firearms dealers are responsible for a hugely disproportionate number of
guns used in crimes--why aren't we paying closer attention to those dealers?
Why are such dealers who are occasionally shut down able to sign over the
business to a family member or business partner and go on selling guns?
Wouldn't making it more difficult for criminals to get guns make more sense
than taking guns away from sane, sober, law-abiding citizens who are
extremely unlikely to ever get in trouble with the law?

If criminals are ignoring existing laws, how is passing more laws going to
reduce crime if enforcement of the news laws is no better than enforcement
of the old laws? If too many people are breaking he speed limit, which
response makes more sense--improving enforcement, or lowering the speed
limit?

"DGDevin" wrote in message
of firearms dealers are responsible for a hugely disproportionate number
of guns used in crimes--why aren't we paying closer attention to those
dealers? Why are such dealers who are occasionally shut down able to sign
over the business to a family member or business partner and go on selling
guns?

I'm pretty sure his suggestion to remove all guns would start addressing the
problem by eliminating guns supplied by gun dealers including their ability
to transfer the business to someone else.

No one ever said that removing all guns would be easy or fast. And most
certainly, if it was attempted, attrition over time, a long time, would be
part of the process. You've expressed your views on handling guns and drugs,
a view that's sometimes shared by others. My only comment there is that like
Han and those that feel the opposite, I'm not a believer that legalizing
something that appears uninforceable by any other means is the only viable
solution. In the short term it may cause so much havoc that society might
not recover. We each have our own beliefs and have discussed these subjects
many times, before. I doubt anybody is likely to change their opinions now.

Pax.

On 2/26/2011 2:27 PM, Han wrote:

I believe the Constitution is the supreme law. clipped
Now personally, I'm really in favor of limiting guns and ammo ...

Since the Constitution says, "the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed," how do you explain the apparent
inconsistency between your two statements?

On 2/27/2011 12:56 AM, Upscale wrote:
"Larry wrote in message
Han, limiting legal guns has no effect on the number of guns in
criminal hands. You can buy a black market gun on many streetcorners
in any large city, and in most small ones. Your gun bans would only
limit the number of _defensive_ weapons in law-abiding citizens'
hands.

A significant number of firearms are stolen during break ins from legal
owners.

Oh? Do you have any verifiable citations to back up that statement?


While that certainly does not account for the totality of firearms
available in the US, it does count for many of them when examined a little
more closely.

So how about examining it a little more closely?
How many firearms are in the US?
Of that number, how many are privately owned?
Of that number, how many are owned legally?
How many are owned illegally?
Of that number, how many were obtained through thefts from break-ins?


Clipped Legalizing everything is tantamount to turning your entire
country into the wild west where might makes right.

Leaving movies and dime-store numbers out of the picture, do you have
any evidence to show that the so-called "wild west" was any more lawless
than present-day society?

Good that would many less firearms for the kids to shoot themselves with.


"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
A former head of Scotland Yard testified to a parliamentary committee in
Britain that any criminal in the UK who wanted a gun could get one within a
day despite Britain's harsh gun law, he even described the prices various
sorts of weapons brought. You can ban anything you please, but so long as
there is a demand for it then someone will supply that demand for profit.
By pushing firearms underground a policy such as you endorse would ensure
that only criminals would be armed.

Biodegradable firearms are the thing of the future. In about 1000 years the
streets could be clean in the USA. Drug dealers would have to learn to fight
the old way and kids would have to kill their parents with rocks again.
School students could walk to safety when a rock thrower is on a tall
building with a scope mounted to his arm.



"Upscale" wrote in message
...
I'm pretty sure his suggestion to remove all guns would start addressing the
problem by eliminating guns supplied by gun dealers including their ability
to transfer the business to someone else.

No one ever said that removing all guns would be easy or fast. And most
certainly, if it was attempted, attrition over time, a long time, would be
part of the process. You've expressed your views on handling guns and drugs,
a view that's sometimes shared by others. My only comment there is that like
Han and those that feel the opposite, I'm not a believer that legalizing
something that appears uninforceable by any other means is the only viable
solution. In the short term it may cause so much havoc that society might
not recover. We each have our own beliefs and have discussed these subjects
many times, before. I doubt anybody is likely to change their opinions now.

Pax.

On 3/1/2011 3:39 AM, Han wrote:
wrote in news:XF_ap.2$6A6.0
@unlimited.newshosting.com:

In ,
spewed forth:
Real easy!

Just remove ALL the guns from society at large.

No, the criminals will still have them, because they are "criminals"

please take a course in logic. Once all guns are removed, there are no
more guns. I'm not saying it would be easy, but ...


Do you propose disarming all of society, including the police and
military?

On 3/1/2011 12:58 PM, Upscale wrote:

No one ever said that removing all guns would be easy or fast.

Or constitutional. Or even possible.

Once we have the USA under control by removing all their weapons then we can
say what we really mean on Usenet. without being called up in the middle of
the night and told about how to clean a rifle.

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
...
Once it's done (it would require, not just a repeal of the Second
Amendment, but also a hew constitutional amendment explicitly denying
the right to bear arms), you can go ahead and remove the eliminate the
right to free speech too. That'll let you get Usenet under control.
That'll show those ignorant hillbillys. And with the right to bear arms
gone, it'll be all the easier to eliminate all the other rights the U.S.
Constitution recognizes in those durn hillbillys.

On 3/1/2011 3:18 PM, Josepi wrote:

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
...
Once it's done (it would require, not just a repeal of the Second
Amendment, but also a hew constitutional amendment explicitly denying
the right to bear arms), you can go ahead and remove the eliminate the
right to free speech too. That'll let you get Usenet under control.
That'll show those ignorant hillbillys. And with the right to bear arms
gone, it'll be all the easier to eliminate all the other rights the U.S.
Constitution recognizes in those durn hillbillys.

Once we have the USA under control by removing all their weapons then
we can say what we really mean on Usenet. without being called up in
the middle of the night and told about how to clean a rifle.

Is there something you want to post on Usenet that you can't because
someone out there is stopping you with the use of a firearm? Or is it
that you want to be free to say what you want, but don't want people who
disagree with you to reply?

That is basically what we have in Canada. Then they offer "free time" where
all the illegal guns can be handed in without questions.

It's not a case of banning them. It's a case of controlling them so when a
crime occurs the police know where the gun came from and somebody is in
****. The end result is "do I really need this many guns" and "I better get
those locks and lockers for my guns and keep them under control". Of course
pistols and sidearm weapons are not allowed without a good reason. It will
still take 100 years to get the gun population down to a better number,
though. Since they are so popular that figure may increase to about 500
years for the USA.


-----------------------
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
eb.com...
A solution that also generates a revenue stream is obvious.

License all fire arms that get renewed annualy, much like hunting
licenses.

License renewal could be as low as $25/yr/weapon; however, failure to
renew would be a $5K fine and 6 months in jail.

Every body gets to keep their pacifiers and a few $ get generated to
pay for weapons investigation related issues.

Lew

Maybe both. I have been there and got the tee-shirt


....and "No!" I wasn't banging his wife.

Trouble is in the middle of the night your wife is beside you, in bed,
asking, "WTF did he want?"


----------------------
"Just Wondering" wrote in message
...
Is there something you want to post on Usenet that you can't because
someone out there is stopping you with the use of a firearm? Or is it
that you want to be free to say what you want, but don't want people who
disagree with you to reply?

Lew Hodgett wrote:

Hello "Ding Dongs", AKA: Recently elected governors of Ohio (Kasich),
Wisconsin(Walker) and Florida(Scott).

You don't want high speed rail research projects in your states, no
problem.

The money you are rejecting has been committed, so the Feds are simply
redirecting your funds to us here in California.

We'll take it

Maybe there are some more governors who don't want high speed rail in
their states.

If so, mind telling them we like high speed rail here in California?

We'll accept their money.

Wonder how your decisions will play when you stand for reelection?

Welcome To The World Of Big Time Politics "Ding Dongs".

Lew
Oh thats great, no one in California will use it. So it will end up like
Metro Rail, Crime ridden and how to get out of the area for criminals Rail
and subsidized by the tax payer. Another money pit which will be millions or
billions over budget. Sounds Great!
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"

http://rentmyhusband.biz/

On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 14:15:56 -0700, Just Wondering
wrote:

On 3/1/2011 12:58 PM, Upscale wrote:

No one ever said that removing all guns would be easy or fast.

Or constitutional. Or even possible.

How would the gun grabbers feel if their neighbors put up signs like
this? titter
http://rense.com/1.imagesH/houseguns.jpg

Also from that page: --snip--
Great pro-gun quotes!

€œGun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped
and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a
woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet
wound.€� - L. Neil Smith

€œGun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters.
I want you to have nothing. I'm a bad guy; I'm always gonna have a
gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll
pull the trigger. We'll see who wins.€� - Sammy "The Bull" Gravano,
whose testimony convicted John Gotti

"Gun control has not worked in D.C. The only people who have guns are
criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the
highest murder rates. Its quicker to pull your Smith and Wesson than
to dial 911 if youre being robbed." - Lieutenant Lowell Duckett,
President of Black Police Caucus, Special Assistant to Washington,
D.C. Police Chief

€œI am convinced that we can do to guns what we've done to drugs:
create a multi-billion dollar underground market over which we have
absolutely no control.€� - George L. Roman

€œThey have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in
Cuba. So why do they want to come here?€� - Paul Harvey, 1994

€œThis year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized
nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our
police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the
future!€� - Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany

€œGun registration is a gateway drug.€� - Mark Gilmore

€œThose now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them
over to the local police authority. Firearms and ammunition found in a
Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without
compensation. Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions
will be punished with imprisonment and a fine.€� - Nazi Law
(Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons), 1938

€œAmong the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will
look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the
blackest.€� - Mahatma Gandhi, in Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 446

€œHe that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.€� - Luke
22:36 (King James Version)

€œSuppose the Second amendment said "A well-educated electorate being
necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people
to keep and read books shall not be infringed." Is there anyone who
would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?€�
- Robert Levy, Georgetown University Professor

€œ[We] should not blame a gun itself for any crime or any acts of
violence, any more than we can blame a pen for misspelling a word.€� -
Senator Wallace F. Bennett (R-UT), Congressional Record, 5/16/68

€œIt is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its
government.€� - Thomas Paine (1737-1809), American Revolutionary,
Founding Father and Author
--snip--

--
That is what learning is. You suddenly understand something
you've understood all your life, but in a new way.
-- Doris Lessing

One thing becomes apparent. All the wonderful gun support quotes are eons
old when guns actually meant something other than a way to have an accident.

---
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
How would the gun grabbers feel if their neighbors put up signs like
this? titter
http://rense.com/1.imagesH/houseguns.jpg

Also from that page: --snip--
Great pro-gun quotes!

€œGun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped
and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a
woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet
wound.€� - L. Neil Smith

€œGun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters.
I want you to have nothing. I'm a bad guy; I'm always gonna have a
gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll
pull the trigger. We'll see who wins.€� - Sammy "The Bull" Gravano,
whose testimony convicted John Gotti

"Gun control has not worked in D.C. The only people who have guns are
criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the
highest murder rates. Its quicker to pull your Smith and Wesson than
to dial 911 if youre being robbed." - Lieutenant Lowell Duckett,
President of Black Police Caucus, Special Assistant to Washington,
D.C. Police Chief

€œI am convinced that we can do to guns what we've done to drugs:
create a multi-billion dollar underground market over which we have
absolutely no control.€� - George L. Roman

€œThey have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in
Cuba. So why do they want to come here?€� - Paul Harvey, 1994

€œThis year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized
nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our
police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the
future!€� - Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany

€œGun registration is a gateway drug.€� - Mark Gilmore

€œThose now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them
over to the local police authority. Firearms and ammunition found in a
Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without
compensation. Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions
will be punished with imprisonment and a fine.€� - Nazi Law
(Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons), 1938

€œAmong the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will
look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the
blackest.€� - Mahatma Gandhi, in Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 446

€œHe that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.€� - Luke
22:36 (King James Version)

€œSuppose the Second amendment said "A well-educated electorate being
necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people
to keep and read books shall not be infringed." Is there anyone who
would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?€�
- Robert Levy, Georgetown University Professor

€œ[We] should not blame a gun itself for any crime or any acts of
violence, any more than we can blame a pen for misspelling a word.€� -
Senator Wallace F. Bennett (R-UT), Congressional Record, 5/16/68

€œIt is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its
government.€� - Thomas Paine (1737-1809), American Revolutionary,
Founding Father and Author
--snip--

--
That is what learning is. You suddenly understand something
you've understood all your life, but in a new way.
-- Doris Lessing

Could this have been your family?
http://www.asylum.co.uk/2011/03/01/b...hoots-himself/

or one of these?
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,3490786.story

http://www.channel4.com/news/cumbria...shooting-spree

or perhaps this was your gun and your neighbor's kid you supplied it to
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news...bbery-his-par/

or maybe you got drunk and into a fight with your own son
http://kezi.com/news/local/204986
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...lf-1011332.php
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-...nclick_check=1
http://www2.hickoryrecord.com/news/2...end-ar-824708/

or maybe they shot themselves by accident with YOUR gun
http://www.theindependent.com/articl...e/12929838.txt

If that isn't vivid enough, here is a video of a woman killing her son for
something to do.
http://www.solveamericasproblems.com...?8,21769,21788

look...he defended himself against his own son.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2658187/posts



"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
How would the gun grabbers feel if their neighbors put up signs like
this? titter
http://rense.com/1.imagesH/houseguns.jpg

In news Josepi spewed forth:
Good that would many less firearms for the kids to shoot themselves
with.


Ah yes, the children,when all else fails, do it for the children

In ,
Han spewed forth:
"ChairMan" wrote in news:XF_ap.2$6A6.0
@unlimited.newshosting.com:

In ,
Josepi spewed forth:
Real easy!

Just remove ALL the guns from society at large.




No, the criminals will still have them, because they are "criminals"

please take a course in logic. Once all guns are removed, there are
no more guns. I'm not saying it would be easy, but ...

Reality trumps logic.
Maybe in a land of unicorns and fairies, this would be possible, but in a
land with a Constitution, it ain't going to happen

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
Shall we license epoxy by the gram? What do you think of $25/yr for
the license to allow you to obtain it, then ten cents a gram? I think
we need to license epoxy stir sticks, too.

Feeble, brain dead comparisons. Over and over you come up with the dumbest
examples in some inane attempt to argue your need for a gun. Licensing a
firearm is not a ridiculous idea (except in your feeble mind) as compared to
your epoxy example. On no level are they comparable (except in your feeble
mind). On what exact level of reasoning does one compare a glue product to a
weapon? I know. The next time I visit Home Depot, I'm going to go armed
because some mad shopper might use a bottle of epoxy to attack me. Better I
go armed so I can protect myself because the police won't do it.

How about your other argument. "When someone breaks into my home and they
have a gun, I can protect myself". Has it ever happened to you? Has it ever
happened to others you know? Next you'll be telling everybody how it's
happened to dozens of your neighbours. BULL****!

I've never been robbed at gunpoint, knifepoint or even at epoxy bottle
point, yet I live in Canada's largest city. Neither has anybody I know and I
know quite a few people. While taking reasonable precautions is certainly a
good idea, the fact is that the vast majority of people don't live in your
conjured, horrific little world. At least they don't in Canada. Maybe, your
vaunted USA is different? ~ It was a perfectly fine and generally safe place
to visit the times I've travelled down to the US.

If that's the type of society you live in, then you can have it. No one I
know would live in a place where they were so terrified that they had to be
armed at all times. Why don't you admit it? You want to have a gun only
because it's a right given you and for no other reason. That I can
understand. All your fear mongering about your need to be protected does is
tell people that your country is a dangerous hell hole that no sane person
would want to live in. Is that how you'd like potential visitors to think
about the USA?

Just Wondering wrote in news:4d6d5943$0$8150$882e7ee2
@usenet-news.net:

On 2/26/2011 2:27 PM, Han wrote:

I believe the Constitution is the supreme law. clipped
Now personally, I'm really in favor of limiting guns and ammo ...

Since the Constitution says, "the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed," how do you explain the apparent
inconsistency between your two statements?

You mean that imprisoned criminals (who are nonetheless people) should have
access to automatic weapons? What about nuclear weapons?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Upscale wrote:

Feeble, brain dead comparisons. Over and over you come up with the
dumbest examples in some inane attempt to argue your need for a gun.
Licensing a firearm is not a ridiculous idea (except in your feeble
mind) as compared to your epoxy example. On no level are they
comparable (except in your feeble mind). On what exact level of
reasoning does one compare a glue product to a weapon? I know. The
next time I visit Home Depot, I'm going to go armed because some mad
shopper might use a bottle of epoxy to attack me. Better I go armed
so I can protect myself because the police won't do it.

Nope - can't do that. Home Depot has a "No Firearms" policy in their
stores...

--

-Mike-

Han wrote:


You mean that imprisoned criminals (who are nonetheless people)
should have access to automatic weapons? What about nuclear weapons?

Great idea Han! Green too. Give a 1 lb cube of plutonium to imprisioned
criminals to play with in their cells...Solves the criminal element problem,
eases the overburdening of prisons, and reduces the cost of incarcerting bad
guys for long periods of time.

--

-Mike-

On 02 Mar 2011 11:33:01 GMT, Han wrote:

Just Wondering wrote in news:4d6d5943$0$8150$882e7ee2
:

On 2/26/2011 2:27 PM, Han wrote:

I believe the Constitution is the supreme law. clipped
Now personally, I'm really in favor of limiting guns and ammo ...

Since the Constitution says, "the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed," how do you explain the apparent
inconsistency between your two statements?

You mean that imprisoned criminals (who are nonetheless people) should have
access to automatic weapons? What about nuclear weapons?

Come now. People convicted of felonies can't own weapons, and
everything as big as a bazooka or larger is also deemed unsuitable for
gentlemanly carry, nukes included.

Try a rational ploy next time...or do the research and come up with
the same data I did. I gave up hating handguns after finding the
truth. Give it a try. Loving is much better than hating.

--
That is what learning is. You suddenly understand something
you've understood all your life, but in a new way.
-- Doris Lessing

On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 09:33:05 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Han wrote:


You mean that imprisoned criminals (who are nonetheless people)
should have access to automatic weapons? What about nuclear weapons?

Great idea Han! Green too. Give a 1 lb cube of plutonium to imprisioned
criminals to play with in their cells...Solves the criminal element problem,
eases the overburdening of prisons, and reduces the cost of incarcerting bad
guys for long periods of time.

Excellent ideas, guys. Remove the guards, brick up entrances to the
prisons, and dump our nuke waste there, in the previously built
vaults. Add more lifers and they evaporate in the rad heat!
This is a perfect way to lower costs of both human waste storage
(lifer felons) and nuke waste. Win/Win/Win!

;^)

--
The art of life lies in a constant readjustment to our surroundings.
-- Okakura Kakuzo

Can that actually be true in The USA?

Can a store violate the constitution, on their private property, telling
people they have a right to bear arms?

--
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Nope - can't do that. Home Depot has a "No Firearms" policy in their
stores...

Probably cut way down on the heating bills in prisons too, or do they only
put them in warmer US climates?

------------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Great idea Han! Green too. Give a 1 lb cube of plutonium to imprisioned
criminals to play with in their cells...Solves the criminal element problem,
eases the overburdening of prisons, and reduces the cost of incarcerting bad
guys for long periods of time.

--

-Mike-

Yeah, MS idea
2K, XP, 7

--------------------
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

Win/Win/Win!

On 3/2/2011 4:33 AM, Han wrote:
Just wrote in news:4d6d5943$0$8150$882e7ee2
@usenet-news.net:

On 2/26/2011 2:27 PM, Han wrote:

I believe the Constitution is the supreme law.clipped
Now personally, I'm really in favor of limiting guns and ammo ...

Since the Constitution says, "the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed," how do you explain the apparent
inconsistency between your two statements?

You mean that imprisoned criminals (who are nonetheless people) should have
access to automatic weapons? What about nuclear weapons?


I thought what I mean is apparent. I mean to ask you, since the
Constitution says, "the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed," how do you explain the apparent
inconsistency between your statement that "I believe the
Constitution is the supreme law" and your statement that "I'm really in
favor of limiting guns and ammo."

On 3/2/2011 7:33 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Han wrote:


You mean that imprisoned criminals (who are nonetheless people)
should have access to automatic weapons? What about nuclear weapons?

Great idea Han! Green too. Give a 1 lb cube of plutonium to imprisioned
criminals to play with in their cells...Solves the criminal element problem,
eases the overburdening of prisons, and reduces the cost of incarcerting bad
guys for long periods of time.

Plutonium costs nearly $2 million a pound. YOu don't need anywhere near
that much. Letting them play with 1/100 of a gram would be fatal.

Just Wondering wrote:
On 3/2/2011 7:33 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Han wrote:


You mean that imprisoned criminals (who are nonetheless people)
should have access to automatic weapons? What about nuclear
weapons?

Great idea Han! Green too. Give a 1 lb cube of plutonium to
imprisioned criminals to play with in their cells...Solves the
criminal element problem, eases the overburdening of prisons, and
reduces the cost of incarcerting bad guys for long periods of time.

Plutonium costs nearly $2 million a pound. YOu don't need anywhere
near that much. Letting them play with 1/100 of a gram would be
fatal.

you also have to make sure they all don't congregate in the yard at the same
time, or you'd have to build another prison.

Just Wondering wrote:
On 3/2/2011 7:33 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Han wrote:


You mean that imprisoned criminals (who are nonetheless people)
should have access to automatic weapons? What about nuclear
weapons?

Great idea Han! Green too. Give a 1 lb cube of plutonium to
imprisioned criminals to play with in their cells...Solves the
criminal element problem, eases the overburdening of prisons, and
reduces the cost of incarcerting bad guys for long periods of time.

Plutonium costs nearly $2 million a pound. YOu don't need anywhere
near that much. Letting them play with 1/100 of a gram would be
fatal.

Always an Accountant in the group...

Ok - 1/100 of a gram will do.

--

-Mike-

On Mar 2, 1:13*pm, "Mike Marlow" wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
On 3/2/2011 7:33 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Han wrote:

You mean that imprisoned criminals (who are nonetheless people)
should have access to automatic weapons? *What about nuclear
weapons?

Great idea Han! *Green too. *Give a 1 lb cube of plutonium to
imprisioned criminals to play with in their cells...Solves the
criminal element problem, eases the overburdening of prisons, and
reduces the cost of incarcerting bad guys for long periods of time.

Plutonium costs nearly $2 million a pound. *YOu don't need anywhere
near that much. *Letting them play with 1/100 of a gram would be
fatal.

Always an Accountant in the group...

Ok - 1/100 of a gram will do.

--

-Mike-


Hey, at those prices? Every milligram counts. :-)

Robatoy wrote:
On Mar 2, 1:13 pm, "Mike Marlow" wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
On 3/2/2011 7:33 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Han wrote:

You mean that imprisoned criminals (who are nonetheless people)
should have access to automatic weapons? What about nuclear
weapons?

Great idea Han! Green too. Give a 1 lb cube of plutonium to
imprisioned criminals to play with in their cells...Solves the
criminal element problem, eases the overburdening of prisons, and
reduces the cost of incarcerting bad guys for long periods of time.

Plutonium costs nearly $2 million a pound. YOu don't need anywhere
near that much. Letting them play with 1/100 of a gram would be
fatal.

Always an Accountant in the group...

Ok - 1/100 of a gram will do.

--

-Mike-


Hey, at those prices? Every milligram counts. :-)

Yeahbut, in the words of that famous philosopher - Mick Jagger... "Too much
is never enough..."

--

-Mike-