Swingman wrote:
On 1/7/2012 8:48 PM, HeyBub wrote:

For over 800 years, western law has recognized the felony murder
rule. That you don't like the felony murder rule or think it's
unfair is at variance with the greatest legal minds of almost a
millennia, indeed, your position is the opposite of a civilized
society.

The "greatest legal minds of almost a millennia" have arguably spent
more time in advancing their business model through blurring of and
shading distinctions than serving the common good.

Hmm. You COULD argue that, but you'd be wrong.

Probably.

Do you have an example?

m II wrote:

The good ole' USanian "Right to Bear Arms" obsession again?

I have no idea what a "USanian" is - perhaps if you were to write with
generally accepted language your mindless ramblings might at least fall into
a context.

As for the Right to Bear Arms - have not seen that put forth by anyone but
you. Keep trying - at some point if you keep repeating irrelevant garbage,
someone might just take you up on the topic. Unfortunately for you - no one
is speaking about the right to keep and bear arms.


I understand if the gun advocates got their way it would legal to
shoot people for looking at them funny, too. Somebody has to stop
this guns out of control nonsense before it gets too far out of hand.

You understand? That's an oxymoron.


Seems fairly obvious the gun advocates display obsessive compulsive
disorders. It would be comparable in obsession to the ISLAMic
advocates seen here occasionally.


Obsessive compulsive would apply better to an idiot that continues to
interject irrelevant comments into a conversation where the topic of his
babble has not previously been introduced.

--

-Mike-

On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 06:05:11 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 00:40:33 -0500, "m II" wrote:

PDFTFT, Ed.

--
We are always the same age inside.
-- Gertrude Stein

Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

Lawbreakers don't care how many new laws are enacted.

IMNSHO, laws are enacted to officially codify what should be natural,
sensible behavior. In that, laws are merely devices to punish the non-
compliant. Thanks to our excessively brilliant and selfserving lawyers,
who can't stop devising more and more asinine rules, laws have unintended
consequences galore. As far as guns is concerned, it should be simple. As
instruments of lethal force from a distance, they should be registered at
manufacture and each time one is conveyed to another "owner" should be
recorded, in order to establish (admittedly ex post facto) who did the
false deed. On top of that each person desirous of owning a firearm should
show somehow that he/she is capable of responsibly owning such.

/rant

This is usenet. The above is a single man's opinion. You're free to
disagree.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

Great, I won't see you. I meant Medford, OR, as I'm sure you knew.

Yep

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 1/9/2012 5:09 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Swingman wrote:
On 1/7/2012 8:48 PM, HeyBub wrote:

For over 800 years, western law has recognized the felony murder
rule. That you don't like the felony murder rule or think it's
unfair is at variance with the greatest legal minds of almost a
millennia, indeed, your position is the opposite of a civilized
society.

The "greatest legal minds of almost a millennia" have arguably spent
more time in advancing their business model through blurring of and
shading distinctions than serving the common good.

Hmm. You COULD argue that, but you'd be wrong.

Probably.

Do you have an example?

Way too easy. Does OJ ring bell ...

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 1/9/2012 8:05 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 1/9/2012 5:09 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Swingman wrote:
On 1/7/2012 8:48 PM, HeyBub wrote:

For over 800 years, western law has recognized the felony murder
rule. That you don't like the felony murder rule or think it's
unfair is at variance with the greatest legal minds of almost a
millennia, indeed, your position is the opposite of a civilized
society.

The "greatest legal minds of almost a millennia" have arguably spent
more time in advancing their business model through blurring of and
shading distinctions than serving the common good.

Hmm. You COULD argue that, but you'd be wrong.

Probably.

Do you have an example?

Way too easy. Does OJ ring bell ...

And how could I have possibly missed the most egregious, self serving,
asinine attempt by a "legal mind" at _blurring of distinctions_ than the
former Asshat, disbarred lawyer prez:

"That depends upon what the meaning of "is" is".

There's plenty more where those came from ...

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Mike Marlow wrote:
Steve Barker wrote:


And we'll never know the outcome, because in a few days, it'll be
some other earth shaking "breaking news" to distract the media and
all will be forgotten about this incident. (i've forgotten most of
it already if it weren't for this thread). Anyone remember when we
were all gonna be killed by anthrax or the bird flue? How about
H1N1? That ring a bell? It's all bull****.

Yup it is - 'cause the whole damned earth is gonna blow up, or
disappear in a vapor, or sumptin' else, later this year. Just ask
the Myans. It's true - I read it on the internet...

If you're talking about the Mayan calendar, I don't think their calendar
predicted the end of the world. I think they just ran out of room on the
stone.

We just didn't find page two.

Swingman wrote:
On 1/9/2012 5:09 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Swingman wrote:
On 1/7/2012 8:48 PM, HeyBub wrote:

For over 800 years, western law has recognized the felony murder
rule. That you don't like the felony murder rule or think it's
unfair is at variance with the greatest legal minds of almost a
millennia, indeed, your position is the opposite of a civilized
society.

The "greatest legal minds of almost a millennia" have arguably spent
more time in advancing their business model through blurring of and
shading distinctions than serving the common good.

Hmm. You COULD argue that, but you'd be wrong.

Probably.

Do you have an example?

Way too easy. Does OJ ring bell ...

I approved of the OJ verdict. When the prosecution couldn't even fram a
guilty man, the man deserves to go free.

Swingman wrote:
On 1/9/2012 8:05 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 1/9/2012 5:09 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Swingman wrote:
On 1/7/2012 8:48 PM, HeyBub wrote:

For over 800 years, western law has recognized the felony murder
rule. That you don't like the felony murder rule or think it's
unfair is at variance with the greatest legal minds of almost a
millennia, indeed, your position is the opposite of a civilized
society.

The "greatest legal minds of almost a millennia" have arguably
spent more time in advancing their business model through blurring
of and shading distinctions than serving the common good.

Hmm. You COULD argue that, but you'd be wrong.

Probably.

Do you have an example?

Way too easy. Does OJ ring bell ...

And how could I have possibly missed the most egregious, self serving,
asinine attempt by a "legal mind" at _blurring of distinctions_ than
the former Asshat, disbarred lawyer prez:

"That depends upon what the meaning of "is" is".

There's plenty more where those came from ...

Yes, including just recently our Attorney General who said something like
"Whether something is a lie depends on the intent of the speaker."

On 1/9/2012 2:15 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Swingman wrote:
On 1/9/2012 5:09 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Swingman wrote:
On 1/7/2012 8:48 PM, HeyBub wrote:

For over 800 years, western law has recognized the felony murder
rule. That you don't like the felony murder rule or think it's
unfair is at variance with the greatest legal minds of almost a
millennia, indeed, your position is the opposite of a civilized
society.

The "greatest legal minds of almost a millennia" have arguably spent
more time in advancing their business model through blurring of and
shading distinctions than serving the common good.

Hmm. You COULD argue that, but you'd be wrong.

Probably.

Do you have an example?

Way too easy. Does OJ ring bell ...

I approved of the OJ verdict. When the prosecution couldn't even fram a
guilty man, the man deserves to go free.



I hope the leather glove was not what convinced you. LOL Any gofer
knows that a leather glove will shrink after being wet.

Well demonstrated USanian ignorance Mikey!!

Perfect!

Thanks

---------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

I have no idea what a "USanian" is - perhaps if you were to write with
generally accepted language your mindless ramblings might at least fall
into
a context.

As for the Right to Bear Arms - have not seen that put forth by anyone
but
you. Keep trying - at some point if you keep repeating irrelevant
garbage,
someone might just take you up on the topic. Unfortunately for you -
no one
is speaking about the right to keep and bear arms.
Obsessive compulsive would apply better to an idiot that continues to
interject irrelevant comments into a conversation where the topic of
his
babble has not previously been introduced.

m II wrote:
Well demonstrated USanian ignorance Mikey!!

Perfect!

Thanks


At least you offer up no surprises. You are a complete ass every time you
post, and consistency does have its own merit...

--

-Mike-

On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 14:59:31 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:




I approved of the OJ verdict. When the prosecution couldn't even fram a
guilty man, the man deserves to go free.



I hope the leather glove was not what convinced you. LOL Any gofer
knows that a leather glove will shrink after being wet.

And it should slide on easily over a latex glove too. What idiot let
that slip by? Avoiding contamination of evidence set him free.

Bull****!

--------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
At least you offer up no surprises. You are a complete ass every time
you
post, and consistency does have its own merit...

--

-Mike-

m II wrote:

Bull****!


The one word you most frequently pull out of your limited vocabulary. Like
I said - consistency does have it's merits...

--

-Mike-

In article ,
says...

Swingman wrote:
On 1/9/2012 8:05 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 1/9/2012 5:09 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Swingman wrote:
On 1/7/2012 8:48 PM, HeyBub wrote:

For over 800 years, western law has recognized the felony murder
rule. That you don't like the felony murder rule or think it's
unfair is at variance with the greatest legal minds of almost a
millennia, indeed, your position is the opposite of a civilized
society.

The "greatest legal minds of almost a millennia" have arguably
spent more time in advancing their business model through blurring
of and shading distinctions than serving the common good.

Hmm. You COULD argue that, but you'd be wrong.

Probably.

Do you have an example?

Way too easy. Does OJ ring bell ...

And how could I have possibly missed the most egregious, self serving,
asinine attempt by a "legal mind" at _blurring of distinctions_ than
the former Asshat, disbarred lawyer prez:

"That depends upon what the meaning of "is" is".

There's plenty more where those came from ...

Yes, including just recently our Attorney General who said something like
"Whether something is a lie depends on the intent of the speaker."

So used car salesmen lie but computer salesmen don't? (Old joke in the
computer business--the difference between a computer salesman and a used
car salesman is that the used car salesman _knows_ when he's lying)

Mayan people have produced a new calendar (page 2) that continues for many
more years. I have three of them.

One of the better advertising gimmicks using Internet suckers from the 21st
century. It works and is a $billion (US) industry.
I frequent the place twice a year and hope I see the end staring there. I am
still waiting.

Perhaps some Jehovah Witnesses can shed some light on how their "end of the
world" is going??

--------
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
If you're talking about the Mayan calendar, I don't think their calendar
predicted the end of the world. I think they just ran out of room on the
stone.

We just didn't find page two.

----------
Mike Marlow wrote:
Yup it is - 'cause the whole damned earth is gonna blow up, or
disappear in a vapor, or sumptin' else, later this year. Just ask
the Myans. It's true - I read it on the internet...

Somebody has to pay the damages to "fix" them so guilt has to be established
established. Legal penalties may be dropped and are another matter for bad
behaviour.

------------
wrote in message news Which is what my last statement covers. The courts get to make the
final decision. Sometimes the decision is "**** happens through
nobody's fault" and the verdict is "not guilty", or guilty and
suspended sentace, or guilty and minimum penalty - etc.

The police are "minutes away" due to responding to so many other calls due
to gun owners running around scared and acting irresponsibly.

"Gun controls" could speed up their responses.

----------
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!, Max.

S/B: When every SECOND counts, the police are only MINUTES away.


-------------
Remember; when every second counts the police are only moments away.

If you didn't hold him down, for that purpose, would he be still alive?

-------------
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
If I have no knowledge he had a gun, there's no foul. If I knew he had a
gun, but, again, had no information that he intended to use it in an illegal
manner, also no foul.

If I knew he had a gun and intended to shoot somebody and I went along to
try and dissuade that action, no foul.

If I knew in advance that my buddy intended to commit an illegal act and I
went along to assist in some way, I'm equally guilty of any offense my buddy
commits. My assistance can be quite passive, such as a look-out, driving the
getaway car, or anything tending to make a success of my buddy's escapade.

Let's take a simply example: If I hold the victim down while my buddy stabs
him 18 times thereby ending the victim's life, should I be responsible only
for simple assault? After all, I didn't do any stabbing.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 00:40:33 -0500, "m II" wrote:


The good ole' USanian "Right to Bear Arms" obsession again?

I understand if the gun advocates got their way it would legal to shoot
people for looking at them funny, too.

Moronic statements help the situation how? All you did was to show
your ignorance and you probably thought you were being funny.



Somebody has to stop this guns
out of control nonsense before it gets too far out of hand.


Lawbreakers don't care how many new laws are enacted.


We sure do luv our guns now, don't we?

--

KKK

"m II" wrote in message news
Well demonstrated USanian ignorance Mikey!!

Perfect!

Thanks

---------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

I have no idea what a "USanian" is - perhaps if you were to write with
generally accepted language your mindless ramblings might at least fall
into
a context.

As for the Right to Bear Arms - have not seen that put forth by anyone but
you. Keep trying - at some point if you keep repeating irrelevant
garbage,
someone might just take you up on the topic. Unfortunately for you - no
one
is speaking about the right to keep and bear arms.
Obsessive compulsive would apply better to an idiot that continues to
interject irrelevant comments into a conversation where the topic of his
babble has not previously been introduced.


No worries, Mate!

Mike loves to pull 'stupid' out of his arse frequently to gain ground in a
losing argument.

The boy jus' won't listen to advice from real people. [snarf]

--

KKK

Kris K. Kaput0 wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 00:40:33 -0500, "m II" wrote:


The good ole' USanian "Right to Bear Arms" obsession again?

I understand if the gun advocates got their way it would legal to
shoot people for looking at them funny, too.

Moronic statements help the situation how? All you did was to show
your ignorance and you probably thought you were being funny.



Somebody has to stop this guns
out of control nonsense before it gets too far out of hand.


Lawbreakers don't care how many new laws are enacted.


We sure do luv our guns now, don't we?

We sure do luv stirring up **** now, don't we? You and m II will get along
good in bed together - the both of you love to spout crap that has nothing
to do with topics being discussed.

Oh well - you've been here before and you'll leave again...

--

-Mike-

Josepi wrote:
The police are "minutes away" due to responding to so many other
calls due to gun owners running around scared and acting
irresponsibly.
"Gun controls" could speed up their responses.


And your reasons for believing thus?

I used to be a cop. I'd hear maybe one call a week involving the discharging
of a firearm. This observation was admittedly apocryphal, so I'd be happy to
study your collection of objective evidence.

I learned it from you, the master of Bull****!

Mirrors are a bitch.

-----------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
The one word you most frequently pull out of your limited vocabulary.
Like
I said - consistency does have it's merits...

--

-Mike-

m II wrote:

I learned it from you, the master of Bull****!

Mirrors are a bitch.


Oh come on... you can do better than that - can't you? Keep trying...

--

-Mike-