Threads like this depress the hell out of me, so I can't follow them. GregP,
I'm with you 100%.
Fight the good fight.

All of you undecided voters who think Bush is just a good, responsible, well
meaning "conservative", try to catch "A Patriot Act" on cable before next Tuesday.
I trust the motives of the right wing about as far as I could heave the Queen
Mary on a bad day, and this still scared the **** out of me.

JK



GregP wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:01:11 -0700, "Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote:



No need to. I said bigot. You responded to it so apparently
you did read it.


If you can't read what you yourself said, how can
you pretend to understand anything from anyone
else ?


You claimed some sort of collusion if the government creates
a friendly atmosphere foir business. I suspected your head was
too far up your ass to understand the issue.



You believe in the fantasy that there is no
collusion betw this administration and certain
business interests and you accuse *me* of
being out of it ???


Is it the "liberals" who are whining for
a constitutional amendment to force people to marry only certain
other people ?

You haven't got anything right so far. No one is forcing anyone to marry.
The fact that civilization has always defined marriage as male/ female
partners escaped your notice.



You don't have the foggiest idea of whether civilization
"has always defined" marriage to be strictly betw men
and women. And even if that were true, what gives you
the right to tell people that they have to do whatever
you decided they should do ?


Most people opposed to abortion see it as murder. Murder is everyone's
business, especially the victim.


So not only do you pretend to have the right to tell people
how they should live their lives, you're also insisting that
you have some sort of inalienable right to tell them how to
think and what to believe. And you complain about "liberals"
interfering with *your* life ?


Your lack of concern for human life is also a hallmark of
the liberal.


I have no doubt that if a few people took a very close
look at my life and yours from the point of view of ":concern
for human life," I would come out quite well in comparison.
Of course, it wouldn't take much to accomplish that: your
view of the world appears to be driven by the junkie on
the afternoon hate radio.

What conservative wants laws against unions?


Once again, you blew your reading assignment.


Was it a "liberal" president who forbids what are
supposed to be free citizens to cross into Canada to buy drugs
more cheaply than they can here ?

And if harmful drugs were let in the liberals would scream about
too little concern.


Have you really been sucked into this "harmful drugs"
lie ? Do you have any idea of the structure of the pharmaceutical
industry and how it works ? Do you have the foggiest notion
of what are the quantities of fake drugs sold in Canada vs
the US ? But when the junkie or the president tell you that it's all
being done for your safety, you turn off whatever brain capacity
you do have and repeat the crap every chance you get.


Liberalism and hypocrisy are two sides of the same
coin. It's liberals who make the drugs and health care so expensive to
begin with.


Pharmaceutical companies have nothing to do with it, of
course. Why don't you get down to what you're *really*
thinking and take out the "liberals" word and plug in "jews"
or "kikes" or "******s" or "spics ?" You clearly need
someone to scapegoat. And while you'd still be a fascist
bigot, at least you'd be just a wee bit more honest with
yourself.


Is it the "liberals" who are
throwing American citizens into jail for months at a time without any
charges or representation ?

Which US citizen was that?


Once again you're showing that your knowledge
base is afternoon radio.


If it wasn't for "liberals," Republican as well as Democrat, this
country would still be a cesspool of no human or constitutional
rights for southern blacks;

Like Lincoln huh? You're a complete idiot.


So what was Lincoln ? You got him all figgered out, eh ?
He was just like you, eh ?



Rebuplicans passed the 60s civil rights laws, Einstein.


They helped, Einstein II, especially liberal Republicans such
as Nelson Rockefeller, who agitated for a civil rights bill for
a long time, while John Kennedy, who you held up as a "moderate,"
wouldn't And, Einstein II, you flunked reading again: I
specifically included such Republicans.

A civil rights bill wouldn't have a chance nowadays, with the
current neo-dominated congress and a president who likes
to escape responsibility by saying that he'll sign a controversial
bill if someone else writes it, negotiates it, and puts every-
thing on the line to make sure it's passed.


I won't wastw anymore time with you,


Well, you've gotten this far, so obviously you have. How do
you get by not being honest with yourself ?



--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716

phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email:
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby

"James T. Kirby" wrote in message ...
Threads like this depress the hell out of me, so I can't follow them. GregP,
I'm with you 100%.
Fight the good fight.

If you are unable to follow the thread, how do you know you are 100% with GregP?

Oh, I see. You were able to glean GregP's political bent, and just blindly followed his lead. Typical of the mindless, liberal
puppets.


All of you undecided voters who think Bush is just a good, responsible, well
meaning "conservative", try to catch "A Patriot Act" on cable before next Tuesday.
I trust the motives of the right wing about as far as I could heave the Queen
Mary on a bad day, and this still scared the **** out of me.

JK

Al Reid wrote:
"James T. Kirby" wrote in message ...

Threads like this depress the hell out of me, so I can't follow them. GregP,
I'm with you 100%.
Fight the good fight.


If you are unable to follow the thread, how do you know you are 100% with GregP?

Oh, I see. You were able to glean GregP's political bent, and just blindly followed his lead. Typical of the mindless, liberal
puppets.

Well, I guess I have difficulty figuring out just what a liberal would be a
puppet of, since there is no coherent leadership or
overarching agenda behind anything I can identify as being liberal. And boy, I
am sure one of those - thanks for the proper
ID - I'll take that anyday over fascist right wing extremist. (There, I can
see where the puppetry is.)

JK




All of you undecided voters who think Bush is just a good, responsible, well
meaning "conservative", try to catch "A Patriot Act" on cable before next Tuesday.
I trust the motives of the right wing about as far as I could heave the Queen
Mary on a bad day, and this still scared the **** out of me.

JK






--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716

phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email:
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby

--
Al Reid

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know
for sure that just ain't so." --- Mark Twain

"James T. Kirby" wrote in message ...
Al Reid wrote:
"James T. Kirby" wrote in message ...

Threads like this depress the hell out of me, so I can't follow them. GregP,
I'm with you 100%.
Fight the good fight.


If you are unable to follow the thread, how do you know you are 100% with GregP?

Oh, I see. You were able to glean GregP's political bent, and just blindly followed his lead. Typical of the mindless, liberal
puppets.

Well, I guess I have difficulty figuring out just what a liberal would be a
puppet of, since there is no coherent leadership or
overarching agenda behind anything I can identify as being liberal. And boy, I
am sure one of those - thanks for the proper
ID - I'll take that anyday over fascist right wing extremist. (There, I can
see where the puppetry is.)

We all know that Terry McAuliffe and the DNC are pulling all of your strings. It could be no coincidence that you all spew in
unison the same talking points, lies and deception.


JK


--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716

phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email:
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby

Al Reid wrote:

Well, I guess I have difficulty figuring out just what a liberal would be a
puppet of, since there is no coherent leadership or
overarching agenda behind anything I can identify as being liberal. And boy, I
am sure one of those - thanks for the proper
ID - I'll take that anyday over fascist right wing extremist. (There, I can
see where the puppetry is.)


We all know that Terry McAuliffe and the DNC are pulling all of your strings.
It could be no coincidence that you all spew in
unison the same talking points, lies and deception.

Well, if I knew who Terry McAuliffe was, I may see your point better.

I don't need anyone to tell me what to believe - I've been working on that for
40 years. In that time, I've never seen
a Republican president who I'd even want to be in the same room with, much less
get to know. I fail to see the attraction.

Jim Kirby

"James T. Kirby" wrote in message ...
Al Reid wrote:

Well, I guess I have difficulty figuring out just what a liberal would be a
puppet of, since there is no coherent leadership or
overarching agenda behind anything I can identify as being liberal. And boy, I
am sure one of those - thanks for the proper
ID - I'll take that anyday over fascist right wing extremist. (There, I can
see where the puppetry is.)


We all know that Terry McAuliffe and the DNC are pulling all of your strings.
It could be no coincidence that you all spew in
unison the same talking points, lies and deception.

Well, if I knew who Terry McAuliffe was, I may see your point better.

Let me enlighten you, who seems to be so ignorant of the party you so blindly follow. Terry McAuliffe is the head of the DNC, a
Clinton chronie and a real slime. He was behind most, if not all of the dissemination of lies about GWB that have been parroted by
all of the democratic pundents, talking heads and Kerry supporters. McAuliffe, much like Kerry hemself, has no core convictions or
moral compas. The is the role model for dirty, negative politics.


I don't need anyone to tell me what to believe - I've been working on that for
40 years. In that time, I've never seen
a Republican president who I'd even want to be in the same room with, much less
get to know. I fail to see the attraction.

Jim Kirby

So by *all the facts* you mean all the facts you like, ignoring
whatever you don't see... Sure, most people are fine with guns. But
there are plenty that are not, and they're they type -like it or not-
that tend to favor guns that look mean, have 100 round clips and come
with a bayonet. That's who I'm talking about, not joe average with
his nice over-under 16ga that he uses for bird hunting.

So you feel that criminals who misuse guns prefer those nasty looking
weapons covered by the assault weapons ban?? According to the
Department of Justice less than 1% of crimes are committed with
weapons covered by the AWB. Are you also aware that just over 12% of
all violent crimes are committed with a firearm of any type? Or that
less than 4/10 of 1% of firearms are used to commit a crime? Or that
nearly twice as many people are killed by drunk drivers than are
killed by firearms each year?? We have more than enough gun laws on
the books - what we need are lawyers who are more concerned with
providing their clients with a fair trial rather than "getting them
off", judges who impose maximum penalties for committing a crime with
a gun and fewer weenies who are more concerned with criminals self
esteem than with the suffering of victims.

Al Reid snarls:

"James T. Kirby" wrote in message
...
Threads like this depress the hell out of me, so I can't follow them.
GregP,
I'm with you 100%.
Fight the good fight.

If you are unable to follow the thread, how do you know you are 100% with
GregP?

Oh, I see. You were able to glean GregP's political bent, and just blindly
followed his lead. Typical of the mindless, liberal
puppets.

Typical conclusion leap of a mindless neocon.

He said he couldn't follow the thread, not that he couldn't read GregP's
contributions. I'd guess it's twittery like yours that he has trouble with.

Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine

Al Reid snarls (again):

We all know that Terry McAuliffe and the DNC are pulling all of your strings.
It could be no coincidence that you all spew in
unison the same talking points, lies and deception.

I'm a liberal, too, Al, ol' neocon, and no one pulls my strings. It do seem
like someone is yanking yours, though. You don't bother with fact one, just
blithely blather on.


Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine

In article , GregP wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:56:41 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , GregP
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:49:13 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:


Perhaps you should get a dictionary and find out what "fascist" really
means.

I have, but it sounds like you haven't. And dictionaries aren't
exactly the be-all end-all of human knowledge.

Of course they're not -- but they do give accurate descriptions of the
meanings of words. And it does indeed appear that you have not, in fact,
consulted your dictionary on that particular point. Here's what mine says:

"fascism: a totalitarian governmental system led by a dictator and emphasizing

an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

You claimed that the Republican leadership is fascist. Please identify, with
complete citations, which members of the Republican leadership have advocated
the system described above.

The Rush Limbaugh simple version of politics, eh ? All major
principles and concepts reduced to one sentence.

My view of it is as below, written by someone I know.

[irrelevant diatribe snipped]

You certainly do a marvelous job of evading the issue. I repeat:

You claimed that the Republican leadership is fascist. Please identify, with
complete citations, which members of the Republican leadership have advocated
the system described above.

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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message ...
Al Reid snarls (again):

We all know that Terry McAuliffe and the DNC are pulling all of your strings.
It could be no coincidence that you all spew in
unison the same talking points, lies and deception.

I'm a liberal, too, Al, ol' neocon, and no one pulls my strings. It do seem
like someone is yanking yours, though. You don't bother with fact one, just
blithely blather on.

Charlie,

I am a conservative and a proud one at that. I spend a lot of time reading and following politics. Noone has ever or will ever
pull my strings. Just because you choose not to believe the facts doesn't change them.


Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine

Al Reid wrote:
"James T. Kirby" wrote in message ...

Al Reid wrote:

Well, I guess I have difficulty figuring out just what a liberal would be a
puppet of, since there is no coherent leadership or
overarching agenda behind anything I can identify as being liberal. And boy, I
am sure one of those - thanks for the proper
ID - I'll take that anyday over fascist right wing extremist. (There, I can
see where the puppetry is.)


We all know that Terry McAuliffe and the DNC are pulling all of your strings.
It could be no coincidence that you all spew in
unison the same talking points, lies and deception.

Well, if I knew who Terry McAuliffe was, I may see your point better.


Let me enlighten you, who seems to be so ignorant of the party you so blindly follow. Terry McAuliffe is the head of the DNC, a
Clinton chronie and a real slime. He was behind most, if not all of the dissemination of lies about GWB that have been parroted by
all of the democratic pundents, talking heads and Kerry supporters. McAuliffe, much like Kerry hemself, has no core convictions or
moral compas. The is the role model for dirty, negative politics.

Well, since you don't seem to get it, let me repeat. I don't need Terry
McAuliffe or anyone else to tell me
how I should form my opinions. Do you? Well, maybe, since you just don't seem
to get it.

JK




I don't need anyone to tell me what to believe - I've been working on that for
40 years. In that time, I've never seen
a Republican president who I'd even want to be in the same room with, much less
get to know. I fail to see the attraction.

Jim Kirby








--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716

phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email:
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby

Al Reid wrote:
"Charlie Self" wrote in message ...

Al Reid snarls (again):


We all know that Terry McAuliffe and the DNC are pulling all of your strings.
It could be no coincidence that you all spew in
unison the same talking points, lies and deception.

I'm a liberal, too, Al, ol' neocon, and no one pulls my strings. It do seem
like someone is yanking yours, though. You don't bother with fact one, just
blithely blather on.


Charlie,

I am a conservative and a proud one at that. I spend a lot of time reading and following politics. Noone has ever or will ever
pull my strings. Just because you choose not to believe the facts doesn't change them.

Yeah, I can just imagine what you read......

JK




Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:55:10 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

My view of it is as below, written by someone I know.

[irrelevant diatribe snipped]

You certainly do a marvelous job of evading the issue. I repeat:


You asked a question, I answered you, you didn't
like or understand the answer (true, it *was* more
than one sentence long), so you insult it and insist
that I bring it down to a kindergarten level for you.
You need to try harder.

Imagine away. Regardless of what I say, you will believe your imagination.

So what do you read?

Where do you get your information from. I find it incomprehensible that anyone, and for that matter any democrat, that follows
current events and/or politics doesn't know who Terry McAuliffe is. Ignorance is bliss, perhaps.

I follow the news/politics enough to know who the leadership of each party is, what each party stands for, and the records of the
candidates. I then form an opinion based on all of the available facts. You, however, seem to assume facts that are not valid and
jump to conclusions that suit you.


--
Al Reid

A government big enough to give you everything you want...
is big enough to take away everything you have.

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:40:20 -0700, wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:59:47 -0400, GregP
wrote:

On 26 Oct 2004 20:53:42 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

How do I defend myself, then, against the criminal who _doesn't_ disarm,
Greg?

That was a joke, Dave.

there's your mistake.
DH has no sense of humor.

No, just no tolerance for people pushing unworkable solutions based on
lies and disinformation, bridger. I'm sure you can relate.

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:29:52 -0500, Prometheus wrote:
On 26 Oct 2004 15:24:36 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Good to know you, you know, get all the facts and stuff before making
up your mind on something.

So by *all the facts* you mean all the facts you like, ignoring
whatever you don't see... Sure, most people are fine with guns.

Great, you've got _some_ founding in reality.

But
there are plenty that are not,

Yes, and they're called "criminals". You know, people who commit crimes.

and they're they type -like it or not-
that tend to favor guns that look mean, have 100 round clips and come
with a bayonet.

They do? Can you provide, you know, a cite, to back that up?

That's who I'm talking about, not joe average with
his nice over-under 16ga that he uses for bird hunting.

So are you basing your problem on the person, or the function of the gun,
or the appearance of the gun? I feel that where there is a problem it is
with the person deciding to misuse it, personally. Perhaps you blame
inatimate objects for the actions of people, but I reject that.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:05:25 -0500, Henry St.Pierre wrote:
wrote in
:

how about the gun owning criminals and SNS owners?

Never thought about that. Why don't we make a law prohibiting criminals
from owning guns

A felon is already prohibited by law from touching or owning a firearm
or ammunition. By definition, an armed felon is committing a crime for the
gun, and another crime for each round of ammo.

and banning SNS?

The problem with that, is that a "Saturday Night Special" can be and has been
defined as any cheap handgun. If you're poor, you can't afford to go out and
buy a 600 dollar Colt or Glock, you've got to get what you can afford.
The cheap gun isn't the problem, it's the person misusing it.

Also, I'd rather that the criminal has something cheap and unreliable
when they try to shoot me; if they're carrying something well made, it'll
work every time. If they're carrying a Raven or Lorcin or some crap like
that, I'm safer.

Or better yet, Why don't we make a law
requiring criminals and/or SNS owners to undergo a background check prior
to ownership?

Anyone buying a gun from a dealer has to fill out a federal form (4473 I
think) and pass a background check. Criminals, of course, don't buy their
guns from legal sources, just as they don't get their drugs from legal
sources. Prohibition would only stop honest people from defending themselves
from armed criminals.

Dave Hinz

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:19:24 -0500, Henry St.Pierre wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote in
:

How do I defend myself, then, against the criminal who _doesn't_
disarm, Greg?

Talk strongly to them (not so strongly that you lower their self esteem)
and give them time out.

Am I allowed to give them a dirty look as well, or is that not nice?

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:36:51 -0500, Todd Fatheree wrote:

Yet another liberal inconistency: they favor abortion and oppose capital
punishment. Which means they oppose the innocent while they favor the
guilty.

But Todd, that's _remarkably_ consistant within the liberal framework of
thought. You and I should be stopped from having ugly guns, but don't
aggressively prosecute people who misuse guns. You wouldn't want to
_offend_ the criminal, you want to _rehabilitate_ them, y'see. You and
I are just criminals who haven't done anything yet, but can't be trusted
in any case. The criminal, though, can be trusted to have rehabilitated
themselves, just you and I who have done nothing wrong can't be trusted.

Does that make sense now?

Dave Hinz

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 08:42:16 -0400, James T. Kirby wrote:

All of you undecided voters who think Bush is just a good, responsible, well
meaning "conservative", try to catch "A Patriot Act" on cable before next Tuesday.

Is this the Patriot Act which both John Kerry, and John Edwards, voted for?
That one? The one which passed the Senate on a 98-1-1 vote?

If you want to disagree with someone on the Patriot Act, talk to Kerry
and Edwards and ask why they voted for it.

Dave Hinz

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:21:34 GMT, Howard wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

Greg, do you think you could go buy a fully-automatic Uzi today?

After a background check, and a separate federal tax, it is perfectly
legal to own an Uzi. In Texas, you can carry it concealed if you have
the proper licenses.

Right, but the premise I was responding to was the statement that someone
could walk in to a gun shop and walk out with a machine gun, spur of the
moment-like.

How would you CCW with an Uzi, by the way? Wear a Duster or something?
I imagine it would print pretty much through any piece of clothing.

Dave Hinz

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 01:33:10 -0400, GregP wrote:
On 26 Oct 2004 21:02:17 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:


Personally I don't care much about it one way or another.

Good, because you also obviously don't understand it very well.


Given that all I've seen from you on this subject
is some warmed-over NRA agit prop, you really
don't have much to evaluate with.

I see you go for the personal attack rather than discuss the factual
problems in your posts that I pointed out.

On 27 Oct 2004 15:45:02 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:


No, just no tolerance for people pushing unworkable solutions based on
lies and disinformation, bridger. I'm sure you can relate.


So you seriously consider spitballs as a solution ?

Al Reid wrote:


We have an all voluntary, highly trained military. We don't need or want a draft. Since the military supports GWB by a 5 to 1
margin, you could support our troops by voting with our military.

Well, since our military is not tasked with making political decisions, and
hopefully will never be, I can't imagine why voting with
them on that basis makes ANY COMPELLING SENSE AT ALL. That was just a stupid
suggestion.

JK

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:10:06 -0400, GregP wrote:
On 27 Oct 2004 15:45:02 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:


No, just no tolerance for people pushing unworkable solutions based on
lies and disinformation, bridger. I'm sure you can relate.

So you seriously consider spitballs as a solution ?

Not real good at following the thread of a conversation, are you Greg.

In article ,
"mark" wrote:

And the guy was *naked* for god's sake.
That's gotta be worth something, story wise

Naked as God intended, eh? You'd certainly think that would make the
news - but I don't recall the story and I read a large city daily,
daily, plus radio and internet news.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"To know the world intimately is the beginning of caring."
-- Ann Hayman Zwinger

sorry i haven't had time to chime in but have been spending time with my two
children, one a doctor, and the other a twin major senior in college who both
somehow managed to grow up in a house and storage facility with several hundred
unsecured firearms, along with unsecured vehicle keys which they didn't take
and several pieces of woodworking equipment which never maimed them, of course
i grew up in ahouse with a couple of firearms and dangerous tools and managed
the same. stupidity combined with anything (cars, firearms, tools, living)
kills more people than anything and no-one is trying to outlaw stupidity, lest
it diminish the democrat voting base. i do appreciate the thomas paine quote as
probably two thirds of the past three generations have no idea who the hell he
was or what the founding fathers wrote and thought concerning the populace's
right to defend itself against it's government.

On 27 Oct 2004 15:47:37 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:29:52 -0500, Prometheus wrote:
On 26 Oct 2004 15:24:36 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Good to know you, you know, get all the facts and stuff before making
up your mind on something.

So by *all the facts* you mean all the facts you like, ignoring
whatever you don't see... Sure, most people are fine with guns.

Great, you've got _some_ founding in reality.

Plenty. I try to keep it firm by not stuffing myself full of
propiganda from any quarter. That includes both the Brady faction and
the NRA equally. Again, you are misinterpreting my entire position.
You want me to be diametrically opposed to you, but I'm not- and never
was. The problem with memorizing the statistics and arguments from
gun magazines, and then trying to use them in conversation is that you
must presuppose that if someone is not 100% with you, then they are
against you. Keep your guns, enjoy them, don't blow your pinkie toe
off- it's all the same to me. I don't care to take away your guns, I
just cringe at puppet-like repetition of party lines.

But
there are plenty that are not,

Yes, and they're called "criminals". You know, people who commit crimes.

That would be who I'm talking about, yes.

and they're they type -like it or not-
that tend to favor guns that look mean, have 100 round clips and come
with a bayonet.

They do? Can you provide, you know, a cite, to back that up?

A cite? Nope. Just met a lot of criminals who like that kind of gun.
It's darn near universal in outlying areas, though it may be different
in inner city areas and such. Not everything that is true must be in
a book. Not every book contains the truth. I confront reality
through the avenue of my own senses, and have known them to decieve me
at times- so how can I possibly trust someone using a different set of
senses to tell me what is true or not, especially when I do not know
them intimately?

That's who I'm talking about, not joe average with
his nice over-under 16ga that he uses for bird hunting.

So are you basing your problem on the person, or the function of the gun,
or the appearance of the gun? I feel that where there is a problem it is
with the person deciding to misuse it, personally. Perhaps you blame
inatimate objects for the actions of people, but I reject that.

The person. And the propiganda.

And the guy was *naked* for god's sake.
That's gotta be worth something, story wise

Naked as God intended, eh? You'd certainly think that would make the
news - but I don't recall the story and I read a large city daily,
daily, plus radio and internet news.


It was a while ago. Time flies....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/540600.stm

Prometheus wrote:

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:38:19 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Prometheus wrote:

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 02:19:44 GMT, "Courtney Mainord"
wrote:


"mp" wrote in message
...
How about this: The gun-grabbing liberals haven't been saying much
this election cycle. Even see photo-ops of Kerry hunting with a
real
shotgun. Just wait though, if he gets in you'll see what happens to
your guns.

And how would you know? Something you read on the internet?

His twenty year antigun voting record is plenty of proof that he will
do
everything possible to get all guns out of circulation. Only DIM ocrats
and demoCROOKS disagree with that.

Somebody's been spending too much time with the NRA propiganda. I'm a
conservative, and was brought up in a NRA-card carrying family, but
the idea that Kerry could actually do a damn thing to take your
shotgun out of your hands is hysterical nonsense. Even when that
idiotic assult weapons ban was passed, they did nothing to take away
the guns on the list- it was just no longer legal to buy them new. I
didn't agree with that legislation, but it didn't cause any real harm
that I could see- those guns were junk anyways, and they were just as
easy to come by after they were "banned" as they were beforehand.

You know, I'm all for the second amendment, and I believe that any
responsible citizen has a right to own a firearm, but people like you
who buy into this hysterical crap I'm not so sure about. When folks
start running around like chicken little worried that the sky is
falling on their guns, I start to get worried that they're the type to
go shoot up a McDonald's because they think the martians read their
thoughts. Just take a deep breath, and think happy thoughts about
hunting- which, contrary to your [and Charleston Heston's] belief, is
really not in peril. And if some kind of second American Revolution
ever *does* come, your SKS and/or Winchester probably aren't going to
do much against an Apache helicopter anyway.

An Apache is totally worthless when the pilot and ground crew all got shot
coming out of a bar one night or refuse to fly because their wives and
kids
are being held hostage and may be in the target zone. And if the workers
in the factory where the spare parts are made all decide to join the
rebellion it is going to quit flying due to lack of spares after a while.
Of course they destroyed the factory before they left, and being the
experts on using the tools, they did a right job of it. Assuming of
course that some F-15 jockey from the part of the Air Force that joined
the
rebellion doesn't just blow the crap out of it. People who use this
argument simply do not understand the difference between a war and a
rebellion.

Maybe someday when war machines are autonomous this argument will have
some validity, but it does not right now.

All right, all right- fine. There are all sorts of military and
guerrilla tactics to accomplish almost any sort of military goal.
That's freely granted. What isn't is my consent for every damn yahoo
on the block to have a machine gun so that they can shoot up the
neighborhood whenever they see a property tax increase.

In 1934 a Federal law was enacted requiring an extensive background check on
anyone desiring to purchase a machine gun, with a $500 tax on the sale to
cover the cost. Since that time, there have been two incidents of which I
am aware in which a lawfully owned machine gun was used to harm anyone, and
one of those was owned and used by a police officer. So what, exactly, are
you complaining about?

Perhaps you are thinking of the "assault weapon" ban? If so, be aware that
it had absolutely nothing to do with machine guns, and the fact that so
many people believe that it did is a monument to the ignorance of the press
and the dishonesty of politicians, lobbyists, and gun control advocates.

As for hunting not being in danger, (a) the Second Amendment is not about
hunting--if you don't want the government to obey it then be honest about
what you want and lobby for its repeal instead of claiming that it doesn't
apply to whatever type of "arm" you don't personally like, and (b) see
England and Australia. The gun control advocates claim that they aren't
after "sporting arms" but their actions elsewhere show them for the
hypocrites and liars that they are.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Charlie Self wrote:

J. Clarke notes:

And the pellets that don't hit the assailant tear the **** out of someone
else in the house or in the neighborhood.

Ah, mine own house but a pitiful thing? WTF are your walls made of?

Sheetrock, same as most houses in the US these days. The outside walls
might stop a piece of buckshot, if the guy isn't standing in front of a
window or door.

By the way, what "extra rounds"? Are you saying that he's so innacurate
that he has to empty a magazine to put one round on target? And yet
you're
so accurate with your shotgun that you hit the guy first time? And if you
think that a shotgun automatically hits everything downrange, you might
want to pattern it at the distances common in indoor combat. You'll get a
big surprise.

Oh, man. Did you ever see Joe or Jane Average shoot when they're nervous.

So? Are you saying that private citizens should not own hunting rifles
because if they should happen to use them defensively they might miss? If
not, what specific type of firearm do you have in mind?

If you think a shotgun won't take out a target across a room without
precise aim, you need to redefine your thinking and get a little more
experience. Probably a sporting arm isn't the best, but a 19" or 20"
barrel helps a lot. Also reduces muzzle velocity, decreases swing time for
any second shot, if needed.

So what is the diameter of the pattern of your 19" shotgun at ten feet?

At short range, there is, and always will be, one helluva lot of
difference between shotguns and rifles and ease of hitting a target 20
feet away.

Actually, the ease of hitting the target with a shotgun increases with
distance up to the point where the pattern starts to fall apart. At close
range the pattern simply is not very large, as you would know if you had
ever actually patterned your defensive shotgun.

"Spray and pray" is not an effective strategy.

Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is
not hereditary." Thomas Paine

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

GregP wrote:

On 26 Oct 2004 20:06:29 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:49:42 -0400, GregP wrote:
On 26 Oct 2004 15:09:02 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:


Greg, do you think you could go buy a fully-automatic Uzi today?

I suspect that if you really, really want one you will
have very little problem buying one.

Greg, do you think that I could _legally_ go buy a fully-automatic Uzi
today? Or that you could? My record is squeaky-clean, but it would take
_months_ and possibly 10,000 dollars to get anything.


So you *can* obtain one legally ? I didn't think you could,
at least in the U.S. Some people have clearly been lying
about this.

Nobody has been lying about anything. There is a Federal background check
required that is only slightly less thorough than the one that is required
in order to be entrusted with the possession of atomic weapons or the
guarding of the President. That background check typically takes several
months.

And then you cannot obtain an Uzi made after 1986. Further, if you dispose
of it, anybody you sell it to has to pass the same check.

Now, tell us how many lawfully owned machine guns have been used in the
commission of a crime since 1934, when the Federal law was enacted, and
provide a source for those statistics. If lawful ownership of machine guns
is not creating a social problem then why do you want to ban them? And if
it is, then it is up to you to demonstrate that there is such a problem.

Illegal use of firearms is the problem, Greg, not Kerry pretending
that Osama wants semi-auto "assault weapons" from America this week,
but not last week because they didn't have bayonet lugs and flash
surpressors.

Well, yes, the "assault weapons ban" was a joke: it was
congress winking at the NRA while pretending to accomplish
something.

Actually, it was the NRA throwing some of their members to the wolves in
order to preserve the privileges of the rest.

Now that the NRA and the pro-gun lobby are
publicizing this so heavily, perhaps the next ban, if and when
it comes, will be substantive. I doubt that anything will happen
for a few years tho, or until a truly horrific mass killing takes
place.

Earth to Greg. The most horrific mass killing in the history of the United
States was committed with box cutters. Perhaps we should ban _them_.

Personally I don't care much about it one way or another.
IMO, it's a grossly overblown issue on both sides.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Prometheus wrote:

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:17:38 GMT, "mark" wrote:

I find it incredible that people today think they can stretch this
constitutional right to include rifles which fire off 10-20 rounds per
second to ouzis, AK-47s, and single shot grenade launchers in
incomprehensible.

These weapons are illegal for the general public to purchase. (yes, there
are exceptions, as I recently found out about Arizona -- but you still
need to pay lots of money, have an in-depth background check, and get the
approval of some governmental agency I can't remember the name of right
now...)

There's a shop about 10 miles from me with a sign that just says "Guns
Guns Guns" They sell any kind of firearm you could imagine, from the
old thompson sub-machine guns to big anti-aircraft guns mounted on
huge tripods. There you pay $200 for a full-auto permit (fee may've
changed by now) wait a week, and get your insanely useless machine
gun. I say insanely useless because you can't shoot it anywhere but a
licensed range, it chews up ammunition and there's no one around that
you have any right to shoot.

In what nation is this? In the US you can shoot a machine gun anywhere that
you can shoot any other kind of gun that uses the same ammunition, however
to obtain one you have to pay a $500 Federal transfer tax and wait several
months for the background check. The requirements have not changed since
1934.

Look at it this way: Ouzis, AK-47 and those ilk as well as grenade
launching firearms are not defensive in purpose - they are offensive in
purpose. Don't you find that contrary to your constitutional right to
defend yourself?

I would say it depends upon what you are defending against. If someone
breaks into my house and threatens me with a single shot fowling rifle, I
would still prefer to have my semi-automatic, thank you very much.

As we move further away from 1778, the Words & Intent of the Founding
Fathers are getting grossly slurred. The Right to Free Speech means you
have a right to speak your mind as long as it's not offensive to others.

That isn't true. You do not have the right to NOT be offended by what I
say. You have the right to NOT be shut down by the government for what you
say. That's it.


My right to own my firearms ends when I point it at you, your family,
or
your property. My right to swing my fist ends at your personal space.

Agreed.

Peace,

Dy
Kerry wrote:
How about this: The gun-grabbing liberals haven't been saying much
this election cycle. Even see photo-ops of Kerry hunting with a real
shotgun. Just wait though, if he gets in you'll see what happens to
your guns. Liberal


--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:56:45 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:


Earth to Greg. The most horrific mass killing in the history of the United
States was committed with box cutters. Perhaps we should ban _them_.

No, it was committed with airplanes. Perhaps we should ban *them*.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:56:45 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Earth to Greg. The most horrific mass killing in the history of the United
States was committed with box cutters. Perhaps we should ban _them_.

ummm...

I think it was committed with atomic weapons. which we were well on
the way to banning before W came along....

"J. Clarke" wrote in message ...
Maybe someday when war machines are autonomous this argument will have some
validity, but it does not right now.

They're coming sooner than you think.

Of course, you'd be loony enough to think that the only danger would
come from the left, even though totalitarian thinking comes much more
easily from neocons.

After all, who is it that is equating criticism to being disloyal
citizens?

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:50:39 -0700, Mark Reichert wrote:


After all, who is it that is equating criticism to being disloyal
citizens?

Teresa Kerry.

-Doug

--
"It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among
[my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between
political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person,
the hatred they bore to his political opinions." --Thomas Jefferson

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:42:38 -0400, "Al Reid"
wrote:

McAuliffe, much like Kerry hemself, has no core convictions or
moral compas. ...

If that were really true, he would be working for the Bush
administration.