 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / February 2007Dear John:
Two Canadians wounded by gunfire in Acapulco Last Updated: Sunday, February 4, 2007 | 10:11 PM ET The Canadian Press Two Canadians were injured when a gunman fired into the lobby of a hotel in Acapulco, Mexico. Mexican police confirmed the couple, from Ontario, suffered minor injuries to their legs late Saturday and were treated in a local hospital. Their names have not been released and no motive has been given. Canadian news reports said the couple was shot at the Casa Inn Hotel in Acapulco. "We brought them in, tried to comfort them, stop the bleeding. But the trouble is, you know, before they get the ambulance, it takes more than half an hour," Guiseppe Alaimo, who witnessed the shooting, told a Toronto television station from Acapulco on Sunday. The incident comes only weeks after 19-year-old Adam DePrisco from Woodbridge, Ont., was killed in Acapulco. A Mexican doctor blamed the teenager's death on a hit-and-run driver, but his family and friends alleged he was beaten to death. Last month, a man from Chatham, Ont., was struck by a car and killed in Guadalajara. Domenic and Nancy Ianiero, also of Woodbridge, were found murdered in their room at a resort in the Mayan Riviera nearly a year ago. Their deaths remain unsolved. The Canadian government has issued repeated warnings to citizens regarding the dangers of travelling to Mexico recently.  SignaturePopeye "A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." - Tennessee Williams www.finalprotectivefire.com On Feb 5, 3:30 am, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > Two Canadians wounded by gunfire in Acapulco > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Two Canadians were injured when a gunman fired into the lobby of a hotel in > Acapulco, Mexico. More details here. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/04/mexico-shootings.html JF >> Two Canadians were injured when a gunman fired into the lobby of a hotel >> in >> Acapulco, Mexico. More details here. >> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/04/mexico-shootings.html > A drive-by gunman opened fire into a hotel lobby in Acapulco, Mexico, > Saturday night, wounding two Canadians on vacation in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Riviera nearly a year ago. Their deaths remain > unsolved. Lets see, here. Two people, not armed, wounded in a drive by shooting believed to be related to drugs. One person beaten to death, another struck and killed by a car, and two killed in their room nearly a year ago. Apparently none of the crimes have been successfully investigated and prosecuted. Looks to me like Florida's not the only place tired for Canadians that don't know how to drive. Also looks to me like those subject to the violence in Mexico would probably like to reconsider their decision to depend on the police or other authorities to protect them and their choice not to back up their dependence by ensuring that they could defend themselves. Perhaps the Canadian Government is right. Perhaps they should stay at home, where things are so much safer, where there's no murders or drug problems, or illegal firearms, or criminals willing to prey on sheep. Lee > >> Two Canadians were injured when a gunman fired into the lobby of a hotel > >> in [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Lee So is your point that tourists should stop supporting the south Florida economy? Or that tourists should all ignore the local laws and go about armed? Or that only Canadian tourists fall victim to random acts of violence in foreign countries? Or that Mexican law enforcement is inept? Or that the Canadian government should be discouraging Canucks from travelling abroad? Or that Canucks shouldn't rent cars in Mexico? All I really got from the latest incident in Acapulco was that it was just further proof there are too many clowns carrying guns in this world. Are you suggesting if that had a been a red-blooded gun-totin' American gunwife she would have pulled her carry piece and blazed away through the crowd hoping to hit whoever had fired the bullet that accidentally hit her? Of course having been hit out of nowhere she'd have had to do some pretty fast guessing as to which direction she should shoot and wouldn't have had time to show any concern for innocent bystanders getting hurt in her quest for jungle justice. So what was yer point anyway? JF >>>>Two Canadians were injured when a gunman fired into the lobby of a hotel >>>>in [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > through the crowd hoping to hit whoever had fired the bullet that > accidentally hit her? An assault rifle would cure that. Matthias > >>>>Two Canadians were injured when a gunman fired into the lobby of a hotel > >>>>in [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > Matthias Assuming, of course, we could ever figure out what one was. > > >> Two Canadians were injured when a gunman fired into the lobby of a hotel > > >> in [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > just further proof there are too many clowns carrying guns in this > world. Are you suggesting if that had a been a red-blooded gun-totin' Given that the "clowns" were (likely?) involved in drug smuggling, do you think that taking away Lee's, Popeye's, my, etc guns would have affected these "clowns" potential for possessing firearms? I mean, there are laws agaisnt possession, use, production etc of certain substances, yet that doesn't stop 'em. > American gunwife she would have pulled her carry piece and blazed away > through the crowd hoping to hit whoever had fired the bullet that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > JF On Feb 5, 3:12 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > Given that the "clowns" were (likely?) involved in drug smuggling, do you > think that taking away Lee's, Popeye's, my, etc guns would have affected > these "clowns" potential for possessing firearms? > I mean, there are laws agaisnt possession, use, production etc of certain > substances, yet that doesn't stop 'em. It probably doesn't matter at all to these clowns what y'all do with your guns. They're going to continue to rely on guns as their means of getting their way or as a means of retribution when they don't get their way. And speaking of role models, did you notice that Tank Johnson got some high profile press exposure for gun owners last night? JF >> Given that the "clowns" were (likely?) involved in drug smuggling, do you >> think that taking away Lee's, Popeye's, my, etc guns would have affected >> these "clowns" potential for possessing firearms? >> I mean, there are laws agaisnt possession, use, production etc of certain >> substances, yet that doesn't stop 'em. > It probably doesn't matter at all to these clowns what y'all do with > your guns. They're going to continue to rely on guns as their means of > getting their way or as a means of retribution when they don't get > their way. Trust me, what I do with my guns matters a great deal to them. It's what you can do without one that has no significant impact on their actions. Lee NOW I SEE WHERE THERE GAY NUTS INSTEAD OF GUN NUTS LOL LOL > On Feb 5, 3:12 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It probably doesn't matter at all to these clowns what y'all do with > your guns. They're going to continue to rely on guns as their means of Actually, it will. > getting their way or as a means of retribution when they don't get > their way. Glad to see you realize this. In other words, confiscation will NOT affect the very folks whom you think should NOT have guns. :-) > And speaking of role models, did you notice that Tank Johnson got some > high profile press exposure for gun owners last night? TAnd that would be.....? :-) Dennis <chop all of Francis' bullshit and projection> > And that would be.....? :-) One of the Chicago Bears. He got busted on a some kind of weapons beef (no liberal fagot required state gun owners card), after one of his bodyguard/buds was murdered at a nightclub. Gee, seems like he might have a good reason to have guns on his home. Not that you'll ever get Francis or any of the other milksops to agree. The Judge let him travel and play in the game. He is guilty of no missuse of a firearm, only of not letting lickspittles like Francis tell him how to live. Sound like he needs to find a better crowd to hang with, and a new state to live in. My bet his lawyer will gut the case. Nothing more or less than a typical Francis spineless slime attack. It is what John does best. No facts, no reality, only another cheap shot from the cheap seats. BTW, John, since I know you read my every word, *you* made the changes, not me. I know you like to use Blacks death as a podium for your disrespect and bullshit, but you and I both know that dog wont hunt. But do go on. It all looks good on you. And tell Mighty Mouth any time his balls drop, he is free to run his suck to either Spike or Chester. (tick-tock) > <chop all of Francis' bullshit and projection> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > nightclub. Gee, seems like he might have a good reason to have guns on his > home. He got busted firing his weapons "scary assault type" in a jurisdiction where they aren't allowed, without having a proper "Firearms Owners I.D" card. Later, in a seemingly unrelated incident, his good friend and "bodyguard" was killed in a bar by a third party. Tank was a bad boy, and apparently not a very good neighbor. > Not that you'll ever get Francis or any of the other milksops to agree. > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > (tick-tock) Signature“TAANSTAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ Something to think about, from a wise man now long dead….: “In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. “There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. “We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.” --Theodore Roosevelt...1907 ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________ > <chop all of Francis' bullshit and projection> > > > And that would be.....? :-) > > One of the Chicago Bears. Oh yeanh, I knew that. However he said he got some good publicity for gunowners, which is why I wa curious. I wanted that ast third of the Superbowl, but mustve missed the bit about the guns. > He got busted on a some kind of weapons beef (no liberal fagot required > state gun owners card), after one of his bodyguard/buds was murdered at a > nightclub. Gee, seems like he might have a good reason to have guns on his > home. Was the gun used to shoot the bobyguard properly registered? if a muderer uses an unregistered firearm to kill, is that worse than if the firearm is registered? > Not that you'll ever get Francis or any of the other milksops to agree. Course not. > The Judge let him travel and play in the game. He is guilty of no missuse of > a firearm, only of not letting lickspittles like Francis tell him how to > live. Ahh...couldn;t have been that bad an offense then. The cannabis charge looked to be far more significant. > Sound like he needs to find a better crowd to hang with, and a new state to > live in. My bet his lawyer will gut the case. <snip> Dennis > Ahh...couldn;t have been that bad an offense then. > The cannabis charge looked to be far more significant. Yeah man, do all that booze and tobacco you can, jess don't be gettin wrapped up with the man over no ganja. > > Sound like he needs to find a better crowd to hang with, and a new state > to > > live in. My bet his lawyer will gut the case. > > > <snip> Not like Francis needs anything significant to make his "point". Any little old insignificant bullshit will suffice. You know, lost in a stormy sea, any flotsam will be welcome. After all, look at the crowd he is playing for. While he ignores the mass murders perpetrated right under his nose by his fellow Canadians. > > Ahh...couldn;t have been that bad an offense then. > > The cannabis charge looked to be far more significant. > > Yeah man, do all that booze and tobacco you can, jess don't be gettin > wrapped up with the man over no ganja. Of course. I mean, who's a bigger danger to society: a) someone sitting at hime, stoned, watching cartoons with "the munchies" or b) the businessman who, after having the requisite 4 martinis at "cocktail hour" drives home? Clearly, its a) the stoner, as he's a drain on society. The businessman is Doing Something. Dennis > > > Ahh...couldn;t have been that bad an offense then. > > > The cannabis charge looked to be far more significant. > > Yeah man, do all that booze and tobacco you can, jess don't be gettin > > wrapped up with the man over no ganja. > Of course. I mean, who's a bigger danger to society: > a) someone sitting at hime, stoned, watching cartoons with "the munchies" > or > b) the businessman who, after having the requisite 4 martinis at "cocktail > hour" drives home? > Clearly, its a) the stoner, as he's a drain on society. The businessman is > Doing Something. Building the web so the Crack Spider can have his bitch. On Feb 6, 12:54 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > > > Ahh...couldn;t have been that bad an offense then. > > > The cannabis charge looked to be far more significant. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Clearly, its a) the stoner, as he's a drain on society. The businessman is > Doing Something. Is this another "sin" which will be attributed to me later, with cites to prove that I probably thought these thoughts? I think it's about time that the police started testing for dope in drivers as well as alcohol. I have no less sympathy for alcohol impaired drivers. I've been down that road and can now speak with the self-righteousness of the "been there, done that" crowd, on both counts. You may now call me out as a hypocritical left-leaning antigun socialist bleeding heart. JF > I think it's about time that the police started testing for dope in > drivers as well as alcohol. I have no less sympathy for alcohol > impaired drivers. I've been down that road and can now speak with the > self-righteousness of the "been there, done that" crowd, > on both counts. You may now call me out as a hypocritical left-leaning > antigun socialist bleeding heart. As nearly as I can tell, you support testing for dope and alcohol. I presume that you also support some kind of punishment for either offense, although your comment about having "no less sympathy" makes me wonder if I have concluded correctly. Do you, in fact, have sympathy for either? If not, you'll have to settle for being a hypocritical far left, anti-gun socialist sheep, but not a bleeding heart. If you have sympathy for those that drink, or take drugs, to the point that they can no longer drive safely, and than drive anyway, you're not a bleeding heart, you're a gullible fool. Lee > > I think it's about time that the police started testing for dope in > > drivers as well as alcohol. I have no less sympathy for alcohol [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > although your comment about having "no less sympathy" makes me wonder if I > have concluded correctly. Do you, in fact, have sympathy for either? No. > If not, you'll have to settle for being a hypocritical far left, anti-gun > socialist sheep, but not a bleeding heart. > > If you have sympathy for those that drink, or take drugs, to the point that > they can no longer drive safely, and than drive anyway, you're not a > bleeding heart, you're a gullible fool. No. JF > Do you, in fact, have sympathy for either? > No. See, nobody's wrong all the time. Lee You may now call me > out as a hypocritical left-leaning antigun socialist bleeding heart. > > JF you misspelled "fool" Signature“TAANSTAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ Something to think about, from a wise man now long dead….: “In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. “There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. “We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.” --Theodore Roosevelt...1907 ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________ i ain't fool a.shole....Jealous i speak and understand your lang...a.shole MISSSPELL WELL, ATLEASD ALL YOU f.ckers UNDERSTAND WHAT I MEAN......WHY YOU REPLY IF YOU DOT' KNOW WHAT I MEAN...LOL DIP GAY NUT sh.t....I KNOW YO DO UNDERSTAND ME, SO I AIN'T FOOL LIKE YOU DONT' KNOW ANY OTHER LANG. YOU TALK TOO MUCH, BUT YOUR A FAG...IF YOU DONT' BELIEVE ME THEN LET'S SEE YOU COME AND FIGHT. I GIVE YOU MY HOME ADDRESS. YOUR LUCKY UR NOT IN MY AREA, CUZ YOU GET YOURS PUNK LIKE YOU ARE A PUNK ALL YOU f.ckers THAT AGAINS THE ISLANDER YES, HE MISSPELL, BUT not fool... YOUR FOOL' FOR SURE YOU ARE FOOL... > On Feb 6, 12:54 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > the "been there, done that" crowd, on both counts. You may now call me > out as a hypocritical left-leaning antigun socialist bleeding heart. Just to clarify, John, you;d be a hypocrite if you were to speak self-righteously against driving while drunk or stoed, and yt you would still drive while intoxicated or stoned. Otherwise, one could never learn from oens mistakes, and try to help others not make those mistakes. Is there a quick roadside check for marijuana or other intoxicants? Dennis > On Feb 5, 3:12 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > getting their way or as a means of retribution when they don't get > their way. That's directly contrary to your previous postings. > And speaking of role models, did you notice that Tank Johnson got some > high profile press exposure for gun owners last night? Never heard of him. On Feb 6, 7:21 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > On Feb 5, 3:12 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > That's directly contrary to your previous postings. Check your cab. You might be inhaling diesel fumes. > > And speaking of role models, did you notice that Tank Johnson got some > > high profile press exposure for gun owners last night? > > Never heard of him. He's the new poster boy for responsible gun owners. JF > On Feb 6, 7:21 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > JF Not hardly, Tank should be in jail >>>>And speaking of role models, did you notice that Tank Johnson got some >>>>high profile press exposure for gun owners last night? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> > Not hardly, Tank should be in jail Joe gets it. JOF gets whooooooshed. >>>>>And speaking of role models, did you notice that Tank Johnson got some >>>>>high profile press exposure for gun owners last night? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > JOF gets whooooooshed. Speaking of Canadians and violence, are they going to stick with the resolution to ban stoning to death or buring women alive, or back off so they don't offend the Muslims? Oh well, guess that's whats gonna happen if you don't have guns anyway. Tank is a loser anyway. Dan. (danlw) >>>>>>And speaking of role models, did you notice that Tank Johnson got some >>>>>>high profile press exposure for gun owners last night? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Dan. (danlw) Got a link to that? Sounds interesting. Canadians take a stand? I've seen concrete cure quicker. >>>>>>>And speaking of role models, did you notice that Tank Johnson got >>>>>>>some [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > I've seen concrete cure quicker. To be fair, only one town wants to ban, the rest don't think it's a problem to stone or burn women. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=72d7b831-6e45-46f7-9d33 -55ec4324f3e6&k=87787 Dan > To be fair, only one town wants to ban, the rest don't think it's a problem > to stone or burn women. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=72d7b831-6e45-46f7-9d33 -55ec4324f3e6&k=87787 Lets not forget that it is the Year of The Pig in Chinese culture. Let the nukes fly. On Feb 7, 9:24 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > >>>>>>And speaking of role models, did you notice that Tank Johnson got some > >>>>>>high profile press exposure for gun owners last night? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > I've seen concrete cure quicker Do you often watch concrete set? Is that like being a cementhead? JF > On Feb 7, 9:24 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" >> Canadians take a stand? >> >> I've seen concrete cure quicker > > Do you often watch concrete set? Is that like being a cementhead? It's nice of you to be consistent and show that you're as well versed in concrete, cement, and how long it takes to cure, as you are in other Rec.scuba subject content. On Feb 7, 11:08 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > On Feb 7, 9:24 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > >> Canadians take a stand? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > concrete, cement, and how long it takes to cure, as you are in other > Rec.scuba subject content. Well, a university summer spent pouring curb and gutter means one gets to watch a lot of concrete set and cure. Where did you get your experience? JF > On Feb 7, 11:08 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Well, a university summer spent pouring curb and gutter means one gets > to watch a lot of concrete set and cure. Not unless you watched it for about 80 years. >Where did you get your experience? Well, the first time, of course, was in USMC Combat Engineer training, where I learned how long it takes concrete to cure, along with several years experience in the FSSG. I still remember virtually the entire course. Of course, I finished first in class, and received a meritorious promotion for it (one of two on the same day, at 17 yrs of age). Then just recently, I spent a year and a half doing construction, as a labor foreman on a concrete crew building a AAA stadium. Wasn't I doing that when we met? Maybe just after. That's been related here more than once. But I know you have a hard time remembering what you posted yesterday, so what the hell. On Feb 8, 12:14 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > On Feb 7, 11:08 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Wasn't I doing that when we met? You were selling timeshares. You took us out to the site in your Buick. > Maybe just after. > > That's been related here more than once. > > But I know you have a hard time remembering what you posted yesterday, so > what the hell.- I'd blame it on my age if only I could remember what it is. JF being an a.shole....ANDY STAND UP AND say...tell the truth... My uncle friends know you....LOL .....remember now?....want me to mention the guy name you suck his cock??? LOL...shame on you...act like a man but inside of you WOMAN...............PERIOD LOL "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> spewed forth: > Canadians take a stand? Yep. It's why you don't keep your firearms hidden in your truck when you drive into Canada, Fatboy. You're too chicken to take a stand on the 'rights' you claim to have. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > On Feb 6, 7:21 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > He's the new poster boy for responsible gun owners. He -is- actually, but unfortunately, it's to invalidate your side of the argument. As I read it, he was charged and given probation in 2005 for -another- gun offense, released from assaulting an officer in the meantime, and then arrested for a second firearms violation last Dec. Because you're so fuckin stupid, you can't begin to see what any of this implies, can you? Give us your quick overview of the crimes committed, why his probation wasn't violated, why he's on the street to commit the second gun crime, how he got the guns while on probation, the relevance of drugs to the overall situation, And then tell us how it's the guns' fault again. See, in your delusional ignorance, all you can do is flail about compare him to "responsible gun owners". "He's the new poster boy for responsible gun owners" Flash that shiny bangtoy, yeah! It's why your type will never win. On Feb 7, 9:41 am, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > On Feb 6, 7:21 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > He -is- actually, but unfortunately, it's to invalidate your side of the > argument. ??? > As I read it, he was charged and given probation in 2005 for -another- gun > offense, released from assaulting an officer in the meantime, and then > arrested for a second firearms violation last Dec. > > Because you're so fuckin stupid, you can't begin to see what any of this > implies, can you? That he's just another idiot with a gun? > Give us your quick overview of the crimes committed, why his probation > wasn't violated, why he's on the street to commit the second gun crime, how > he got the guns while on probation, the relevance of drugs to the overall > situation, You have me confused with somebody who gives a sit about another punk with a gun. I just assumed you gun guys might be alarmed that he was dragging down your good names. > And then tell us how it's the guns' fault again. Did I say it was the gun's fault? You haven't found that diesel exhaust leak yet, have you? > See, in your delusional ignorance, all you can do is flail about compare > him to "responsible gun owners". I would hope that you resent any hint of similarity. > "He's the new poster boy for responsible gun owners" One can only hope that causes you some concern. > Flash that shiny bangtoy, yeah! Whatever floats yer boat, but it seems counter-productive to me. > It's why your type will never win. Because my type doesn't need guns? That's classic delusion on your part. Your type doesn't even realize that those folks nipping at your heels aren't chasing you, they're actually about to lap you. JF > You have me confused with somebody who gives a sit about another punk > with a gun. I just assumed you gun guys might be alarmed that he was > dragging down your good names. He's charged with violating a "law" that is unconstitutional anyway... Didn't have a "license" to own a firearm... Duhhh... He doesn't *need* a license, but it's not like those fuckin' liberal a.s Yankees can understand the concept that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means *exactly* that... > On Feb 7, 9:41 am, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >> >> > And speaking of role models, did you notice that Tank Johnson got >> >> > some [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > ??? No doubt. >> As I read it, he was charged and given probation in 2005 for -another- >> gun [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That he's just another idiot with a gun? That's about the depth that we expect for you. >> Give us your quick overview of the crimes committed, why his probation >> wasn't violated, why he's on the street to commit the second gun crime, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > with a gun. I just assumed you gun guys might be alarmed that he was > dragging down your good names. He's not, to any rational individual. It's your type that has the clarity issues. >> And then tell us how it's the guns' fault again. > > Did I say it was the gun's fault? More times than I can count. > You haven't found that diesel > exhaust leak yet, have you? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I would hope that you resent any hint of similarity. I don't worry about it in the slightest. It's only your type that could -possibly- see -any- hint of "similarity". >> "He's the new poster boy for responsible gun owners" > > One can only hope that causes you some concern. Why? As expected, the point here has -utterly-, -completely- escaped you. >> Flash that shiny bangtoy, yeah! > > Whatever floats yer boat, but it seems counter-productive to me. You're the expert on counter-productive. Perhaps you could explain how the many concessions that law-abiding gun owners have made to their constitutional rights have impacted the situation that -you- brought to everybody's attention. Let me save a post- Of course you won't. "You especially avoid me in any meaningful gun debate." -Popeye "Priceless" -JOF >> It's why your type will never win. > > Because my type doesn't need guns? That's classic delusion on your > part. Your type doesn't even realize that those folks nipping at your > heels aren't chasing you, they're actually about to lap you. There's not even a race. We've asked you to quantify it time and again, with (the usual) zero result. > There's not even a race. > We've asked you to quantify it time and again, with (the usual) zero > result. You are asking rec.scuba's premier bigot to justify his bigotry and ignorance, which he cant and never will do. It's a shining example of that mental disorder known as far left liberal socialist. To his credit, he manages to fold in a good portion of cowardice as well. Here is a good example of the headway the hoplophobes are making; http://tinyurl.com/32r6q8 >> There's not even a race. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > http://tinyurl.com/32r6q8 Now -there's- a sensible gun for sensible people. That's heel-nipping if I've ever seen it, alright. Careful with that caliber, though, just those numbers tend to give John night-terrors. > > http://tinyurl.com/32r6q8 > > Now -there's- a sensible gun for sensible people. > > That's heel-nipping if I've ever seen it, alright. No, no. We are about to be "lapped" is what he said. Although in his context, I take that to mean he is going to lick our butt-cracks, 'cause he damned sure is never going to attenuate the rights and freedom we enjoy, those very freedoms that drive his palpable jealousy and frothing bigotry. > Careful with that caliber, though, just those numbers tend to give John > night-terrors. Yes siree. A .50 caliber revolver with a 4" barrel. And it's even shiny to boot. Contraindicated for limp-wristed Canadian Socialists; the recoil alone would shatter their cappuccino cup hand. Good thing it wont be available in Canada, except to criminals. Easily concealed, expensive, and with proper handloads, that sucker would stop even a speeding Canadian Beemer. I might just have to buy one of those on National Buy A Gun Day. But, so as not to make him out any more a liar than he effortlessly makes himself, I will glass bead it with AC grade glass to give it a nice matte finish. > A .50 caliber revolver with a 4" barrel. And it's even shiny to boot. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Easily concealed, expensive, and with proper handloads, that sucker would > stop even a speeding Canadian Beemer. Since Canada has a limit of 105 mm (approx 4.1 inches), that particular one would not be allow, but they also make one with an 8-3/8" barrel, so that would probably be able to be imported if there was a market for it... As far as it being concealable, well, just about *anything* is concealable when you have to wear clothing for extremely cold weather... Concealing it in Houston or south Florida during the summer might be a bit more challenging (without going into heatstoke)... <grin> >> A .50 caliber revolver with a 4" barrel. And it's even shiny to boot. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Since Canada has a limit of 105 mm (approx 4.1 inches), Huh, they have howitzers? Frightening ;-) Matthias http://tinyurl.com/32r6q8 Wow, 340 grain, half inch diameter bullet at about 1,500 fps. That's a hell of a handgun. You guys enjoy yourselves. This one is more than even want to think about, let alone shoot. Lee > http://tinyurl.com/32r6q8 > > Wow, 340 grain, half inch diameter bullet at about 1,500 fps. That's a hell > of a handgun. Hell of a bang, eh? > You guys enjoy yourselves. This one is more than even want to think about, > let alone shoot. It's ported... Not that the porting would help a brittle old cheesehead with wrists like tootpicks. On Feb 7, 11:13 am, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > >> > He's the new poster boy for responsible gun owners. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No doubt. No doubt here. > >> As I read it, he was charged and given probation in 2005 for -another- > >> gun [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > That's about the depth that we expect for you. It don't take no rocket scientist to see this guy's a idiot. > >> Give us your quick overview of the crimes committed, why his probation > >> wasn't violated, why he's on the street to commit the second gun crime, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > He's not, to any rational individual. If you're not worried, then I sure don't need to be. > > Did I say it was the gun's fault? > > More times than I can count. Even you can surely count to zero. > > You haven't found that diesel > > exhaust leak yet, have you? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It's only your type that could -possibly- see -any- hint of "similarity". Is "your type" the buzzword of the day? > >> "He's the new poster boy for responsible gun owners" > > > One can only hope that causes you some concern. > > Why? If you don't get it, it's too late to help. > As expected, the point here has -utterly-, -completely- escaped you. Only the one you're trying to create. The real point is clear to rational folks though. > >> Flash that shiny bangtoy, yeah! > > > Whatever floats yer boat, but it seems counter-productive to me. > > You're the expert on counter-productive. I'm learning more about it all the time here. > Perhaps you could explain how the many concessions that law-abiding gun > owners have made to their constitutional rights have impacted the situation > that -you- brought to everybody's attention. In one syllable words and one word sentences? > Let me save a post- Of course you won't. You'd be disappointed if I did. > "You especially avoid me in any meaningful gun debate." -Popeye > > "Priceless" -JOF Well, it is priceless. Perhaps there's no such thing as a meaningful gun debate? > >> It's why your type will never win. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > There's not even a race. We know that. Apparently you admit it now too. That's a step forward. Admitting your problem is always the first step to a solution. > We've asked you to quantify it time and again, with (the usual) zero > result. Quantify the race you just said doesn't exist????? You babble at the best of times but your coherency level totally goes south when you start playing to the audience. Shape up, son. Breathe some fresh air. I know you're brighter than you sound. JF > On Feb 7, 11:13 am, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >> Perhaps you could explain how the many concessions that law-abiding gun >> owners have made to their constitutional rights have impacted the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You'd be disappointed if I did. You misspelled "flabbergasted". >> "You especially avoid me in any meaningful gun debate." -Popeye >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > JF On Feb 7, 4:06 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > You misspelled "flabbergasted". Be careful what you wish for. JF > On Feb 7, 4:06 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > >> You misspelled "flabbergasted". > > Be careful what you wish for. Whatever. > On Feb 7, 9:41 am, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > That he's just another idiot with a gun? No he amy be an idiot - but he should be in jail for the gun offense - but because of our liberal judges and the failure to incarcerate the offenders for a good period - he is still on the street and was given permission to travel out of the state. Seems to me that maybe all the liberal crap, and the changes brought on by the liberals probably has more to do with 9/11 (including Clinton's bl.wj.b) than any other reason - it infuriates the radical muslims. Personally I have no problem with revoking his probation and let him sit in a prison for 20 years. Problem is we don't have enough judges with any balls to take care of those that choose not to obey laws. Prisons ought to be like they were centuries ago, and our retired citizens - those that worked their entire lives should be on easy street - free medical - three meals - air conditioning - heat - televisions - without worry about paying for it. >> Give us your quick overview of the crimes committed, why his probation >>wasn't violated, why he's on the street to commit the second gun crime, how [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with a gun. I just assumed you gun guys might be alarmed that he was > dragging down your good names. He didn't drag me down - maybe he is what the NFL and the NBA have become >> And then tell us how it's the guns' fault again. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > One can only hope that causes you some concern. HE is not a poster boy - he is a criminal on probation illegally in possession of a gun - incarcerate him >> Flash that shiny bangtoy, yeah! > > Whatever floats yer boat, but it seems counter-productive to me. >> It's why your type will never win. > > Because my type doesn't need guns? That's classic delusion on your > part. Your type doesn't even realize that those folks nipping at your > heels aren't chasing you, they're actually about to lap you. Time well tell - if you don't need/want a gun, don't - but don't tell I can't or don't - you just fail to see that. Stick with your golf clubs > JF > No he amy be an idiot - but he should be in jail for the gun offense - I'm afraid that I don't agree with that... From what I've gathered, he was refusing to abide by a "law" that is obviously unconstitutional... Free men do not ask permission from other whether they can own a gun... The leftists Yankees up there created a "law" that is one step from allowing them to attempt to revoke our 2nd Amendment rights... The fact that he apparently decided to know acknowledge their authority in creating such a "law", I do not have a problem with it... > HE is not a poster boy - he is a criminal on probation illegally in > possession of a gun - incarcerate him But if he is on probation for violating yet another leftist Yankee law that is an unconstitutional infringement upon his 2nd Amendment rights... A car valet had reported seeing him with a handgun in his SUV... He had a right to own that gun and a right to have it in his SUV... I have no problem with him refusing to acknowledge the supposed rules that the leftist try to enact... > > No he amy be an idiot - but he should be in jail for the gun offense - > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > SUV... I have no problem with him refusing to acknowledge the supposed > rules that the leftist try to enact... OK, but he was criminally stupid. If your going to pack, better make sure no one knows it. > OK, but he was criminally stupid. > > If your going to pack, better make sure no one knows it. Perhaps... Of course, the real story could be that the valet started looking through his stuff in his car and found the gun... I knew a guy once who said that he had worked as a car parker / valet at a club in his younger days... He said that they do not necessarily take that great of care of the cars... He said that they even had to refill one guys tank because they had taken it for enough of a joyride that the missing gas might be noticeable... Them going through your stuff in your car, especially if you were recognized as some sort of supposed celebrity would not be that much of a surprise... > Prisons ought to be like they were centuries ago, Centuries ago, they shipped them off to Australia. Why should our prisoners get a free trip to Australia? I'd love a free trip to Australia, except for the fact that there's too many Australians there. > and our retired > citizens - those that worked their entire lives should be on easy street > - free medical - three meals - air conditioning - heat - televisions - > without worry about paying for it. Now you're really sounding like a socialist. Why give all this nice stuff to people who didn't work hard enough to put anything away for their old age, when there are children born into poverty that have absolutely no choice in the matter? It's the kids that are malnourished, lack preventative medical care, and forget about A/C or heat, and they have their whole lives ahead of them to suffer. The old folks aren't going to be contributing anything anymore, just wasting resources until they die, so why not grind them up to feed the children? >>Prisons ought to be like they were centuries ago, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > wasting resources until they die, so why not grind them up to feed the > children? Unbelievable - at least they worked! > On Feb 7, 9:41 am, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > ??? Use your brain for more than a hatrack. >> As I read it, he was charged and given probation in 2005 for -another- gun >>offense, released from assaulting an officer in the meantime, and then [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That he's just another idiot with a gun? And those guns could not have been purchased legally by him. >> Give us your quick overview of the crimes committed, why his probation >>wasn't violated, why he's on the street to commit the second gun crime, how [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with a gun. I just assumed you gun guys might be alarmed that he was > dragging down your good names. Our good names are safe. it's only you and your ilk that lumps all gun owners into the same bin. I find it interesting that you cannot differentiate between lawful and unlawful owners. >> And then tell us how it's the guns' fault again. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I would hope that you resent any hint of similarity. Your implication is that we are all criminals in waiting. Isn't it... >> "He's the new poster boy for responsible gun owners" > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > part. Your type doesn't even realize that those folks nipping at your > heels aren't chasing you, they're actually about to lap you. Only in your mind. It must be tiring trying to keep yourself inflated... > JF Signature“TAANSTAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ Something to think about, from a wise man now long dead….: “In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. “There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. “We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.” --Theodore Roosevelt...1907 ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________ On Feb 7, 4:50 pm, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote: > > ??? > > Use your brain for more than a hatrack. Got my head for that. You wear a hat on yer brain? > > That he's just another idiot with a gun? > > And those guns could not have been purchased legally by him. I'll probably regret asking, but, how do we know this? > Our good names are safe. it's only you and your ilk that lumps all gun > owners into the same bin. Is an ilk like a type? > I find it interesting that you cannot differentiate between lawful and > unlawful owners. I find it interesting that you somehow came to that conclusion. > >> And then tell us how it's the guns' fault again. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Your implication is that we are all criminals in waiting. Isn't it... That would actually be your own inference. Is there some nagging doubt there? > > Because my type doesn't need guns? That's classic delusion on your > > part. Your type doesn't even realize that those folks nipping at your > > heels aren't chasing you, they're actually about to lap you. > > Only in your mind. It must be tiring trying to keep yourself inflated... Well, that conjures up some disgusting, and probably anatomically impossible, imagery. JF > > Our good names are safe. it's only you and your ilk that lumps all gun > > owners into the same bin. > > Is an ilk like a type? I was almost killed by an ilk in Jasper once, on the way back from dinner. Apparently he lumped all gun owners and even non-gun-owners into the same bin, i.e. hunter, and he gave me a really deadly look when I blinded him with the flashbulb. I didn't even have a golf club to protect myself. Fortunately I was able to lock eyes with him and force him at bay with sheer mind power until I was able to back away unharmed, but that's the last time I walk around Canada unarmed. Your ilk are dangerous! And speaking of keeping our good names safe, was it not some dastardly Canuck that usurped my good name? We're never safe. > > > Our good names are safe. it's only you and your ilk that lumps all gun > > > owners into the same bin. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > And speaking of keeping our good names safe, was it not some dastardly > Canuck that usurped my good name? We're never safe. Yeah, but he used a rebreather before you, and is better with a camera. And don't be defaming our ilks. They are perfectly respectable critters except for when they poop on the golf courses, and leave footprints in the greens. You're lucky you got away with staring him down. He was probably confused by the flash and thought you were just another Canadian gun freak with bad aim, no American gunsel would have missed from that range. Naturally he'd bolt in a fright at the thought that you were armed. Guns instill huge amounts of fear in Canucks, and Canuck critters, as has been so well documented here over, and over, and over, and over ad nauseum. But don't let one bad ilk experience turn you off Canada forever. Next time don't flash him and you'll find he's as peaceful and easygoing as the rest of our ilk. JF > Yeah, but he used a rebreather before you, and is better with a > camera. More practiced, perhaps, but I'll be better someday. I just have lighting issues and my main issue right now, thanks for reminding me, is that my lights don't work. And whose fault is that, you might ask? The Canadians, of course. I bought two Canadian-made Amphibico self-contained video lights and when I arrived in Turks & Caicos in September, they didn't work. No one could get them to work. I still have to send them back to Canada as they're under warranty through July, but it's gonna be a pain in the a.s dealing with the sleigh drivers so I've put it off until after the snow melts. You Greg...as a old mother f.cker, common sens. when you and islander started this sh.t, you should calm yourself down, and stop replying back, but instead of talking nicely, you talk sh.t...YOU ARE A OLD MOTHER f.cker... you should stop. you are old mother f.cker...islander is only a kid. but being an a.shole f.cker, use your common sens. NOW your are a DIPSHIT FUCEKR. Canadian MOLESTER > Guns instill huge amounts of fear in Canucks . . . We know. You've made that point very clear. > > Guns instill huge amounts of fear in Canucks . . . > > We know. You've made that point very clear. Yeah. We all quake in our boots whenever a cop walks by. The very idea of a hunter turns the knees to jello. It's beyond me how our boys in Afghanistan do it. D'ya suppose they all have dual citizenship. JF > It's beyond me how our boys in Afghanistan do it. I thought we already figured that one out -- they stand downwind from cannabis fields as they are supposedly trying to destroy them *by fire*... You will never safe, being a molester?....i don't think so... LOL >> And those guns could not have been purchased legally by him. > > I'll probably regret asking, but, how do we know this? Simply amazing. >> Our good names are safe. it's only you and your ilk that lumps all gun >> owners into the same bin. > > Is an ilk like a type? Some types. >> I find it interesting that you cannot differentiate between lawful and >> unlawful owners. > > I find it interesting that you somehow came to that conclusion. You'd be the only one. > On Feb 7, 4:50 pm, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> > wrote: <snip> > > I find it interesting that you cannot differentiate between lawful and > > unlawful owners. > > I find it interesting that you somehow came to that conclusion. Why? Its based on your comments. <snip> Dennis > On Feb 7, 4:50 pm, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > I find it interesting that you somehow came to that conclusion. Why - from your statements and thought process what other conclusion could we possibly come to? >>>> And then tell us how it's the guns' fault again. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > That would actually be your own inference. Is there some nagging doubt > there? Only from you >>>Because my type doesn't need guns? That's classic delusion on your >>>part. Your type doesn't even realize that those folks nipping at your [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > JF > Why - from your statements and thought process what other conclusion > could we possibly come to? It was _aliens_ what did it... GREG, YOU GROUP IS NOT A PROFESIONAL diver, you guys are group of homosexuality...LOL >>> Give us your quick overview of the crimes committed, why his probation >>>wasn't violated, why he's on the street to commit the second gun crime, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I find it interesting that you cannot differentiate between lawful and > unlawful owners. That's because there -is no- difference to John. Reference his recent remarks about who is responsible when a felon steals a gun from a home. >> I would hope that you resent any hint of similarity. > > Your implication is that we are all criminals in waiting. Isn't it... Whether he admits it or not. >> Because my type doesn't need guns? That's classic delusion on your >> part. Your type doesn't even realize that those folks nipping at your >> heels aren't chasing you, they're actually about to lap you. > > Only in your mind. It must be tiring trying to keep yourself inflated... > So is your point that tourists should stop supporting the south Florida > economy? Works for me. >Or that tourists should all ignore the local laws and go about armed? What local laws would those be, John? Have you bothered to look to see what the laws are or you, once again, talking from a complete lack of knowledge? > Or that only Canadian tourists fall victim to random acts of violence in > foreign countries? They're the only ones mentioned in the article you provided. Was that what you were saying? > Or that Mexican law enforcement is inept? We've discussed this so many times, even the newbies know the answer to it. John, no law enforcement, not in Mexico, not in the US and not in Canada, can prevent acts of violence against its citizens. Only the citizens themselves can even hope to so that. The best any police force can do, is what they are paid to do, investigate, arrest and prosecute those who have already comitted the crime. > Or that the Canadian government should be discouraging Canucks from > travelling abroad? I believe that's what the article you provided said too. Do you disagree? If so, why'd you post the link? > Or that Canucks shouldn't rent cars in Mexico? To the contrary, I think they should. Mexico is a much better place for them to rent than here. > All I really got from the latest incident in Acapulco was that it was > just further proof there are too many clowns carrying guns in this [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > innocent bystanders getting hurt in her quest for jungle justice. So > what was yer point anyway? No, that's the kind of biased, meaningless, devoid of sense statement that only a raving liberal would make. Lee PS: The first rule of gunfighting is to bring a gun. > PS: The first rule of gunfighting is to bring a gun. Lee, Lee, Lee JOhn would bring his phone - he would call the police while his family was assaulted - his words - not mine > > So is your point that tourists should stop supporting the south Florida > > economy? > > Works for me. You have a government job. Perhaps we should ask the real workers who depend on the tourists for the mortgage payment. > >Or that tourists should all ignore the local laws and go about armed? > > What local laws would those be, John? Have you bothered to look to see what > the laws are or you, once again, talking from a complete lack of knowledge? You assume I really care what the local ordinances say vis a vis guns? > > Or that only Canadian tourists fall victim to random acts of violence in > > foreign countries? > > They're the only ones mentioned in the article you provided. Was that what > you were saying? Perhaps because someone chose a story about Canucks only. > > Or that Mexican law enforcement is inept? If the shoe fits ... > We've discussed this so many times, even the newbies know the answer to it. > John, no law enforcement, not in Mexico, not in the US and not in Canada, > can prevent acts of violence against its citizens. Only the citizens > themselves can even hope to so that. The best any police force can do, is > what they are paid to do, investigate, arrest and prosecute those who have > already comitted the crime. But of course an armed man (or woman) will always be safe from harm? > > Or that the Canadian government should be discouraging Canucks from > > travelling abroad? > > I believe that's what the article you provided said too. Do you disagree? > If so, why'd you post the link? I disagree, but I posted the link because it contained more info than the first one. > > Or that Canucks shouldn't rent cars in Mexico? > > To the contrary, I think they should. Mexico is a much better place for > them to rent than here. That's been my experience over the last few years. > > All I really got from the latest incident in Acapulco was that it was > > just further proof there are too many clowns carrying guns in this [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > No, that's the kind of biased, meaningless, devoid of sense statement that > only a raving liberal would make. Is there any other kind of liberal but raving? 8) > PS: The first rule of gunfighting is to bring a gun. Not exactly. The first rule for intelligent folks is to avoid gunfights. The only thing dumber than avoiding a gunfight is going to one without a gun. I guess the only choice is whether you want to go to the gunfight or ..... JF "Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> spewed forth: > no law enforcement, not in Mexico, not in the US and not in > Canada, can prevent acts of violence against its citizens. > Only the citizens themselves can even hope to so that. The citizens of Utah, a state with one of the highest levels of CHL holders, couldn't do squat sh.t yesterday. The police took care of the problem, not 'the citizens'. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > The citizens of Utah, a state with one of the highest levels of CHL > holders, couldn't do squat sh.t yesterday. It's too bad that you weren't shopping over there that day. But then again, perhaps that mall didn't have any stores that catered to drag queens. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message