 |
 | 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 / May 2007Quick, check Snopes.
FORT LAUDERDALE Teen's life ends tragically in shootout The mother of a teenager who was killed in a jewelry store holdup said her son had trouble staying on the right side of the law. A robbery suspect is wheeled from Bentley's Jewelers by paramedics after he was shot in the head. Audio | Robbery 911 call On Thursday night, Mabel Robinson had her brain-dead son's life support turned off. Earlier that day, she signed documents to have the 17-year-old's organs donated. In doing so, she prays, she can also save his soul. Robinson's son, Damian Christopher James, was one of the two armed men shot during an attempted robbery of a Fort Lauderdale jewelry store Wednesday, according to police. James and an accomplice, identified by police as Devaughan Heard, 24, of Opa-locka, may not have expected the owners would defend themselves. Hugo Villalta pulled out a gun, shooting James in the head. Heard was wounded in the chest. James' mother said she had long feared for her son's future. ``I tried to do everything a mother can do, but he never listened to me. He had a problem staying out of trouble. He was always hanging out with a bad crowd.'' Hugo and Rosario Villalta have operated Bentley's Jewelers at 2753 E. Oakland Park Blvd. for the past 15 years. They took special precautions to protect themselves, installing an alarm, security cameras and an electronic door that required customers to be buzzed in. Hugo Villalta had a permit to carry a handgun that he always kept within reach. At 11 a.m. Wednesday, two young men entered the store's vestibule and were buzzed in by the owners. According to a police report, they spoke to the owners about repairing a watch and buying a ring. Suddenly, James pulled out a gun and pointed it at Hugo Villalta, the report said. The owner dove for cover and grabbed his gun. Gunfire was exchanged. James, who had prior convictions for burglary, auto theft, and drug possession, was shot between the eyes. Heard, who has prior convictions for kidnapping, battery, and drug possession, was shot several times in the chest but made his way out of the store and into his getaway car, according to police. He was later captured by Fort Lauderdale and Wilton Manors police. It is unlikely that Villalta, who was defending his family, will be charged, police said. Under Florida law, citizens are allowed to use deadly force to defend themselves or others if someone is in danger of death or great bodily harm. The shootout was captured on the store's security cameras. Those tapes had not been made public on Thursday. Heard was charged with armed robbery and carrying a concealed weapon; he faces a first-degree murder charge because the death occurred while he was taking part in a felony, police said. Robinson said her son had just got out of jail two weeks ago, after serving nine months on drug charges. ''I begged him to stay home on Wednesday, and to hang out with people his own age. But he wouldn't listen to me,'' she said. ``He was a sweet person, but when you hang out with the wrong people, you wind up in the wrong place.'' Robinson prays that by donating her son's organs his soul will be saved and that ``the good that was in him is shared by those in need.'' ________________________________ It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion. WILLIAM RALPH INGE, D. D. 1860-1954 <snip> http://www.local10.com/news/13298209/detail.html Even showed a photo of the one who survived... Of course, Greg will be around soon to claim that because they were black, it was obviously a problem with society that caused them to be misunderstood... > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > around soon to claim that because they were black, it was obviously a > problem with society that caused them to be misunderstood... No, that the store owners "laid in wait" to murder two innocent kids, and should be charged with 1st degree murder. > No, that the store owners "laid in wait" to murder two innocent kids, and > should be charged with 1st degree murder. Obviously he knew that by baiting them with a jewelry store, he could trap some rap crap headed punks looking for more 'bling'... ><snip> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >around soon to claim that because they were black, it was obviously a >problem with society that caused them to be misunderstood... Just out of curiosity, where do you think this will lead? Will the bad guys learn to shoot first? You know this won't deter the really bad guys. The jewellery store owner has to be glad that he lived to tell the tale, but I don't see any mention of how he was reacting to killing a kid. This happened on Wednesday but the store was still closed on Thursday, so that may be some indication. Lots of bad kids eventually turn out OK, but this kid took a chance with a gun and a robbery and lost his life. And the store owner has to live with this for the rest of his life. Nothing to be happy about. I can understand someone thinking he needs a gun to protect himself, his business and his family, and using it as in this incident, but where does it lead? I can only see escalation. > ><snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > lost his life. And the store owner has to live with this for the rest > of his life. Nothing to be happy about. Sure there is. a) the store owners are alive b) the 2nd robber is facing first degree murder charges due to the death occurring during an armed robbery (special circumstances), making it likely that he'll be put away for life, never to rob again. c) the 1st robber will be unable to rob again. > I can understand someone thinking he needs a gun to protect himself, > his business and his family, and using it as in this incident, but > where does it lead? I can only see escalation. So lets presume a law was passed banning firearms. The store owners, being law-abiding citizens, comply. The crooks, not being law-abiding, do not. You now have a situation where the crooks are armed, and the victims....aren't. THAT will lead to escalation. Or do you believe in the benevolence of the armed robber? :-) Dennis On Sat, 12 May 2007 11:08:05 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: >> ><snip> >> > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Sure there is. >a) the store owners are alive Agreed, and that's a plus. The next time someone wants to rob him, they'll probably shoot him. The owner has probably realised that, too. >b) the 2nd robber is facing first degree murder charges due to the death >occurring during an armed robbery (special circumstances), making it likely >that he'll be put away for life, never to rob again. No argument. >c) the 1st robber will be unable to rob again. He'll also never have the chance to turn his life around. How bad of a kid was he? Was he a no-hoper? It was certainly a stupid stunt and he risked his life, and lost. Hey, I'd probably feel different if the guy was 45, served several terms in prison for violent crimes, and was just a complete, nutsoid loser and menace to society. >> I can understand someone thinking he needs a gun to protect himself, >> his business and his family, and using it as in this incident, but [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >THAT will lead to escalation. >Or do you believe in the benevolence of the armed robber? :-) I just don't care if you have gun control or not. That's not my point here. I'm just saying it wasn't an all-round 100% fantastic situation, the owner is probably traumatized (yes, I agree that's better than being dead), and a 17-year old kid is dead. Store owners will be arming themselves, if they aren't already. The crooks will come into their shops with guns blazing, knowing that the owners will shoot them if they don't open up first. That's escalation. How is that good for anybody? > On Sat, 12 May 2007 11:08:05 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > shoot them if they don't open up first. That's escalation. How is > that good for anybody?- Isn't the real question here "Why did these kids mistakenly think their guns were all they needed?" What in their lives convinced them that all they needed to successfully commit this crime was a gun and a plan? Is it an environment thing? Their upbringing? TV violence? JF >> On Sat, 12 May 2007 11:08:05 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <snip> >> I just don't care if you have gun control or not. That's not my point >> here. I'm just saying it wasn't an all-round 100% fantastic [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >that all they needed to successfully commit this crime was a gun and a >plan? Is it an environment thing? Their upbringing? TV violence? Ya see, John, I think you've been trying too long and too hard to understand the gun mentality down there. It's their history, their problem and their mentality; it's just unfathomable to non-Americans. The fact is that I'd have a gun if I lived there. I wouldn't like the thought that almost everyone around me could be armed, including criminals, average people, and everything in between. Some of the clan here keep thinking that you're trying to take their guns, erase their 2nd amendment, crush their rights, etc, etc. I just see you trying to understand the "why" and getting no answers but a lot of abuse. Odd little ng isn't it? Sort of like Lord of the Flies. I'd bet a lot of them wouldn't be so insulting or belligerent in person. > Some of the clan here keep thinking that you're trying to take their > guns, erase their 2nd amendment, crush their rights, etc, etc. I just > see you trying to understand the "why" and getting no answers but a > lot of abuse. Condescending questions from your biased point of view. And make no mistake, JOF is not seeking answers either, he doesn't want the truth, he wants to impose his ideas on "us". IMHO, he doesn't deserve to be acknowledged, much less answered, therefore resides with others who have nothing of value to say in my KF. Truth is, the personal risk of private ownership of firearms is minimal. Y'all are guilty of risk misevaluation, as well as misassignment of blame. Liberal traits, comes from being too detached from reality. JFYI, I do not carry a weapon either, nor feel I have a need. However, I have a right to, if I do feel the need. Those willing to compromise their freedoms for a false sense of security deserve neither. Curtis >> Some of the clan here keep thinking that you're trying to take their >> guns, erase their 2nd amendment, crush their rights, etc, etc. I just >> see you trying to understand the "why" and getting no answers but a >> lot of abuse. > > Condescending questions from your biased point of view. Not condescending at all. My "biased" point of view doesn't care whether you guys are armed or not. It's your choice, although I don't know how you'd go about removing all the guns if you ever made that decision; I think it's impossible at this point. > And make no mistake, JOF is not seeking answers either, he doesn't want >the truth, he wants to impose his ideas on "us". IMHO, he doesn't deserve >to be acknowledged, much less answered, therefore resides with others who >have nothing of value to say in my KF. Your choice. > Truth is, the personal risk of private ownership of firearms is minimal. >Y'all are guilty of risk misevaluation, as well as misassignment of blame. >Liberal traits, comes from being too detached from reality. "Liberal" traits? You have no idea. I'm neither right nor left. > JFYI, I do not carry a weapon either, nor feel I have a need. However, >I have a right to, if I do feel the need. Good for you. I know it's your choice. > Those willing to compromise their freedoms for a false sense of security >deserve neither. As long as you're speaking for yourself, fine. If you're speaking for any other country, it ain't your business. >Curtis > >> Some of the clan here keep thinking that you're trying to take their > >> guns, erase their 2nd amendment, crush their rights, etc, etc. I just [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > know how you'd go about removing all the guns if you ever made that > decision; I think it's impossible at this point. Consider also, that it'd have to be a world-wide ban, along with strict controls on purchase of...well...metal. Because where there is a machinist, there's a potential gunsmith. :-) Google "zip guns" or "homemade guns". > > And make no mistake, JOF is not seeking answers either, he doesn't want > >the truth, he wants to impose his ideas on "us". IMHO, he doesn't deserve > >to be acknowledged, much less answered, therefore resides with others who > >have nothing of value to say in my KF. > > Your choice. Indeed. Generally its good to have choices, yes? > > Truth is, the personal risk of private ownership of firearms is minimal. > >Y'all are guilty of risk misevaluation, as well as misassignment of blame. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > As long as you're speaking for yourself, fine. If you're speaking for > any other country, it ain't your business. Its a basic principle, isn't it? Quote from Ben Franklin, IIRC. Dennis On Sat, 12 May 2007 20:18:40 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: >> >> Some of the clan here keep thinking that you're trying to take their >> >> guns, erase their 2nd amendment, crush their rights, etc, etc. I just [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Because where there is a machinist, there's a potential gunsmith. :-) >Google "zip guns" or "homemade guns". Only if you make the assumption that all people want to carry. There are plenty of hunting rifles up here, just virtually no concealed weapons. As far as the US is concerned, the gun culture just seems to be so ingrained now. To reduce the # of hand guns would involve trampling on your constitution and would take a much larger army than you or anyone has. I don't see why you guys worry so much about it. That's just my view as an outsider... <snip> >> > Those willing to compromise their freedoms for a false sense of >security [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Its a basic principle, isn't it? Quote from Ben Franklin, IIRC. Certainly is. Mike wrote: > On Sat, 12 May 2007 20:18:40 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > anyone has. I don't see why you guys worry so much about it. That's > just my view as an outsider... Because folks like the Brady Bunch seem to be slowly but surely making the carriage and possession of handguns illegal. This presents folks like myself with a dilemma: Carry, and break the law, or be disarmed like the rest of the law abiding folks. THe issue in the US is not the carriage of handguns by licensed folks (who for the most part obey the laws of the land), but rather the carriage by those who have no regard for the law. Disarming the law abiding populace merely leaves them open to abuse by the non law abiding segment of the population. We have all seen how well the "gun free" areas of the country have turned out. No one that I know wants to see those areas expand.  Signature“TAANSTAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________ >Mike wrote: >> On Sat, 12 May 2007 20:18:40 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" >> <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: <snip> >> As far as the US is concerned, the gun culture just seems to be so >> ingrained now. To reduce the # of hand guns would involve trampling [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >for the law. Disarming the law abiding populace merely leaves them open >to abuse by the non law abiding segment of the population. I don't understand. You can lobby for carry laws in your own state, vote for people who support it, etc. Right? You're in a democracy, so the majority rules in whatever jurisdiction. >We have all seen how well the "gun free" areas of the country have >turned out. No one that I know wants to see those areas expand. Don't know about that. It's worked well up here. I know you guys don't understand it, but I've never ever thought of being armed and I don't know anyone who has. It just doesn't cross our minds. A lot of my friends & family are hunters, but that's something completely different. Maybe if I lived in Toronto it would be different... ;o) Mike wrote: >>Mike wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > my friends & family are hunters, but that's something completely > different. Maybe if I lived in Toronto it would be different... ;o) Look at DC. Look at Chicago (Cook county, IL). Lobbying doesn't seem to help, and they have very high gun crime. Signature“TAANSTAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________ > I don't understand. You can lobby for carry laws in your own state, > vote for people who support it, etc. Right? You're in a democracy, > so the majority rules in whatever jurisdiction. That's not entirely accurate. We're a constitutional republic (often mislabeled as a democracy). A true democracy involves the populous voting on pretty much every issue (individually). It has no basis for anything except "the will of the people". A wise man once said that a democracy was four wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. We do have some aspects that are democratic (election of officials and passage of some measures by ballot), but for the most part we don't make the decisions ourselves. We "hire" people to do that for us. Also, our government is constrained (or, at least, it's supposed to be) by the Constitution. >> I don't understand. You can lobby for carry laws in your own state, >> vote for people who support it, etc. Right? You're in a democracy, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >people to do that for us. Also, our government is constrained (or, at least, it's supposed to be) >by the Constitution. Fair enough, but most western democracies are representative, regardless of the flavour, just because of numbers and costs. The concept is still there that you can remove the rep who doesn't represent you properly. > >> I don't understand. You can lobby for carry laws in your own state, > >> vote for people who support it, etc. Right? You're in a democracy, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > concept is still there that you can remove the rep who doesn't > represent you properly. Not entirely true. I can't remove anybody. I can lead (or be part of) a movement to remove someone, but if the movement doesn't get support it doesn't really matter. Of course, that's where the democracy part comes in. Besides, I'd be hard pressed to find a candidate who politically believed exactly the same things I do. Finding one who believes those things and is not willing to compromise his values would be that much harder. <snip> >> Fair enough, but most western democracies are representative, >> regardless of the flavour, just because of numbers and costs. The [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >movement doesn't get support it doesn't really matter. Of course, that's where the democracy part >comes in. Well, with the gun issue, if most of you support gun ownership, then how could that be taken away? >Besides, I'd be hard pressed to find a candidate who politically believed exactly the same things I >do. Finding one who believes those things and is not willing to compromise his values would be that >much harder. I think we're all finding that, which probably leads to low voter turnout. I still believe that if you don't vote, you don't have a right to bitch about the bastards in power. I've always felt that, no matter how good the politician is at first, he/she will most likely make compromises and deals, and that just makes it easier to make even more compromises. > <snip> > >> Fair enough, but most western democracies are representative, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Well, with the gun issue, if most of you support gun ownership, then > how could that be taken away? Court decisions, representatives acting in contradiction to the wishes of the folks they represent.....? <snip> Dennis On Wed, 16 May 2007 22:05:27 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: >> <snip> >> >> Fair enough, but most western democracies are representative, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Court decisions, representatives acting in contradiction to the wishes of >the folks they represent.....? But if a representative doesn't do what the majority of his constituency wants, aren't they going to be somewhat pissed and toss him out and the next election? I don't see the problem, but then I don't fully understand your system. Mike wrote: > On Wed, 16 May 2007 22:05:27 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > him out and the next election? I don't see the problem, but then I > don't fully understand your system. It's like yours only less efficient... It all comes down to money, really. Signature“TAANSTAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________ > On Wed, 16 May 2007 22:05:27 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > him out and the next election? I don't see the problem, but then I > don't fully understand your system. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ It is very hard to beat the incumbent especially the larger the election area > On Wed, 16 May 2007 22:05:27 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > him out and the next election? I don't see the problem, but then I > don't fully understand your system. Maybe, maybe not. And I see that you ignored court decisions. Federal judges usually have lifetime appointment. Bear in mind that I DO fully understand our system. :-) Dennis > <snip> > >> Fair enough, but most western democracies are representative, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Well, with the gun issue, if most of you support gun ownership, then > how could that be taken away? You do understand how a representative government works, don't you. It isn't about what the majority of the people want. In fact, these days it's more about how well the particular politician can convince voters that what he wants is what they want. Yes, the direction of that statment is important. > >Besides, I'd be hard pressed to find a candidate who politically believed exactly the same things I > >do. Finding one who believes those things and is not willing to compromise his values would be that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > turnout. I still believe that if you don't vote, you don't have a > right to bitch about the bastards in power. Which is precisely why I never miss a vote. > I've always felt that, no matter how good the politician is at first, > he/she will most likely make compromises and deals, and that just > makes it easier to make even more compromises. I'm not entirely sure that it'd be possible to do their job without making those compromises. It's like a professional hazard. > On Sat, 12 May 2007 20:18:40 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > anyone has. I don't see why you guys worry so much about it. That's > just my view as an outsider... And many thought the notion that private property would get condemned for "public use" and handed to a developer just so the city could get higher property taxes was ridiculous too....until it happened. <snip> Dennos >>Consider also, that it'd have to be a world-wide ban, along with strict >>controls on purchase of...well...metal. >>Because where there is a machinist, there's a potential gunsmith. :-) >>Google "zip guns" or "homemade guns". > Only if you make the assumption that all people want to carry. There > are plenty of hunting rifles up here, just virtually no concealed > weapons. Only if one person wanted to carry. That's all it takes to create a major problem, one criminal carrying a concealed weapon in a world where no legal citizen can. > As far as the US is concerned, the gun culture just seems to be so > ingrained now. To reduce the # of hand guns would involve trampling > on your constitution and would take a much larger army than you or > anyone has. I don't see why you guys worry so much about it. That's > just my view as an outsider... Oh, we're real worried about it. There are hundreds of laws infringing the right to keep and bear arms, including quite a few that specifically deny the right to own them. All it takes to lose the right, and all rights that one right protects, is for us to not worry about it. >>> As long as you're speaking for yourself, fine. If you're speaking for >>> any other country, it ain't your business. Each person's freedom certainly is the business of others. United we stand. Divided we fall. Lee >> JFYI, I do not carry a weapon either, nor feel I have a need. >> However, >>I have a right to, if I do feel the need. > > Good for you. I know it's your choice. Good for me I still have the choice. Why I don't feel a need is a far cry from why JOF doesn't. >> Those willing to compromise their freedoms for a false sense of >> security >>deserve neither. > As long as you're speaking for yourself, fine. If you're speaking for > any other country, it ain't your business. Universal statement, fits people, not countries. Curtis > Universal statement, fits people, not countries. Isn't the hypocrisy staggering? >> Universal statement, fits people, not countries. > Isn't the hypocrisy staggering? I think so. MfO is definitely making a statement as he denies it. Curtis >>> Universal statement, fits people, not countries. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > MfO is definitely making a statement as he denies it. I don't know how much more of his keeping his opinion to himself I can take. :-) On Sat, 12 May 2007 23:14:39 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >>>> Universal statement, fits people, not countries. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I don't know how much more of his keeping his opinion to himself I can >take. :-) You're right! This is your newsgroup and you speak for everyone. ;o) > On Sat, 12 May 2007 23:14:39 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You're right! This is your newsgroup and you speak for everyone. ;o) and you speak only the the black hole of idiocy. Vanish, wee one. >> On Sat, 12 May 2007 23:14:39 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" >> <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Vanish, wee one. And, thus, you win the laugh of the day. >>> Universal statement, fits people, not countries. > >> Isn't the hypocrisy staggering? > > I think so. Really? Why? You have to remember that Scotty uses words he really doesn't understand. > MfO is definitely making a statement as he denies it. What statement? It's all about choices. Our country chose 1 route and yours chose another. I'm happy with our choice, and I'm sure you're happy with yours. >Curtis rec.scuba's resident pussy "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> sputtered: > Isn't the hypocrisy staggering? Nah, from pussies like you, it's expected. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> Some of the clan here keep thinking that you're trying to take their >>> guns, erase their 2nd amendment, crush their rights, etc, etc. I just [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > As long as you're speaking for yourself, fine. If you're speaking for > any other country, it ain't your business. Likewise, when you use the term "non-Americans" (c&p'd btw). ;0) LD. "\"Magilla\"" <cavey_curtis@$$ yahoo.com> sputtered: > Truth is, the personal risk of private ownership of > firearms is minimal. But the risk to the family of the owner is much higher. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com "\"Magilla\"" <cavey_curtis@$$ yahoo.com> sputtered: > Those willing to compromise their freedoms for a false > sense of security deserve neither. Yet you and your fuckwit buddies support Bush. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > The fact is that I'd have a gun if I lived there. I wouldn't like > the thought that almost everyone around me could be armed, including > criminals, average people, and everything in between. "You're not as stupid as you look, Ike" (Wyatt Earp) > Some of the clan here keep thinking that you're trying to take their > guns, erase their 2nd amendment, crush their rights, etc, etc. It's a repeatedly stated fact that he is, and, through ignorance and stupidity, hence, the insults. >I just > see you trying to understand the "why" and getting no answers but a > lot of abuse. You -are- as stupid as you look, Mike (Doug Frederick) > Odd little ng isn't it? Sort of like Lord of the Flies. I'd bet a > lot of them wouldn't be so insulting or belligerent in person. <snicker> > <snicker> Amazing, isnt it? Dickheads like Mighty Mouth and Francis contribute more to the oddity than anyone else here. Their obssession with American 2nd Amendment rights speaks louder about them than anyone. After going on ten years, and not a single inch gained (in fact lost so much ground most of Us cant even see them any longer), they still arent smart enough to get the picture, let alone shut the f.ck up about something that simply isnt their business. >> <snicker> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >longer), they still arent smart enough to get the picture, let alone shut >the f.ck up about something that simply isnt their business. You are always Popeye's me-too boy. Too funny. It's not my business, as I keep saying, and, as I also keep saying, I just don't care what you do. I don't understand how your militia-based 2nd amendment got twisted into all the gun craze today, but hey, it's your problem. I'm certainly not trying to change your mind. Hey, get some shoes yet? How's the trailer? > It's not my business, as I keep saying, Then why do you keep saying it? Are you Canadian or something? On Sat, 12 May 2007 17:31:06 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >> It's not my business, as I keep saying, > > Then why do you keep saying it? Because Scotty doesn't understand. Maybe you can talk to him. I'm not discussing whether you should be armed or not. > Are you Canadian or something? I am Canadian. > I am Canadian. Well, admitting it is the first step in the 12-step program, right? > >> <snicker> > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > It's not my business, as I keep saying, and, as I also keep saying, I > just don't care what you do. Good deal. > I don't understand how your militia-based 2nd amendment got twisted > into all the gun craze today, but hey, it's your problem. Take a look at federalist 46 http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm Its has, is now, and ideally always will be about "the right to keep and bear arms" and "shall not be infringed". Dennis On Sat, 12 May 2007 20:08:49 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: <snip> >> It's not my business, as I keep saying, and, as I also keep saying, I >> just don't care what you do. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Dennis Also at that site, it indicates that the armed militia was there to prevent any standing federal army from taking control of the country. There seemed to have been a big fear at that time of any kind of big government and its army. I don't see how that relates to 2007. Is this still 1 reason why a lot of you are armed? Just curious... > On Sat, 12 May 2007 20:08:49 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > I don't see how that relates to 2007. Is this still 1 reason why a > lot of you are armed? Just curious... The reason a lot of us are armed is personal protection/defense. From whatever the threat may be. Dennis On Sun, 13 May 2007 20:09:12 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: <snip> >> Also at that site, it indicates that the armed militia was there to >> prevent any standing federal army from taking control of the country. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Dennis So, that includes renegade governments? >On Sun, 13 May 2007 20:09:12 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" ><nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >So, that includes renegade governments? Absolutely > On Sun, 13 May 2007 20:09:12 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > So, that includes renegade governments? Yes. Dennis On Sun, 13 May 2007 21:35:05 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: >> On Sun, 13 May 2007 20:09:12 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" >> <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Dennis Well OK then. History does live on. Is this historical context the reason all those "militias" have popped up in the US over the last number of years? You know, the ones with these guys who train in the woods. I can't remember if they were planning to overthrow the government or waiting for the government to go dictatorial. > On Sun, 13 May 2007 21:35:05 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: <snip> > >> So, that includes renegade governments? > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > planning to overthrow the government or waiting for the government to > go dictatorial. IIRC, some of the folks in the "militias" thought the government had already gone dictatorial. Dennis On Sun, 13 May 2007 22:21:16 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: <snip> >> Well OK then. History does live on. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >IIRC, some of the folks in the "militias" thought the government had already >gone dictatorial. In some ways, they're probably right. I know we feel that way about some things both local and federal governments do. Democracy is still better than the alternatives. > On Sun, 13 May 2007 21:35:05 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > planning to overthrow the government or waiting for the government to > go dictatorial. I have some philosophical/weaponry problems with some of these fringe groups but as long as they stay within the law I don't have a problem. I wouldn't necessarily refer or identify them as militias <plonk again> That makes two in three days. > <plonk again> > > That makes two in three days. Maybe you need more fiber in your diet. ><plonk again> > >That makes two in three days. sh.t, that's your 2nd try at putting me into your kf. RTFM. On Sat, 12 May 2007 13:49:08 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >> The fact is that I'd have a gun if I lived there. I wouldn't like >> the thought that almost everyone around me could be armed, including >> criminals, average people, and everything in between. > > "You're not as stupid as you look, Ike" (Wyatt Earp) Gee, thanks, Wyatt. >> Some of the clan here keep thinking that you're trying to take their >> guns, erase their 2nd amendment, crush their rights, etc, etc. > > It's a repeatedly stated fact that he is, and, through ignorance and >stupidity, hence, the insults. You continue to see only what you want to see. It gives you a podium. >>I just >> see you trying to understand the "why" and getting no answers but a >> lot of abuse. > > You -are- as stupid as you look, Mike (Doug Frederick) Insults again? Say, did you learn that trick from Scotty, or did you teach it to him? >> Odd little ng isn't it? Sort of like Lord of the Flies. I'd bet a >> lot of them wouldn't be so insulting or belligerent in person. > > <snicker> Yeah, Piggy was a good guy. > On Sat, 12 May 2007 13:49:08 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Insults again? Say, did you learn that trick from Scotty, or did you > teach it to him? Still don't have that "hard drive fixed", eh? Well, Mike, if you nbelieve, what you just stated, what I said wasn't an insult, it was simply an accurate assesment. >>> Odd little ng isn't it? Sort of like Lord of the Flies. I'd bet a >>> lot of them wouldn't be so insulting or belligerent in person. >> >> <snicker> > > Yeah, Piggy was a good guy. On Sat, 12 May 2007 17:34:26 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: <snip> >>>> Some of the clan here keep thinking that you're trying to take their >>>> guns, erase their 2nd amendment, crush their rights, etc, etc. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Still don't have that "hard drive fixed", eh? Yeah, it's fixed, but you're not in the kf yet. Working on it? > Well, Mike, if you nbelieve, what you just stated, what I said wasn't an >insult, it was simply an accurate assesment. Just another insult, from the king of insults. In truth, I didn't expect anything more from you. >>>> Odd little ng isn't it? Sort of like Lord of the Flies. I'd bet a >>>> lot of them wouldn't be so insulting or belligerent in person. >>> >>> <snicker> >> >> Yeah, Piggy was a good guy. > Odd little ng isn't it? Sort of like Lord of the Flies. I'd bet a > lot of them wouldn't be so insulting or belligerent in person. You'd be right. I've met (and dived with) a bunch of 'em, and they're good guys, each and every one. And they aren't all so hardcore. One at least has been very politically involved at the lobbying level, yet he doesn't react the way the vocal minority here do. Doesn't mean he's not committed, just not ready to be committed over it I suppose. 8) JF Mike wrote: > Odd little ng isn't it? Sort of like Lord of the Flies. I'd bet a > lot of them wouldn't be so insulting or belligerent in person. I am, if you deserve it. Other than that, I'm polite. Signature“TAANSTAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________ > Some of the clan here keep thinking that you're (FutileJohn Francis) > trying to take their > guns, erase their 2nd amendment, crush their rights, etc, etc. I just > see you trying to understand the "why" and getting no answers but a > lot of abuse. Well, Mikey, you're wrong. I'll prove it. Will you be man enough to admit it? That's a "yes or no" question. Irrevocable proof. On May 12, 5:57 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > Some of the clan here keep thinking that you're (FutileJohn Francis) > > trying to take their [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Irrevocable proof. I want to see it. I expect all we'll actually see will be the usual convoluted and irrelevant nonsense, but hey, you might finally come up with something to give the metoos a valid reason to do the Popeye dance. JF > On May 12, 5:57 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I want to see it. sh.t in your hat and wear it. >I expect all we'll actually see will be the usual > convoluted and irrelevant nonsense, What, like the Great Barrett Debate you scurried from for over a year, and then pussied out of in -two- posts? That qualifies in and of itself. But I have an irrifutable documented fact that covers years. >but hey, you might finally come up > with something to give the metoos a valid reason to do the Popeye > dance. I've posted it for you before, and it was glaring. I even had it as a signature for a time. At the time, there was no talk of it being convoluted and irrelevant nonsense. There was only scurrying. The other is a tactic you always use at a later date, that -everybody- ignores. But Mike already punted, afraid. On May 13, 12:22 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > On May 12, 5:57 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > But Mike already punted, afraid.- He's probably just celebrating the Ottawa win over Buffalo. It went long. JF > On May 13, 12:22 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >> >>news:rkqb43lumkre6mppaueljppatga9thriml@4ax.com... >> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > He's probably just celebrating the Ottawa win over Buffalo. It went > long. That's not what he said. >On May 13, 12:22 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" ><Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >> "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message <snip> >> But Mike already punted, afraid.- > >He's probably just celebrating the Ottawa win over Buffalo. It went >long. > >JF And what a win it was! Taking 2 games in Buffalo was a real surprise and treat. The Sens are really playing well. They're so poised, never panic and the specialty teams are doing great jobs. But all it takes is a couple of losses and it's a new series. I hope they have the killer instinct this year. > >On May 13, 12:22 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > ><Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > But all it takes is a couple of losses and it's a new series. I hope > they have the killer instinct this year. They look good. I expected at least one win for Buffalo. JF >> >On May 13, 12:22 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" >> ><Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >They look good. I expected at least one win for Buffalo. Hey, I finally get to say it: Me, too! On Sat, 12 May 2007 17:57:35 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >> Some of the clan here keep thinking that you're (FutileJohn Francis) >> trying to take their [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > That's a "yes or no" question. That'd be a "no," then. I don't think you're man enough to produce real evidence of anything, you have a hate-on for John, and I really don't care what your issues are with him. > Irrevocable proof. Yeah, right. If your little clan jumps up and me-toos whatever you say, you'd probably consider that proof. > On Sat, 12 May 2007 17:57:35 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > real evidence of anything, you have a hate-on for John, and I really > don't care what your issues are with him. I can't do any better than you refuting your own statement and credibility. Thanks for doing all the work. As usual. > I can't do any better than you refuting your own statement and > credibility. > > Thanks for doing all the work. > > As usual. Would that be a "me too" admitting, unwillingly, that he is a "me too"? Poor John. Poor Mighty Mouth. >> I can't do any better than you refuting your own statement and >> credibility. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Poor Mighty Mouth. For a guy that points out other people being insulting, he sure seems pretty free with them himself. Must be that Canadian Dual Standard thing. On Sat, 12 May 2007 23:13:35 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >>> I can't do any better than you refuting your own statement and >>> credibility. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > For a guy that points out other people being insulting, he sure seems >pretty free with them himself. Really? You & Scotty are the king & queen of insults, Scotty having somewhat more of foul mouth. You jump on anyone who doesn't follow the party line. > Must be that Canadian Dual Standard thing. Whatever. >> I can't do any better than you refuting your own statement and >> credibility. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Poor Mighty Mouth. Right on cue. Sad. On Sat, 12 May 2007 22:49:08 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 12 May 2007 17:57:35 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" >> <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I can't do any better than you refuting your own statement and >credibility. How do you figure that? I'm not playing your little game. I'm just not interested. I haven't followed all the gun threads. Show John the "proof," if you really have it. > Thanks for doing all the work. > > As usual. How pompous. As usual. I bet Scotty will now show up with a "me too." > On Sat, 12 May 2007 22:49:08 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > not interested. I haven't followed all the gun threads. Show John > the "proof," if you really have it. It's easy to figure. You made a completely bogus statement. I offered to -eeeeeeasily- prove it, and asked if you were man enough to admit it if I did, and you plainly stated, -no-, you weren't. It's crystal clear, in your own words, and directly above. It's crystal clear. In your own words. Directly above. Now your feet have a turbo whine. You're as much of a piece of sh.t as Futile John Francis is. I could do it a dozen different ways, but I have a doozy, that even a spineless whelp like you couldn't slither out of. I have a batch of statements that show, irrefutably, that John wants to take our guns and crush our 2nd Amendment rights, and I know for a fact that you're too much of a piece of trash to say "I was wrong, and you were right", so you might as well just quit now, at the point of humiliation you've achieved. You've already proven that you have no grasp of the depth of John's ignorance, and you've already backpedaled by going from "John's not doing this or that and just wants to know why, and gets abused" to "I don't follow all the gun threads" so just shut the f.ck up and blow away. > You've already proven that you have no grasp of the depth of John's > ignorance, and you've already backpedaled by going from "John's not doing > this or that and just wants to know why, and gets abused" to "I don't > follow all the gun threads" so just shut the f.ck up and blow away. Ditto. That means "me too" for y'all slower thinkers. MfO--> "What statement?" I'm far from ignorant enough to be fooled by your innocent posturing. Curtis On Sun, 13 May 2007 21:24:10 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 12 May 2007 22:49:08 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" >> <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > You made a completely bogus statement. Which statement? That John is trying to take away your gun rights? Is that what's getting you all puffy? sh.t, nobody will ever take away your guns if you choose not to. I never saw John saying anything like that either. > I offered to -eeeeeeasily- prove it, and asked if you were man enough to >admit it if I did, and you plainly stated, -no-, you weren't. Why should I care if you prove something about John or not? I'm not on his list or yours. > It's crystal clear, in your own words, and directly above. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Directly above. Deja vu all over again.... > Now your feet have a turbo whine. > > You're as much of a piece of sh.t as Futile John Francis is. Ah, you're such a smooth talker. So eloquent. > I could do it a dozen different ways, but I have a doozy, that even a >spineless whelp like you couldn't slither out of. Talk nicely now... > I have a batch of statements that show, irrefutably, that John wants to >take our guns and crush our 2nd Amendment rights, and I know for a fact that >you're too much of a piece of trash to say "I was wrong, and you were >right", so you might as well just quit now, at the point of humiliation >you've achieved. Humiliation? Your imagination is pretty wild. John wants to see your proof, so show it. I'll take a peek, since curiosity will get the better of me. Why do you insist on proving this stuff to me? Your little clan would be much more interested in your bluster than me. > You've already proven that you have no grasp of the depth of John's >ignorance, and you've already backpedaled by going from "John's not doing >this or that and just wants to know why, and gets abused" to "I don't follow >all the gun threads" so just shut the f.ck up and blow away. I will not go away. I will not jump on someone just because you say so. Get used to it. > On Sun, 13 May 2007 21:24:10 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > your guns if you choose not to. I never saw John saying anything like > that either. You should read ALL the posts - he has stated exactly that quite clearly >> I offered to -eeeeeeasily- prove it, and asked if you were man enough to >>admit it if I did, and you plainly stated, -no-, you weren't. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > I will not go away. I will not jump on someone just because you say > so. Get used to it. <snip> >> Which statement? That John is trying to take away your gun rights? Is >> that what's getting you all puffy? sh.t, nobody will ever take away >> your guns if you choose not to. I never saw John saying anything like >> that either. > >You should read ALL the posts - he has stated exactly that quite clearly I don't go into this ng for weeks at a time. There's no way I have the time or patience to read all the posts. Some I'll just tick as "ignore thread." Really now, even if John said that (and I doubt it), why would any of you care? He's a Canadian and only 1 person who could have absolutely no effect on your country or laws. It'd be like you saying you're personally going to invade and take over Ontario. I'd just laugh. <snip> > <snip> >>> Which statement? That John is trying to take away your gun rights? Is [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > no effect on your country or laws. It'd be like you saying you're > personally going to invade and take over Ontario. I'd just laugh. That's not what you said. You're a spineless little sh.t, just like Futile is. > > <snip> > >>> Which statement? That John is trying to take away your gun rights? Is [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > You're a spineless little sh.t, just like Futile is. To Mike's credit, he did admit to being possibly being mistaken in his assessment of the 17-year old, once informed of the criminal record. Dennis >> > <snip> >> >>> Which statement? That John is trying to take away your gun rights? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > To Mike's credit, he did admit to being possibly being mistaken in his > assessment of the 17-year old, once informed of the criminal record. Did he admit to being mistaken in his assessment of Futile John's posting history and intent? Or is he whining and backpedaling at lightspeed? > >> > <snip> > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Did he admit to being mistaken in his assessment of Futile John's posting > history and intent? Not that I can tell. > Or is he whining and backpedaling at lightspeed? Dennis On Mon, 14 May 2007 01:44:40 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >>> > <snip> >>> >>> Which statement? That John is trying to take away your gun rights? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Or is he whining and backpedaling at lightspeed? Wow, you're delusional. I said I haven't seen all the posts nor followed all the threads, so I don't know what's been said or not said. Maybe you need glasses. > On Mon, 14 May 2007 01:44:40 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >>>> >>> Which statement? That John is trying to take away your gun rights? >>>> >>> Is [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Maybe you need glasses. No, no, no,no,no. First, you said this: >>> Some of the clan here keep thinking that you're (Futile John Francis) >>> trying to take their >>> guns, erase their 2nd amendment, crush their rights, etc, etc. I just >>> see you trying to understand the "why" and getting no answers but a >>> lot of abuse. You seemed to know then, like a Canadian, alllllllllllll about who was saying what, who meant what, who was right, who was wrong, who was being dissed. I said this, short, concise, easy for everyone to understand, usually except Futile John: >> Well, Mikey, you're wrong. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> That's a "yes or no" question. AND THEN, CRYSTAL CLEAR, IN FRONT OF GOD AND EVERYBODY, YOU SAID -THIS-: > That'd be a "no," then. > I don't think you're man enough to produce > real evidence of anything, you have a hate-on for John, and I really > don't care what your issues are with him. And have been two-stepping around the dance floor ever since. The best part about it is, when it came time for you to publicly put your chips on John- you bailed. It's not like I need that kind of help slapping him stupid, but, any contributions are gladly accepted. ;-) On Mon, 14 May 2007 19:45:09 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: <snip> >>> Or is he whining and backpedaling at lightspeed? >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >saying what, who meant what, who was right, who was wrong, who was being >dissed. Yup, from what I read. I haven't read all of them. John seems to keep trying to understand why some of you are so gun-crazy. That's what I've seen, along with you and your club continually insulting & jumping all over him like a pack of hyenas. Is that clear enough for you? > I said this, short, concise, easy for everyone to understand, usually >except Futile John: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > And have been two-stepping around the dance floor ever since. You're on drugs and rather pathetic. I still don't care. Even so, you've provided no real "proof" of anything. Maybe |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message