Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
ArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneous
Discussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK Scuba
DirectoryScuba Clubs

Scuba Forum / General / May 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Proof of the pudding . . .

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Lee Bell - 15 May 2007 14:09 GMT
Rarely has there been such a series of events that make the foolishness of
disarming law abiding citizens more evident or the need for the ability to
protect ourselves, our families and our society more clear as what's going
on in the news over the last few months.

There have been a series of beatings of the elderly, from the bar main
beaten up by the very people so many depend on to keep them safe, a cop, to
old men and old women, some of the most helpless in our society, beaten
while others stood by and watched, doing nothing, to the most recent cast,
video of a car jacking, showing an old man trapped between the door of his
own car and the one beside it, beaten without mercy, unable to even fall
down, while half a dozen bystanders stood by and watched.  The media is
asking, how could this happen?  How could good, honest citizens, stand by
and watch such violence without doing something about it.  We know the
answer, don't we.

John, Greg, and others, you, and others like you are the answer to why.  All
who depend on law enforcement to do a job that they so clearly can not do,
no matter how much they may want to are part of that answer.  All who insist
that everyone else be disarmed for no reason other than your own, individual
fear of others, are also part of the answer.  All who claim that there is no
need for such defense in the perfect world you would have us all believe we
live in, are part of the answer.

Please, pay attention to what is going on.  Please, pay attention to the old
people being mercilessly victimized.  Please, pay attention to the violent
crime that can, and does occur while honest, law abiding citizens stand by
and watch.  Please, understand that this is a direct result of the very
dependence on others for defense of our rights, that you advocate on an
almost continuous basis.  Please, understand that, should you prevail in
your attempt to disarm the honest, law abiding citizens of this country,
that the frequency of such events is going to increase, that nobody is going
to step up and say "STOP".  Please, understand that you are advocating a
world where the honest and the law abiding have no choice but to live in
fear of anyone who would resort to violence to get their way, including the
very police you place so much faith in for your own defense.

We have repeatedly pointed to instances where someone, legally armed,
intervened to put a stop to violence.  Obviously, that did not impress you.
perhaps a series of events where nobody intervened will help you see more
clearly.  Be a potential victim if you like.  Expose your friends, families
and neighbors to the risk of unresisted violence if you must, but leave
those of us who could have, and would have put a stop to such events, the
tools necessary to do what you choose to delegate to others.  If you don't,
we all suffer.  I'd rather never to have to say, "I told you so" when you,
or your loved ones are the helpless victims.

Lee

The following took less than 5 minutes to find and read.  I'm sure you can
find many more references without trying real hard if only you will be
honest enough with yourself and with us, to look and understand what you are
seeing.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2006/10/27/charges-airdrie.html

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=4142484

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070507cops-lawsuit,1,5024569.story?
coll=chi-news-hed


http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/308240,CST-NWS-beat22.article

http://www.wxyz.com/news/story.aspx?content_id=d3a4e114-bc60-4452-aa01-dde4cdc2be18

________________________________
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
Greg Mossman - 15 May 2007 17:18 GMT
> John, Greg, and others, you, and others like you are the answer to why.  All
> who depend on law enforcement to do a job that they so clearly can not do,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> need for such defense in the perfect world you would have us all believe we
> live in, are part of the answer.

Uh, Lee?  I think I do speak for others here when I suggest that you
may be losing it.  Give it a rest.  Maybe talking about diving or
something will relax you a bit.  Otherwise, you're turning into
another wacko Scott, starting one ranting off-topic gun post after
another in a scuba forum.  We really don't need another Scott here.
One is more than enough for any newsgroup.
Lee Bell - 15 May 2007 17:50 GMT
>> John, Greg, and others, you, and others like you are the answer to why.
>> All
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>> we
>> live in, are part of the answer.

> Uh, Lee?  I think I do speak for others here when I suggest that you
> may be losing it.  Give it a rest.  Maybe talking about diving or
> something will relax you a bit.  Otherwise, you're turning into
> another wacko Scott, starting one ranting off-topic gun post after
> another in a scuba forum.  We really don't need another Scott here.
> One is more than enough for any newsgroup.

I doubt you speak for anyone but yourself and, sometimes, I doubt even that.

Are we going to start another "he speaks for me" series?  Think you'll do as
good as Popeye?

Lee
Greg Mossman - 15 May 2007 18:41 GMT
> I doubt you speak for anyone but yourself and, sometimes, I doubt even that.
>
> Are we going to start another "he speaks for me" series?  Think you'll do as
> good as Popeye?

As most of those in Popeye's little club have lost it almost as bad as
you, I really don't give a damn.  I speak the truth and that's all
that matters to me.  Personally I'm sick to death of the "please don't
take our guns away" threads.  They sound like petulant whining and it
gets very annoying.

How many "we're gonna take your guns away" threads have I ever
started?  JOF?  MFO?
Lee Bell - 15 May 2007 19:04 GMT
> Personally I'm sick to death of the "please don't
> take our guns away" threads.  They sound like petulant whining and it
> gets very annoying.

You have the option of deleting them unread.
You have the option of not responding.
You chose neither option, strongly suggesting that your previous statement
lacks truth.

This is not a "please don't take our guns away" thread.  This is a think
about the consequences before you try, thread.

What, no comment on the articles?

No claims that they're false?

No excuses for those that kicked the crap out of innocent old people?

No excuses for those that stood around and watched?

A bit too close to home, perhaps?
Greg Mossman - 15 May 2007 20:34 GMT
> This is not a "please don't take our guns away" thread.  This is a think
> about the consequences before you try, thread.

But no one here is trying, so no one here gives a sh.t.

> What, no comment on the articles?

What articles?  You think anyone here gives a sh.t enough to click on
the links?

> A bit too close to home, perhaps?

Hardly.  There are simply a lot more important things for me to think
about.  If you're not a gun nut, the gun stuff gets rather boring
after a while.  That's why they have gun newsgroups where gun nuts can
ramble on and on about guns all day and night long if they choose.  I
don't see the word "gun" anywhere in "rec.scuba".

What's your ratio of gun to scuba posts here lately?
Lee Bell - 15 May 2007 20:45 GMT
>> This is not a "please don't take our guns away" thread.  This is a think
>> about the consequences before you try, thread.

> But no one here is trying, so no one here gives a sh.t.

A falsehood on more than one level.

>> What, no comment on the articles?

> What articles?  You think anyone here gives a sh.t enough to click on
> the links?

So, like John, you prefer not to see the truth and would rather argue your
case from a position of ignorance.

I thought better of you.  Guess I was wrong.

For someone that does not give a sh.t, you certainly spend a lot of time
spreading it.

> Hardly.  There are simply a lot more important things for me to think
> about.  If you're not a gun nut, the gun stuff gets rather boring
> after a while.  That's why they have gun newsgroups where gun nuts can
> ramble on and on about guns all day and night long if they choose.  I
> don't see the word "gun" anywhere in "rec.scuba".

My, what a reversal or position.  When were you planning on giving up
reading and responding to all these threads you have so little interest in.

Lee
Greg Mossman - 15 May 2007 21:08 GMT
> >> This is not a "please don't take our guns away" thread.  This is a think
> >> about the consequences before you try, thread.
> > But no one here is trying, so no one here gives a sh.t.
>
> A falsehood on more than one level.

Now I'm curious.  Who here has tried to take away your guns?  Was it
JOF the last time he visited?  I certainly never tried.  I did take
away Grumman's and Popeye's guns, but I handed them right back.

> So, like John, you prefer not to see the truth and would rather argue your
> case from a position of ignorance.

I would love to read the truth about diving here.  I don't give a sh.t
about guns.  I don't care about argue anything that I don't give a
sh.t about, unless I getting paid to or it amuses me.  I'm no longer
amused and I'm certainly not getting paid.

If you don't have anyone to argue with, will you go away?

> For someone that does not give a sh.t, you certainly spend a lot of time
> spreading it.

Only in response to your posts and threads, but that only feeds the
troll.  I should know better.

> My, what a reversal or position.  When were you planning on giving up
> reading and responding to all these threads you have so little interest in.

Now is a good time to start.  Have fun playing with yourself.  I
always do.
Dennis (Icarus) - 16 May 2007 03:39 GMT
> > This is not a "please don't take our guns away" thread.  This is a think
> > about the consequences before you try, thread.
>
> But no one here is trying, so no one here gives a sh.t.

I care about what Lee posted.

Dennis
Greg Mossman - 16 May 2007 03:49 GMT
On May 15, 7:50 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid>
wrote:

> > > This is not a "please don't take our guns away" thread.  This is a think
> > > about the consequences before you try, thread.
>
> > But no one here is trying, so no one here gives a sh.t.
>
> I care about what Lee posted.

Ah, there's the fifth musketeer.  It's about time.  All for one, and
one for me too!
Dennis (Icarus) - 16 May 2007 03:57 GMT
> On May 15, 7:50 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Ah, there's the fifth musketeer.  It's about time.  All for one, and
> one for me too!

So much for your "speaking the truth".

Dennis
Danlw - 20 May 2007 19:05 GMT
> don't see the word "gun" anywhere in "rec.scuba".

How about "Speargun"?  A 38 Special NW is a good one.
Greg Mossman - 20 May 2007 19:24 GMT
> > don't see the word "gun" anywhere in "rec.scuba".
>
> How about "Speargun"?  A 38 Special NW is a good one.

Whew, you're still here.  I thought it might have been you shooting at
the courthouse in Moscow, but apparently it was another Idahoan anti-
lawyer gunnut.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070520/ap_on_re_us/idaho_shootings;_ylt=Aq4yorUo2mU
Op342M2q2F_JvzwcF


I'm curious how Lee will spin this one with his cadre of trusty armed
civilians.  Even SWAT took a couple hours to go in after him.
Grumman-581 - 20 May 2007 20:34 GMT
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070520/ap_on_re_us/idaho_shootings;_ylt=Aq4yorUo2mU
Op342M2q2F_JvzwcF

>
> I'm curious how Lee will spin this one with his cadre of trusty armed
> civilians.  Even SWAT took a couple hours to go in after him.

Obviously he was mentally unstable and not thinking right... If he had
been thinking right, he would have done it during normal court hours
so that he could have bagged him a couple of lawyers... Hmmm... What's
the bag limit on lawyers in Idaho?
dechucka - 21 May 2007 00:48 GMT
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070520/ap_on_re_us/idaho_shootings;_ylt=Aq4yorUo2mU
Op342M2q2F_JvzwcF

>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> so that he could have bagged him a couple of lawyers... Hmmm... What's
> the bag limit on lawyers in Idaho?

Here in Australia there is no bag limit on pest species
JOF - 21 May 2007 02:47 GMT
> >>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070520/ap_on_re_us/idaho_shootings;_ylt=...
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Here in Australia there is no bag limit on pest species

I guess that rules out Australia as the venue for our rec.scuba
reunion then.

JF
dechucka - 21 May 2007 03:33 GMT
>> >>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070520/ap_on_re_us/idaho_shootings;_ylt=...
>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> I guess that rules out Australia as the venue for our rec.scuba
> reunion then.

most of rec.scuba wouldn't be allowed in as undesirables. I'm lucky I'm a
citizen, with all the rights and freedoms that go with it, so they have to
let me back in.
Danlw - 23 May 2007 04:16 GMT
"dechucka" <dechucka@vomithotmail.com> wrote in

> most of rec.scuba wouldn't be allowed in as undesirables. I'm lucky I'm a
> citizen, with all the rights and freedoms that go with it, so they have to
> let me back in.

Did you find that out by being deported somewhere? ;)
Danlw - 23 May 2007 04:14 GMT
"Grumman-581" <grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-

> Obviously he was mentally unstable and not thinking right... If he had
> been thinking right, he would have done it during normal court hours
> so that he could have bagged him a couple of lawyers... Hmmm... What's the
> bag limit on lawyers in Idaho?

Would they make a *hideous* corpus?
Danlw - 23 May 2007 04:10 GMT
>> > don't see the word "gun" anywhere in "rec.scuba".
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> the courthouse in Moscow, but apparently it was another Idahoan anti-
> lawyer gunnut.

Nah, I was still trying to figure out how to pack a Barret around concealed.
Actually, the guy wasn't able to legally own a gun, and should have been
committed, but the legal system says you can't do that to the poor fellow.
Wonder how that could happen? He may have lived in Idaho, but I think it was
mentioned elsewhere he is an import from another state. And, that is a good
thing, as most real Idahoans I know would have killed a lot more people than
that jerk if they fired 200 rounds. At least he had the decency to be his
own judge, jury and executioner.
Greg Mossman - 23 May 2007 19:25 GMT
> > Whew, you're still here.  I thought it might have been you shooting at
> > the courthouse in Moscow, but apparently it was another Idahoan anti-
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> that jerk if they fired 200 rounds. At least he had the decency to be his
> own judge, jury and executioner.

And, BTW, what's up with naming a Idaho town after communist central?
That really puts the "red" in redneck.  What's next?  Beijing, MT?
Danlw - 25 May 2007 02:58 GMT
>> > Whew, you're still here.  I thought it might have been you shooting at
>> > the courthouse in Moscow, but apparently it was another Idahoan anti-
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> And, BTW, what's up with naming a Idaho town after communist central?
> That really puts the "red" in redneck.  What's next?  Beijing, MT?

You must be confusing "MA's Cow" with that heathen Moscow, USSR.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 15 May 2007 20:39 GMT
> Personally I'm sick to death of the "please don't
> take our guns away" threads.  They sound like petulant whining and it
> gets very annoying.

Nobody says please.

 Furthermore, I believe it was you who started it -all-.
Greg Mossman - 15 May 2007 22:23 GMT
On May 15, 12:39 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
<Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:

> > Personally I'm sick to death of the "please don't
> > take our guns away" threads.  They sound like petulant whining and it
> > gets very annoying.
>
>  Nobody says please.

Please.

>   Furthermore, I believe it was you who started it -all-.

Cite?
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 15 May 2007 23:47 GMT
> On May 15, 12:39 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
> <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Cite?

 Scott might, if he cares.

 I'll default to incorrectittude.

 But it was the original vet/druggie-shooting/uncle Mossman thing.
Greg Mossman - 16 May 2007 01:08 GMT
On May 15, 3:47 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
<Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:

>   I'll default to incorrectittude.
>
>   But it was the original vet/druggie-shooting/uncle Mossman thing.

Bullshit.  There you go again, re-inventing history.

It's a perfect example of what I've been saying all along.

In the "vet thing", it was a post by Scott, the most notorious of the
gun-thread posters, with a subject that was sort of hard for me to
ignore:

Here it is, to refresh your memory, Scott gloating about the
sociopathic vigilante vet:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.scuba/msg/f3a8e218c72498b0?dmode=source

Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!
corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: "Scott" <sco...@hctcremovethis.com>
Newsgroups: rec.scuba
Subject: For Mossman (OT GUN CONTROL)
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 16:22:58 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <t32ur7n1g3upc6@corp.supernews.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com
Lines: 20

http://news.theolympian.com/stories/20001208/HomePageStories/159066.shtml

Nice shootin Doc! This vet spayed my dog, Ally. Real nice man.

2 aspiring young burglars trying to steal date rape dope, and with a
record
the length of your arm. Cut the phone lines. No way to call 911 when
they
cut your phone lines. The dead a.sholes partner (who was a real peach
of a
guy too) left him to die alone.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer couple of a.sholes.

Ask the Doc what he thinks about gun control.

Scott
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 16 May 2007 01:18 GMT
> On May 15, 3:47 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
> <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
>
> Scott
Scott - 16 May 2007 07:14 GMT
Quoted Mossman the shitbag hypocrite;

> > Here it is, to refresh your memory, Scott gloating about the
> > sociopathic vigilante vet:

Here in America, thank the Constitution, it takes a little bit more than a
moonbat of a liberal faggot LA hoplophobe calling a decent man a sociopathic
vigilante names to make a case.

The DA here didn't press charges because the man broke no laws. In fact,
quite the opposite.

What he did do is save who-knows-how-many young ladies from rape, and ended
the criminal careers of two determined shitheads who were on a crime spree,
decisions made by the crooks.

I guess a douchebag like Mossman would call that "gloating", because he has
to try and discredit or attach some twisted interpretation of his own to
someone stating simple facts. Put the Doc in jail, and give the rising
criminals free reign to do what they intended, and that was to murder an
innocent human to eliminate a witness. Swell guy that Mossman. Shining
example of what is f.cking up this nation, and creating the rising crime
rate.

Idiots like Mossman, Francis and Mighty Mouth shut the f.ck up about guns,
and you wont see anymore gun threads here.

For some reason, the social disease that comes with the far left,
socialist-pacifist-liberal-pussy-bigot-mindset makes unbearable hypocrites
out of them, and they seem wholly unable to stop themselves; they are
afflicted with some weird obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Bitch and whine while they deride others for "bitching and whining".

And again, anyone stupid enough to wag their fingers at a moray eel deserves
the resulting bite.

<that was included just to be shitty, so this idiot knows the difference>
Greg Mossman - 16 May 2007 07:28 GMT
> Here in America, thank the Constitution, it takes a little bit more than a
> moonbat of a liberal faggot LA hoplophobe calling a decent man a sociopathic
> vigilante names to make a case.

> The DA here didn't press charges because the man broke no laws. In fact,
> quite the opposite.
>
> What he did do is save who-knows-how-many young ladies from rape, and ended
> the criminal careers of two determined shitheads who were on a crime spree,
> decisions made by the crooks.

It's like you're a genie.  All I have to is rub the bottle and out you
pop.

> I guess a douchebag like Mossman would call that "gloating", because he has
> to try and discredit or attach some twisted interpretation of his own to
> someone stating simple facts.

This is what you said:

"Nice shootin Doc!"

And it's a twisted interpretation to call that gloating?

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source gloat       (glōt)
Pronunciation Key
intr.v.   gloat·ed, gloat·ing, gloats
To feel or express great, often malicious, pleasure or self-
satisfaction: Don't gloat over your rival's misfortune.

If saying "nice shooting Doc!" in response to a tragedy in which one
kid was killed isn't expressing great, often malicious, pleasure or
self-satisfaction, I don't know what it is.

You're the one who's twisted, Scott, not my interpretation.

> Put the Doc in jail, and give the rising
> criminals free reign to do what they intended, and that was to murder an
> innocent human to eliminate a witness. Swell guy that Mossman. Shining
> example of what is f.cking up this nation, and creating the rising crime
> rate.

A witness who camped out in his office the night before, armed to the
teeth, lying in wait so he could do his vigilante deed and kill the
kid oblivious of his fate as he went to steal a party drug worth $50
or so.  Only a real scumball could kill someone over $50.

> Idiots like Mossman, Francis and Mighty Mouth shut the f.ck up about guns,
> and you wont see anymore gun threads here.

Since you start just about every single gun thread here, I sincerely
doubt that.  As long as there are gun nuts here, there will be gun
threads here.  And that's a shame.  Look at all the good people driven
away by your drivel.

> For some reason, the social disease that comes with the far left,
> socialist-pacifist-liberal-pussy-bigot-mindset makes unbearable hypocrites
> out of them, and they seem wholly unable to stop themselves; they are
> afflicted with some weird obsessive-compulsive disorder.

> Bitch and whine while they deride others for "bitching and whining".

That sounds like a bitch and whine to me.  Make up your mind.

> And again, anyone stupid enough to wag their fingers at a moray eel deserves
> the resulting bite.

Such a pussy, not only can't you ever reply to me directly, but
instead of just sniping at me from under Popeye's big skirt, you
continue to debase yourself into the slimepit by dragging Janna into
it.  What an utter piece of sh.t.

> <that was included just to be shitty, so this idiot knows the difference>

The difference between sh.t and sh.t?  I don't get it.  You still
smell the same.
dazed and confuzzed - 16 May 2007 12:56 GMT
> A witness who camped out in his office the night before, armed to the
> teeth, lying in wait so he could do his vigilante deed and kill the
> kid oblivious of his fate as he went to steal a party drug worth $50
> or so.  Only a real scumball could kill someone over $50.

THen again, only a fool would risk his life for a drug worth $50.

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
____________________________________________________________________________

Joe English - 16 May 2007 13:23 GMT
>> A witness who camped out in his office the night before, armed to the
>> teeth, lying in wait so he could do his vigilante deed and kill the
>> kid oblivious of his fate as he went to steal a party drug worth $50
>> or so.  Only a real scumball could kill someone over $50.
>
> THen again, only a fool would risk his life for a drug worth $50.

What he was stealing is irrelevant to me.  HE was trying to take
something that was not his.  What should he think he is entitled to take
something that is not his?

Shoot him or kill him for $50?  Evidently the perps figured it was worth
the cost of their lives
Scott - 16 May 2007 14:50 GMT
> Then again, only a fool would risk his life for a drug worth $50.

As usual the LA dickhead twists the facts and ads hyperbolic fantasy to the
situation because he's just a pimp and a sore loser.

Never mind Doc burned a couple rounds into the floor and allowed the kids
the opportunity to escape with their lives, but they returned to murder him
and eliminate the witness. The survivor also had a handgun, and fortunately
chose not to use it, a decision that saved him a decade of additional jail
time.

All facts born out by the survivor.
Greg Mossman - 16 May 2007 16:13 GMT
On May 16, 4:56 am, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net>
wrote:
> > A witness who camped out in his office the night before, armed to the
> > teeth, lying in wait so he could do his vigilante deed and kill the
> > kid oblivious of his fate as he went to steal a party drug worth $50
> > or so.  Only a real scumball could kill someone over $50.
>
> THen again, only a fool would risk his life for a drug worth $50.

Well, he was a kid . . .

Betcha he didn't think he was risking his life, breaking into a office
at 2 a.m. when no one should have been there.
Joe English - 16 May 2007 18:39 GMT
> On May 16, 4:56 am, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Betcha he didn't think he was risking his life, breaking into a office
> at 2 a.m. when no one should have been there.

He should have 'thought' too bad he thought poorly

Doesn't matter if he was a kid - he or his partner was armed, they
entered a business not theirs, illegally, with the purpose of taking
property that was theirs and not legally entitled to.  Who knows how
many lives that shooter saved by stopping them that night.

Because no one 'should' have been there is completely and entirely
irrelevant.  They should not have been there - I think the owner is
entitled to be on his premises at ANY time
Chris Guynn - 17 May 2007 18:35 GMT
> > On May 16, 4:56 am, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net>
> > wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> irrelevant.  They should not have been there - I think the owner is
> entitled to be on his premises at ANY time

My wife was telling me a story recently about an elderly lady.  Every Tuesday at 9:00 am she had a
doctor's appointment.  One day, she came back from her apartment to find that she had been robbed
(burgled?).  She notified the police and they came and did a report etc...

The next week, it was the same thing.

Again the following week.

She called the police before her next appointment and explained the situation to them and requested
that they station an officer to watch her house for the perpetrators.

When she came home from her appointment, the house had, once again, been burgled.  She called the
police and was told that they (the police) were too busy to have an officer staked out at her place
on the "off chance" that there would be a burgler.

I'm not sure how true the story is since I got it word of mouth, but it is, at least, an intersting
anecdote.  I find it difficult (although not impossible) to believe that whatever detective was
assigned to the case(s) wouldn't have had the time to set aside an hour or two to clear his case(s)
up.
Lee Bell - 17 May 2007 18:45 GMT
> When she came home from her appointment, the house had, once again, been
burgled.  She called the
> police and was told that they (the police) were too busy to have an
> officer staked out at her place
> on the "off chance" that there would be a burgler.

I think I'd change my appointment date and be waiting inside the house on
the old day.  Once in side the house, they bugler is fair game.

Lee
Chris Guynn - 18 May 2007 14:43 GMT
>  > When she came home from her appointment, the house had, once again, been
> burgled.  She called the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Lee

The only problem I see with that is that some lawyer will try to claim it was pre-meditated.

On the other hand, I do believe that this happened in Texas where "he deserved it" is a valid
defense for shooting someone.
Grumman-581 - 18 May 2007 16:09 GMT
> On the other hand, I do believe that this happened in Texas
> where "he deserved it" is a valid defense for shooting someone.

I believe that the legal term is, "Sommabitch deserved to die"...
Scott - 18 May 2007 16:46 GMT
> > On the other hand, I do believe that this happened in Texas
> > where "he deserved it" is a valid defense for shooting someone.

> I believe that the legal term is, "Sommabitch deserved to die"...

Never shot no one that didn't have a gun.

Or, as Tater Salad said (concerning executing a.sholes);

"We put in an express lane."
Grumman-581 - 18 May 2007 17:36 GMT
> Or, as Tater Salad said (concerning executing a.sholes);
>
> "We put in an express lane."

The actual statement by Ron White (concerning Texas) is, "Some states
are trying to abolish the death penalty... my states puttin in an
express lane."
Greg Mossman - 18 May 2007 00:13 GMT
> My wife was telling me a story recently about an elderly lady.  Every Tuesday at 9:00 am she had a
> doctor's appointment.  One day, she came back from her apartment to find that she had been robbed
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Again the following week.

Not meaning to dispute something your wife said, since I know no one
would ever post urban legends here, but what could the old lady
possibly have left to steal after several robberies?
Chris Guynn - 18 May 2007 14:51 GMT
> > My wife was telling me a story recently about an elderly lady.  Every Tuesday at 9:00 am she had a
> > doctor's appointment.  One day, she came back from her apartment to find that she had been robbed
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> would ever post urban legends here, but what could the old lady
> possibly have left to steal after several robberies?

Perhaps you missed this part: "I'm not sure how true the story is since I got it word of mouth, but
it is, at least, an intersting anecdote."

If I had to guess, I'd guess it didn't actually happen.

Of course, she claims that "one of her teacher friends said it happened to their grandmother."

I guess that means it must be true.
dazed and confuzzed - 16 May 2007 22:19 GMT
> On May 16, 4:56 am, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Betcha he didn't think he was risking his life, breaking into a office
> at 2 a.m. when no one should have been there.

Thus, Darwin again does his job....

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
____________________________________________________________________________

Scott - 16 May 2007 22:48 GMT
Shitbag wrote;

> > Betcha he didn't think he was risking his life, breaking into a office
> > at 2 a.m. when no one should have been there.

> Thus, Darwin again does his job....

Amazing, isn't it?

"He didn't think he was risking his life" stealing date rape drugs from a
veterinary office.

Mossman, the officer of the court, justifies the intent and act of the
crime, defends the criminal with intent to not only commit the felony at the
time but literally hundreds more after he secured the stolen date rape
drugs.

Which is why the little a.shole cut the phone line on the way in, and then
returned to murder the only witness that could ID him after being given the
opportunity to escape alive.

Why is it Mossman doesn't know when he has lost and when to shut the f.ck
up? <rhetorical>

After how many years?
Greg Mossman - 18 May 2007 00:16 GMT
> Mossman, the officer of the court, justifies the intent and act of the
> crime, defends the criminal with intent to not only commit the felony at the
> time but literally hundreds more after he secured the stolen date rape
> drugs.

We don't need courts if you and your buddies are going to pass death
sentences on all the petty thieves in the area.  Do you kill
shoplifters too, or merely cut their hands off?

> Why is it Mossman doesn't know when he has lost and when to shut the f.ck
> up? <rhetorical>

Lost?  To you?  Yeah, right.  Good luck with that, trailer boy.
Joe English - 18 May 2007 03:01 GMT
>>Mossman, the officer of the court, justifies the intent and act of the
>>crime, defends the criminal with intent to not only commit the felony at the
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> sentences on all the petty thieves in the area.  Do you kill
> shoplifters too, or merely cut their hands off?

not a bad idea to cut their hands off - and if the shoplifter used a gun
 or threatened one with a gun then the use of deadly would be justified

>>Why is it Mossman doesn't know when he has lost and when to shut the f.ck
>>up? <rhetorical>
>
> Lost?  To you?  Yeah, right.  Good luck with that, trailer boy.
nospam@all.please.net - 18 May 2007 03:57 GMT
>>>Mossman, the officer of the court, justifies the intent and act of the
>>>crime, defends the criminal with intent to not only commit the felony at the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> not a bad idea to cut their hands off - and if the shoplifter used a gun
>   or threatened one with a gun then the use of deadly would be justified

Why not just cut their gun off?

>>>Why is it Mossman doesn't know when he has lost and when to shut the f.ck
>>>up? <rhetorical>
>>
>> Lost?  To you?  Yeah, right.  Good luck with that, trailer boy.
Chris Guynn - 18 May 2007 14:54 GMT
> >>>Mossman, the officer of the court, justifies the intent and act of the
> >>>crime, defends the criminal with intent to not only commit the felony at the
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Why not just cut their gun off?

That's not too bad an idea...

"This is my rifle, this is my gun..."
Magilla - 18 May 2007 03:12 GMT
> We don't need courts if you and your buddies are going to pass death
> sentences on all the petty thieves in the area.  Do you kill
> shoplifters too, or merely cut their hands off?

   Seems to me you're the only one calling dangerous armed criminals "petty
thieves".
Scott - 18 May 2007 03:36 GMT
> > We don't need courts if you and your buddies are going to pass death
> > sentences on all the petty thieves in the area.  Do you kill
> > shoplifters too, or merely cut their hands off?

> Seems to me you're the only one calling dangerous armed criminals "petty
thieves".

That comes with the embraced stupidity that defines his trade.

Thank God he hasn't the ability to father a daughter for some shitbag to
rape.
Greg Mossman - 18 May 2007 03:52 GMT
> Thank God he hasn't the ability to father a daughter for some shitbag to
> rape.

Me?  I thought your kids were the ball-less ones.
Greg Mossman - 18 May 2007 03:52 GMT
> > We don't need courts if you and your buddies are going to pass death
> > sentences on all the petty thieves in the area.  Do you kill
> > shoplifters too, or merely cut their hands off?
>
>     Seems to me you're the only one calling dangerous armed criminals "petty
> thieves".

Sorry, but a kid breaking into a should-be-unoccupied building in the
middle of the night is hardly a "dangerous armed criminal".  The
killing was purely of the "good doc"'s manufacture, no matter how
Scott wants to play the facts.  Had the "good doc" not been there
lying in wait as a killer vigilante, the kids would have stolen $50
worth of merchandise and no one would have been hurt at all.
Magilla - 18 May 2007 04:08 GMT
> Sorry, but a kid breaking into a should-be-unoccupied building in the
> middle of the night is hardly a "dangerous armed criminal".

   So, he just "coincidently" had a firearm in his possession?  To steal a
controlled substance to use for criminal sexual assault?

   What price do you put on a young girl's right to say no?

   Sorry, your ideas are totally full of sh.t in this in subject matter.
Greg Mossman - 18 May 2007 06:13 GMT
>     So, he just "coincidently" had a firearm in his possession?  

So he's a good Republican.  Don't most good gun nuts go around armed
all the time?  What if someone tried to mug him?

> To steal a controlled substance to use for criminal sexual assault?

According to the article, they were stealing Ketamine, i.e. "Special
K", a popular "party" drug amongst the youngster of today.  It's not a
date rape drug.  Rohypnol is probably what you're thinking of, the
paralytic that lets guys have their way with their "dates".

Once again, the kid wasn't stealing Rohypnol, he was stealing
Ketamine.

"Ketamine, a dissassociative anaesthetic, and MDMA (Ecstasy), an
empathogenic phenylethylamine, both of which are at times referred to
as potential date rape drugs, are unlikely to actually be put to this
purpose."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_rape_drug

>     What price do you put on a young girl's right to say no?

Not relevant to this case, since Ketamine isn't really a date rape
drug.  Here, a couple guys wanted to steal $50 worth of party drugs,
to party.  Instead of a party, the kids got killed.  Some fun.

>     Sorry, your ideas are totally full of sh.t in this in subject matter.

Nope, as usual, Scott is the one full of sh.t.  I've documented my
facts.  Oh, here's the article that mentioned the Ketamine:

"Coleman was sleeping at his clinic that night, armed with a 9mm
semiautomatic handgun, because police had warned veterinarians that
armed burglars might hit clinics looking for the drug ketamine. The
drug is known as "Special K" and is referred to by police as a date-
rape drug. Veterinarians use it to sedate cats."

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBPrintItem.asp?ID=1849

I hope www.keepandbeararms.com isn't too liberal of a "media" cite for
you.

I've documented that the kids were after Ketamine.

I've documented that Ketamine is "unlikely to actually be put to this
purpose".

Therefore, I've documented that Scott is full of sh.t and a liar.

Isn't this fun?

Besides, even if it were a potential date rape drug, that's like
punishing the guys for having guns because they're potential murder
weapons.

Surely you wouldn't want to punish all gun owners just because they
have potential murder weapons, would you?
dechucka - 18 May 2007 07:03 GMT
>>     So, he just "coincidently" had a firearm in his possession?
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> date rape drug.  Rohypnol is probably what you're thinking of, the
> paralytic that lets guys have their way with their "dates".

special K is bad sh.t
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 18 May 2007 07:07 GMT
>>     So, he just "coincidently" had a firearm in his possession?
>
> So he's a good Republican.  Don't most good gun nuts go around armed
> all the time?  What if someone tried to mug him?

 See, like a good Democrat, you can't answer any pertinent question.

 If the kid wasn't expecting to encounter an innocent bystander, he
wouldn't have been heeled.

 I'll stand corrected in the minor point of the drug, you'll never be
corrected on letting criminals with guns back on the street and blaming my
right to own a gun for it.

 This is the futile incoherence that Futile John Francis can't see, that he
seems to expect us to "make 'necessary concessions to, or else'"

 This is the non-gun crux of the biscuit of the American "gun" problem.
dechucka - 18 May 2007 07:31 GMT
>>>     So, he just "coincidently" had a firearm in his possession?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
>  This is the non-gun crux of the biscuit of the American "gun" problem.

America is lika a version of the CIS whatever programme that we see in Aus
Chris Guynn - 18 May 2007 15:29 GMT
> >>>     So, he just "coincidently" had a firearm in his possession?
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> America is lika a version of the CIS whatever programme that we see in Aus

CSI, perhaps?
Greg Mossman - 18 May 2007 16:10 GMT
> > >>>     So, he just "coincidently" had a firearm in his possession?
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> CSI, perhaps?

Not in Australia.  They're upside-down over there.
dechucka - 18 May 2007 20:27 GMT
>> >>>     So, he just "coincidently" had a firearm in his possession?
>> >>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> CSI, perhaps?

stuffed if I know, only see it if the kids have got it on
Chris Guynn - 18 May 2007 15:28 GMT
> >>     So, he just "coincidently" had a firearm in his possession?
> >
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> corrected on letting criminals with guns back on the street and blaming my
> right to own a gun for it.

Don't forget that Greg is a liberal.  You might want to research it yourself before "standing
corrected."
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 18 May 2007 17:57 GMT
>> >>     So, he just "coincidently" had a firearm in his possession?
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> yourself before "standing
> corrected."

 The rest of my point is irrefutable.
Greg Mossman - 18 May 2007 16:10 GMT
On May 17, 11:07 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
<Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:

> >>     So, he just "coincidently" had a firearm in his possession?
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>   If the kid wasn't expecting to encounter an innocent bystander, he
> wouldn't have been heeled.

Why can't he go around armed like the rest of you?  He doesn't want to
end up like one of those Canadians who says "it can't happen to me".
Those rural parts of Washington can be mighty dangerous, with drunken
thugs like Scott roaming around at all hours.

>   I'll stand corrected in the minor point of the drug, you'll never be
> corrected on letting criminals with guns back on the street and blaming my
> right to own a gun for it.

But you can't easily tell the criminals from the legit folk, that's my
point.  Every man, especially postal workers, has his breaking point.
When they break, I'd rather they be unarmed.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 19 May 2007 00:50 GMT
> On May 17, 11:07 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
> <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:

>> >>     So, he just "coincidently" had a firearm in his possession?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Why can't he go around armed like the rest of you?

 He did.

 Briefly. :-)

> He doesn't want to
> end up like one of those Canadians who says "it can't happen to me".
> Those rural parts of Washington can be mighty dangerous, with drunken
> thugs like Scott roaming around at all hours.

 There's a set of rules.

 The same would happen to us.

 But then this is the best you can do for rational discourse when cornered.

>>   I'll stand corrected in the minor point of the drug, you'll never be
>> corrected on letting criminals with guns back on the street and blaming
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> But you can't easily tell the criminals from the legit folk, that's my
> point.

 Speak for yourself.

 But you're just making a case for being prepared.

> Every man, especially postal workers, has his breaking point.
> When they break, I'd rather they be unarmed.

 Me, too.

 Too bad neither of us will ever be able to even begin to guarantee it.
Greg Mossman - 19 May 2007 17:31 GMT
On May 18, 4:50 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
<Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:

>   Too bad neither of us will ever be able to even begin to guarantee it.

But one of us is at least willing to try.

Your whole philosophy boils down to "if you can't beat 'em, join
'em".  I disagree that we have to accept that.  There is a way to
disarm America, if Americans will stand for it, and it's my duty to
ensure that Americans will stand for it.  Maybe if we put Ketamine in
the water supply?
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 19 May 2007 18:14 GMT
> On May 18, 4:50 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
> <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Your whole philosophy boils down to "if you can't beat 'em, join
> 'em".

 No it isn't.

>I disagree that we have to accept that.

 No, we don't.

> There is a way to disarm America,

 No there isn't, not even a fraction.

>if Americans will stand for it,

 They won't.

>and it's my duty to ensure that Americans will stand for it.  Maybe if we
>put Ketamine in
> the water supply?

 That's better than the Canadian Mind Control Ray idea, but it's still the
most viable plan you have.
Greg Mossman - 19 May 2007 18:59 GMT
On May 19, 10:14 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
<Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:

>   That's better than the Canadian Mind Control Ray idea, but it's still the
> most viable plan you have.

I just wonder how many vets I'll have to burgle in order to score
enough K.

Can I borrow a few of your guns?
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 19 May 2007 19:10 GMT
> On May 19, 10:14 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
> <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Can I borrow a few of your guns?

 I've actually been shopping for a rifle for you for some months.

 Do you have a fireplace (with a mantle) in the house?
Greg Mossman - 19 May 2007 20:05 GMT
On May 19, 11:10 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
<Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:

>   I've actually been shopping for a rifle for you for some months.

That would give the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons something to think
twice about.  But I'd have to take my "Gun-Free Home" sign down.

>   Do you have a fireplace (with a mantle) in the house?

I have an SUV.  What's wrong with a gun rack?
Lee Bell - 19 May 2007 20:33 GMT
>>   I've actually been shopping for a rifle for you for some months.

> That would give the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons something to think
> twice about.  But I'd have to take my "Gun-Free Home" sign down.

Send a photo.  That I want to see.

>>   Do you have a fireplace (with a mantle) in the house?

> I have an SUV.  What's wrong with a gun rack?

Check California law.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 19 May 2007 21:39 GMT
> On May 19, 11:10 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
> <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> I have an SUV.  What's wrong with a gun rack?

 Answer the damn question.
Greg Mossman - 19 May 2007 23:40 GMT
On May 19, 1:39 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
<Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:

> > On May 19, 11:10 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
> > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>   Answer the damn question.

Yeah, I do.
Joe English - 19 May 2007 21:40 GMT
> On May 19, 11:10 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
> <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> I have an SUV.  What's wrong with a gun rack?

You live in California???
Galen Hekhuis - 19 May 2007 22:28 GMT
>...
> have an SUV.  What's wrong with a gun rack?

I used to drive a pickup with a gun rack.  I kept a pink flyswatter in
it.  Talk about sending mixed messages...
--
Galen Hekhuis                              ghekhuis@earthlink.net
I have no idea what happened, but I assure you it was all proper.
Joe English - 20 May 2007 02:32 GMT
>>...
>>have an SUV.  What's wrong with a gun rack?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Galen Hekhuis                              ghekhuis@earthlink.net
> I have no idea what happened, but I assure you it was all proper.

We completely undertand, Galen - the Pink & all!

Not one mixed signal from this end!
Scott - 19 May 2007 20:29 GMT
> > On May 19, 10:14 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
> > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>   Do you have a fireplace (with a mantle) in the house?

http://www.impactguns.com/store/RI1062-G.html
Lee Bell - 19 May 2007 20:31 GMT
> I just wonder how many vets I'll have to burgle in order to score
> enough K.

More than you're likely to survive.

> Can I borrow a few of your guns?

Right after you sign up for NRA life membership.
Joe English - 19 May 2007 21:39 GMT
> On May 19, 10:14 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
> <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Can I borrow a few of your guns?

You will not use mine if your intent is to use the gun in a commission
of a crime
Greg Mossman - 19 May 2007 23:42 GMT
> You will not use mine if your intent is to use the gun in a commission
> of a crime

Like the poor dead kid, I just want it in case I get mugged on the way
to and from committing the crime.  It's scary out there.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 19 May 2007 23:57 GMT
>> You will not use mine if your intent is to use the gun in a commission
>> of a crime
>
> Like the poor dead kid, I just want it in case I get mugged on the way
> to and from committing the crime.  It's scary out there.

 And if you were a wee bit nervous about that, it's mighty handy to have
some horse tranqs on hand to, you know, take the edge off.

 So to speak.
Joe English - 20 May 2007 02:33 GMT
>>You will not use mine if your intent is to use the gun in a commission
>>of a crime
>
> Like the poor dead kid, I just want it in case I get mugged on the way
> to and from committing the crime.  It's scary out there.

Do you have a permit to carry?

The so called kid carried his in the commission of a crime - Probably a
felon - I don't understand the analogy
Grumman-581 - 20 May 2007 03:21 GMT
> You will not use mine if your intent is to use the gun in a commission
> of a crime

Well, suicide is a crime, isn't it?  You would deny him the use of a
gun in such a situation?
Joe English - 20 May 2007 03:44 GMT
>>You will not use mine if your intent is to use the gun in a commission
>>of a crime
>
> Well, suicide is a crime, isn't it?  You would deny him the use of a
> gun in such a situation?

Well actually yes, but then again it is Greg

No - I wouldn't give him my gun to commit suicide

I wouldn't get the gun back (just kidding about that.

I don't promote suicide - I don't believe in promoting armed violence
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 20 May 2007 04:13 GMT
>>>You will not use mine if your intent is to use the gun in a commission of
>>>a crime
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> I don't promote suicide - I don't believe in promoting armed violence

 I can think of few I'd promote. :-)
Joe English - 19 May 2007 21:35 GMT
>>On May 18, 4:50 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
>><Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>>Your whole philosophy boils down to "if you can't beat 'em, join
>>'em".

Actually it is quite the opposite

>   No it isn't.
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>   That's better than the Canadian Mind Control Ray idea, but it's still the
> most viable plan you have.
Greg Mossman - 19 May 2007 23:43 GMT
> >>Your whole philosophy boils down to "if you can't beat 'em, join
> >>'em".
>
> Actually it is quite the opposite

If you can't join 'em, beat 'em?
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 19 May 2007 23:57 GMT
>> >>Your whole philosophy boils down to "if you can't beat 'em, join
>> >>'em".
>>
>> Actually it is quite the opposite
>
> If you can't join 'em, beat 'em?

 Actually, that's much closer...
Joe English - 20 May 2007 02:34 GMT
>>>>Your whole philosophy boils down to "if you can't beat 'em, join
>>>>'em".
>>
>>Actually it is quite the opposite
>
> If you can't join 'em, beat 'em?

I'm not joining and criminals
Grumman-581 - 20 May 2007 00:52 GMT
> But one of us is at least willing to try.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> ensure that Americans will stand for it.  Maybe if we put Ketamine in
> the water supply?

Obviously, you socialists are suffering from a lead deficiency in your
cranial cavity...
Dennis (Icarus) - 20 May 2007 01:56 GMT
> On May 18, 4:50 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
> <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> ensure that Americans will stand for it.  Maybe if we put Ketamine in
> the water supply?

How about a compromise? Let the law-abiding citizens keep their firearms,
and just disarm the criminals?

Dennis
Greg Mossman - 20 May 2007 19:27 GMT
On May 19, 5:56 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid>
wrote:

> > On May 18, 4:50 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
> > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> How about a compromise? Let the law-abiding citizens keep their firearms,
> and just disarm the criminals?

Fine with me, as soon as you can prove to me that the law-abiding
citizens will stay law-abiding.  Background and psych checks required
for annual relicensing, along with mandatory insurance and posting of
a hefty bond will go a long way.
Dennis (Icarus) - 20 May 2007 20:42 GMT
> On May 19, 5:56 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> for annual relicensing, along with mandatory insurance and posting of
> a hefty bond will go a long way.

Ok, we'll try techniques on disarmin criminals.....on the War against Drugs.
As soon as we prove that no one in the US has any illegal drugs, then we'll
work on disarming the crooks.

Dennis
Greg Mossman - 20 May 2007 21:19 GMT
On May 20, 1:29 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid>
wrote:

> > On May 19, 5:56 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid>
> > wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> As soon as we prove that no one in the US has any illegal drugs, then we'll
> work on disarming the crooks.

So I'll be able to take all the drugs I want as long as I pass the
background check and get licensed?  Cool.
Dennis (Icarus) - 20 May 2007 22:21 GMT
> On May 20, 1:29 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid>
> wrote:

<snip>

> > > > How about a compromise? Let the law-abiding citizens keep their
> > firearms,
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> So I'll be able to take all the drugs I want as long as I pass the
> background check and get licensed?  Cool.

No, that's not what was said. Reread it again.

Dennis
Danlw - 23 May 2007 04:18 GMT
> So I'll be able to take all the drugs I want as long as I pass the
> background check and get licensed?  Cool.

Would that be a tokken' permit?
Joe English - 18 May 2007 13:39 GMT
>>    So, he just "coincidently" had a firearm in his possession?  
>
> So he's a good Republican.  Don't most good gun nuts go around armed
> all the time?  What if someone tried to mug him?
No

>>To steal a controlled substance to use for criminal sexual assault?
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> drug.  Here, a couple guys wanted to steal $50 worth of party drugs,
> to party.  Instead of a party, the kids got killed.  Some fun.

Steal being the operative word, here.  Were the perps aremed?

>>    Sorry, your ideas are totally full of sh.t in this in subject matter.
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> drug is known as "Special K" and is referred to by police as a date-
> rape drug. Veterinarians use it to sedate cats."

So the police also warned the vets - they must have has some idea of its
dangers and the consequences - did the burglars announced to the good
doctor that there was no need to shoot we only want the Rohypnol?

They were stealing something from someone (a controlled drug) they were
armed - too bad for the perps.  They should have thought better.  It is
really easy being an arm chair quarterback

> http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBPrintItem.asp?ID=1849
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> Surely you wouldn't want to punish all gun owners just because they
> have potential murder weapons, would you?
Chris Guynn - 18 May 2007 15:27 GMT
> >     So, he just "coincidently" had a firearm in his possession?
>
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> I've documented that Ketamine is "unlikely to actually be put to this
> purpose".

Intresting.

Of course, these sites disagree with your wikipedia cite:

http://www.idph.state.il.us/about/womenshealth/factsheets/date.htm

" GHB (gamma hydroxybutyric acid), ketamine and rohypnol are the most common date-rape drugs."

http://www.bygirlsforgirls.org/bg4g2003/daterape.html

"The most common date rape drugs are Rohypnol, Gamma Hydroxy Butyrate (GHB), Ketamine Hydrochloride,
and, of course, alcohol."

Yahoo Health lists Ketamine as a date rape drug: http://health.yahoo.com/ency/healthwise/uq2448

http://www.udel.edu/wellspring/SOS/drugs.htm

"Ketamine is not as popular as a date rape drug as "G", but because of these effects on the body, it
has been used in that capacity."

No biggie though, wiki's probably got it right.

> Therefore, I've documented that Scott is full of sh.t and a liar.

Well, sort of.

As long as giving a single cite that finds it "unlikely" that the drugs will be used in the manner
Scott claimed is documenting that Scott is full of sh.t, I guess you've got a point.