 |
 | 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 / January 2008It doesn't get much clearer than this.
From someone living in Colorado. This is a pretty clear demonstration of the cost of a disarmed population and the advantages of a legally armed one. "The Colorado shootings were the same shooter. The difference is that the second church had armed people inside. The woman that shot him was an ex policewoman. Some of my friends go to that church and were not there that day." Lee > From someone living in Colorado. This is a pretty clear demonstration of the > cost of a disarmed population and the advantages of a legally armed one. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > policewoman. Some of my friends go to that church and were not there that > day." How did the "disarmed" shooter get his gun? > > From someone living in Colorado. This is a pretty clear demonstration of the > > cost of a disarmed population and the advantages of a legally armed one. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > How did the "disarmed" shooter get his gun? Since no one expect Scurry Lee to answer, I'll do it for him: "For more than a year, Matthew Murray amassed the weapons and ammunition he used in Sunday's attacks on two religious organizations that left four young people dead. "Murray, 24, began buying weapons in November 2006 from Front Range gun and sporting-goods stores, according to Colorado Springs police, who had the weapons traced by federal authorities. "A large shipment of ammunition was sent to Murray's post office box in Greenwood Village. The shipment was delivered to him but only after authorities had been alerted and determined he could legally possess it. "Everything was by the book," said a clerk at Robert's Firearms in Aurora who on Nov. 17, 2006, sold Murray his first piece of weaponry, an AK-47 assault rifle, which was found in Murray's car Sunday. "Nothing stood out." The clerk refused to give his name. Murray was required to pass criminal-background checks before each purchase. In each case, he was cleared and was legally allowed to own the weapons. "Murray bought another assault rifle and three semiautomatic handguns at Sportsman's Warehouse stores in Aurora and Colorado Springs and Dave's Gun Store in Denver. His total purchases might have cost him close to $2,000, based on a survey of retail prices. --- Nope, it doesn't get much clearer than that. By the way, Lee, the "armed people inside" that killed Murray was an armed security guard. No one is suggesting disarming security guards, like no one is suggesting disarming the police and military. But when wacko serial killers can easily and legally stock up all the guns and ammo they can carry, all the armed church-goers in the world won't be able to stop them before they kill a few. The answer obviously isn't more arms, at least to anyone with the least bit of common sense. We wouldn't need armed security if we didn't arm all our wacko serial killers. <snip> > Nope, it doesn't get much clearer than that. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > wouldn't need armed security if we didn't arm all our wacko serial > killers. She was an "armed security guard" by rights of...well....a carry permit and the 2nd amendment. http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14817480/detail.html "Assam worked as a police officer in downtown Minneapolis during the 1990s and is licensed to carry a weapon. She attends one of the morning services and then volunteers as a guard during another service." and "Boyd said there are 15 to 20 security people at the church. All are volunteers but the only ones armed are those who are licensed to carry weapons. The security guards are members of the church who are screened and not 'mercenaries that we hire to walk around our campus to provide security,' Boyd said." In other words, she was neither police, military, nor, (as far as I can tell) a professional criminal. That'd make her ineligble to carry legally in your dystopian (you'd probably use utopian) world. Murray, by contrast, had made the decision to kill. Obtaining the weapons to do so, even under your rules, would just mean he'd go to the black market to obtain them Dennis > <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > and is licensed to carry a weapon. She attends one of the morning services > and then volunteers as a guard during another service." you need armed guard during church services? scary isn't it > and > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > to > obtain them scary that it seems so many people in your society have this mind set that you need armed security >> <snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >you need armed guard during church services? scary isn't it There might be a door to open. 8) JF > > "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message news:98a66170-919e-4799-ad25-be02c8b0b72d@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > <snip> > >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > you need armed guard during church services? scary isn't it Nope. > > and > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > scary that it seems so many people in your society have this mind set that > you need armed security I don't think so. There is no armed security in Australia? Dennis >> > "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message >> > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Nope. you don't find it scary that you NEED armed security in a church <snip> > >> > She was an "armed security guard" by rights of...well....a carry permit > >> > and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > you don't find it scary that you NEED armed security in a church That's right. Dennis > <snip> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > That's right. I suppose that sums up the difference in our societies, I know which one I'd prefer to live in and raise my kids in. > > <snip> > >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I suppose that sums up the difference in our societies, I know which one I'd > prefer to live in and raise my kids in. Yep. Dennis >> you don't find it scary that you NEED armed security in a church > That's right. I do find it scary that he may have the same need, but not the same option. >><snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > scary that it seems so many people in your society have this mind set that > you need armed security Sad, actually. But true nonetheless.  Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 >>><snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Sad, actually. But true nonetheless. OK I'll go with sad > By the way, Lee, the "armed people inside" that killed Murray was an > armed security guard. She was an off duty person at church, carrying legally by virtue of her concealed weapon permit, just like every other person carrying legally by virtue of theirs. Regardless, the previous question, the one that resulted in this thread was whether it was necessary to carry in our churches. Like I said, it doesn't get much clearer than this. Lee >> By the way, Lee, the "armed people inside" that killed Murray was an >> armed security guard. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > was whether it was necessary to carry in our churches. Like I said, it > doesn't get much clearer than this. and it seems to me as an outsider scarey or das that you need armed security guards in your churches. That seems a symptom of a fairly sick sciety > >> By the way, Lee, the "armed people inside" that killed Murray was an > >> armed security guard. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > and it seems to me as an outsider scarey or das that you need armed security > guards in your churches. That seems a symptom of a fairly sick sciety Or one that recognizes that there are some not-so-nice people in the world, and have taken prudent actions to deal with them. Would you be happier if there hadn't been an armed guard there, and the shooter had killed 25, or 50, or 100 folks instead of two before being stopped? Dennis >> >> By the way, Lee, the "armed people inside" that killed Murray was an >> >> armed security guard. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > shooter had killed 25, or 50, or 100 folks instead of two before being > stopped? no of course not. However there seems to be an inordinate number of these shootings in America. Iirc in another thread I commented that it is to late for America when it comes to guns, you have chosen this society or it has evolved around you and it is degenerated to such an extent that maybe everyone does need to carry guns with all its consequences > >> >> By the way, Lee, the "armed people inside" that killed Murray was an > >> >> armed security guard. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > no of course not. However there seems to be an inordinate number of these Glad to hear that. I was worried for a minute. > shootings in America. Iirc in another thread I commented that it is to late > for America when it comes to guns, you have chosen this society or it has > evolved around you and it is degenerated to such an extent that maybe > everyone does need to carry guns with all its consequences So you think just guns are the problem? Not the fact that there are some rather nutty folks who, seeing the spectacle that occurs around one of these things, just wants to get attention and the media obliges. Dennis >> >> >> By the way, Lee, the "armed people inside" that killed Murray was >> >> >> an [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >> > So you think just guns are the problem? no it is guns with the society you have > Not the fact that there are some rather nutty folks who, seeing the > spectacle that occurs around one of these things, just wants to get > attention and the media obliges. you think the media shouldn't report things like the Church shooting to starve these people of attention? > >> >> >> By the way, Lee, the "armed people inside" that killed Murray was > >> >> >> an [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > no it is guns with the society you have So you think it's society's problem, and not the individual's responsibility. check. > > Not the fact that there are some rather nutty folks who, seeing the > > spectacle that occurs around one of these things, just wants to get > > attention and the media obliges. > > you think the media shouldn't report things like the Church shooting to > starve these people of attention? It shoud be reported - not sensationalized. Dennis >> >> >> >> By the way, Lee, the "armed people inside" that killed Murray >> >> >> >> was [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > responsibility. > check. Society or the culture or the joint ethos certainly seems to have a part to play, if not why does this seem to happen so oftern in the USA compared to the rest of the world? Maybe I am wrong in this statement and it is only a perception, we've had a few here Pt Arthur, Hoddle St. >> > Not the fact that there are some rather nutty folks who, seeing the >> > spectacle that occurs around one of these things, just wants to get [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It shoud be reported - not sensationalized. The press coverage must be different un the US than here, seems to reported with as "not again" and a tinge of sadness <snip> > > So you think it's society's problem, and not the individual's > > responsibility. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > play, if not why does this seem to happen so oftern in the USA compared to > the rest of the world? Maybe it's the beer. > Maybe I am wrong in this statement and it is only a perception, we've had a > few here Pt Arthur, Hoddle St. Ok. > >> > Not the fact that there are some rather nutty folks who, seeing the > >> > spectacle that occurs around one of these things, just wants to get [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The press coverage must be different un the US than here, seems to reported > with as "not again" and a tinge of sadness Well, the news sites are online these days. Dennis On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:55:14 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> By the way, Lee, the "armed people inside" that killed Murray was an >> >> >> armed security guard. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >spectacle that occurs around one of these things, just wants to get >attention and the media obliges. You're right. Guns are a symptom. JF > You're right. Guns are a symptom. > > JF Wow. The annual epiphany. To bad you'll have forgotten it by now. Signature"It's not like my life is filled with threatening situations and I wonder how often the assurance of a gun in a pocket incites some guys to go places that are just a little bit dangerous. Me, I'm a coward and avoid scary places to the best of my ability. To you that may be cowardice. To me it's discretion and commonsense. 8) " -JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:03:16 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >> You're right. Guns are a symptom. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > To bad you'll have forgotten it by now. I've acknowledged it too many times to count, but some of you are so blinded to your own little cause that you don't hear/read anything uttered by the other team. JF > I've acknowledged it too many times to count, but some of you are so > blinded to your own little cause that you don't hear/read anything > uttered by the other team. Now you should be able to understand why most of Us have lost any and all interest in bothering with you, except to insult you or call you a coward. "Uttered by the 'other team'?" Just a couple posts ago you assured Us that you were on Our side, a member of some rod and gun club. Besides being the very definition of hypocrite, it is this constant circle jerk of yours that makes decent people feel like kicking your ribs in. >> I've acknowledged it too many times to count, but some of you are so >> blinded to your own little cause that you don't hear/read anything >> uttered by the other team. > >Now you should be able to understand why most of Us have lost any and all >interest in bothering with you, except to insult you or call you a coward. Yet you persist. >"Uttered by the 'other team'?" > >Just a couple posts ago you assured Us that you were on Our side, a member >of some rod and gun club. I haven't joined yet, but I hang out with members for the fishing part. >Besides being the very definition of hypocrite, it is this constant circle >jerk of yours that makes decent people feel like kicking your ribs in. That's definitely one way of winning an argument. Guns would be good for that too. Of course it's just a variation on the Nazi rule, isn't it? JF > >> I've acknowledged it too many times to count, but some of you are so > >> blinded to your own little cause that you don't hear/read anything [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > for that too. Of course it's just a variation on the Nazi rule, isn't > it? If anyone represents Nazi rule, it is socialist pussies like you, afraid of free people with guns. ********************* ...All too many of the other great tragedies of history -- Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few -- were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 5997-99. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars. My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panel's mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion -- the mountain of verbiage it must deploy to explain away these fourteen short words of constitutional text -- refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it -- and is just as likely to succeed. -- Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc: Silveira v. Lockyer, May 6, 2003 > On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:03:16 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > blinded to your own little cause that you don't hear/read anything > uttered by the other team. Just to be clear, I consider you, on this subject, to be a mindless idiot, not even worthy of being considered "the other team". You can't clearly elucidate -one point- of your so called "argument". You're about parallel with the mindlessness of Fishbrea396,and way below even carl nisrael. You make a lot of noise about how our "attitudes" turn people against our "cause", but it's the fools like you that keep sentiment sliding in our direction. That's the reason I slap you down here, again and again. We've all tried the calm and ration approach. You've too often evidenced that your ignorance is proffered and permanent. As for Shawn, we'll have to check back in five years, and see how he's doing. Signature"It's not like my life is filled with threatening situations and I wonder how often the assurance of a gun in a pocket incites some guys to go places that are just a little bit dangerous. Me, I'm a coward and avoid scary places to the best of my ability. To you that may be cowardice. To me it's discretion and commonsense. 8) " -JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:30:40 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:03:16 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" >> <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Just to be clear, I consider you, on this subject, to be a mindless idiot, >not even worthy of being considered "the other team". Of course you do. That's why you persist in trying to establish yer intellectual superiority. It's just one more form of insecurity. > You can't clearly elucidate -one point- of your so called "argument". > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You've too often evidenced that your ignorance is proffered and permanent. ???? > As for Shawn, we'll have to check back in five years, and see how he's >doing. Well, considering how well he seems to be doing in the here and now, you wanna hope he's still doing his thing on yer behalf years from now, because I can assure you that your style is taking you and your cause nowhere but down. JF > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:30:40 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Of course you do. That's why you persist in trying to establish yer > intellectual superiority. It's just one more form of insecurity. I'm not -trying- to do anything. >> You can't clearly elucidate -one point- of your so called "argument". >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Well, considering how well he seems to be doing in the here and now, > you wanna hope he's still doing his thing on yer behalf He's not doing anything on "my" behalf. >years from > now, because I can assure you that your style is taking you and your > cause nowhere but down. All evidence to the contrary. Just another point you've scurried from in debate many times. > JF Signature"It's not like my life is filled with threatening situations and I wonder how often the assurance of a gun in a pocket incites some guys to go places that are just a little bit dangerous. Me, I'm a coward and avoid scary places to the best of my ability. To you that may be cowardice. To me it's discretion and commonsense. 8) " -JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:39:11 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >>> Just to be clear, I consider you, on this subject, to be a mindless >>> idiot, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I'm not -trying- to do anything. Ah. That then would explain it. >>> You can't clearly elucidate -one point- of your so called "argument". >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > He's not doing anything on "my" behalf. Oh but he is. He's defending your position properly. >>years from >> now, because I can assure you that your style is taking you and your [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Just another point you've scurried from in debate many times. Yes. You keep saying that as if repetition will finally make it true. JF > > All evidence to the contrary. > > Just another point you've scurried from in debate many times. > Yes. You keep saying that as if repetition will finally make it true. What makes it true is your actions and words. > What makes it true is your actions and words. > > > All evidence to the contrary. > > > Just another point you've scurried from in debate many times. > > Yes. You keep saying that as if repetition will finally make ittrue. > > What makes it true is your actions and words. As for your actions, I think you're all mouth. And as for your mouth, your words are clearly indicative of a borderline psychopath who enjoys trying to bully. Sound right ? > > > > All evidence to the contrary. > > > > Just another point you've scurried from in debate many times. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And as for your mouth, your words are clearly indicative of a > borderline psychopath who enjoys trying to bully. Sound right ? Oh good. Another moth to my flame. Why did you change nyms again "Carl"? >>>>> All evidence to the contrary. >>>>> Just another point you've scurried from in debate many times. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Why did you change nyms again "Carl"? Your flame ? You don't have a flame fucktard. > Your flame ? You don't have a flame fucktard. Then I guess it must be my a.s that attracts you so. Sorry big felluh, I am spoken for by more of a woman than you'll ever be. >> Your flame ? You don't have a flame fucktard. > > Then I guess it must be my a.s that attracts you so. > > Sorry big felluh, I am spoken for by more of a woman than you'll ever be. A fuckwad with latent homosexual tendencies...and guns...get some help. No real woman would ever speak for you. Not bad. Three different identities in less than 2 hours. Damn, Scott, your getting better at bringing the a.sholes out of hiding. > Not bad. Three different identities in less than 2 hours. > Damn, Scott, your getting better at bringing the a.sholes out of hiding. Nothing special at all, it's just "Carl". Another beacon of reason illuminating the far left. Signature"It has often been said that power corrupts. But it is perhaps equally important to realize that weakness, too, corrupts. Power corrupts the few, while weakness corrupts the many. Hatred, malice, rudeness, intolerance, and suspicion are the faults of weakness. The resentment of the weak does not spring from any injustice done to them but from their sense of inadequacy and impotence." -- Eric Hoffer >> Not bad. Three different identities in less than 2 hours. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Another beacon of reason illuminating the far left. Funny how much attention he can get without even posting a word. Who owns who? JF > Funny how much attention he can get without even posting a word. You mean he was in such a lathered up hurry to post anonymous insults again that he hit send prematurely? > Who owns who? Oh, he is all yours, and you wear him well. Two peas in a pod. > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:39:11 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Oh but he is. He's defending your position properly. No. He's defending his. >>>years from >>> now, because I can assure you that your style is taking you and your [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Yes. You keep saying that as if repetition will finally make it true. Any time you're ready. > JF Signature"It's not like my life is filled with threatening situations and I wonder how often the assurance of a gun in a pocket incites some guys to go places that are just a little bit dangerous. Me, I'm a coward and avoid scary places to the best of my ability. To you that may be cowardice. To me it's discretion and commonsense. 8) " -JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:30:40 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Of course you do. That's why you persist in trying to establish yer > intellectual superiority. It's just one more form of insecurity. Like bragging about your IQ score? :-) > > You can't clearly elucidate -one point- of your so called "argument". > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > ???? That means you're willfully ignorant, or unable to learn. > > As for Shawn, we'll have to check back in five years, and see how he's > >doing. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > now, because I can assure you that your style is taking you and your > cause nowhere but down. Not to worry, we have you and your style driving 'em right back to us :-) Dennis. On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:45:04 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: >> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:30:40 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" >> <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Like bragging about your IQ score? :-) Bragging? As I recall someone suggested they were intellectually superior to me, and read more. I said something along the lines of "Could be. Can ya beat 155?" I wasn't the one making the claims of superior intellect. Wasn't that Popeye who claimed to be intellectually superior? Ask him about the bragging. >> > You can't clearly elucidate -one point- of your so called "argument". >> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >That means you're willfully ignorant, or unable to learn. No guff? >> > As for Shawn, we'll have to check back in five years, and see how he's >> >doing. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Not to worry, we have you and your style driving 'em right back to us >:-) Hey, if I can help out. JF > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:45:04 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > superior intellect. Wasn't that Popeye who claimed to be > intellectually superior? Ask him about the bragging. Wow. Almost a week ago, and you still remember about 1/2 of what happened. Are you speedballing Geritol? >>> > You can't clearly elucidate -one point- of your so called "argument". >>> > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Hey, if I can help out. No one could do better. > JF Signature"It's not like my life is filled with threatening situations and I wonder how often the assurance of a gun in a pocket incites some guys to go places that are just a little bit dangerous. Me, I'm a coward and avoid scary places to the best of my ability. To you that may be cowardice. To me it's discretion and commonsense. 8) " -JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:10:55 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >>>Like bragging about your IQ score? :-) >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Are you speedballing Geritol? Wow. Three whole lines without calling me a liar once. And no profanity? We're all on our best behaviour all of a sudden? This is nice. JF > On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:10:55 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > profanity? We're all on our best behaviour all of a sudden? This is > nice. Unlike you, John Francis, I give opponents credit when you're right. Or half right. And when I'm wrong, I apologize. I'm not -afraid- to do that. You are -afraid- to do that. I made a mistake yesterday, a minor one, and was ready to apologize. But your vice-like reading comprehension totally missed it. That's my "intellectual honesty", compared to your dishonesty. And it shows which one of us is open minded. Signature"It's not like my life is filled with threatening situations and I wonder how often the assurance of a gun in a pocket incites some guys to go places that are just a little bit dangerous. Me, I'm a coward and avoid scary places to the best of my ability. To you that may be cowardice. To me it's discretion and commonsense. 8) " -JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com -"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message -news:u5rjm3dpabj7tl82k4dvtdc45obs65f5t4@4ax.com... ->>Like bragging about your IQ score? :-) -> -> Bragging? As I recall someone suggested they were intellectually -> superior to me, and read more. I said something along the lines of -> "Could be. Can ya beat 155?" I wasn't the one making the claims of -> superior intellect. Wasn't that Popeye who claimed to be -> intellectually superior? Ask him about the bragging. - - Wow. - - Almost a week ago, - and you still remember about 1/2 of what happened. - Are you speedballing Geritol? and thus you win "The Laugh of the Day Award" - No one could do better. - -> -> JF -> - - - - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net > -> Bragging? As I recall someone suggested they were intellectually > -> superior to me, and read more. I said something along the lines of > -> "Could be. Can ya beat 155?" I wasn't the one making the claims of > -> superior intellect. Wasn't that Popeye who claimed to be > -> intellectually superior? Ask him about the bragging. Sadly, I remember it that way too. Since it's come up again, Ill respond. Yes, I can beat 155, or could before rec.scuba started killing brain cells. Lee. >> -> Bragging? As I recall someone suggested they were intellectually >> -> superior to me, and read more. I said something along the lines of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Sadly, I remember it that way too. You would be wrong, methinks. IIRC, Scott was being insulted, and I said I'd put -his- I.Q. against John's. And as far as John "not making the claim of superior intellect", he's made it scores of times. I -did- say my reading comprehension was better than his (not that I was intellectually superior), and I've cited that a dozen times this week. > Since it's come up again, Ill respond. Yes, I can beat 155, or could > before rec.scuba started killing brain cells. > > Lee. Signature"It's not like my life is filled with threatening situations and I wonder how often the assurance of a gun in a pocket incites some guys to go places that are just a little bit dangerous. Me, I'm a coward and avoid scary places to the best of my ability. To you that may be cowardice. To me it's discretion and commonsense. 8) " -JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:02:55 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >>> -> Bragging? As I recall someone suggested they were intellectually >>> -> superior to me, and read more. I said something along the lines of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > IIRC, Scott was being insulted, and I said I'd put -his- I.Q. against >John's. Feel free to back that up with some cites, or not. > And as far as John "not making the claim of superior intellect", he's made >it scores of times. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> Since it's come up again, Ill respond. Yes, I can beat 155, or could >> before rec.scuba started killing brain cells. JF > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:02:55 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Feel free to back that up with some cites, or not. Sure. See below. Was there anything else? >> And as far as John "not making the claim of superior intellect", he's >> made [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>> Since it's come up again, Ill respond. Yes, I can beat 155, or could >>> before rec.scuba started killing brain cells. As I said, precisely: Douglas W. Popeye Frederick View profile More options Dec 8, 10:15 am Newsgroups: rec.scuba From: "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:15:33 -0500 Local: Sat, Dec 8 2007 10:15 am Subject: Re: If only everybody were carrying Barretts 82A1/M107q, AK47s or RPGs OT Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:t7ghl3hi5s90jh0r7dl1h00o6cqq5t843s@4ax.com... > I admit I envy guys like you who learned a trade instead of just > going to school and reading a lot. Wow. More documented elitist tripe from Futile John. I read more than you do, and have since I was 5. I read better than you do, and and have since I was 5. I'll put Scott's I.Q. up against yours any day. >One of the most impressive > constructs I ever witnessed personally was a half scale working Harley > v-twin built by a machinist friend of mine. Your plates are nice but > they don't come close to that engine. Your usual close-minded view. Scott spent some time working on one of the most technologically advanced motorcycles in the world. not some shitbox archaic V-twin, as well as designing custom tools, some of the coolest knives I've ever seen, and a host of cutting edge valves and sh.t I can't even explain. This is the typical instance of you taking a sliver of "knowledge" drawn from your personal perspective, and trumpeting it as some kind of fact, when what it does is expound further on your boundless and depthless ocean of ignorance. > JF Signature"I don't know much about the different guns but based on the tv I watch there are lots of automatic weapons out there. In fact I'm sure they're in the majority, certainly in the handgun department. I guess my concern would be with the more easily concealed weapons capable of firing sustained bursts at extreme cycling rates." -JOF On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:34:02 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:02:55 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" >> <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > I'll put Scott's I.Q. up against yours any day. Good cite. Looks like Lee & I were wrong . We apologize. It just goes to show that even an above average IQ is no guarantee of intellectual perfection. JF >> Sadly, I remember it that way too. > > You would be wrong, methinks. Could be. I'm not going to go back and look. I just don't care that much. > IIRC, Scott was being insulted, and I said I'd put -his- I.Q. against > John's. So would I. > And as far as John "not making the claim of superior intellect", he's > made it scores of times. Perhaps I missed it. Perhaps it's because his posting history makes any such claim so unlikely. > I -did- say my reading comprehension was better than his (not that I was > intellectually superior), and I've cited that a dozen times this week. The biggest difference seems to be that you bother to read what you're discussing and John doesn't. That's exactly what got both John and Greg included in my blocked sender's list. I simply tired of arguing with somebody that couldn't even be bothered to read what they were countering. Lee > The biggest difference seems to be that you bother to read what you're > discussing and John doesn't. That's exactly what got both John and Greg > included in my blocked sender's list. I simply tired of arguing with > somebody that couldn't even be bothered to read what they were countering. Both could very well have read the information, but they do so in order to find some little part of the whole to focus upon and lie about. >>> Sadly, I remember it that way too. >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >included in my blocked sender's list. I simply tired of arguing with >somebody that couldn't even be bothered to read what they were countering. And here I thought it was out of deference to our superior intellect. JF -"Lee Bell" <pleebell@bellsouth.net> wrote in message -news:zVRaj.35499$rc2.10549@bignews1.bellsouth.net... ->> -> Bragging? As I recall someone suggested they were intellectually ->> -> superior to me, and read more. I said something along the lines of ->> -> "Could be. Can ya beat 155?" I wasn't the one making the claims of ->> -> superior intellect. Wasn't that Popeye who claimed to be ->> -> intellectually superior? Ask him about the bragging. -> -> Sadly, I remember it that way too. - - You would be wrong, methinks. - - IIRC, Scott was being insulted, and I said I'd put -his- I.Q. against -John's. - - And as far as John "not making the claim of superior intellect", he's made -it scores of times. and coming from the waste dump that he passes around as a mind... - - I -did- say my reading comprehension was better than his (not that I was -intellectually superior), and I've cited that a dozen times this week. - -> Since it's come up again, Ill respond. Yes, I can beat 155, or could -> before rec.scuba started killing brain cells. -> -> Lee. -> - - - - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net On Dec 18, 1:03 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > "It's not like my life is filled with threatening situations and I wonder > how often the assurance of a gun in a pocket incites some guys > to go places that are just a little bit dangerous. Me, I'm a coward > and avoid scary places to the best of my ability. To you that may be > cowardice. To me it's discretion and commonsense. 8) " -JOF Boink! No way! I'm gonna walk wherever I feel like walking, myself. > On Dec 18, 1:03 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I'm gonna walk wherever I feel like walking, myself. you don't have that freedom > > I'm gonna walk wherever I feel like walking, myself. > > you don't have that freedom Let's not confuse you and me, sweetie. I'm walking wherever I feel like walking, because I'm free to do so. You can not go places because you're afraid to, but for most of us, it's not really an issue. >> > I'm gonna walk wherever I feel like walking, myself. >> >> you don't have that freedom > > Let's not confuse you and me, sweetie. I'm walking wherever I feel > like walking, because I'm free to do so. Sorry are you claiming you're free to walk anywhere > You can not go places because you're afraid to, but for most of us, > it's not really an issue. I can't think of anywhere that I am afraid to walk if I want to. > Sorry are you claiming you're free to walk anywhere Well lets see about that, point out the lie, and wait for the apology. My two statements were: > I'm gonna walk wherever I feel like walking, myself. And > I'm walking wherever I feel like walking, because I'm free to do so. Both of which are true. You may apologize now. >> Sorry are you claiming you're free to walk anywhere > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >> I'm gonna walk wherever I feel like walking, myself. as long as you only walk where you are allowed > And > >> I'm walking wherever I feel like walking, because I'm free to do so. as long as you only walk where you are allowed > Both of which are true. > > You may apologize now. just trying to get clear in my mind what you were claiming > "Jerome's Sock Puppet" <jerome.on...@gmail.com> wrote in > as long as you only walk where you are allowed And that there sums up the difference quite nicely. No one "allows" me to walk anywhere. I walk where I chose to. > just trying to get clear in my mind what you were claiming I'm claiming just exactly what I said. Three times now. I'm certain that your very next post will contain that apology. >> "Jerome's Sock Puppet" <jerome.on...@gmail.com> wrote in > >> as long as you only walk where you are allowed > > And that there sums up the difference quite nicely. No one "allows" > me to walk anywhere. true but you are not allow you to walk some places I walk where I chose to. >> just trying to get clear in my mind what you were claiming > > I'm claiming just exactly what I said. Three times now. > > I'm certain that your very next post will contain that apology. I apologise for whatever or however you think I have offended you >>> "Jerome's Sock Puppet" <jerome.on...@gmail.com> wrote in >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >true but you are not allow you to walk some places He's saving a zinger. Pretty soon he'll tell you that he has no interest in walking into the places he's not allowed to go. JF > > "Jerome's Sock Puppet" <jerome.on...@gmail.com> wrote in > > as long as you only walk where you are allowed > And that there sums up the difference quite nicely. No one "allows" > me to walk anywhere. I walk where I chose to. He doesn't understand that you understand what security perimeters and such are and why (more importantly). Likely you would not chose to ignore the warnings and continue. But still, if you chose to walk in there, you know what to expect and would accept that going in. Either way, you're free, upchuck is full of sh.t. Simple. >> > "Jerome's Sock Puppet" <jerome.on...@gmail.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Either way, you're free, upchuck is full of sh.t. isn't amazing how people who have k/fed you still crap on about your posts >> > "Jerome's Sock Puppet" <jerome.on...@gmail.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Simple. Cute. I can do anything I wanna do, as long as I remind myself not to wanna do anything I'm not allowed to do. Have I got it about right? I got news fer ya. I can do anything I wanna do too, and I can do it without a gun. I just have to remember not to wanna do anything I can't do without a gun. See, it's easy to be free. JF > >> > "Jerome's Sock Puppet" <jerome.on...@gmail.com> wrote in > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Cute. I can do anything I wanna do, as long as I remind myself not to > wanna do anything I'm not allowed to do. Have I got it about right? Nope. Didnt expect you to either. > I got news fer ya. I can do anything I wanna do too, and I can do it > without a gun. I just have to remember not to wanna do anything I > can't do without a gun. See, it's easy to be free. Good job, and I am sure I speak for many here when I say I am very happy you don't walk around with a gun. > > "Jerome's Sock Puppet" <jerome.on...@gmail.com> wrote in > > > as long as you only walk where you are allowed > > And that there sums up the difference quite nicely. No one "allows" > me to walk anywhere. I walk where I chose to. Well, if you were choose to try to walk through my living room uninvited...... :-) I doubt there's much chance of that happening. > > just trying to get clear in my mind what you were claiming > > I'm claiming just exactly what I said. Three times now. > > I'm certain that your very next post will contain that apology. Dennis >> > I'm gonna walk wherever I feel like walking, myself. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >You can not go places because you're afraid to, but for most of us, >it's not really an issue. Well then, I want to see you walk into the White House with your gun in your hand. Or - well, you get the picture. Betcha it would be easier for me, A Canuck, to walk in than you with yer gun in hand. JF > >> "Jerome's Sock Puppet" <jerome.on...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:5cc7b95d-751f-455b-81af-d2b2e39f3b39@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.co m... > >> > I'm gonna walk wherever I feel like walking, myself. > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > in your hand. Or - well, you get the picture. Betcha it would be > easier for me, A Canuck, to walk in than you with yer gun in hand. Might be kinda hard for him with his foot still nailed to the roof and all. He must have had a hard time walking where he wanted that day. > Might be kinda hard for him with his foot still nailed to the roof and all. > He must have had a hard time walking where he wanted that day. Another keeper. Jammer was the one that nailed his foot to the roof. You know, the carpenter? Jerome is an IT. Have another glass. > "chilly" <slar...@shaw.canada> wrote in message > > Might be kinda hard for him with his foot still nailed to the roof and > all. > > He must have had a hard time walking where he wanted that day. > Another keeper. > Jammer was the one that nailed his foot to the roof. You know, the > carpenter? > Jerome is an IT. > Have another glass. She made an easy mistake. You all look alike. You're interchangeable with so many here. > > "chilly" <slar...@shaw.canada> wrote in message > > > Might be kinda hard for him with his foot still nailed to the roof and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > She made an easy mistake. You all look alike. You're interchangeable > with so many here. Thanks for quoting him. Can't see him usually. Another glass of what? I'm not the drinker here. > <hierophantf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Another glass of what? I'm not the drinker here. Don't worry about it. He's beneath you. I can see why you had him mixed up with Jammer. They are two idiots. Hey... you ever hear the song "Two Princes" by the Spin Doctors ? I think they could re-do the lyrics to fit Two Idiots. Problem is, there are more than two idiots on this NG. In article <f8425e8c-3c84-4ff0-9c11- 6f32e4a791df@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, hierophantfish@hotmail.com says... -On Dec 20, 1:33 am, "chilly" <slar...@shaw.canada> wrote: -> <hierophantf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message -> -> news:756ce19f-396e-45df-bbd3-bf3f12489f8f@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com... -> -> > On Dec 19, 10:29 am, "Scott" <pugetsounddi...@gmail.com> wrote: -> > > "chilly" <slar...@shaw.canada> wrote in message -> > > > Might be kinda hard for him with his foot still nailed to the roof and -> > > all. -> > > > He must have had a hard time walking where he wanted that day. -> -> > > Another keeper. -> > > Jammer was the one that nailed his foot to the roof. You know, the -> > > carpenter? -> > > Jerome is an IT. -> > > Have another glass. -> -> > She made an easy mistake. You all look alike. You're interchangeable -> > with so many here. -> -> Thanks for quoting him. Can't see him usually. -> -> Another glass of what? I'm not the drinker here. - -Don't worry about it. He's beneath you. I can see why you had him -mixed up with Jammer. They are two idiots. -Hey... you ever hear the song "Two Princes" by the Spin Doctors ? I -think they could re-do the lyrics to fit Two Idiots. Problem is, -there are more than two idiots on this NG. and the boob. do not forget the boob of the day. I expect hierophantfish to get reelected boob of the day based on his posts here. as BOTD, he has been giving awards to legs he humps. - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net > and the boob. do not forget the boob of the day. > I expect hierophantfish to get reelected > boob of the day based on his posts here. > as BOTD, he has been giving awards to legs he humps. Kiss off Boob. Your wife is calling. She needs you go buy her some soap. And you get the Boob of the day award. > and the boob. do not forget the boob of the day. > I expect hierophantfish to get reelected > boob of the day based on his posts here. > as BOTD, he has been giving awards to legs he humps. Oh ? So you're saying that you hump someone's leg when you give laugh of the day ? And you assume I do the same. Sorry Boob. The leg humping thing is all yours. > On Dec 18, 1:03 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I'm gonna walk wherever I feel like walking, myself. Ruffian. > On Dec 18, 1:03 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I'm gonna walk wherever I feel like walking, myself. Rowdy trouble hunting, thrill seeking lout. Signature"It's not like my life is filled with threatening situations and I wonder how often the assurance of a gun in a pocket incites some guys to go places that are just a little bit dangerous. Me, I'm a coward and avoid scary places to the best of my ability. To you that may be cowardice. To me it's discretion and commonsense. 8) " -JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com On Dec 19, 2:34 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > Rowdy trouble hunting, thrill seeking lout. I have it on good authority that I am a ruffian! A scallywag, no less! -"Jerome's Sock Puppet" <jerome.oneil@gmail.com> wrote in message -news:5cc7b95d-751f-455b-81af-d2b2e39f3b39@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com... -> On Dec 18, 1:03 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" -> <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: -> ->> ->> "It's not like my life is filled with threatening situations and I ->> wonder ->> how often the assurance of a gun in a pocket incites some guys ->> to go places that are just a little bit dangerous. Me, I'm a coward ->> and avoid scary places to the best of my ability. To you that may be ->> cowardice. To me it's discretion and commonsense. 8) " -JOF -> -> Boink! -> -> No way! -> -> I'm gonna walk wherever I feel like walking, myself.- - - Rowdy trouble hunting, thrill seeking lout. almost LOTDA - - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net > In article <13mj74gihc7l...@news.supernews.com>, > Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com says... [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Bob Crownfield > crownfi...@verizon.net You won the BOOB of the Day Award >> and it seems to me as an outsider scarey or das that you need armed >> security >> guards in your churches. That seems a symptom of a fairly sick sciety Welcome to the real world. This discussion has included a bunch of women killed and fed to hogs in Canada and, in this particular thread, a few people killed in one church, without anyone being available to stop the killing, and a couple by the same person, in a second church where someone did stop it. After the fact, the killer was found to have several hundred rounds, leading some to conclude that the intervention by an armed citizen literally saved hundreds of lives. You're damned right it's a sick society. Unconstrained, humans are a sick group. Everyplace where one, or a small group of people, have been able to maintain absolute control over the population, atrocities are common. Everyplace where common citizens have the means to prevent such absolute control, those attrocities get addressed quickly. It's an ages old pattern, and it hasn't changed since man first showed up on this world. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and there is no more absolute power than what is available to the only armed faction in modern society. Lee On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:55:07 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: >> >> By the way, Lee, the "armed people inside" that killed Murray was an >> >> armed security guard. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >shooter had killed 25, or 50, or 100 folks instead of two before being >stopped? I think it's fair to say that "sick society" and "some not-so-nice people in the world" is saying about the same thing when it means that you need to be armed in church. JF > On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:55:07 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > people in the world" is saying about the same thing when it means that > you need to be armed in church. Not really - one indicts society as a whole, whereas another just points out there are some not so nice folks. Dennis >> By the way, Lee, the "armed people inside" that killed Murray was an >> armed security guard. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >whether it was necessary to carry in our churches. Like I said, it doesn't >get much clearer than this. I don't know too many American cops, but I got the impression that a number of departments requi |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message