 |
 | 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 / March 2008Dear John:
Cheney gets tough on gun-rights case Joins Supreme Court brief in challenge to D.C. handgun ban updated 9:38 p.m. ET, Fri., Feb. 8, 2008 WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney took the unusual step Friday of joining with lawmakers in signing a Supreme Court brief that goes further in support of gun rights than the one submitted by the Bush administration. The filings were made in a case that challenges the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. It was scheduled to be argued on March 18. Both briefs argue that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns. However, the administration contends that too categorical a ruling could threaten other federal gun restrictions and wants the justices to send the case back to lower courts without deciding whether the handgun ban should fall. Cheney joined more than 300 senators and representatives, led by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who want the court to rule that Washington's ban is unconstitutional. "The vice president believes strongly in Second Amendment rights," Cheney spokeswoman Megan Mitchell said. Seventeen Democratic lawmakers and District of Columbia Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton urged the court to uphold the ban. Lawyers with long experience at the court could not recall another case in which a vice president took a position different from that of his own administration.  Signature"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." ~Jeff Snyder~ On Feb 10, 1:48 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > "The vice president believes strongly in Second Amendment rights," Cheney > spokeswoman Megan Mitchell said. > Lawyers with long experience at the court could not recall another case in > which a vice president took a position different from that of his own > administration. Other gun news of the day: "KIRKWOOD, Mo. - Some left flowers, balloons and memorials on the steps of City Hall. Others gathered at a prayer vigil where a bell tolled six times as mourners clutched white candles. Residents of this St. Louis suburb struggled to heal as they tried to make sense of a shooting spree at a City Council meeting that left five people dead and the mayor fighting for his life." "BATON ROUGE, La. - A woman whose daughter killed two fellow students in a college classroom before committing suicide said Saturday she'll be "haunted to the end of my days for what my child has done." "LOS ANGELES - The gunman who fatally shot a SWAT officer and three members of his own family suffered from "significant mental health problems" and had a juvenile criminal record, authorities said Friday." "TROY, MO. - The Jan. 18 incident started as road rage between Taylor Green, 16, and another driver. It ended with a confrontation in the parking lot of Troy Buchanan High where Green said the driver pointed a gun at him. No one was injured. . . .Richards said it was unclear whether the man, 36, had pointed the gun at the student or simply showed it to him. He also said the man, who is a Lincoln County Ambulance District paramedic, had a valid concealed-carry permit and said he was acting in self-defense." "SHEBOYGAN, WI - A 15-year-old boy who was arrested Friday for threatening a 15-year-old girl with a loaded rifle had taken the gun from his parents' home, according to additional details about the incident supplied by the Sheboygan Police Department. Capt. Steve Cobb said the boy allegedly pointed the .22-caliber hunting rifle at his ex-girlfriend while visiting her house in the 1500 block of John Court. The girl was saved from harm when a 16-year-old boy in the house heard her scream, came to the front door and wrested the rifle from the other boy, managing to eject several rounds." "NEW YORK (AP) _ A police officer who wounded a toddler when he accidentally fired a shot through the floor of his Brooklyn apartment was cleaning his gun in dim lighting because his electricity had been turned off, according to his brother." And, for our neighbors to the north who aren't fortunate enough to have real guns to play with: "EDMONTON - Edmonton police say they've arrested a 24-year-old suspect after a man pointed what turned out to be a machine gun-shaped liquor bottle at an officer conducting a traffic stop Friday night." In article <4db7916e-a703-406a-82c8- 4b14a983da0c@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, mossman@qnet.com says... -On Feb 10, 1:48 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" -<Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: -Other gun news of the day: Greg, how many times during the same period were guns used to help and to protect? -"LOS ANGELES - The gunman who fatally shot a SWAT officer and three -members of his own family suffered from "significant mental health -problems" and had a juvenile criminal record, authorities said -Friday." thus being prohibited by law from gun possesion? - - -"NEW YORK (AP) _ A police officer who wounded a toddler when he -accidentally fired a shot through the floor of his Brooklyn apartment -was cleaning his gun in dim lighting because his electricity had been -turned off, according to his brother." "only the police should have guns because they are the professionals..". sound familiar? SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net > In article <4db7916e-a703-406a-82c8- > 4b14a983d...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, moss...@qnet.com says... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Greg, how many times during the same period > were guns used to help and to protect? Bob - How many old ladies didn't get mugged yesterday? > -"LOS ANGELES - The gunman who fatally shot a SWAT officer and three > -members of his own family suffered from "significant mental health > -problems" and had a juvenile criminal record, authorities said > -Friday." > > thus being prohibited by law from gun possesion? Aren't SWAT guys supposed to be well-trained in weapons use and takedowns? How did a psycho get the draw on this officer? Is it possible the officer's gun wasn't a viable solution to the problem encountered? > -"NEW YORK (AP) _ A police officer who wounded a toddler when he > -accidentally fired a shot through the floor of his Brooklyn apartment > -was cleaning his gun in dim lighting because his electricity had been > -turned off, according to his brother." > > "only the police should have guns because they are the professionals..". And the corollary, only those who act professionally with weapons should be cops. Obviously he didn't measure up. > sound familiar? Ad nauseum. JF In article <4b922701-c470-48f6-befd-a3292387d1d6 @s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, jofrancis@gmail.com says... -On Feb 10, 1:33 pm, crownfield <crownfi...@verizon.net> wrote: -> In article <4db7916e-a703-406a-82c8- -> 4b14a983d...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, moss...@qnet.com says... -> -On Feb 10, 1:48 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" -> -> -<Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: -> -> -Other gun news of the day: -> -> Greg, how many times during the same period -> were guns used to help and to protect? - -Bob - How many old ladies didn't get mugged yesterday? brain death, and failure to be able to reason are really sad. hopefully we look, as adults, for perspective. then we reason. some simple background on using logic.(reasoning) one counter example does not prove the opposite is always true. - -> -"LOS ANGELES - The gunman who fatally shot a SWAT officer and three -> -members of his own family suffered from "significant mental health -> -problems" and had a juvenile criminal record, authorities said -> -Friday." -> -> thus being prohibited by law from gun possesion? - -Aren't SWAT guys supposed to be well-trained in weapons use and -takedowns? How did a psycho get the draw on this officer? Is it -possible the officer's gun wasn't a viable solution to the problem -encountered? and this relates to legal / illegal weapons just how? your mounties are dying because they do not know as much about deadly force as the bad guys do. -> -"NEW YORK (AP) _ A police officer who wounded a toddler when he -> -accidentally fired a shot through the floor of his Brooklyn apartment -> -was cleaning his gun in dim lighting because his electricity had been -> -turned off, according to his brother." an obvious example of bad procedure, and carelessness. violation of rules 1,2,3. -> "only the police should have guns because they are the professionals..". - -And the corollary, only those who act professionally with weapons -should be cops. Obviously he didn't measure up. - -> sound familiar? - -Ad nauseum. obviously you did not recognize and comprehend the reason for the quotes. your big failure is lack of comprehension before speaking / posting. input, process, then output. - -JF - - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net -> Greg, how many times during the same period -> were guns used to help and to protect? No answer I see. -Bob - How many old ladies didn't get mugged yesterday? I give up how many? I can tell you this, though, some that didn't get mugged today didn't get mugged because they, or others, have the means to ensure that they are not mugged. When attacked, nobody has ever, ever said, "I'm sure glad I didn't have a gun." Lee >-> Greg, how many times during the same period > -> were guns used to help and to protect? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > When attacked, nobody has ever, ever said, "I'm sure glad I didn't have a > gun." Back from the big shoot and ready to sling the sh.t. Is this statistic on attack victims like your statistics on providing health care to immigrants or social security benefits? You call me ignorant? <laugh> You think the guy with the biggest pile of bullshit is the smartest person on Earth? Rhetorical, I know. >>-> Greg, how many times during the same period >> -> were guns used to help and to protect? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the guy with the biggest pile of bullshit is the smartest person on Earth? > Rhetorical, I know. "I just wonder why you post such demeaning garbage. I've said it before so it should come as no surprise that your snipes and insults toward people you don't know do more harm to you than anybody else." -kennybenny Signature"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." ~Jeff Snyder~ >>>-> Greg, how many times during the same period >>> -> were guns used to help and to protect? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I wonder why I've > said it before so that people don't harm anybody. I wonder why you've said it before too. I guess it's just the love bubbling out. -"ben bradlee" <NoWay@Way.Bite.Me> wrote in message -news:msOdnWNwCeUvGTLanZ2dnUVZ_t-nnZ2d@centurytel.net... -> -> "Lee Bell" <pleebell@bellsouth.net> wrote in message -> news:_tKrj.97275$L%6.9956@bignews3.bellsouth.net... ->>-> Greg, how many times during the same period ->> -> were guns used to help and to protect? ->> ->> No answer I see. ->> ->> -Bob - How many old ladies didn't get mugged yesterday? ->> ->> I give up how many? I can tell you this, though, some that didn't get ->> mugged today didn't get mugged because they, or others, have the means to ->> ensure that they are not mugged. ->> ->> When attacked, nobody has ever, ever said, "I'm sure glad I didn't have a ->> gun." -> -> Back from the big shoot and ready to sling the sh.t. Is this statistic on -> attack victims like your statistics on providing health care to immigrants -> or social security benefits? You call me ignorant? <laugh> You think -> the guy with the biggest pile of bullshit is the smartest person on Earth? -> Rhetorical, I know. - - - "I just wonder why you post such demeaning garbage. I've -said it before so it should come as no surprise that your snipes and insults -toward people you don't know do more harm to you than anybody else." --kennybenny kennybenny is a fartsheep. the buttboy of noxious gasses. SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net > -> Greg, how many times during the same period > -> were guns used to help and to protect? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > When attacked, nobody has ever, ever said, "I'm sure glad I didn't have a > gun." Lotsa Annie Oakleys out there huh? JF > In article <4b922701-c470-48f6-befd-a3292387d1d6 > @s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, jofran...@gmail.com says... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > some simple background on using logic.(reasoning) > one counter example does not prove the opposite is always true. You're babbling. > -> -"LOS ANGELES - The gunman who fatally shot a SWAT officer and three > -> -members of his own family suffered from "significant mental health [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > your mounties are dying > because they do not know as much about deadly force as the bad guys do. Get over it. It's obviously a failure on their parents' part. > -> -"NEW YORK (AP) _ A police officer who wounded a toddler when he > -> -accidentally fired a shot through the floor of his Brooklyn apartment [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > input, process, then output. Again, babbling. Ersatz intellectualism as condescension is kinda funny to watch happening. JF In article <dc21accd-62fd-410b-8e5a- bbdb6f706abd@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, jofrancis@gmail.com says... -On Feb 10, 4:24 pm, crownfield <crownfi...@verizon.net> wrote: -> In article <4b922701-c470-48f6-befd-a3292387d1d6 -> @s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, jofran...@gmail.com says... -> -On Feb 10, 1:33 pm, crownfield <crownfi...@verizon.net> wrote: -> -> In article <4db7916e-a703-406a-82c8- -> -> 4b14a983d...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, moss...@qnet.com says... -> -> -On Feb 10, 1:48 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" -> ->-> -<Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: -> -> -> -> -> -Other gun news of the day: -> -> -> -> Greg, how many times during the same period -> -> were guns used to help and to protect? -> - -> -Bob - How many old ladies didn't get mugged yesterday? -> -> brain death, and failure to be able to reason are really sad. -> hopefully we look, as adults, for perspective. -> then we reason. -> -> some simple background on using logic.(reasoning) -> one counter example does not prove the opposite is always true. - -You're babbling. if logic is alien to you, as we have watched and understood for several years now, it would seem that way. too bad that you are unarmed in an intelligent discussion. - -> -> -"LOS ANGELES - The gunman who fatally shot a SWAT officer and three -> -> -members of his own family suffered from "significant mental health -> -> -problems" and had a juvenile criminal record, authorities said -> -> -Friday." -> -> -> -> thus being prohibited by law from gun possesion? -> - -> -Aren't SWAT guys supposed to be well-trained in weapons use and -> -takedowns? How did a psycho get the draw on this officer? Is it -> -possible the officer's gun wasn't a viable solution to the problem -> -encountered? -> -> and this relates to legal / illegal weapons just how? -> -> your mounties are dying -> because they do not know as much about deadly force as the bad guys do. - -Get over it. It's obviously a failure on their parents' part. - -> -> -"NEW YORK (AP) _ A police officer who wounded a toddler when he -> -> -accidentally fired a shot through the floor of his Brooklyn apartment -> -> -was cleaning his gun in dim lighting because his electricity had been -> -> -turned off, according to his brother." -> -> an obvious example of bad procedure, and carelessness. -> violation of rules 1,2,3. -> -> -> "only the police should have guns because they are the professionals..". -> - -> -And the corollary, only those who act professionally with weapons -> -should be cops. Obviously he didn't measure up. -> - -> -> sound familiar? -> - -> -Ad nauseum. -> -> obviously you did not recognize and comprehend -> the reason for the quotes. -> -> your big failure is lack of comprehension before speaking / posting. -> -> input, process, then output. - -Again, babbling. Ersatz intellectualism as condescension is kinda -funny to watch happening. again, if logic is alien to you, as we have watched and understood for several years now, it would seem that way. too bad that you are unarmed in an intelligent discussion. - -JF - - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net On Feb 10, 1:33 pm, crownfield <crownfi...@verizon.net> wrote: > In article <4db7916e-a703-406a-82c8- > 4b14a983d...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, moss...@qnet.com says... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Greg, how many times during the same period > were guns used to help and to protect? Bob - How many old ladies didn't get mugged yesterday? Because they were armed, or because they were lucky? > -"LOS ANGELES - The gunman who fatally shot a SWAT officer and three > -members of his own family suffered from "significant mental health > -problems" and had a juvenile criminal record, authorities said > -Friday." > > thus being prohibited by law from gun possesion? Aren't SWAT guys supposed to be well-trained in weapons use and takedowns? How did a psycho get the draw on this officer? Is it possible the officer's gun wasn't a viable solution to the problem encountered? Sure. Nobody here says a gun is the solution to all problems except you. It's been documented several times. > -"NEW YORK (AP) _ A police officer who wounded a toddler when he > -accidentally fired a shot through the floor of his Brooklyn apartment > -was cleaning his gun in dim lighting because his electricity had been > -turned off, according to his brother." > > "only the police should have guns because they are the professionals..". And the corollary, only those who act professionally with weapons should be cops. Obviously he didn't measure up. Ah, the Canadian double standard again. When it's Canadian cops, Futile John says not to pass judgment until we know all the facts. Unlike with the SWAT cop above, dead Canadian cops should be given respect and deference. This has also been documented and cited repeatedly. > sound familiar? Ad nauseum. The Canadian double standard? And how. JF Signature"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." ~Jeff Snyder~ > "JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message > Aren't SWAT guys supposed to be well-trained in weapons use and > takedowns? How did a psycho get the draw on this officer? Is it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It's been documented several times. If fact, you just did it again. Signature"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." ~Jeff Snyder~ On Feb 10, 10:13 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > On Feb 10, 1:33 pm, crownfield <crownfi...@verizon.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Nobody here says a gun is the solution to all problems except you. I'm not the one who won't leave my home without a gun in every pocket. And which of my problems would I be solving with these non-existant guns? > It's been documented several times. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Ah, the Canadian double standard again. Nah. Yer rules. > When it's Canadian cops, Futile John says not to pass judgment until we > know all the facts. So 'splain to me what the first two officers' guns did for them. > Unlike with the SWAT cop above, dead Canadian cops should be given > respect and deference. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The Canadian double standard? Do you know what a red herring is in a conversation? JF On Feb 10, 10:13 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Nobody here says a gun is the solution to all problems except you. I'm not the one who won't leave my home without a gun in every pocket. And which of my problems would I be solving with these non-existant guns? > It's been documented several times. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Ah, the Canadian double standard again. Nah. Yer rules. > When it's Canadian cops, Futile John says not to pass judgment until we > know all the facts. So 'splain to me what the first two officers' guns did for them. Not a damn thing. What's your point? That this indicates that cops should never carry guns? Can't wait to see this sssllllliiiiiidddddeeeee. > Unlike with the SWAT cop above, dead Canadian cops should be given > respect and deference. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The Canadian double standard? Do you know what a red herring is in a conversation? Sure, it looks like this: > Aren't SWAT guys supposed to be well-trained in weapons use and > takedowns? How did a psycho get the draw on this officer? Is it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Nobody here says a gun is the solution to all problems except you. I'm not the one who won't leave my home without a gun in every pocket. And which of my problems would I be solving with these non-existant guns? Signature"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." ~Jeff Snyder~ > On Feb 10, 10:13 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > And which of my problems would I be solving with these non-existant > guns? I don't recall anyone here ever stating that - just more typical bs and innuendo. A gun in every pocket???? What would be the point? It is amazing what gun fearers come up with, when the only thing we have ever asked or said is let us choose in which manner we prefer to protect ourselves. You may choose your own method, too. See how easy that is? > > On Feb 10, 10:13 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > asked or said is let us choose in which manner we prefer to protect > ourselves. You may choose your own method, too. Not exactly Joe. Some here seem determined to put down anyone who isn't afraid to go out of their home unharmed as either stupid or sheepish or both. Insults, even fatuous ones, beget insults. It's all really stupid though, isn't it? We should just try to get along. > See how easy that is? Getting along's even easier. JF >>>On Feb 10, 10:13 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" >>><Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > JF everyone getting along is a great idea - it just doesn't happen. And my point was your bald face lie about 'leaving my home with a gun in every pocket' > everyone getting along is a great idea - it just doesn't happen. And my > point was your bald face lie about 'leaving my home with a gun in every > pocket' I used to carry a gun in my pocket. I carry it elsewhere these days. I normally have 4 to 6 pockets. I don't usually carry more than one gun and never more than two on my person. I do occasionally carry as many guns as I have pockets, but even then, no more than one or two is loaded or readily available for use. Lee > > everyone getting along is a great idea - it just doesn't happen. And my > > point was your bald face lie about 'leaving my home with a gun in every [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have pockets, but even then, no more than one or two is loaded or readily > available for use. Do you ever need to wear suspenders? JF > >>>On Feb 10, 10:13 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > >>><Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > point was your bald face lie about 'leaving my home with a gun in every > pocket'- Hide quoted text - That wasn't a lie. It was hyperbole for effect. It's an overused trick here. JF On Feb 11, 2:00 pm, Joe English <t...@temp.com> wrote: > everyone getting along is a great idea - it just doesn't happen. And my > point was your bald face lie about 'leaving my home with a gun in every > pocket'- Hide quoted text - That wasn't a lie. It was hyperbole for effect. It's an overused trick here. But we've been onto you for a long time. Signature"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." ~Jeff Snyder~ >>>>>On Feb 10, 10:13 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" >>>>><Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > JF Oh I know it is an overused trick, I recognize it from your many insecure posts > That wasn't a lie. It was hyperbole for effect. It's an overused trick > here. > > JF You can stop anytime. You are one of the worst offenders. 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 On Feb 11, 9:47 pm, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote: > > That wasn't a lie. It was hyperbole for effect. It's an overused trick > > here. > > > JF > > You can stop anytime. You are one of the worst offenders. There. You did it again. JF In article <5a392d28-8893-48d8-83dc-63d638c57f08 @u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, jofrancis@gmail.com says... -On Feb 11, 2:00 pm, Joe English <t...@temp.com> wrote: -> > On Feb 11, 9:53 am, Joe English <t...@temp.com> wrote: -> > JF -> -> everyone getting along is a great idea - it just doesn't happen. And my -> point was your bald face lie about 'leaving my home with a gun in every -> pocket'- Hide quoted text - - -That wasn't a lie. It was hyperbole for effect. It's an overused trick -here. in your case, it was just a bad lie. - -JF - - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net On Feb 11, 9:53 am, Joe English <t...@temp.com> wrote: > JOF wrote: > > On Feb 10, 10:13 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >sheepish or both. Insults, even fatuous ones, beget insults. It's all >really stupid though, isn't it? We should just try to get along. Well, JOF, as you admitted to having started the insults, feel free to stop. >> See how easy that is? > >Getting along's even easier. So when will you start trying to do so? Dennis > In article <4db7916e-a703-406a-82c8- > 4b14a983d...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, moss...@qnet.com says... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > thus being prohibited by law from gun possesion? So he had a friend get him one at a gun show, he borrowed his father- in-law's, or he stole the neighbor's. Obviously guns are too easy to obtain. > -"NEW YORK (AP) _ A police officer who wounded a toddler when he > -accidentally fired a shot through the floor of his Brooklyn apartment [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > sound familiar? If a trained police officer can make such a grevious error, obviously guns are way too dangerous to be owned by the average apartment dweller or any home owner for that matter within "accidental discharge" range of any other human beings. But you're right, he should probably be required to leave his firearm at work. I believe I've heard a few lucky "accidental discharge" stories on this very newsgroup. In article <5372f037-881b-4297-8c94-6c2fa3576ba6 @f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, mossman@qnet.com says... -On Feb 10, 10:33 am, crownfield <crownfi...@verizon.net> wrote: -> In article <4db7916e-a703-406a-82c8- -> 4b14a983d...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, moss...@qnet.com says... -> -On Feb 10, 1:48 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" -> -> -<Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: -> -> -Other gun news of the day: -> -> Greg, how many times during the same period -> were guns used to help and to protect? -> -> -"LOS ANGELES - The gunman who fatally shot a SWAT officer and three -> -members of his own family suffered from "significant mental health -> -problems" and had a juvenile criminal record, authorities said -> -Friday." -> -> thus being prohibited by law from gun possesion? - -So he had a friend get him one at a gun show, a felony. -he borrowed his father--in-law's, a felony -or he stole the neighbor's. a felony. -Obviously guns are too easy to -obtain. all three examples would be prooof that criminals do not follow laws. sound familiar? - -> -"NEW YORK (AP) _ A police officer who wounded a toddler when he -> -accidentally fired a shot through the floor of his Brooklyn apartment -> -was cleaning his gun in dim lighting because his electricity had been -> -turned off, according to his brother." -> -> "only the police should have guns because they are the professionals..". -> -> sound familiar? - -If a trained police officer can make such a grevious error, obviously -guns are way too dangerous to be owned by the average apartment -dweller or any home owner for that matter within "accidental -discharge" range of any other human beings. But you're right, he -should probably be required to leave his firearm at work. - -I believe I've heard a few lucky "accidental discharge" stories on -this very newsgroup. - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net -> thus being prohibited by law from gun possesion? - -So he had a friend get him one at a gun show, a felony. -he borrowed his father--in-law's, a felony -or he stole the neighbor's. a felony. -Obviously guns are too easy to -obtain. all three examples would be prooof that criminals do not follow laws. sound familiar? You're on a roll. Keep up the good work. Lee > -> thus being prohibited by law from gun possesion? > - [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > all three examples would be prooof > that criminals do not follow laws. Also proof that gun owners were irresponsible in securing their legal guns. sound familiar? You're on a roll. Keep up the good work. JF In article <d0265a13-fd64-46ff-bbbe-3d94b6f562f0 @e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, jofrancis@gmail.com says... -On Feb 10, 5:02 pm, "Lee Bell" <pleeb...@bellsouth.net> wrote: -> "crownfield" <crownfi...@verizon.net> wrote -> -> -> thus being prohibited by law from gun possesion? -> - -> -So he had a friend get him one at a gun show, -> -> a felony. -> -> -he borrowed his father--in-law's, -> -> a felony -> -> -or he stole the neighbor's. -> -> a felony. -> -> -Obviously guns are too easy to -> -obtain. -> -> all three examples would be prooof -> that criminals do not follow laws. - -Also proof that gun owners were irresponsible in securing their legal -guns. < ^ sound of a fool leaping to an illogical unfounded comclusion. > you ASSumed again, jof. - -sound familiar? - -You're on a roll. Keep up the good work. I know. too bad it is incomprehensible to you. - -JF - - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net > Also proof that gun owners were irresponsible in securing their legal > guns. No more irresponsible that you would be if your car was stolen at a mall's parking lot and killed someone in an accident... Even if you have a bank vault at home to store your firearms in, if someone wants to spend the time, they can get in there... All it takes is time and determination... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. >> Also proof that gun owners were irresponsible in securing their legal >> guns. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > vault at home to store your firearms in, if someone wants to spend the > time, they can get in there... All it takes is time and determination... Weapons get stolen from military and police armories- let's disarm them, quick! Signature"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." ~Jeff Snyder~ On Feb 10, 5:02 pm, "Lee Bell" <pleeb...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > "crownfield" <crownfi...@verizon.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > all three examples would be prooof > that criminals do not follow laws. Also proof that gun owners were irresponsible in securing their legal guns. Blame the victim- as usual. There is no evidence ("Proof!") above to validate your fantasy that the weapons were poorly secured. That's the kind of "proof" that you usually provide. sound familiar? Yeah- you need new material. You're on a roll. Keep up the good work. The only thing you hear rolling is that pea brain in your vacuous skull. Signature"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." ~Jeff Snyder~ > -Obviously guns are too easy to > -obtain. > > all three examples would be prooof > that criminals do not follow laws. Exactly. Since guns are obviously too easy to obtain, criminals can obviously easily obtain them. Since criminals obviously don't follow laws, I'd much rather have them unarmed. >"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message news:73ea947b-1c01-4491-902a-b0b2ac7bc9d4@1g2000hsl.googlegroups.com... >> -Obviously guns are too easy to >> -obtain. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >obviously easily obtain them. Since criminals obviously don't follow >laws, I'd much rather have them unarmed. So why do you think they'd be unarmed? Do you honestly believe that drug laws stop the sale of illegal drugs? That they cannot be obtained? :-) SignatureSupport the Writers! On Feb 10, 4:10 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > >"Greg Mossman" <moss...@qnet.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > they cannot be obtained? > :-) So you believe that when the criminals can't get guns, they'll get drugs instead and try to drug their victims into submission? Maybe. Still, I'd prefer them with drugs over being armed. I simply can't fathom drive-by druggings, or some criminal using drugs to knock off a 7-11. On Feb 10, 4:10 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > >"Greg Mossman" <moss...@qnet.com> wrote in message > > news:73ea947b-1c01-4491-902a-b0b2ac7bc9d4@1g2000hsl.googlegroups.com... <snip> >> >Exactly. Since guns are obviously too easy to obtain, criminals can >> >obviously easily obtain them. Since criminals obviously don't follow [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> they cannot be obtained? >> :-) >So you believe that when the criminals can't get guns, they'll get >drugs instead and try to drug their victims into submission? Maybe. >Still, I'd prefer them with drugs over being armed. I simply can't >fathom drive-by druggings, or some criminal using drugs to knock off a >7-11. Uhm,....no. Perhaps the smiley threw you off. I was attacking your presumption that merely because there might be a law prohibiting someone from ownng/possessing some item, does not mean that item will be unobtainable. Review the Prohibition era 1920 to 1933, then ask yourself - was alcohol unobtainable? Take a look at the current drug laws - take your pick - cocaine, marijuana, crystal meth, then ask yourself, are these unobtainable? So, to repeat my questions: Why do you think the criminals would be unarmed? Do you honestly believe that drug laws stop the sale of illegal drugs? That they cannot be obtained? Dennis On Feb 10, 5:15 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > So, to repeat my questions: > Why do you think the criminals would be unarmed? > Do you honestly believe that drug laws stop the sale of illegal drugs? That > they cannot be obtained? I dunno. I went to a gun store and they had lots of guns for sale. I went to a drug store and for some reason they don't have heroin or cocaine for sale. Weird, huh? I guess those drugs laws must do some good. >On Feb 10, 5:15 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Do you honestly believe that drug laws stop the sale of illegal drugs? That >> they cannot be obtained? >I dunno. I went to a gun store and they had lots of guns for sale. I >went to a drug store and for some reason they don't have heroin or >cocaine for sale. Weird, huh? I guess those drugs laws must do some >good. You rcontentionw as that crooks would be unarmed because you think guns would be unavailable because they're illegal. My counter to that is that controlled substances like cocaine, heroin, etc are also illegal, and yet can be obtained. Take a look at these statistics. http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k5State/California.htm Dennis >>On Feb 10, 5:15 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> >>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Dennis <snicker> "There are -no- terrorists in Iraq" -Greg Mossman Signature"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." ~Jeff Snyder~ > > "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message news:ba1d0280-35ed-4c24-a31b-3d4a1d6ed548@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > >>On Feb 10, 5:15 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > >>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > "There are -no- terrorists in Iraq" -Greg Mossman Well, he's never met one, therefore they don't exist. So the problem where you couldn't see my messages is evidently resolved - what was the problem? Dennis >> > "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message >> > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Dennis I haven't done diddly- Were you posting from work? Signature"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." ~Jeff Snyder~ <snip> > >> <snicker> > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Were you posting from work? Nope - glad the problem's resolved itself. Dennis In article <ba1d0280-35ed-4c24-a31b-3d4a1d6ed548 @i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, mossman@qnet.com says... -On Feb 10, 5:15 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> -wrote: - -> So, to repeat my questions: -> Why do you think the criminals would be unarmed? -> Do you honestly believe that drug laws stop the sale of illegal drugs? That -> they cannot be obtained? - -I dunno. I went to a gun store and they had lots of guns for sale. I -went to a drug store and for some reason they don't have heroin or -cocaine for sale. Weird, huh? I guess those drugs laws must do some -good. sheer intellectual dishonesty! not responsive. not relevant. facts not in evidence. - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net > On Feb 10, 5:15 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > cocaine for sale. Weird, huh? I guess those drugs laws must do some > good. But you can go to nearly any city in the US and buy Heroin, cocaine, or a firearm on the street. Not legally, of course, and you generally have to pay cash... 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 In article <73ea947b-1c01-4491-902a-b0b2ac7bc9d4@ 1g2000hsl.googlegroups.com>, mossman@qnet.com says... -On Feb 10, 1:26 pm, crownfield <crownfi...@verizon.net> wrote: - -> -Obviously guns are too easy to -> -obtain. -> -> all three examples would be prooof -> that criminals do not follow laws. - -Exactly. Since guns are obviously too easy to obtain, criminals can -obviously easily obtain them. Since criminals obviously don't follow -laws, I'd much rather have them unarmed. WE ALL AGREE *********************************************** !! go unarm them !! stop picking on the good guys. the trouble with those would would make laws is the idiotic way they ignore what they are doing, and the effect that it has on their target problem, and on law abiding citizens. SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net On Feb 10, 1:26 pm, crownfield <crownfi...@verizon.net> wrote: > -Obviously guns are too easy to > -obtain. > > all three examples would be prooof > that criminals do not follow laws. Exactly. Since guns are obviously too easy to obtain, criminals can obviously easily obtain them. Since criminals obviously don't follow laws, I'd much rather have them unarmed. But you can't. Signature"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." ~Jeff Snyder~ > sound familiar? > crownfield@verizon.net How many me toos got off today on blued steel and the smell of gunpowder? That's the real question for the ootem party platform. - -"crownfield" <crownfield@verizon.net> wrote in message -news:MPG.22190d777695b8ff9897a7@news.verizon.net... - -> sound familiar? -> crownfield@verizon.net - -How many me toos got off today on blued steel and the smell of gunpowder? -That's the real question for the ootem party platform. - Ewe, kennybenny, the sheepish butt of the joke: I have not yet seen a me too in this thread except yours. - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net > In article <QYWdnVlTetbp_DLanZ2dnUVZ_sakn...@centurytel.net>, > No...@Way.Bite.Me says... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I have not yet seen a me too in this thread > except yours. Doesn't Lee's "you're on a roll" comment count? > How many me toos got off today on blued steel and the smell of gunpowder? > That's the real question for the ootem party platform. It would be the question if you weren't so ignorant. I had a great day shooting. one of the guns I shot is stainless. Another has a polymer frame and a coated steel slide. The coating is black, not blue. The third, my carry gun, is polymer with a stainless slide that is also coated black. No blued involved in any of them. Most that I shoot with save money by reloading, or using reloads made by someone else. One of the signs of reloading properly is that there is no smoke and no smell of gunpowder. Nobody that shot with me today, or last Thursday, got off on blued steel or gunpowder. We did, however, have a very good time shooting. There were about 60 of us at the range. Each of us fired something around 200 rounds. Nobody was killed, nobody was even hurt, and nobody's property was destroyed. Imagine that. Lee > On Feb 10, 1:48 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > shooting spree at a City Council meeting that left five people dead > and the mayor fighting for his life." I knew the woman that was killed. Killed by a black man who had been disrepected by city hall. Over $1500 in parking tickets that the city of kirkwood was going to dismiss, but he was disrespected. Too bad that besides the two armed policeman that he got a chickenshit drop on that other attendees were not armed. He was stopped and killed by a third policeman > I knew the woman that was killed. Killed by a black man who had been > disrepected by city hall. Over $1500 in parking tickets that the city > of kirkwood was going to dismiss, but he was disrespected. Too bad that > besides the two armed policeman that he got a chickenshit drop on that > other attendees were not armed. He was stopped and killed by a third > policeman Of course had the "black man" not been armed, he probably would have yelled a lot, maybe torn up the tickets in a fit of anger. That wouldn't have done very much, other than getting him a ticket for littering if he threw the tickets on the ground. Fortunately for him, guns are very easy to obtain, so he got a gun and went on a shooting spree instead. Much more effective way of getting your point across, don't you think? >>I knew the woman that was killed. Killed by a black man who had been >>disrepected by city hall. Over $1500 in parking tickets that the city [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > spree instead. Much more effective way of getting your point across, > don't you think? No. And actually it is pretty amazing how the black residents, and his family members jusify the killings, because he was at war. He walked up to a policeman outside the building, shot him in cold blood, took his gun, walked up to a policeman inside, who was unaware wha happened outside, and shot him without warning. Then opened fire in they city council meeting. Some of those in attendance threw chairs and whatever else they could find to try and stop him, while he continued to fire and kill people. He was killed by a third officer. Too bad some of the attendees were not armed, they may have stopped the massacre without so many being killed > And actually it is pretty amazing how the black residents, and his > family members jusify the killings, because he was at war. He walked up [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > attendees were not armed, they may have stopped the massacre without so > many being killed Did he at least kill a couple of lawyers so that we can classify the rest of the dead as "acceptable collateral damages"? SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. >>And actually it is pretty amazing how the black residents, and his >>family members jusify the killings, because he was at war. He walked up [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Did he at least kill a couple of lawyers so that we can classify the rest > of the dead as "acceptable collateral damages"? unfortunately, No > unfortunately, No Bummer... Poor planning on his part then... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. >>unfortunately, No > > Bummer... Poor planning on his part then... I don't think teh lawyers had arrived yet - some here might think it was a conspiracy > >>I knew the woman that was killed. Killed by a black man who had been > >>disrepected by city hall. Over $1500 in parking tickets that the city [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > attendees were not armed, they may have stopped the massacre without so > many being killed- But weren't the first two cops armed? I guess the trick in yer whole guns-for-safety premise is that the bad guy's supposed to give the intended victim a warning, as you put it above - "and shot him without warning". So is "and shot him in cold blood" kinda like "without warning", where the crook sneaks up on the unsuspecting victim and whacks him or her? Where does using the gun for self defence come into this again? Do some of your civilian superguns have little crook beepers built in to warn you when yer in danger? Why don't they arm the cops with them as well? JF >"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message news:553af14e-498e-42be-8e86-e53575df3867@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > >>I knew the woman that was killed. Killed by a black man who had been > >>disrepected by city hall. Over $1500 in parking tickets that the city [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> attendees were not armed, they may have stopped the massacre without so >> many being killed- >But weren't the first two cops armed? I guess the trick in yer whole >guns-for-safety premise is that the bad guy's supposed to give the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >beepers built in to warn you when yer in danger? Why don't they arm >the cops with them as well? It's called "situational awareness". People do make mistakes though. I'm sure you saw how well folks just relyng on whatever was at hand worked out. IIRCthat's your policy, right? How was the kille stopped? a) by the folks throwing chairs (whatever was at hand) b) by a police armed with...a..gun. Dennis JF On Feb 10, 9:53 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > >"JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > a) by the folks throwing chairs (whatever was at hand) > b) by a police armed with...a..gun. Ah, by a police officer. Does that sound familiar to you? JF On Feb 10, 9:53 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > >"JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message <snip> >> It's called "situational awareness". People do make mistakes though. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Ah, by a police officer. Does that sound familiar to you? I've never advocated disarming police. But yes, it does - folks were slaughtered like sheep (sound familiar?) waiting for a cop to come to their rescue because they could not adequately defend themselves. Sound familiar? Dennis In article <a7a2a4a7-8df2-413f-bcd6-cdd0cfb27d82 @c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, jofrancis@gmail.com says... -On Feb 10, 9:53 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> -wrote: -> >"JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message -> -> news:553af14e-498e-42be-8e86-e53575df3867@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com... -> -> -> -> -> -> >On Feb 10, 8:26 pm, Joe English <t...@temp.com> wrote: -> >> Greg Mossman wrote: -> >> > On Feb 10, 1:31 pm, Joe English <t...@temp.com> wrote: -> -> I'm sure you saw how well folks just relyng on whatever was at hand worked -> out. IIRCthat's your policy, right? -> How was the kille stopped? -> a) by the folks throwing chairs (whatever was at hand) -> b) by a police armed with...a..gun. - -Ah, by a police officer. Does that sound familiar to you? yes, it does. in this small case, stats: cops 2 dead 1 saved the day analysis: 1: cops failed to protect 66% of the time. conclusions: 1: A gun saved the day. guns work, 2: cops can not always solve the problem in time to prevent loss of life. - -JF - - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net > In article <a7a2a4a7-8df2-413f-bcd6-cdd0cfb27d82 > @c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, jofran...@gmail.com says... [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > 1: A gun saved the day. guns work, Actually, one out three guns work for cops. > 2: cops can not always solve the problem > in time to prevent loss of life. ....... but an armed civilian will naturally do a better job than 3 trained cops. Are you as good as Lee claims to be with a gun? Do you enter combat competitions too? Are your reactions so lightning fast that you can draw and fire a holstered gun quicker than a bad guy can fire a gun already in hand? That's very quick. JF On Feb 11, 11:51 am, crownfield <crownfi...@verizon.net> wrote: > In article <a7a2a4a7-8df2-413f-bcd6-cdd0cfb27d82 > @c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, jofran...@gmail.com says... [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > 1: A gun saved the day. guns work, Actually, one out three guns work for cops. > 2: cops can not always solve the problem > in time to prevent loss of life. ....... but an armed civilian will naturally do a better job than 3 trained cops. There you go again, chanting your lie. Are you as good as Lee claims to be with a gun? Do you enter combat competitions too? Are your reactions so lightning fast that you can draw and fire a holstered gun quicker than a bad guy can fire a gun already in hand? That's very quick. No, but, like the Church Lady, I can draw after I hear gunfire. Even then, there's no guarantee. You, however, can only wait your turn, and hope you get shot before you have to watch your wife die. JF Signature"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." ~Jeff Snyder~ On Feb 11, 3:09 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > On Feb 11, 11:51 am, crownfield <crownfi...@verizon.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > You, however, can only wait your turn, and hope you get shot before you > have to watch your wife die. Hey. You have no idea how quick and deadly I am with a hockey stick or golf club. As for my wife, she's smart enough not to get caught in some lowbrow neighbourhood like the people you use as examples. JF On Feb 11, 3:09 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > ....... but an armed civilian will naturally do a better job than 3 > trained cops. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You, however, can only wait your turn, and hope you get shot before you > have to watch your wife die. Hey. You have no idea how quick and deadly I am with a hockey stick or golf club. As for my wife, she's smart enough not to get caught in some lowbrow neighbourhood like the people you use as examples. There you go again, with a cowardly obfuscation. You just can't face or debate facts. The last several shootings we've discussed were in a school, a mall, a church, and in a town hall. You just told a good old Futile John Francis lie, because you're a coward, and you can't debate the few flimsy points your argument might actually offer. And -THAT'S- why people here call you a coward and a sheep, no matter how many times you chant that it's because you don't carry. You're a scumbag by any measure. Signature"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." ~Jeff Snyder~ > Hey. You have no idea how quick and deadly I am with a hockey stick or > golf club. As for my wife, she's smart enough not to get caught in > some lowbrow neighbourhood like the people you use as examples. You carry a hockey stick or golf club to city council meetings? You consider city council meetings "lowbrow neighbourhoods?" Lee >> Hey. You have no idea how quick and deadly I am with a hockey stick or >> golf club. As for my wife, she's smart enough not to get caught in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Lee Maybe their trousers weren't expensive enough. Signature-- Not a claim, merely an observation, Joe. Can you honestly say that in these discussions your ego hasn't swelled even a little with renewed pride over the superiority your guns provide over lesser mortals? -JOF Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com On Feb 12, 11:51 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > >> Hey. You have no idea how quick and deadly I am with a hockey stick or > >> golf club. As for my wife, she's smart enough not to get caught in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Maybe their trousers weren't expensive enough. Well, it's doubtful any of the aldermen have ever attended dressed in Carhartts or Dickies. JF > > Hey. You have no idea how quick and deadly I am with a hockey stick or > > golf club. As for my wife, she's smart enough not to get caught in > > some lowbrow neighbourhood like the people you use as examples. > > You carry a hockey stick or golf club to city council meetings? Ironically, I can only remember going to one City Council meeting, and that was to have our hockey team (10 year olds) recognized for winning a major championship. We did in fact carry a few hockey sticks for the photos that were to be taken afterwards for the paper. But I can't say I've ever taken a golf club. > You consider city council meetings "lowbrow neighbourhoods?" Given the low esteem with which you seem to hold politicians I'd say you concur. And, practically speaking, City Hall, at least in our town, is right smack in the middle of downtown and surrounded by bars that attract a rowdy element of society we tend to avoid. So I suppose one could say that in our town Council meetings are a lowbrow neighbourhood. On Feb 12, 8:31 am, "Lee Bell" <pleeb...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > Hey. You have no idea how quick and deadly I am with a hockey stick or > > golf club. As for my wife, she's smart enough not to get caught in > > some lowbrow neighbourhood like the people you use as examples. > You consider city council meetings "lowbrow neighbourhoods?" Given the low esteem with which you seem to hold politicians I'd say you concur. And, practically speaking, City Hall, at least in our town, is right smack in the middle of downtown and surrounded by bars that attract a rowdy element of society we tend to avoid. So I suppose one could say that in our town Council meetings are a lowbrow neighbourhood. That's a typical sliding dodge from that lie you told (and the usual unanswered post that you'll later deny), But I can work with it. So what you're saying is, in your über free and über safe country, your wife can't even safely access her own town government in a little hovel (pop 27K) like Stratford? Wow. Doesn't say much for the local constabulary you count on for protection, either, the downtown area being over run w/ "rowdies". "It's not |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message