 |
 | 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 2008So much for no shooting on military bases
http://www.koco.com/news/15405413/detail.html > http://www.koco.com/news/15405413/detail.html pity the 4 year old hadn't done "Guns for pre schoolers 101" >>http://www.koco.com/news/15405413/detail.html > > pity the 4 year old hadn't done "Guns for pre schoolers 101" while you say that in jest (:-)) I don't find much humor in it. Gun ownership and usage is a serious and too often without proper training ends tragically. While children need to be taught proper gun handling, just as we teach them about other dangers in our society (water, traffic, electricity, poisons, etc) Guns for pre schoolers 101 is not funny > >>http://www.koco.com/news/15405413/detail.html > > > > pity the 4 year old hadn't done "Guns for pre schoolers 101" What a pity you are such a spineless cuntbubble. > while you say that in jest (:-)) I don't find much humor in it. Gun > ownership and usage is a serious and too often without proper training [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > them about other dangers in our society (water, traffic, electricity, > poisons, etc) Guns for pre schoolers 101 is not funny. My kids both had fired guns at age 3, and grew up with them. Never an accident, never a missuse, never a law broken. Maybe they put stupid powder in the water down there... >> >>http://www.koco.com/news/15405413/detail.html >> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > My kids both had fired guns at age 3, and grew up with them. mine kids have grown up with and used guns just as they have with motor bikes, tractors, chain saws but they see these things as the tools they are not as some extension of their clitoris. So what. > Never an accident, never a missuse, never a law broken. > > Maybe they put stupid powder in the water down there... >>>http://www.koco.com/news/15405413/detail.html >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > them about other dangers in our society (water, traffic, electricity, > poisons, etc) Guns for pre schoolers 101 is not funny I agree totally with the education aspect, my kids have been taught to use any tools around the farm properly, safely and learn how to maintain them. The point I was trying to make was that every time there is multiple shooting you are certain to get a post on this ng of " if only the victim/everybody had been armed than this tragedy wouldn't of happened". This obvious result of arming all possible victims would be for this 4 yo to be carrying. >>>>http://www.koco.com/news/15405413/detail.html >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > This obvious result of arming all possible victims would be for this 4 yo to > be carrying. i know what your point was and it was stupid >>>>>http://www.koco.com/news/15405413/detail.html >>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> to be carrying. > i know what your point was and it was stupid It is the logical result of arguments put forward by certain people on this ng >>>>>>http://www.koco.com/news/15405413/detail.html >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > It is the logical result of arguments put forward by certain people on this > ng wow! That's a leap. Logical Result???? >>>>>>>http://www.koco.com/news/15405413/detail.html >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> this ng > wow! That's a leap. Logical Result???? more gun deaths in America. If everybody needs guns to defend themselves than everybody should have guns, isn't this Grummans attitude? Why should somebody's age not allow them to be able to defend themself. Come on if this 4 year old had the right training and was carrying he wouldn't be dead today >>>>>>>>http://www.koco.com/news/15405413/detail.html >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > to be able to defend themself. Come on if this 4 year old had the right > training and was carrying he wouldn't be dead today I guess Jim White was right - you just can't fix stupid >>>>>>>>>http://www.koco.com/news/15405413/detail.html >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > I guess Jim White was right - you just can't fix stupid good debating point. Do we assume you can't debate the points raised? >>>>>>>>>>http://www.koco.com/news/15405413/detail.html >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > good debating point. Do we assume you can't debate the points raised? I did - you can't fix stupid (I tried) There were no points to debate just stupid remarks >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.koco.com/news/15405413/detail.html >>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > I did - you can't fix stupid (I tried) That is an obvious NO > There were no points to debate just stupid remarks runaway little boy pity your NRA manual can't answer the points raised > "Joe English" <joe2aenglish@wisperhome.com> wrote in message >>> It is the logical result of arguments put forward by certain people on >>> this ng [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > them to be able to defend themself. Come on if this 4 year old had the > right training and was carrying he wouldn't be dead today No one says that except your hero Futile John. Nice of you to run along behind him and Yesman it, though.  Signature-- A skilled, armed man lives on a plane of security and contentment different from that of others. The man who cannot cut it, envies, fears and sometimes hates the man who can. -Cooper Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com >> "Joe English" <joe2aenglish@wisperhome.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > No one says that except your hero Futile John. sorry are you now saying that people shouldn't have the right to protect themselves with guns or they can? If so at what age should they have this right and why? > Nice of you to run along behind him and Yesman it, though. come on Popeye justify yourself don't have your bumbuddies do it for you ( actually they probably do ) >>> "Joe English" <joe2aenglish@wisperhome.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > themselves with guns or they can? If so at what age should they have this > right and why? That's not what you said was said. And that's not what we said. >> Nice of you to run along behind him and Yesman it, though. > > come on Popeye justify yourself don't have your bumbuddies do it for you This isn't Australia. Everyone doesn't have a "bumbuddy". But you're back to mentioning it several times a day. Signature-- A skilled, armed man lives on a plane of security and contentment different from that of others. The man who cannot cut it, envies, fears and sometimes hates the man who can. -Cooper Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com >>>> "Joe English" <joe2aenglish@wisperhome.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > And that's not what we said. At what age should you be able to carry a gun to defend yourself? >>> Nice of you to run along behind him and Yesman it, though. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Everyone doesn't have a "bumbuddy". so you are one of the lucky ones > But you're back to mentioning it several times a day. your bumbuddies? >>>>>"Joe English" <joe2aenglish@wisperhome.com> wrote in message >>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > At what age should you be able to carry a gun to defend yourself? When you are responsible enough, that age may vary. Here in the states - at least most states the generally accepted age is 21. Some are responsible enough before that age, some are not >>>> Nice of you to run along behind him and Yesman it, though. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > so you are one of the lucky o >> But you're back to mentioning it several times a day. > > your bumbuddies? >>>>>>"Joe English" <joe2aenglish@wisperhome.com> wrote in message >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > at least most states the generally accepted age is 21. Some are > responsible enough before that age, some are not That's a worry so if you are under 21 you don't have the right to defend yourself > >>>>>>"Joe English" <joe2aenglish@wisperhome.com> wrote in message > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > That's a worry so if you are under 21 you don't have the right to defend > yourself Incorrect, but you knew that (or maybe you didn't). Dennis > in >> >> message news:13schklil2qrk8a@news.supernews.com... [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Incorrect, but you knew that (or maybe you didn't). sorry I meant with a gun > > in > >> >> message news:13schklil2qrk8a@news.supernews.com... [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > sorry I meant with a gun sorry, but you're still incorrect. You probably won't understand why though. >> >> >> "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> > wrote [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > You probably won't understand why though. try me I snipped a lot cause it has nothing to do with slick new item - I wouldn't want it but some one might find it helpful especially those walks to the dangerous town halls! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99NHb6B03s > I snipped a lot cause it has nothing to do with slick new item - I > wouldn't want it but some one might find it helpful especially those walks > to the dangerous town halls! > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99NHb6B03s that's cool, it could fit in your kids lunchbox >>I snipped a lot cause it has nothing to do with slick new item - I >>wouldn't want it but some one might find it helpful especially those walks [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > that's cool, it could fit in your kids lunchbox It might but you wouldn't find it in my kids lunch box, My children have been taugh responsible gun ownership, and safety, YMMV >>>I snipped a lot cause it has nothing to do with slick new item - I >>>wouldn't want it but some one might find it helpful especially those [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It might but you wouldn't find it in my kids lunch box, My children have > been taugh responsible gun ownership, and safety, YMMV As it should be with any tool they use. > > in > >> >> message news:13schklil2qrk8a@news.supernews.com... [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > sorry I meant with a gun No worries - still wrong though. Peruse the archives of the Armed Citizen. Now, if you point is that folks below a certain age are mot eligible to carry firearms....yes..that;s true, much like folks have to be a certain age to drive on public roads. purchase alcohol or tobacco, etc. Has nothing to do with not having the right to defend oneself with a gun though. Kids have successfully defended themselves with firearms from folks breaking into their homes. Again, check the archives. Dennis Denns >> >> >> "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> > wrote [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > successfully defended themselves with firearms from folks breaking into > their homes. Again, check the archives. My point exactly why didn't this 4 year old have access to, and the proper training to use a gund to defend himself > My point exactly why didn't this 4 year old have access to, and the proper > training to use a gund to defend himself Obviously it was due to poor parenting... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. >> My point exactly why didn't this 4 year old have access to, and the >> proper >> training to use a gund to defend himself > > Obviously it was due to poor parenting... not wrong > >> >> >> "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> > > wrote [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > My point exactly why didn't this 4 year old have access to, and the proper > training to use a gund to defend himself Uhmmm....because......the......kid......was.........four. Why not ask why the kid wasn't employed, with a car and apartment? Dennis > Uhmmm....because......the......kid......was.........four. > Why not ask why the kid wasn't employed, with a car and apartment? You have to try and understand that the poor sot thinks he is being clever. >> Uhmmm....because......the......kid......was.........four. > >> Why not ask why the kid wasn't employed, with a car and apartment? > >You have to try and understand that the poor sot thinks he is being clever. I was deprived, I had to wait until I was 8 before I got my first .22 Course that was also when we moved out to the country instead of in the city. > I was deprived, I had to wait until I was 8 before I got my first .22 > Course that was also when we moved out to the country instead of in > the city. I had to mow lawns and deliver papers to save the money to buy my first rifle. You know, all that work Americans are too lazy to do. >>>>>>>"Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> >> [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > My point exactly why didn't this 4 year old have access to, and the proper > training to use a gund to defend himself he very well might have had proper training, might not been able to have a gund(sic) where he was. In reality the remark "My point exactly why didn't this 4 year old have access to, and the proper training to use a gund to defend himself" is really stupid, and has no place in the converstion - but we leave to the ignorant to keep making such stupid remarks > he very well might have had proper training, might not been able to have > a gund(sic) where he was. In reality the remark "My point exactly why > didn't this 4 year old have access to, and the proper training to use a > gund to defend himself" is really stupid, and has no place in the > converstion - but we leave to the ignorant to keep making such stupid > remarks. Between upchuck and Anus they have ignorant and stupid pretty well defined. They do a good job with bigotry as well. >>>>>>>>"Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> >>> [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > converstion - but we leave to the ignorant to keep making such stupid > remarks it of course just taking the "right to bear arms to defend oneself" to it's ultimate conclusion. You have the "right" to bear arms to defend yourself in freedom loving America as long as you fit certain criteria. So the right to bear arms by Americans is a privilege granted by your legislators not an intrinsic right granted by your constitution. > it of course just taking the "right to bear arms to defend oneself" to > it's ultimate conclusion. You have the "right" to bear arms to defend > yourself in freedom loving America as long as you fit certain criteria. So > the right to bear arms by Americans is a privilege granted by your > legislators not an intrinsic right granted by your constitution. The right to bear arms is not granted by our constitution, it is a natural born right that all free men have and as such, no government can grant or revoke that right. To say otherwise is to deem it a 'priviledge', not a 'right'. SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. >> it of course just taking the "right to bear arms to defend oneself" to >> it's ultimate conclusion. You have the "right" to bear arms to defend [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > revoke that right. To say otherwise is to deem it a 'priviledge', not a > 'right'. but that right has been revoked for certain people by the legislator. > but that right has been revoked for certain people by the legislator. Rights cannot be revoked... They can be usurped, but not revoked... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. >>>it of course just taking the "right to bear arms to defend oneself" to >>>it's ultimate conclusion. You have the "right" to bear arms to defend [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > but that right has been revoked for certain people by the legislator. not to be picky - just a slight misuse - it is legislature - legislator is one person (please forgive me dechucka - for pointing out - there was no disrespect intended) Yes some have had their right to keep/own a gun revoked. These are typically convicted felons. I don't have a problem with revoking the right to own a gun for those that have a propensity to commit a crime or those that use a gun in any criminal activity. Some here would not agree with my belief - I can live (I hope) with that. I think one of our major problems here is that the criminals will always have guns and access to them, gun control only takes guns away from law-abiding citizens. While local governments have had gun buy backs it does little or nothing to remove guns from our streets and from criminals, although those government agency tout huge successes > Yes some have had their right to keep/own a gun revoked. These are > typically convicted felons. I don't have a problem with revoking the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > or nothing to remove guns from our streets and from criminals, although > those government agency tout huge successes. It was a success; They bought lots of guns. Didn't put a decimal of a percent dent in violent crime, or criminal possession/use of firearms, but they did in fact buy some guns. >>>>it of course just taking the "right to bear arms to defend oneself" to >>>>it's ultimate conclusion. You have the "right" to bear arms to defend [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > one person (please forgive me dechucka - for pointing out - there was no > disrespect intended) none taken we don't call it that over here so thanks for the heads up > Yes some have had their right to keep/own a gun revoked. These are > typically convicted felons. I don't have a problem with revoking the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > remove guns from our streets and from criminals, although those government > agency tout huge successes As I have said before I believe that the US is so awash with guns and has such a gun culture that little can be done. What amazes me is some people on this ng cannot see the consequences of a country awash with guns. Interesting I find Grumman's argument a much more honest one even if it is extreme. In article <47c9f296$0$23634$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader- 01.iinet.net.au>, dechucka@vomithotmail.com says... -As I have said before I believe that the US is so awash with guns and has -such a gun culture that little can be done. What amazes me is some people on -this ng cannot see the consequences of a country awash with guns. - a comparison between dui, illegal gun violence, and legal gun violence would show... - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net > In article <47c9f296$0$23634$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader- > 01.iinet.net.au>, dechucka@vomithotmail.com says... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a comparison between dui, illegal gun violence, > and legal gun violence would show... overall the US has a huge amount of gun violence. Not because guns are innately evil but because the country is awash with them. Are there laws that could change this probably not although I find things like no background check on guns purchased from gunshots a bit strange, how can you keep those guns out the criminals and the mad in that situation >>In article <47c9f296$0$23634$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader- >>01.iinet.net.au>, dechucka@vomithotmail.com says... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > background check on guns purchased from gunshots a bit strange, how can you > keep those guns out the criminals and the mad in that situation it isn't so much we have so many guns - we don't prosecute the offenders near tough enough. There is a myriad of problems - few because of the number of guns - we have so many gun laws they are not enforced tough enough - most of the progun people here believe in tough - very tough punishment for offenders when guns or weapons are involved >>>In article <47c9f296$0$23634$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader- >>>01.iinet.net.au>, dechucka@vomithotmail.com says... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > it isn't so much we have so many guns - we don't prosecute the offenders > near tough enough. You currently have the worlds highest prision population per capita I beleive. Did I read recently that 1 in 100 adult males were in prision. Seems that putting more people in prision or more severe punishments don't work very well There is a myriad of problems - few because of the > number of guns - we have so many gun laws they are not enforced tough > enough - most of the progun people here believe in tough - very tough > punishment for offenders when guns or weapons are involved but by than in many cases it is to late. You are treating the effect not the cause. Can the cause be treated? probably not in the US situation >>>>In article <47c9f296$0$23634$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader- >>>>01.iinet.net.au>, dechucka@vomithotmail.com says... [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Seems that putting more people in prision or more severe punishments don't > work very well Yes - 1 in 100 adults in prison - it ain't working > There is a myriad of problems - few because of the > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > but by than in many cases it is to late. You are treating the effect not the > cause. Can the cause be treated? Sure start prosecuting the guilty now - not ten years from now - not with slaps on the wrist. If you'll go back thru the history of this ng there are many effective ways mentioned to curb our violence without infringing on the God Given rights of the free man probably not in the US situation > Yes - 1 in 100 adults in prison - it ain't working Part of the issue is that we create more laws and as such, people are violating subject to prison time for laws that didn't used to exist... Part of the issue is the longer mandatory sentences that the judges are forced to hand down... Part of the issue is the belief sets of a certain element of our society (descendents of our pre-1865 guest worker program) who glamorize criminal behavior in their music and 'culture'... Part of the issue is with the young kids today who are stupid enough to immitate the current 'culture' of the descendents of our pre-1865 guest worker program... On the other hand, every crook killed while committing his crime does not increase the prison population... Thus, to decrease the rate of prison population, one solution would be for more citizens to be armed and willing to enact swift and true justice where appropriate... Some things are worth killing someone over, some things are not... Preventing a robbery, killing, burglary -- yeah, easy choice... Some punk smoking some weed on the street corner -- not worth the cost of the bullet... Some punk trying to get my daughter hooked on drugs -- definitely... After dragging him a couple of miles behind my truck with a chain wrapped around his legs, of course... Some gangbanger trying to "mark his territory" by spraypainting gang markings on the side of a building -- definitely... But I promise that I'll just use a 12-gauge and I'll *try* to just hit the spay can... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. In article <47c9fecf$0$23665$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader- 01.iinet.net.au>, dechucka@vomithotmail.com says... - -"crownfield" <crownfield@verizon.net> wrote in message -news:MPG.2233c4039ba3b098982d@news.verizon.net... -> In article <47c9f296$0$23634$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader- -> 01.iinet.net.au>, dechucka@vomithotmail.com says... -> -> -As I have said before I believe that the US is so awash with guns and has -> -such a gun culture that little can be done. What amazes me is some people -> on -> -this ng cannot see the consequences of a country awash with guns. -> - -> -> a comparison between dui, illegal gun violence, -> and legal gun violence would show... - -overall the US has a huge amount of gun violence. Not because guns are -innately evil but because the country is awash with them. Are there laws -that could change this probably not although I find things like no -background check on guns purchased from gunshots a bit strange, how can you -keep those guns out the criminals and the mad in that situation not responsive... - - - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net >>>>>it of course just taking the "right to bear arms to defend oneself" to >>>>>it's ultimate conclusion. You have the "right" to bear arms to defend [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Interesting I find Grumman's argument a much more honest one even if it is > extreme. he is what he is <snip> > > he very well might have had proper training, might not been able to have a > > gund(sic) where he was. In reality the remark "My point exactly why [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > bear arms by Americans is a privilege granted by your legislators not an > intrinsic right granted by your constitution. And once again......incorrect. Dennis > <snip> >> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > And once again......incorrect. so why doesn't everybody have the right to bear arms, any arms they want? >><snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > so why doesn't everybody have the right to bear arms, any arms they want? our constitution > > <snip> > >> > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > so why doesn't everybody have the right to bear arms, any arms they want? Let's take a look at the second http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/ 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. Now, let's take a look at the first http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. So, is it your contention, using the same reasonoing as above, that people do not have freedom of speech as a right but is instead a privilege? Now, supreme courts have been interrpeting the constitution for some time. Remember though....Plessy v Ferguson, the court ruled that separate but equal as just fine. Brown v Board of education, the court decided differently. In the Kelo decision, they decided that taking away private property from one person to another was ok, so long as the other person would increase the value, and hence raise the tax base...was just dandy. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/ As to why folks don't...well..it's part of the 20,000+ compromises made with the gun-control advocates (and they still want more) Dennis > As to why folks don't...well..it's part of the 20,000+ compromises made with > the (and they still want more) Use of the term "gun-control advocates" in this instance is particularly specious. Hoplophobes don't want anything less than confiscation. >> As to why folks don't...well..it's part of the 20,000+ compromises made > with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Hoplophobes don't want anything less than confiscation. have all these Holo***** words made it into mainstream English. >>>>The point I was trying to make was that every time there is multiple >>>>shooting you are certain to get a post on this ng of " if only the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> this ng > wow! That's a leap. Logical Result???? See David scurry. Signature-- A skilled, armed man lives on a plane of security and contentment different from that of others. The man who cannot cut it, envies, fears and sometimes hates the man who can. -Cooper Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com >>>>>The point I was trying to make was that every time there is multiple >>>>>shooting you are certain to get a post on this ng of " if only the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > See David scurry. see dechucka post now is that up to your reading level? what about your comprehension level >>>>>>The point I was trying to make was that every time there is multiple >>>>>>shooting you are certain to get a post on this ng of " if only the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > now is that up to your reading level? what about your comprehension level Dance all you want. Your Yesman Futile John wild exaggerations are posted directly above. "This obvious result of arming all possible victims would be for this 4 yo to be carrying." -Yesman Dave. Signature-- A skilled, armed man lives on a plane of security and contentment different from that of others. The man who cannot cut it, envies, fears and sometimes hates the man who can. -Cooper Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com >>>>>>>The point I was trying to make was that every time there is multiple >>>>>>>shooting you are certain to get a post on this ng of " if only the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Dance all you want. Lets get down to the point of my original post. At what age do you think people should be able to carry weapons to defend themselves? >>>>>>>>The point I was trying to make was that every time there is multiple >>>>>>>>shooting you are certain to get a post on this ng of " if only the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Lets get down to the point of my original post. At what age do you think > people should be able to carry weapons to defend themselves? I don't remember any such post. Just your usual AA derisiveness. You show it to me, and I'll answer it. Signature-- A skilled, armed man lives on a plane of security and contentment different from that of others. The man who cannot cut it, envies, fears and sometimes hates the man who can. -Cooper Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com > "dechucka" <dechucka@vomithotmail.com> wrote in message >>> Dance all you want. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You show it to me, and I'll answer it. Yup, I'm right as always. Here's your first post: "pity the 4 year old hadn't done "Guns for pre schoolers 101" " And your second: "mine kids have grown up with and used guns just as they have with motor bikes, tractors, chain saws but they see these things as the tools they are not as some extension of their clitoris. So what." Just your usual verbal diarrhea. Here's a LIE you told: "The point I was trying to make was that every time there is multiple shooting you are certain to get a post on this ng of " if only the victim/everybody had been armed than this tragedy wouldn't of happened". This obvious result of arming all possible victims would be for this 4 yo to be carrying." You're getting more and more like Futile John every day, making wild claims about what you (never) posted, and attributing rediculous crap based in your terror to other people. I cited the entire posts below, so you can't claim, as Futile always does, that they were re-written or "edited". ============ >> http://www.koco.com/news/15405413/detail.html > > pity the 4 year old hadn't done "Guns for pre schoolers 101" ============= >>> >>http://www.koco.com/news/15405413/detail.html >>> > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> >> Maybe they put stupid powder in the water down there... ====================== >> dechucka wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > This obvious result of arming all possible victims would be for this 4 yo > to be carrying. ==================== >> "dechucka" <dechucka@vomithotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Yup, I'm right as always. wrong as always. That was the point of my original post to point out that if people have the right to carry arms for personal protection and it works than surely this 4 year old should have been carrying to stop this tragedy >>> "dechucka" <dechucka@vomithotmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > works than surely this 4 year old should have been carrying to stop this > tragedy Wow. Wooowwww. You need a catscan as bad as your master. First you -say- you said: "Lets get down to the point of my original post. At what age do you think people should be able to carry weapons to defend themselves?" -Then- you say you said: "wrong as always. That was the point of my original post to point out that if people have the right to carry arms for personal protection and it works than surely this 4 year old should have been carrying to stop this tragedy " EVEN THOUGH it's clearly different in the same post! How Futile is -that--?? But what's funny is it's -still- not what you originally said!! Stupendous. Signature-- A skilled, armed man lives on a plane of security and contentment different from that of others. The man who cannot cut it, envies, fears and sometimes hates the man who can. -Cooper Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com >>>> "dechucka" <dechucka@vomithotmail.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Stupendous. you really are starting to lose it. First you start all these strange threads about people and now this >>>>>>>>>The point I was trying to make was that every time there is >>>>>>>>>multiple shooting you are certain to get a post on this ng of " if [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > I don't remember any such post. Alzheimer's? > "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in >>> Lets get down to the point of my original post. At what age do you think >>> people should be able to carry weapons to defend themselves? >> >> I don't remember any such post. > > Alzheimer's? Nice Francis-style snip. Of a cite of the truth. You -are- his lapdog, eh? Signature-- A skilled, armed man lives on a plane of security and contentment different from that of others. The man who cannot cut it, envies, fears and sometimes hates the man who can. -Cooper Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com >> "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You -are- his lapdog, eh? what is it with you and lapdogs? Bestiality? >>> "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote >>> in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > what is it with you and lapdogs? Bestiality? We see you still dwelling on nasty sex acts. Don't your women ever put out down there? Or do they just take care of U.S. sailors and Marines? Signature-- A skilled, armed man lives on a plane of security and contentment different from that of others. The man who cannot cut it, envies, fears and sometimes hates the man who can. -Cooper Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com > Or do they just take care of U.S. sailors and Marines? There's a reason that we liked Perth as a liberty port... No, it wasn't for the sheep either... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. >> Or do they just take care of U.S. sailors and Marines? > > There's a reason that we liked Perth as a liberty port... > > No, it wasn't for the sheep either... Quokkas at Rottnest? >>>>>>>>The point I was trying to make was that every time there is multiple >>>>>>>>shooting you are certain to get a post on this ng of " if only the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Lets get down to the point of my original post. At what age do you think > people should be able to carry weapons to defend themselves? answer in previous post, and discussed ad nauseum over the years. The legal age in most states is 21 - some may have others. Age really isn't the factor it is responsibility, safety, and gun training. That varies from person to person - sometimes it works - sometimes it doesn't, kind of similar to a driver's license |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.