Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
84% of Brits want handgun ban repealed, says newspaper poll
1 view
Skip to first unread message
BurfordTJustice
Jun 2, 2013, 6:38:44 AM6/2/13
to
Brits want handgun ban repealed, says newspaper poll
An overwhelming majority of British citizens want their country's handgun
ban repealed, according to the results of an on-line poll conducted by the
Daily Telegraph, described Wednesday as the United Kingdom's "most widely
read broadsheet newspaper" by the Commentator.
As this column was updated Thursday, more than 14,900 votes had been cast in
the unscientific poll, and of those, 12,603 support a repeal of the 1997 gun
ban, an 84.35 percent vote. It far out-distanced votes for several other
measures that Britons would like to see introduced in the House of Commons,
according to the newspaper.
For anti-gunners on both sides of the Atlantic, it is a devastating
rejection of the gun ban philosophy. The ban was enacted following the
Dunblane school massacre. The Commentator noted, "While gun crime soared
after the British ban in 1997, rates of gun violence have fallen, especially
in British cities, following more spending by police forces into tackling
gun crime. Police in England and Wales recorded 5,911 firearms offences in
2011/12, a reduction of 42 percent compared with nine years earlier,
according to the Office for National Statistics."
*****
But the Commentator also said this:
"But statistics from the United States show that guns are used by citizens
to defend themselves around eighty times more often than they are used to
take a life. A recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public
Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership
and violent crime in countries internationally, that is, "where firearms are
most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense
violent crime rates are highest."
*******
Results of the poll were revealed Wednesday by the newspaper, which was
still accepting votes as Examiner's special late Wednesday edition was being
written.
The Telegraph opened polling on May 24 and it did not take long for the
votes to come rolling in. Regarding the handgun ban repeal suggestion, one
reader observed, "After all, why should only criminals be 'allowed' to
possess guns and shoot unarmed, defenceless citizens and police officers?"
Support for the handgun ban repeal eclipsed the 7.68 percent support for the
next most popular idea, a flat tax, and left other suggestions in the dust.
Those included a term limit for Prime Ministers, a ban on spitting, the
greening of public spaces and closing something called the "child
maintenance loophole."
The suggestions were part of a discussion the newspaper reported about
"Private Member Bills" that could be offered to Ministers of Parliament.
According to the newspaper, "under Commons rules, any MP can introduce a
bill, but only a few are ever debated. There is no indication that any of
the suggested bills discussed by the newspaper will actually lead to
legislation.
An overwhelming majority of British citizens want their country's handgun
ban repealed, according to the results of an on-line poll conducted by the
Daily Telegraph, described Wednesday as the United Kingdom's "most widely
read broadsheet newspaper" by the Commentator.
As this column was updated Thursday, more than 14,900 votes had been cast in
the unscientific poll, and of those, 12,603 support a repeal of the 1997 gun
ban, an 84.35 percent vote. It far out-distanced votes for several other
measures that Britons would like to see introduced in the House of Commons,
according to the newspaper.
For anti-gunners on both sides of the Atlantic, it is a devastating
rejection of the gun ban philosophy. The ban was enacted following the
Dunblane school massacre. The Commentator noted, "While gun crime soared
after the British ban in 1997, rates of gun violence have fallen, especially
in British cities, following more spending by police forces into tackling
gun crime. Police in England and Wales recorded 5,911 firearms offences in
2011/12, a reduction of 42 percent compared with nine years earlier,
according to the Office for National Statistics."
*****
But the Commentator also said this:
"But statistics from the United States show that guns are used by citizens
to defend themselves around eighty times more often than they are used to
take a life. A recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public
Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership
and violent crime in countries internationally, that is, "where firearms are
most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense
violent crime rates are highest."
*******
Results of the poll were revealed Wednesday by the newspaper, which was
still accepting votes as Examiner's special late Wednesday edition was being
written.
The Telegraph opened polling on May 24 and it did not take long for the
votes to come rolling in. Regarding the handgun ban repeal suggestion, one
reader observed, "After all, why should only criminals be 'allowed' to
possess guns and shoot unarmed, defenceless citizens and police officers?"
Support for the handgun ban repeal eclipsed the 7.68 percent support for the
next most popular idea, a flat tax, and left other suggestions in the dust.
Those included a term limit for Prime Ministers, a ban on spitting, the
greening of public spaces and closing something called the "child
maintenance loophole."
The suggestions were part of a discussion the newspaper reported about
"Private Member Bills" that could be offered to Ministers of Parliament.
According to the newspaper, "under Commons rules, any MP can introduce a
bill, but only a few are ever debated. There is no indication that any of
the suggested bills discussed by the newspaper will actually lead to
legislation.
Bill
Jun 2, 2013, 6:57:25 AM6/2/13
to
On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 06:38:44 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
<bur...@hubdub.mo> wrote:
>Brits want handgun ban repealed, says newspaper poll
>
>An overwhelming majority of British citizens want their country's handgun
>ban repealed, according to the results of an on-line poll conducted by the
>Daily Telegraph, described Wednesday as the United Kingdom's "most widely
>read broadsheet newspaper" by the Commentator.
>
Much as I'd like to start pistol shooting again I'm afraid it hasn't a
<bur...@hubdub.mo> wrote:
>Brits want handgun ban repealed, says newspaper poll
>
>An overwhelming majority of British citizens want their country's handgun
>ban repealed, according to the results of an on-line poll conducted by the
>Daily Telegraph, described Wednesday as the United Kingdom's "most widely
>read broadsheet newspaper" by the Commentator.
>
hope of being allowed again.
There are far too many influential journalists and politicians on both
sides of politics who wish to keep it banned because it makes good
copy speaking out against 'gun culture'.
We'd be overrun by plump well dressed politicians and bleached blonde
female journalists screaming 'Think of the children'...
Andy Wainwright
Jun 2, 2013, 9:58:48 AM6/2/13
to
concealable weapons from those with criminal records, links with
political extremism or those with serious mental illness.
Those who qualify for a licence, which would be most people, should be
able to own such a weapon for sport, and in extreme cases self defence.
It's actually what Obama is proposing in the US.
I don't believe I should be able to own an handgun as a schizophrenic,
just as those with very poor eyesight aren't allowed to drive, but have
no problem with most others doing so.
saracene
Jun 2, 2013, 10:45:39 AM6/2/13
to
believe. It sound like lying propaganda from the tea party.
DVH
Jun 2, 2013, 10:57:29 AM6/2/13
to
On 02/06/2013 15:45, saracene wrote:
>
> Can this story be traced back to a reputable source? I find it hard to
> believe. It sound like lying propaganda from the tea party.
>
Everyone knows Burford is a reputable sauce.
>
> Can this story be traced back to a reputable source? I find it hard to
> believe. It sound like lying propaganda from the tea party.
>
BurfordTJustice
Jun 2, 2013, 1:06:24 PM6/2/13
to
"Andy Wainwright" <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kofiql$aha$1...@dont-email.me...
It's actually what Obama is proposing in the US.
I don't believe I should be able to own an handgun as a schizophrenic,
actually you are dead wrong on obama, but as always it is clear why
you would have blind love for him.
As a schizophrenic you should be locked up forever with 12 Pakis.
BurfordTJustice
Jun 2, 2013, 1:06:56 PM6/2/13
to
"saracene" <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:799537b5-1a17-4cb6...@fy4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
www.bing.com
saracene
Jun 2, 2013, 1:41:50 PM6/2/13
to
On Jun 2, 6:06 pm, "BurfordTJustice" <burf...@hubdub.mo> wrote:
> "saracene" <john....@gmail.com> wrote in message
404. That’s an error.
The requested URL /www.bing.com was not found on this server. That’s
all we know.
> "saracene" <john....@gmail.com> wrote in message
The requested URL /www.bing.com was not found on this server. That’s
all we know.
AC
Jun 2, 2013, 2:47:57 PM6/2/13
to
the exact opposite.
--
AC
Nobody Likes A Tory
Jun 2, 2013, 2:57:34 PM6/2/13
to
On 02/06/2013 15:45, saracene wrote:
link: http://tinyurl.com/pqd9k5u if you click on the view results it's
currently standing at 86%, It'll never happen while we have control
freak nazis in power who say only the police are allowed guns to kill
unarmed civilians, I'll wait for the flaming to start from the control
freaks/po-lice scum lovers on this ng
NLAT
saracene
Jun 2, 2013, 2:58:53 PM6/2/13
to
On Jun 2, 7:47 pm, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> > Can this story be traced back to a reputable source? I find it hard to
> > believe. It sound like lying propaganda from the tea party.
>
> Its self selection. Nothing more. 84% of Brits are more likely to want
> the exact opposite.
>
http://tinyurl.com/pqd9k5u
>
> > Can this story be traced back to a reputable source? I find it hard to
> > believe. It sound like lying propaganda from the tea party.
>
> Its self selection. Nothing more. 84% of Brits are more likely to want
> the exact opposite.
>
They have got the story completely wrong.
Bill
Jun 2, 2013, 3:02:55 PM6/2/13
to
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 19:57:34 +0100, Nobody Likes A Tory
<ihatet...@ausetheyrescum.com> wrote:
, It'll never happen while we have control
>freak nazis in power who say only the police are allowed guns to kill
>unarmed civilians,
Lots of people have guns.
<ihatet...@ausetheyrescum.com> wrote:
, It'll never happen while we have control
>freak nazis in power who say only the police are allowed guns to kill
>unarmed civilians,
It's not hard to get a license.
What you're not allowed to own is pistols and large caliber auto
loading rifles.
Mel Rowing
Jun 2, 2013, 3:18:13 PM6/2/13
to
trthfullness!
In fact the report is here.
http://tinyurl.com/pqd9k5u
It's the interpretation of it that's a bit wild! Still that's Burford
and people will read his rubbish!
AC
Jun 2, 2013, 3:23:23 PM6/2/13
to
Again, I have to come back to the fact that the British voted a dog to
win Britain's Got Talent.
--
AC
saracene
Jun 2, 2013, 3:35:54 PM6/2/13
to
On Jun 2, 8:23 pm, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> saracene wrote:
> > On Jun 2, 7:47 pm, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> >>> Can this story be traced back to a reputable source? I find it hard to
> >>> believe. It sound like lying propaganda from the tea party.
>
> >> Its self selection. Nothing more. 84% of Brits are more likely to want
> >> the exact opposite.
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/pqd9k5u
>
> > They have got the story completely wrong.
>
> Hmmm, I'd say distorted and out of context.
>
Burford merely cult and pasted a story that has appeared in several
> saracene wrote:
> > On Jun 2, 7:47 pm, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> >>> Can this story be traced back to a reputable source? I find it hard to
> >>> believe. It sound like lying propaganda from the tea party.
>
> >> Its self selection. Nothing more. 84% of Brits are more likely to want
> >> the exact opposite.
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/pqd9k5u
>
> > They have got the story completely wrong.
>
> Hmmm, I'd say distorted and out of context.
>
places.
http://tinyurl.com/lurb9jb
Of the first 4 sentences the first is untrue, the second and third
misleading and the fourth an outright lie..
Andy Wainwright
Jun 2, 2013, 4:44:05 PM6/2/13
to
important than anything else.
BurfordTJustice
Jun 3, 2013, 3:58:55 AM6/3/13
to
"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2k5nq89ql7pro9o3e...@4ax.com...
It's not hard to get a license.
What you're not allowed to own is pistols and large caliber auto
loading rifles.
--
What you're not allowed to own is pistols and large caliber auto
loading rifles.
And the pussified tolerate this.
The government believes all are kooks and not to be trusted to live their
own life.
Bill
Jun 3, 2013, 4:50:46 AM6/3/13
to
Then you get to explain why, in the USA, people are not allowed modern
military weapons...
BurfordTJustice
Jun 3, 2013, 5:50:08 AM6/3/13
to
news:j5moq8p2m3fq0kkdh...@4ax.com...
--
Private owners of Tanks etc in the USof A.
Remain pussified , roll over take it and enjoy it.
Private owners of Tanks etc in the USof A.
Remain pussified , roll over take it and enjoy it.
Bill
Jun 3, 2013, 8:01:21 AM6/3/13
to
On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 05:50:08 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
However the main infantry rifle of the US Army remains the M16A2/A3
fitted with an M203 grenade launcher.
These weapons are not available for public sale in the USA and the
grenades for the M203 are not allowed to be sold to the public.
Interestingly you're not allowed to buy Cuban cigars or a house in a
National Park or eat a sandwich on a commuter train there either...
Land of the free...
Ho ho ho...
<bur...@hubdub.mo> wrote:
>
>"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:j5moq8p2m3fq0kkdh...@4ax.com...
>On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 03:58:55 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
><bur...@hubdub.mo> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:2k5nq89ql7pro9o3e...@4ax.com...
>>It's not hard to get a license.
>>
>>What you're not allowed to own is pistols and large caliber auto
>>loading rifles.
>>
>>--
>>And the pussified tolerate this.
>>The government believes all are kooks and not to be trusted to live their
>>own life.
>
>Now you get to justify the ownership of such devices.
>
>Then you get to explain why, in the USA, people are not allowed modern
>military weapons...
>
>--
>Private owners of Tanks etc in the USof A.
>Remain pussified , roll over take it and enjoy it.
You're allowed to own tanks in the UK as well.
>
>"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:j5moq8p2m3fq0kkdh...@4ax.com...
>On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 03:58:55 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
><bur...@hubdub.mo> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:2k5nq89ql7pro9o3e...@4ax.com...
>>It's not hard to get a license.
>>
>>What you're not allowed to own is pistols and large caliber auto
>>loading rifles.
>>
>>--
>>And the pussified tolerate this.
>>The government believes all are kooks and not to be trusted to live their
>>own life.
>
>Now you get to justify the ownership of such devices.
>
>Then you get to explain why, in the USA, people are not allowed modern
>military weapons...
>
>--
>Private owners of Tanks etc in the USof A.
>Remain pussified , roll over take it and enjoy it.
However the main infantry rifle of the US Army remains the M16A2/A3
fitted with an M203 grenade launcher.
These weapons are not available for public sale in the USA and the
grenades for the M203 are not allowed to be sold to the public.
Interestingly you're not allowed to buy Cuban cigars or a house in a
National Park or eat a sandwich on a commuter train there either...
Land of the free...
Ho ho ho...
BurfordTJustice
Jun 3, 2013, 9:07:12 AM6/3/13
to
news:0v0pq85bq84vtbdnj...@4ax.com...
--
LOL Stay Pussifed and scared to death...
LOL Stay Pussifed and scared to death...
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
saracene
Jun 5, 2013, 3:26:03 AM6/5/13
to
On Jun 5, 7:31 am, G. Morgan <gra...@grahammorgan.name> wrote:
> Yup. Once they are gone, they're gone. Why you citizens didn't put up a
> fight to keep them is beyond me.
Because we don;t have the same conception freedom. Yours is bizarre to
us, In some respects the US is a cultural backwater. You still argue
about the literal truth of the Bible. You pit people in jail for
years for smoking marijuana yet think it vital to be allowed to carry
deadly weapons, on which of course even you must put some limit.
>Yes, I'm an American gun owner.
Clearly. Happiness is a warm gun.
>
> --
>
> They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,
> deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin
It's no more an essential liberty than the right to female
circumcision.
> fight to keep them is beyond me.
Because we don;t have the same conception freedom. Yours is bizarre to
us, In some respects the US is a cultural backwater. You still argue
about the literal truth of the Bible. You pit people in jail for
years for smoking marijuana yet think it vital to be allowed to carry
deadly weapons, on which of course even you must put some limit.
>Yes, I'm an American gun owner.
Clearly. Happiness is a warm gun.
>
> --
>
> They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,
> deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin
It's no more an essential liberty than the right to female
circumcision.
BurfordTJustice
Jun 5, 2013, 6:30:44 AM6/5/13
to
news:996153bc-6eb6-4d70...@bh5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
It's no more an essential liberty than the right to female
circumcision.
--
If you want your Clit cut, go for it, the NHS will gladly do that for you.
It's no more an essential liberty than the right to female
circumcision.
If you want your Clit cut, go for it, the NHS will gladly do that for you.
saracene
Jun 5, 2013, 8:02:48 AM6/5/13
to
On Jun 5, 11:30 am, "BurfordTJustice" <burf...@hubdub.mo> wrote:
> "saracene" <john....@gmail.com> wrote in message
Not if I want my daughter's clit cut.
> "saracene" <john....@gmail.com> wrote in message
Bill
Jun 5, 2013, 11:39:23 AM6/5/13
to
On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 01:31:25 -0500, G. Morgan
We did what we could.
However there only ever were about 50,000 pistol owners with licenses
fighting against the massed ranks of hysterical journalists screaming
'baby killer, baby killer, baby killer', and crooked politicians
seeking re-election.
We didn't have a chance.
<gra...@grahammorgan.name> wrote:
>Bill wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 06:38:44 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
>><bur...@hubdub.mo> wrote:
>>
>>>Brits want handgun ban repealed, says newspaper poll
>>>
>>>An overwhelming majority of British citizens want their country's handgun
>>>ban repealed, according to the results of an on-line poll conducted by the
>>>Daily Telegraph, described Wednesday as the United Kingdom's "most widely
>>>read broadsheet newspaper" by the Commentator.
>>>
>>
>>Much as I'd like to start pistol shooting again I'm afraid it hasn't a
>>hope of being allowed again.
>>
>>There are far too many influential journalists and politicians on both
>>sides of politics who wish to keep it banned because it makes good
>>copy speaking out against 'gun culture'.
>>
>>We'd be overrun by plump well dressed politicians and bleached blonde
>>female journalists screaming 'Think of the children'...
>
>Yup. Once they are gone, they're gone. Why you citizens didn't put up a
>fight to keep them is beyond me. Yes, I'm an American gun owner.
>Bill wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 06:38:44 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
>><bur...@hubdub.mo> wrote:
>>
>>>Brits want handgun ban repealed, says newspaper poll
>>>
>>>An overwhelming majority of British citizens want their country's handgun
>>>ban repealed, according to the results of an on-line poll conducted by the
>>>Daily Telegraph, described Wednesday as the United Kingdom's "most widely
>>>read broadsheet newspaper" by the Commentator.
>>>
>>
>>Much as I'd like to start pistol shooting again I'm afraid it hasn't a
>>hope of being allowed again.
>>
>>There are far too many influential journalists and politicians on both
>>sides of politics who wish to keep it banned because it makes good
>>copy speaking out against 'gun culture'.
>>
>>We'd be overrun by plump well dressed politicians and bleached blonde
>>female journalists screaming 'Think of the children'...
>
>Yup. Once they are gone, they're gone. Why you citizens didn't put up a
We did what we could.
However there only ever were about 50,000 pistol owners with licenses
fighting against the massed ranks of hysterical journalists screaming
'baby killer, baby killer, baby killer', and crooked politicians
seeking re-election.
We didn't have a chance.
Bill
Jun 5, 2013, 11:40:49 AM6/5/13
to
On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 01:43:23 -0500, G. Morgan
<gra...@grahammorgan.name> wrote:
>Bill wrote:
>
>>You're allowed to own tanks in the UK as well.
>>
>>However the main infantry rifle of the US Army remains the M16A2/A3
>>fitted with an M203 grenade launcher.
>>
>>These weapons are not available for public sale in the USA and the
>>grenades for the M203 are not allowed to be sold to the public.
>>
>>Interestingly you're not allowed to buy Cuban cigars or a house in a
>>National Park or eat a sandwich on a commuter train there either...
>>
>>Land of the free...
>>
>>Ho ho ho...
>
>You can buy a class 2 or "NFA firearm" all day long here. It requires a
>$200 tax stamp and about 3 months waiting period for the permit.
The M203 is NOT an NFA firearm and its ammunition is considered, in US
law, 'a destructive device'.
<gra...@grahammorgan.name> wrote:
>Bill wrote:
>
>>You're allowed to own tanks in the UK as well.
>>
>>However the main infantry rifle of the US Army remains the M16A2/A3
>>fitted with an M203 grenade launcher.
>>
>>These weapons are not available for public sale in the USA and the
>>grenades for the M203 are not allowed to be sold to the public.
>>
>>Interestingly you're not allowed to buy Cuban cigars or a house in a
>>National Park or eat a sandwich on a commuter train there either...
>>
>>Land of the free...
>>
>>Ho ho ho...
>
>$200 tax stamp and about 3 months waiting period for the permit.
The M203 is NOT an NFA firearm and its ammunition is considered, in US
law, 'a destructive device'.
Eagle
Jun 5, 2013, 12:29:15 PM6/5/13
to
saracene explained on 6/5/2013 :
I wouldn't want that at all. Sexual pleasure is a two way street. The
muslims started that crap about cutting off the female cliterous, and
for what reason? To deny sexual pleasure to the Woman? That makes as
much sense as making Women cover their whole body, including their face
while in public.
--
Eagle
Why were the Indians here first? They had reservations.
muslims started that crap about cutting off the female cliterous, and
for what reason? To deny sexual pleasure to the Woman? That makes as
much sense as making Women cover their whole body, including their face
while in public.
--
Eagle
Why were the Indians here first? They had reservations.
Avicenna
Jun 5, 2013, 1:01:21 PM6/5/13
to
>
> There are far too many influential journalists and politicians on both
> sides of politics who wish to keep it banned because it makes good
> copy speaking out against 'gun culture'.
No. I did pistol shooting years ago, but although it was fun and I
> There are far too many influential journalists and politicians on both
> sides of politics who wish to keep it banned because it makes good
> copy speaking out against 'gun culture'.
hurt a wrist using a member's .357 Mag, I saw no point in continuing.
My problem with the legal issue is that when I look at my friends and
neighbours (let alone a few enemies), I REALLY DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD
HAVE ACCESS TO HANDGUNS. Probably I shouldn't either.
Look around you. Look next door. Look on your street. Look at
work. Now imagine those people owning handguns.
saracene
Jun 5, 2013, 1:09:54 PM6/5/13
to
> > On Jun 5, 11:30 am, "BurfordTJustice" <burf...@hubdub.mo> wrote:
> >> "saracene" <john....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:996153bc-6eb6-4d70...@bh5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> It's no more an essential liberty than the right to female
> >> circumcision.
> >> --
> >> If you want your Clit cut, go for it, the NHS will gladly do that for you.
> > Not if I want my daughter's clit cut.
>
> I wouldn't want that at all.
Nor would I. It's outrageous. The right to do it is part of some
> >> "saracene" <john....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:996153bc-6eb6-4d70...@bh5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> It's no more an essential liberty than the right to female
> >> circumcision.
> >> --
> >> If you want your Clit cut, go for it, the NHS will gladly do that for you.
> > Not if I want my daughter's clit cut.
>
> I wouldn't want that at all.
people's concept of religious freedom though, just like the right to
bring up your daughter to be a Catholic.
Sir Richard Burton wrote, however in his notes of the Arabian Nights:-
"[Female circumcision] is the proper complement of male circumcision,
evening the sensitiveness of the genitories by reducing it equally in
both sexes: an uncircumcised woman has the venereal orgasm much sooner
and oftener than a circumcised man, and frequent coitus would be
injurious to her health."
Bill
Jun 5, 2013, 1:13:54 PM6/5/13
to
Why do you have problems with people owning a pistol when they can
probably get a legal shotgun if they desired?
saracene
Jun 5, 2013, 1:19:16 PM6/5/13
to
to Americans to keep their guns I don't see it as any of my business.
I don;t vote in their elections and have no desire whatever to go and
live there. When on the other hand they tell us we live under a
tyranny because of our restrictions on gun possession, it is.
BurfordTJustice
Jun 5, 2013, 1:21:57 PM6/5/13
to
"Avicenna" <braf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1b13dd98-dd44-4cee...@qz2g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
Damn living a Scared life like a mouse.sounds disgusting.
How do you do it?/
saracene
Jun 5, 2013, 1:25:12 PM6/5/13
to
On Jun 5, 6:21 pm, "BurfordTJustice" <burf...@hubdub.mo> wrote:
> "Avicenna" <brafi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I think one of the best arguments for capital punishment is that it
deters me from murder.
> "Avicenna" <brafi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
deters me from murder.
Message has been deleted
Bill
Jun 10, 2013, 9:07:12 AM6/10/13
to
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:02:18 -0500, G. Morgan
>So get an explosives license then.
Not covered.
You're not allowed modern military firearms.
Your government doesn't trust you with them any more than ours trusts
us with them.
But we don't pretend to be armed...
Not covered.
You're not allowed modern military firearms.
Your government doesn't trust you with them any more than ours trusts
us with them.
But we don't pretend to be armed...
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Bill
Jun 10, 2013, 9:57:31 AM6/10/13
to
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:20:14 -0500, G. Morgan
<gra...@grahammorgan.name> wrote:
>Gun safety is instilled to us at an early age.
Who's this 'us'?
<gra...@grahammorgan.name> wrote:
Who's this 'us'?
Bill
Jun 10, 2013, 9:58:30 AM6/10/13
to
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:21:39 -0500, G. Morgan
<gra...@grahammorgan.name> wrote:
>Avicenna wrote:
>
>>No. I did pistol shooting years ago, but although it was fun and I
>>hurt a wrist using a member's .357 Mag
>
>Lol... You didn't get instructions on how to handle it. It's not that
>big of a round, handled correctly your wrist is not a factor.
It's only a .38 Special on steroids...
Easier to shoot than a .45 acp service round.
<gra...@grahammorgan.name> wrote:
>Avicenna wrote:
>
>>No. I did pistol shooting years ago, but although it was fun and I
>>hurt a wrist using a member's .357 Mag
>
>big of a round, handled correctly your wrist is not a factor.
It's only a .38 Special on steroids...
Easier to shoot than a .45 acp service round.
Eagle
Jun 10, 2013, 11:59:35 AM6/10/13
to
G. Morgan dropped this bomb :
> Once the "baby boomers"
> die off (they were brainwashed), it will be legal - only a few more years
> to go.
HEY! I resemble that remark!
--
Eagle
Why were the Indians here first? They had reservations.
> Once the "baby boomers"
> die off (they were brainwashed), it will be legal - only a few more years
> to go.
HEY! I resemble that remark!
--
Eagle
Why were the Indians here first? They had reservations.
Eagle
Jun 10, 2013, 12:01:45 PM6/10/13
to
G. Morgan dropped this bomb :
> Bill wrote:
>>> Yup. Once they are gone, they're gone. Why you citizens didn't put up a
>>> fight to keep them is beyond me. Yes, I'm an American gun owner.
>>
>> We did what we could.
>>
>> However there only ever were about 50,000 pistol owners with licenses
>> fighting against the massed ranks of hysterical journalists screaming
>> 'baby killer, baby killer, baby killer', and crooked politicians
>> seeking re-election.
>>
>> We didn't have a chance.
> That sucks. Canadians lost their chance to fight back too.
> The 2nd Amendment is so sacred to a large percentage of Americans a "gun
> grab" would lead to a civil war. And that is exactly why our founders
> included the Amendment, so citizens can overthrow a tyrannical
> government.
Or protect themselves from that government.
Bill
Jun 10, 2013, 12:11:11 PM6/10/13
to
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:01:45 -0700, "Eagle" <deag...@geemail.com>
wrote:
In Afghanistan they have a 'gun culture' that makes anywhere in the
USA look anemic.
Every man over 14 has his AK and RPG launchers and .50 cal machine
guns are common household appliances. Everyone is reasonably used to
constant war, kidnapping, blood feuds, general banditry and drug
dealing and spends time and trouble learning how to avoid them or how
to fight back if necessary.
The US Army rolled them over with almost laughable ease and are
holding down the country, albeit with some difficulty.
What on earth makes you think the urbanised, unfit and untrained
population of the USA with its millions of pocket pistols and scary
looking but crippled autoloading rifles will do any better?
wrote:
USA look anemic.
Every man over 14 has his AK and RPG launchers and .50 cal machine
guns are common household appliances. Everyone is reasonably used to
constant war, kidnapping, blood feuds, general banditry and drug
dealing and spends time and trouble learning how to avoid them or how
to fight back if necessary.
The US Army rolled them over with almost laughable ease and are
holding down the country, albeit with some difficulty.
What on earth makes you think the urbanised, unfit and untrained
population of the USA with its millions of pocket pistols and scary
looking but crippled autoloading rifles will do any better?
joevan
Jun 10, 2013, 12:27:58 PM6/10/13
to
BurfordTJustice
Jun 10, 2013, 1:06:42 PM6/10/13
to
"joevan" <joeva...@vanudity.com> wrote in message
news:4jvbr8ptcbsd5kaeo...@4ax.com...
Of course you do, as will all the pussified libNuts and obama socks.
There are approximately 1,380,000 members of the US military. How many
retired military people live here in the US in 2010.
Then on top of that you add regular Vets and the only ones to get run over
will be the pussified libNuts
who are crying in a basement somewhere.
Watch the muslims soon run all over the UK.
Eagle
Jun 10, 2013, 2:13:25 PM6/10/13
to
Bill explained on 6/10/2013 :
Remember what Isoroku Yamamoto said about invading the US? "You cannot
invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade
of grass."
It was a bogus quote, but esentially true.
invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade
of grass."
It was a bogus quote, but esentially true.
Bill
Jun 10, 2013, 2:17:37 PM6/10/13
to
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:13:25 -0700, "Eagle" <deag...@geemail.com>
wrote:
But the number of hunters in the USA has been falling for decades.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2007-09-02-fewer-hunters_N.htm
You are no longer a nation of hunters.
You are a nation who cowers, afraid of muggers and terrorists and
armed with pistols that are useful only to kill schoolchildren...
wrote:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2007-09-02-fewer-hunters_N.htm
You are no longer a nation of hunters.
You are a nation who cowers, afraid of muggers and terrorists and
armed with pistols that are useful only to kill schoolchildren...
Eagle
Jun 10, 2013, 2:21:21 PM6/10/13
to
Bill expects you to read this :
Your biased opinion is noted.
Have a nice day.
Have a nice day.
Eagle
Jun 10, 2013, 2:25:49 PM6/10/13
to
Bill has brought this to us :
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:02:18 -0500, G. Morgan
> <gra...@grahammorgan.name> wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 01:43:23 -0500, G. Morgan
>>> <gra...@grahammorgan.name> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You're allowed to own tanks in the UK as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> However the main infantry rifle of the US Army remains the M16A2/A3
>>>>> fitted with an M203 grenade launcher.
>>>>>
>>>>> These weapons are not available for public sale in the USA and the
>>>>> grenades for the M203 are not allowed to be sold to the public.
>>>>>
>>>>> Interestingly you're not allowed to buy Cuban cigars or a house in a
>>>>> National Park or eat a sandwich on a commuter train there either...
>>>>>
>>>>> Land of the free...
>>>>>
>>>>> Ho ho ho...
>>>>
>>>> You can buy a class 2 or "NFA firearm" all day long here. It requires a
>>>> $200 tax stamp and about 3 months waiting period for the permit.
>>>
>>> The M203 is NOT an NFA firearm and its ammunition is considered, in US
>>> law, 'a destructive device'.
>>
>> So get an explosives license then.
> Not covered.
> You're not allowed modern military firearms.
> Your government doesn't trust you with them any more than ours trusts
> us with them.
> But we don't pretend to be armed...
No, you just let muslims run your streets killing unarmed people and do
nothing about Britain being overrun with muslims who want to kill
anyone who doesn't chant the muslim war cry..."allah hu akbar!"
At least was can have weapons, brits can't.
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:02:18 -0500, G. Morgan
> <gra...@grahammorgan.name> wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 01:43:23 -0500, G. Morgan
>>> <gra...@grahammorgan.name> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You're allowed to own tanks in the UK as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> However the main infantry rifle of the US Army remains the M16A2/A3
>>>>> fitted with an M203 grenade launcher.
>>>>>
>>>>> These weapons are not available for public sale in the USA and the
>>>>> grenades for the M203 are not allowed to be sold to the public.
>>>>>
>>>>> Interestingly you're not allowed to buy Cuban cigars or a house in a
>>>>> National Park or eat a sandwich on a commuter train there either...
>>>>>
>>>>> Land of the free...
>>>>>
>>>>> Ho ho ho...
>>>>
>>>> You can buy a class 2 or "NFA firearm" all day long here. It requires a
>>>> $200 tax stamp and about 3 months waiting period for the permit.
>>>
>>> The M203 is NOT an NFA firearm and its ammunition is considered, in US
>>> law, 'a destructive device'.
>>
>> So get an explosives license then.
> Not covered.
> You're not allowed modern military firearms.
> Your government doesn't trust you with them any more than ours trusts
> us with them.
> But we don't pretend to be armed...
No, you just let muslims run your streets killing unarmed people and do
nothing about Britain being overrun with muslims who want to kill
anyone who doesn't chant the muslim war cry..."allah hu akbar!"
At least was can have weapons, brits can't.
BurfordTJustice
Jun 10, 2013, 2:57:50 PM6/10/13
to
"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0u5cr8ph41j16ddlh...@4ax.com...
Don't bet your children on it...oh wait...
SeaNymph
Jun 10, 2013, 3:20:11 PM6/10/13
to
On 6/10/2013 1:17 PM, Bill wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:13:25 -0700, "Eagle" <deag...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Bill explained on 6/10/2013 :
>>> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:01:45 -0700, "Eagle" <deag...@geemail.com>
>>
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:13:25 -0700, "Eagle" <deag...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Bill explained on 6/10/2013 :
>>> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:01:45 -0700, "Eagle" <deag...@geemail.com>
>>
>>> What on earth makes you think the urbanised, unfit and untrained
>>> population of the USA with its millions of pocket pistols and scary
>>> looking but crippled autoloading rifles will do any better?
>>
>> Remember what Isoroku Yamamoto said about invading the US? "You cannot
>> invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade
>> of grass."
>> It was a bogus quote, but esentially true.
>
> But the number of hunters in the USA has been falling for decades.
>
> http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2007-09-02-fewer-hunters_N.htm
>
> You are no longer a nation of hunters.
>
> You are a nation who cowers, afraid of muggers and terrorists and
> armed with pistols that are useful only to kill schoolchildren...
>
In some ways, I think you're right. There is so much crime in this
>>> population of the USA with its millions of pocket pistols and scary
>>> looking but crippled autoloading rifles will do any better?
>>
>> Remember what Isoroku Yamamoto said about invading the US? "You cannot
>> invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade
>> of grass."
>> It was a bogus quote, but esentially true.
>
> But the number of hunters in the USA has been falling for decades.
>
> http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2007-09-02-fewer-hunters_N.htm
>
> You are no longer a nation of hunters.
>
> You are a nation who cowers, afraid of muggers and terrorists and
> armed with pistols that are useful only to kill schoolchildren...
>
country, and every day there is lots of coverage about various gun
crimes. The issue is not, nor has it ever been, gun control, imo. Law
abiding citizens tend to do that sort of thing correctly. The problem
is the lack of adequate law enforcement regarding the laws that are
already on the books, and working harder to keep guns out of the hands
of the criminal element.
In many ways, this country has become one that seems afraid to take a
hard stand, and I believe that's largely the fault of politicians. The
idea of political correctness has gone too far, and nobody wants to
offend anyone else. Interestingly enough, there is nothing in our
founding documents that grants anyone the freedom to not be offended.
Politicians have lost their way, and the voting public has allowed that
to happen. They seem more concerned about their own power and money
that the job they were hired to do, which is represent their constituents.
We are way beyond the time to take a harder stance on many things, but
that's just my opinion.
Bill
Jun 10, 2013, 4:04:28 PM6/10/13
to
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:25:49 -0700, "Eagle" <deag...@geemail.com>
wrote:
I think you'll find that:
1. The people concerned were shot down.
2. They were armed with items available in every kitchen shop in the
country.
wrote:
1. The people concerned were shot down.
2. They were armed with items available in every kitchen shop in the
country.
Eagle
Jun 10, 2013, 5:59:14 PM6/10/13
to
Bill brought next idea :
Your point being?
Bill
Jun 10, 2013, 6:23:41 PM6/10/13
to
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 14:59:14 -0700, "Eagle" <deag...@geemail.com>
We don't allow our nutters access to automatic weapons.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/09/us-usa-shooting-california-idUSBRE95615W20130609
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/09/us-usa-shooting-california-idUSBRE95615W20130609
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre
Eagle
Jun 10, 2013, 6:46:36 PM6/10/13
to
Bill
Jun 10, 2013, 6:53:17 PM6/10/13
to
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:46:36 -0700, "Eagle" <deag...@geemail.com>
Not so far.
I'm sure that if you have any information to the contrary you'll
inform the authorities...
I'm sure that if you have any information to the contrary you'll
inform the authorities...
BurfordTJustice
Jun 11, 2013, 5:43:26 AM6/11/13
to
news:vakcr89as2vj0d8ba...@4ax.com...
We don't allow our nutters access to automatic weapons.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/09/us-usa-shooting-california-idUSBRE95615W20130609
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre
--
Lets give you an easy one this time,
describe in detail the Automatic Weapon used at Sandy Hook.
So as a Nutter you are defenseless..got it.
We don't allow our nutters access to automatic weapons.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/09/us-usa-shooting-california-idUSBRE95615W20130609
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre
Lets give you an easy one this time,
describe in detail the Automatic Weapon used at Sandy Hook.
So as a Nutter you are defenseless..got it.
Eagle
Jun 12, 2013, 9:34:45 AM6/12/13
to
G. Morgan presented the following explanation :
> [re-send, E-S is dropping all the extra groups]
> G. Morgan wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 01:43:23 -0500, G. Morgan
>>> <gra...@grahammorgan.name> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You're allowed to own tanks in the UK as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> However the main infantry rifle of the US Army remains the M16A2/A3
>>>>> fitted with an M203 grenade launcher.
>>>>>
>>>>> These weapons are not available for public sale in the USA and the
>>>>> grenades for the M203 are not allowed to be sold to the public.
>>>>>
>>>>> Interestingly you're not allowed to buy Cuban cigars or a house in a
>>>>> National Park or eat a sandwich on a commuter train there either...
Who in their right mind would open our national parks to build housing
and sell it to the general public? I can see it now, Yosemite National
Park with 20 story condos right next to bridal-veil falls....NOT!
> [re-send, E-S is dropping all the extra groups]
> G. Morgan wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 01:43:23 -0500, G. Morgan
>>> <gra...@grahammorgan.name> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You're allowed to own tanks in the UK as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> However the main infantry rifle of the US Army remains the M16A2/A3
>>>>> fitted with an M203 grenade launcher.
>>>>>
>>>>> These weapons are not available for public sale in the USA and the
>>>>> grenades for the M203 are not allowed to be sold to the public.
>>>>>
>>>>> Interestingly you're not allowed to buy Cuban cigars or a house in a
>>>>> National Park or eat a sandwich on a commuter train there either...
and sell it to the general public? I can see it now, Yosemite National
Park with 20 story condos right next to bridal-veil falls....NOT!
>>>>>
>>>>> Land of the free...
>>>>>
>>>>> Ho ho ho...
>>>>
>>>> You can buy a class 2 or "NFA firearm" all day long here. It requires a
>>>> $200 tax stamp and about 3 months waiting period for the permit.
>>>
>>> The M203 is NOT an NFA firearm and its ammunition is considered, in US
>>> law, 'a destructive device'.
> So get an explosives license then.
>>>>> Land of the free...
>>>>>
>>>>> Ho ho ho...
>>>>
>>>> You can buy a class 2 or "NFA firearm" all day long here. It requires a
>>>> $200 tax stamp and about 3 months waiting period for the permit.
>>>
>>> The M203 is NOT an NFA firearm and its ammunition is considered, in US
>>> law, 'a destructive device'.
> So get an explosives license then.
Eagle
Jun 12, 2013, 11:12:23 AM6/12/13
to
G. Morgan has brought this to us :
> Bill wrote:
>>> Yup. Once they are gone, they're gone. Why you citizens didn't put up a
>>> fight to keep them is beyond me. Yes, I'm an American gun owner.
>>
>> We did what we could.
>>
>> However there only ever were about 50,000 pistol owners with licenses
>> fighting against the massed ranks of hysterical journalists screaming
>> 'baby killer, baby killer, baby killer', and crooked politicians
>> seeking re-election.
>>
>> We didn't have a chance.
> That sucks. Canadians lost their chance to fight back too.
> The 2nd Amendment is so sacred to a large percentage of Americans a "gun
> grab" would lead to a civil war. And that is exactly why our founders
> included the Amendment, so citizens can overthrow a tyrannical
> government.
100% correct.
>>> Yup. Once they are gone, they're gone. Why you citizens didn't put up a
>>> fight to keep them is beyond me. Yes, I'm an American gun owner.
>>
>> We did what we could.
>>
>> However there only ever were about 50,000 pistol owners with licenses
>> fighting against the massed ranks of hysterical journalists screaming
>> 'baby killer, baby killer, baby killer', and crooked politicians
>> seeking re-election.
>>
>> We didn't have a chance.
> That sucks. Canadians lost their chance to fight back too.
> The 2nd Amendment is so sacred to a large percentage of Americans a "gun
> grab" would lead to a civil war. And that is exactly why our founders
> included the Amendment, so citizens can overthrow a tyrannical
> government.
Eagle
Jun 12, 2013, 11:18:18 AM6/12/13
to
G. Morgan explained :
> I assume you meant conception [of] freedom?
>> Yours is bizarre to
>> us, In some respects the US is a cultural backwater.
>> You still argue
>> about the literal truth of the Bible.
> Not me, far from it. Yeah, we have kooks that argue that and so do you.
> If we talk about Europe in general, look at the Vatican - what a crock.
Same with the anglican church.
>> You pit people in jail for
>> years for smoking marijuana
> Some municipalities do, but not for a first time offender. It's usually
> the ones that have "intent to distribute" that get jail for more than a
> day or two.
> That is changing though, I'm all for legalization. Pot is the new "gay",
> as far as tolerance (and even acceptance) goes. Once the "baby boomers"
>> yet think it vital to be allowed to carry
>> deadly weapons, on which of course even you must put some limit.
> No, not vital. It's a choice for some. Even with a concealed handgun
> license there are lots of places where they are prohibited. I'm in
> Texas, so it's fairly easy to get a carry permit. Many states make it
> almost impossible to carry in public. All states allow non-felons to
> keep arms in their homes.
> saracene wrote:
>>> Yup. Once they are gone, they're gone. Why you citizens didn't put up a
>>> fight to keep them is beyond me.
>>
>> Because we don;t have the same conception freedom.
>>> Yup. Once they are gone, they're gone. Why you citizens didn't put up a
>>> fight to keep them is beyond me.
>>
> I assume you meant conception [of] freedom?
>> Yours is bizarre to
>> us, In some respects the US is a cultural backwater.
>> You still argue
>> about the literal truth of the Bible.
> Not me, far from it. Yeah, we have kooks that argue that and so do you.
> If we talk about Europe in general, look at the Vatican - what a crock.
Same with the anglican church.
>> You pit people in jail for
>> years for smoking marijuana
> Some municipalities do, but not for a first time offender. It's usually
> the ones that have "intent to distribute" that get jail for more than a
> day or two.
> That is changing though, I'm all for legalization. Pot is the new "gay",
> as far as tolerance (and even acceptance) goes. Once the "baby boomers"
> die off (they were brainwashed), it will be legal - only a few more years
> to go.
> BTW - 'Marinol' is a THC drug in a pill, legal.
> to go.
>> yet think it vital to be allowed to carry
>> deadly weapons, on which of course even you must put some limit.
> No, not vital. It's a choice for some. Even with a concealed handgun
> license there are lots of places where they are prohibited. I'm in
> Texas, so it's fairly easy to get a carry permit. Many states make it
> almost impossible to carry in public. All states allow non-felons to
> keep arms in their homes.
Bill
Jun 12, 2013, 1:08:09 PM6/12/13
to
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 06:34:45 -0700, "Eagle" <deag...@geemail.com>
wrote:
>G. Morgan presented the following explanation :
>> [re-send, E-S is dropping all the extra groups]
>
>> G. Morgan wrote:
>
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 01:43:23 -0500, G. Morgan
>>>> <gra...@grahammorgan.name> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You're allowed to own tanks in the UK as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However the main infantry rifle of the US Army remains the M16A2/A3
>>>>>> fitted with an M203 grenade launcher.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These weapons are not available for public sale in the USA and the
>>>>>> grenades for the M203 are not allowed to be sold to the public.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interestingly you're not allowed to buy Cuban cigars or a house in a
>>>>>> National Park or eat a sandwich on a commuter train there either...
>
>Who in their right mind would open our national parks to build housing
>and sell it to the general public? I can see it now, Yosemite National
>Park with 20 story condos right next to bridal-veil falls....NOT!
We have housing in our national parks, and very strict building and
zoning regulations.
No 20 story condos there, just the odd nice cottage with roses around
the door...
And some excellent shooting...
.
wrote:
>G. Morgan presented the following explanation :
>> [re-send, E-S is dropping all the extra groups]
>
>> G. Morgan wrote:
>
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 01:43:23 -0500, G. Morgan
>>>> <gra...@grahammorgan.name> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You're allowed to own tanks in the UK as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However the main infantry rifle of the US Army remains the M16A2/A3
>>>>>> fitted with an M203 grenade launcher.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These weapons are not available for public sale in the USA and the
>>>>>> grenades for the M203 are not allowed to be sold to the public.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interestingly you're not allowed to buy Cuban cigars or a house in a
>>>>>> National Park or eat a sandwich on a commuter train there either...
>
>Who in their right mind would open our national parks to build housing
>and sell it to the general public? I can see it now, Yosemite National
>Park with 20 story condos right next to bridal-veil falls....NOT!
zoning regulations.
No 20 story condos there, just the odd nice cottage with roses around
the door...
And some excellent shooting...
.
Eagle
Jun 12, 2013, 4:19:48 PM6/12/13
to
Bill grinned and said :
So you let strangers in that cottage when you aren't around?
Bill
Jun 12, 2013, 4:59:10 PM6/12/13
to
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 13:19:48 -0700, "Eagle" <deag...@geemail.com>
wrote:
There's no way I could afford a place in a National Park.
This one's not that far away though...
Comes with its own shooting and fishing...
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-24218576.html
wrote:
This one's not that far away though...
Comes with its own shooting and fishing...
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-24218576.html
Eagle
Jun 12, 2013, 6:34:11 PM6/12/13
to
Bill has brought this to us :
OK, IF you owned a cottage in a national park you would allow strangers
to stay there any time they wish?
to stay there any time they wish?
Bill
Jun 12, 2013, 6:54:55 PM6/12/13
to
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:34:11 -0700, "Eagle" <deag...@geemail.com>
Why would I?
More interestingly, why on earth do you think it's a valid question.
It's obviously absurd.
More interestingly, why on earth do you think it's a valid question.
It's obviously absurd.
Eagle
Jun 13, 2013, 3:10:21 PM6/13/13
to
Bill laid this down on his screen :
Yes it is absurd. The point being, our national parks are not for
public ownership. That's why they are National Parks. There are
facilities for visitors to camp in, restaurants for eating, curio shops
for trinkets, all for public use, not private ownership. The parks are
government controlled and preserved. If they were open for public
ownership, the forests would be cut down and sold, the wildlife would
be killed and sold, and there would be no place for the public to enjoy
pristine and un-spoiled land.
public ownership. That's why they are National Parks. There are
facilities for visitors to camp in, restaurants for eating, curio shops
for trinkets, all for public use, not private ownership. The parks are
government controlled and preserved. If they were open for public
ownership, the forests would be cut down and sold, the wildlife would
be killed and sold, and there would be no place for the public to enjoy
pristine and un-spoiled land.
practice
Jun 14, 2013, 1:50:06 AM6/14/13
to
I heard that the Chinese now own The Grand Canyon. Coulda been right
here on the internet, anyhow...bon jewer!
DVH
Jun 14, 2013, 2:09:24 AM6/14/13
to
into people's minds.
ie, you had a pristine environment with no housing, which you turned
into national parks (injuns notwithstanding).
We had a well-populated countryside with plenty of housing which we
turned into a national park.
Since then, our countryside has depopulated. Much existing housing has
fallen down, and some of the rest has been turned into holiday homes or
been occupied by pensioners.
Remember in the eighteenth century the countryside was seen as a
terrifying and hostile place by the fine people. Thomas Grey closed the
curtains of his carriage as he passed the mountains of Cumbria to avoid
the horrifying sight.
Thankfully, the Americans invented the idea of national parks in the
following century. This is surprising in some ways, but when you read
Walden and Whitman it makes sense.
Bill
Jun 16, 2013, 12:03:38 PM6/16/13
to
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:10:21 -0700, "Eagle" <deag...@geemail.com>
Interestingly in our national parks all then property is invariably;y
privately owned but none of that seems to happen.
Of course some trees are felled, some wildlife is hunted or shot and
yet there's plenty of places for the public to enjoy pristine and
un-spoiled land along with facilities for visitors to camp in,
restaurants for eating, curio shops for trinkets and etc .
I wonder why we don't destroy our national parks?
Perhaps it is something to do with the laws controlling them...
privately owned but none of that seems to happen.
Of course some trees are felled, some wildlife is hunted or shot and
yet there's plenty of places for the public to enjoy pristine and
un-spoiled land along with facilities for visitors to camp in,
restaurants for eating, curio shops for trinkets and etc .
I wonder why we don't destroy our national parks?
Perhaps it is something to do with the laws controlling them...
Eagle
Jun 16, 2013, 8:42:43 PM6/16/13
to
Bill expects you to read this :
Bill
Jun 17, 2013, 5:35:43 AM6/17/13
to
On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 17:42:43 -0700, "Eagle" <deag...@geemail.com>
Have you mentioned this to our government?
Eagle
Jun 17, 2013, 9:39:31 AM6/17/13
to
Bill wrote this on 6/17/2013 :
<clip text for brevity>
>> Prolly. The US is not a socialistic country, Britain is.
> Have you mentioned this to our government?
Why would I do that? Y'all decided to give up your freedom to let a
handful of wig wearing snobs decide what you can and can't do and how
much you can be paid, and what kind of medical care you are entitled to
and who you get for a Doctor, not to mention how much in tax you pay
for fuel, or pay an exorbitant salary to a royal family who has no say
in running your gubment.
<clip text for brevity>
>> Prolly. The US is not a socialistic country, Britain is.
> Have you mentioned this to our government?
handful of wig wearing snobs decide what you can and can't do and how
much you can be paid, and what kind of medical care you are entitled to
and who you get for a Doctor, not to mention how much in tax you pay
for fuel, or pay an exorbitant salary to a royal family who has no say
in running your gubment.
Bill
Jun 17, 2013, 10:03:14 AM6/17/13
to
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 06:39:31 -0700, "Eagle" <deag...@geemail.com>
wrote:
>Bill wrote this on 6/17/2013 :
>
><clip text for brevity>
>
>>> Prolly. The US is not a socialistic country, Britain is.
>
>> Have you mentioned this to our government?
>
>Why would I do that?
Because they say they're conservatives...
Y'all decided to give up your freedom to let a
>handful of wig wearing snobs decide what you can and can't do and how
>much you can be paid, and what kind of medical care you are entitled to
>and who you get for a Doctor, not to mention how much in tax you pay
>for fuel, or pay an exorbitant salary to a royal family who has no say
>in running your gubment.
Whereas you get a bunch of crooked politicians...
wrote:
>Bill wrote this on 6/17/2013 :
>
><clip text for brevity>
>
>>> Prolly. The US is not a socialistic country, Britain is.
>
>> Have you mentioned this to our government?
>
>Why would I do that?
Y'all decided to give up your freedom to let a
>handful of wig wearing snobs decide what you can and can't do and how
>much you can be paid, and what kind of medical care you are entitled to
>and who you get for a Doctor, not to mention how much in tax you pay
>for fuel, or pay an exorbitant salary to a royal family who has no say
>in running your gubment.
DVH
Jun 17, 2013, 10:15:30 AM6/17/13
to
On 17/06/2013 14:39, Eagle wrote:
> Bill wrote this on 6/17/2013 :
>
> <clip text for brevity>
>
>>> Prolly. The US is not a socialistic country, Britain is.
>
>> Have you mentioned this to our government?
>
> Why would I do that? Y'all decided to give up your freedom to let a
> handful of wig wearing snobs decide what you can and can't do and how
> much you can be paid, and what kind of medical care you are entitled to
> and who you get for a Doctor, not to mention how much in tax you pay for
> fuel, or pay an exorbitant salary to a royal family who has no say in
> running your gubment.
>
Most of those things are decided by the guvmint.
> Bill wrote this on 6/17/2013 :
>
> <clip text for brevity>
>
>>> Prolly. The US is not a socialistic country, Britain is.
>
>> Have you mentioned this to our government?
>
> Why would I do that? Y'all decided to give up your freedom to let a
> handful of wig wearing snobs decide what you can and can't do and how
> much you can be paid, and what kind of medical care you are entitled to
> and who you get for a Doctor, not to mention how much in tax you pay for
> fuel, or pay an exorbitant salary to a royal family who has no say in
> running your gubment.
>
By contrast, the US has a constitutional court to which every great
social question eventually gravitates.
Is the US a socialistic country?
Well, you have a Stasi, so that earns you points.
You can be arrested for growing vegetables in your front yard.
If you want to start a removals business, you have to ask the guvmint first.
If you practice as a barber without a licence, you risk having a SWAT
team breaking your door down. That's admirably socialistic.
Your government quantitatively eases.
Your government picks winners in the car industry and props them up
using taxpayers' money. Are you France in disguise?
Obama.
You have a minimum wage.
David Brooks.
You've abandoned habeas corpus. Not necessarily socialistic, but it does
correlate.
Bill
Jun 17, 2013, 10:32:05 AM6/17/13
to
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:15:30 +0100, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>On 17/06/2013 14:39, Eagle wrote:
>> Bill wrote this on 6/17/2013 :
>>
>> <clip text for brevity>
>>
>>>> Prolly. The US is not a socialistic country, Britain is.
>>
>>> Have you mentioned this to our government?
>>
>> Why would I do that? Y'all decided to give up your freedom to let a
>> handful of wig wearing snobs decide what you can and can't do and how
>> much you can be paid, and what kind of medical care you are entitled to
>> and who you get for a Doctor, not to mention how much in tax you pay for
>> fuel, or pay an exorbitant salary to a royal family who has no say in
>> running your gubment.
>>
>
>Most of those things are decided by the guvmint.
>
>By contrast, the US has a constitutional court to which every great
>social question eventually gravitates.
I really do hate to have to tell you this, but so do we these days.
>On 17/06/2013 14:39, Eagle wrote:
>> Bill wrote this on 6/17/2013 :
>>
>> <clip text for brevity>
>>
>>>> Prolly. The US is not a socialistic country, Britain is.
>>
>>> Have you mentioned this to our government?
>>
>> Why would I do that? Y'all decided to give up your freedom to let a
>> handful of wig wearing snobs decide what you can and can't do and how
>> much you can be paid, and what kind of medical care you are entitled to
>> and who you get for a Doctor, not to mention how much in tax you pay for
>> fuel, or pay an exorbitant salary to a royal family who has no say in
>> running your gubment.
>>
>
>Most of those things are decided by the guvmint.
>
>By contrast, the US has a constitutional court to which every great
>social question eventually gravitates.
http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/
It's a good idea, so we stole it...
DVH
Jun 17, 2013, 10:49:21 AM6/17/13
to
question eventually gravitates.
In the UK, most major social questions (eg labour v capital, abortion,
gun control, education) are judged in parliament.
It could be claimed that our constitutional court is becoming more
important, but the change so far is trivial.
By contrast the US supreme court has made decisive law on abortion,
religion, guns, strikes, slavery, property rights, gay marriage, education.
As for whether it's a good idea or not, it's neutral. It depends on the
constitution and on the judges. Soviet Russia had a supreme court. North
Korea has a supreme court. A fat lot of good it does them.
Bill
Jun 17, 2013, 11:22:52 AM6/17/13
to
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:49:21 +0100, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>In the UK, most major social questions (eg labour v capital, abortion,
>gun control, education) are judged in parliament.
Almost all of those were settled long before the Supreme Court was
>In the UK, most major social questions (eg labour v capital, abortion,
>gun control, education) are judged in parliament.
even thought of.
Gun control, universal education and abortion haven't actually been
major issues in the UK for over half a century despite the wish of the
Catholic Church to make two of them live issues.
'Labour V Capital' isn't really an issue for the courts.
Eagle
Jun 17, 2013, 11:57:04 AM6/17/13
to
Bill explained on 6/17/2013 :
And your parliament is free from corruption? If you believe that, I
have a canyon I'll sell you called 'The Grand Canyon'. You can build a
little cottage with a nice picket fence around it and a nice thatch
roof.
have a canyon I'll sell you called 'The Grand Canyon'. You can build a
little cottage with a nice picket fence around it and a nice thatch
roof.
Eagle
Jun 17, 2013, 11:59:48 AM6/17/13
to
DVH explained on 6/17/2013 :
Are you on drugs, DVH? None of your statements here are true, and Dave
Brooks is a Brit.
Brooks is a Brit.
DVH
Jun 17, 2013, 12:16:23 PM6/17/13
to
I note your incredulity, however, and ascribe it to your lack of
knowledge of what happens in your own country, and mostly blame your media.
> and Dave
> Brooks is a Brit.
>
Bill
Jun 17, 2013, 12:22:41 PM6/17/13
to
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:57:04 -0700, "Eagle" <deag...@geemail.com>
haircuts like yours do...
wrote:
>Bill explained on 6/17/2013 :
>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 06:39:31 -0700, "Eagle" <deag...@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>> Bill wrote this on 6/17/2013 :
>>>
>>> <clip text for brevity>
>>>
>>>>> Prolly. The US is not a socialistic country, Britain is.
>>>> Have you mentioned this to our government?
>>>
>>> Why would I do that?
>
>> Because they say they're conservatives...
>
>> Y'all decided to give up your freedom to let a
>>> handful of wig wearing snobs decide what you can and can't do and how
>>> much you can be paid, and what kind of medical care you are entitled to
>>> and who you get for a Doctor, not to mention how much in tax you pay
>>> for fuel, or pay an exorbitant salary to a royal family who has no say
>>> in running your gubment.
>
>> Whereas you get a bunch of crooked politicians...
>
>And your parliament is free from corruption?
Goodness no, but at least our politicians don't flaunt their $200
>Bill explained on 6/17/2013 :
>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 06:39:31 -0700, "Eagle" <deag...@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>> Bill wrote this on 6/17/2013 :
>>>
>>> <clip text for brevity>
>>>
>>>>> Prolly. The US is not a socialistic country, Britain is.
>>>> Have you mentioned this to our government?
>>>
>>> Why would I do that?
>
>> Because they say they're conservatives...
>
>> Y'all decided to give up your freedom to let a
>>> handful of wig wearing snobs decide what you can and can't do and how
>>> much you can be paid, and what kind of medical care you are entitled to
>>> and who you get for a Doctor, not to mention how much in tax you pay
>>> for fuel, or pay an exorbitant salary to a royal family who has no say
>>> in running your gubment.
>
>> Whereas you get a bunch of crooked politicians...
>
>And your parliament is free from corruption?
haircuts like yours do...
SeaNymph
Jun 17, 2013, 1:02:24 PM6/17/13
to
while eagle is denigrating another country, he wouldn't realize that all
of what you posted is absolutely true :)
DVH
Jun 17, 2013, 1:13:32 PM6/17/13
to
Although here, anyone can be a barber or grow vegetables without
interference. Take that, big government!
SeaNymph
Jun 17, 2013, 1:36:37 PM6/17/13
to
some things. Honestly, I don't think this country is what it was
decades ago. I think it's on a downhill slide and there isn't much that
can stop it.
Eagle
Jun 17, 2013, 4:11:49 PM6/17/13
to
on 6/17/2013, DVH supposed :
You sure of that?
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages