As the election approaches...
George Graves
Bush is not good enough to actually vote for.
Usually, I get to this point in an election year and I just wish for it
to all be over for another four years. This time, the aftermath of this
election promises to be nastier than the election itself, I'm afraid. If
Bush wins, the election will be in contention for months, maybe years,
because the crybaby Democrats are going to be such poor losers that they
are going to challenge any result that does NOT result in a Kerry
victory. This is unfortunate, because such a result will shake this
country to its very core and will give much pleasure to our enemies and
perhaps present them with an opportunity to hit us hard.
OTOH, if Kerry is elected, I suspect that Bush & Co., will just fade
quietly away. So from that standpoint, perhaps it's better for the
country in the long run for Kerry to win. At least we'll be spared the
promised endless lawsuits that will ensue if Kerry loses. OTOH, Kerry's
presidency promises to be worse than Jimmy Carter's. Never has a
presidential candidate had so few ideas or a less commanding presence.
When he gets in, look for more Presidential edicts than even Clinton
produced and wishy-washy positions on just about everything. Nothing
will get done domestically, the war will go from bad to worse, and the
terrorists will feel empowered by the weak president, so look for more
and worse attacks by Al Qaeda.
It's going to be an interesting four years.
Mark my words.
--
George Graves
------------------
Every guy owes himself at least one Ferrari before he dies
Lloyd Parsons
<gmgravesnos-DE7B...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
You're ignoring the hordes of lawyers from both sides that are just
sitting there waiting for the election results.
I think that unless one or the other wins decisively, we are in for
some nasty shit!
To say that the dems are the only ones is to ignore all news....
John Dorn
at this point, it's pretty unlikely bush will win, so don't be so glum.
kerry at least has intelligence and give him a year or so and he
actually could be a great president. he already has a better presence
than either clinton or bush when they first got into office, so if
anything he will improve. clinton was considered a redneck his first few
months if you remember. now he does pretty well in speaking. bush is
better too, but his detour into drugs and drinking have clearly left
their mark.
i don't think the election will be that close, the undercurrent is
waaaay in favor of getting bush out of office no matter what the overall
opinion of kerry may be.
MuahMan
"George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gmgravesnos-DE7B...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
Consider them marked! ;)
It's allready starting down here in Palm Beach County. They have lawyers
from both parties sitting and watching the proccess..... they started an
Early Voter program and it's being troublesome allready. The second you hear
the word "Lawyer" you know it's about to get all fucked up. In fact short of
another Civil War the eradication of all lawyers would be the second best
thing for this country. There is allready massive election fraud in Palm
Beach County and Miami/Dade County. They have found several thousand people
who registered and voted numerous times. (All for Kerry so far... not say
there aren't voter frauds in the Repbulican ranks but it's probably far
less). The Govenor and GWB's brother has threathened to take drastic
measures which of course gets the stupid Democrats in a tizze. No way this
election is settled on election day here, no way, not one chance. This
election will be decided by lawyers again. FL will solve their election by
litigation and I predict Ohio will also take it to court.
Lets be honest, Bush is 200 to 300% better than Kerry. Kerry is a straight
socialist and to be honest if he got hit by a bus today I would throw a
party. That said Bush is a pinko liberal bastard too, the only real
difference I can see between the two is that one will double my taxes and
start nationalizing health car (egads so scary!!!!) the other will do
nothing for the next four years. In my estimation a goverment doing nothing
is better than a goverment trying to do something and failing everytime.
The things that bugs me so much about the Democrats is their belief that the
government wants to help them, and that it is capable of helping them. Have
they learned nothing? Have they not read any history books? What do you
think is simpler to do run an election where there are only two maybe three
options on a ballot or run a nationwide healthcare business with 300 million
members? This goverment cannot even run a legtimate election when all you
need is a few people with a fucking calculator. Somehow how these geniuses
are going to be responsible for my health care. LOL...... Problem is when
they fuck the paper work up and you get a leg amputated instead of
colonscopy you won't be able to sue the shit out of Uncle Same. Wake the
fuck up you fucking idiots. Government has NO incentive to help you and does
not want to. They want your money and then they want you in front of the
boob tube taking prescriptions meds!!!!!
Fuck it gets me so angry. Any government body bigger than County is out of
touch with it's constituents and utterly useless! FUCK ALL YOU LIBERALS!
Jason McNorton
nos...@dorne.com says...
Guess you're missing the polls showing Bush is on average 5 points
ahead... The leftwing is PISSED still that they lost 2000, and yes
that's a big undercurrent.
I don't know how it'll end up, but I'll sure miss the 2nd amendment when
kerry comes in and attempts to ban guns as much as possible. If he gets
in, that'll really hurt so bad.
Mayor of R'lyeh
<lloydp...@spamac.com> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
Which Republican issued a statement like Eric Holder did?
"If every vote is allowed to be cast, and if every vote is counted,
John Kerry will be president within a day of that election."
I can't recall any Republican saying on national tv that the only
acceptable result of the election is for Bush to be the winner.
--
"The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies."
French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin
MuahMan
"Jason McNorton" <jm...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1be70572...@news-40.giganews.com...
What's really gonna hurt is when you Kerry takes your legal guns, you get
shot by a criminal who didn't listen to Kerry's law, then you get carted off
to a national health care hospital, you receive care from the lowest bidder
but he takes out your spleen instead of the bullet, you can't afford to go
to a real doctor because Kerry raised your taxes so high and you die. Kerry
gets your entire estate because it's worth more than 200k. Your remaining
loved ones die from starvation as Kerry's daugther gets a new porsche with
your inheritance.
Phil Earnhardt
>You're ignoring the hordes of lawyers from both sides that are just
>sitting there waiting for the election results.
There was plenty of dubious stuff that happened in 2000 that the
Republicans could have pursued. I believe it was Missouri or Illinois.
They did not. And there was a famous case where Nixon clearly could
have quibbled about the results (1964?) again, I believe, in Illinois.
He did not.
Unless the Republicans pull an Al Gore in this election, I see no
reason to believe that their actions are purely defensive.
>I think that unless one or the other wins decisively, we are in for
>some nasty shit!
I don't know. Only one party has decided to start "preepmtive"
protests about the election.
>To say that the dems are the only ones is to ignore all news....
What news?
--phil
Lloyd Parsons
R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
That's nice rhetoric, but it doesn't change the fact of the hordes of
lawyers waiting. Words are nice, actions are nicer.
Do you really think that we won't see some really nasty shit happen
before this election day is over? I sure expect it, and I expect it
regardless of who wins.
Jason McNorton
lloydp...@spamac.com says...
It depends.
New Gallup Bush 51 Kerry 46 LV. Bush 49 Kerry 47 RV
The last week Gallup poll is usually pretty accurate for the final
results. Barring some unscene disaster, Bush should win by a few
points. I wish it would be by 5 pts at least, so there wouldn't even be
a hint of legal crap. It'll probably be within 3 though, so there will
be likely problems. I know if Bush loses, even closely, he'll concede
that night.
If kerry loses by less than 3 pts, I bet he won't concede for a long
time and try to drag it out.
Mayor of R'lyeh
And I'm sure we'll see plenty of action from the DNC's lawyers.
>
>Do you really think that we won't see some really nasty shit happen
>before this election day is over?
We've already seen plenty. Union apes physically attacking elderly
women working at Republican headquarters around the country at the
behest of the DNC, Democrats shooting at Republican headquarters
around the country, Democrats vandalizing Bush-Cheney signs. etc.
> I sure expect it, and I expect it regardless of who wins.
The DNC has already issued orders to start screaming voter
intimidation whether or not any has taken place. Where is the
equivalent of that from the Republicans?
Snit
gmgravesnos-DE7B...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com on 10/25/04
10:47 AM:
Your words are marked... but not believed. Seems much of what you say is
based on conjecture and guess work, if not just blind hope. Take the after
math of the election - if it is close, *both* sides have their lawyers
ready.
Look at the last election - based on the full recount of Florida, Bush
lost... and yet he still went to court. The fact that he was able to get
away with such shenanigans has set a very, very dangerous precedent for the
country. There should have been as accurate of a count as possible - and if
an accurate count was not possible, a repeat election.
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
Lloyd Parsons
McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
I don't know what about Bush's performance makes you think he would
concede quickly. About the only way that would happen is for Rove to
croak and Cheney to lose his voice.
Oxford
> It depends.
>
> New Gallup Bush 51 Kerry 46 LV. Bush 49 Kerry 47 RV
>
> The last week Gallup poll is usually pretty accurate for the final
> results. Barring some unscene disaster, Bush should win by a few
> points. I wish it would be by 5 pts at least, so there wouldn't even be
> a hint of legal crap. It'll probably be within 3 though, so there will
> be likely problems. I know if Bush loses, even closely, he'll concede
> that night.
>
> If kerry loses by less than 3 pts, I bet he won't concede for a long
> time and try to drag it out.
Jason, jason... Those are NATIONAL POLLS.. they don't matter...
Only the polls in a few battle ground states matter at this point...
please understand this. The race is very tight... at 1% or two... there
is no 5% swing left.
Look at the REAL numbers...
Mayor of R'lyeh
And Lloyd actually wonders why anyone would think that Democrats are a
bunch of low class whiners.
Lloyd Parsons
R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I was wrong, Cheney could keep his voice, but if he breaks his arm it
would be difficult for him to stick it up Bush's ass to animate him!
;-)
Oxford
> I don't know how it'll end up, but I'll sure miss the 2nd amendment when
> kerry comes in and attempts to ban guns as much as possible. If he gets
> in, that'll really hurt so bad.
???? Kerry isn't for banning guns, sounds like you haven't been
following the race very closely.... is that a gun in his hands?
Oxford
> The things that bugs me so much about the Democrats is their belief that the
> government wants to help them, and that it is capable of helping them. Have
> they learned nothing? Have they not read any history books? What do you
> think is simpler to do run an election where there are only two maybe three
> options on a ballot or run a nationwide healthcare business with 300 million
> members? This goverment cannot even run a legtimate election when all you
> need is a few people with a fucking calculator. Somehow how these geniuses
> are going to be responsible for my health care. LOL...... Problem is when
> they fuck the paper work up and you get a leg amputated instead of
> colonscopy you won't be able to sue the shit out of Uncle Same. Wake the
> fuck up you fucking idiots. Government has NO incentive to help you and does
> not want to. They want your money and then they want you in front of the
> boob tube taking prescriptions meds!!!!!
>
> Fuck it gets me so angry. Any government body bigger than County is out of
> touch with it's constituents and utterly useless! FUCK ALL YOU LIBERALS!
muahman, i think much of your problem is you have your stereotypes
wrong. i've NEVER met a democrat that felt the government should help
him or her. you've got it backwards on that.
a nationwide health care program wouldn't be run by the government, it
would be run by blue cross blue shield, pacifica, humana... like
anything else... again, you've got to backwards...
i agree about the election stuff... there should be "1" standard
national ballot, done electronically with paper reciept and web based
TRACKING like a fedex box. it's a mess as is stands...
actually the government has gotten bigger under Bush... again, you have
it mixed up... please read up on these subjects...
thanks!
oxford
-
Peter Hayes
> ... I wish to make my position clear. Bush is better than Kerry, and
> Bush is not good enough to actually vote for.
>
> Usually, I get to this point in an election year and I just wish for it
> to all be over for another four years. This time, the aftermath of this
> election promises to be nastier than the election itself, I'm afraid. If
> Bush wins, the election will be in contention for months, maybe years,
> because the crybaby Democrats are going to be such poor losers that they
> are going to challenge any result that does NOT result in a Kerry
> victory. This is unfortunate, because such a result will shake this
> country to its very core and will give much pleasure to our enemies and
> perhaps present them with an opportunity to hit us hard.
That is a direct result of the voting system.
Putting a cross on a piece of paper is unambiguous in 99.999%+ of cases.
The number of spoilt papers in a UK election is usually 10-30 in a
constituency of 50,000 voters. Electronic voting is a disaster, open to
fraud especially without a backup paper trail as in Florida, and the US
is about to reap the reward.
Also - change the electoral system, popular vote only. Do away with this
archaic Electoral College system that harks back a couple of hundred
years when delegates rode on horseback to Washington.
> OTOH, if Kerry is elected, I suspect that Bush & Co., will just fade
> quietly away. So from that standpoint, perhaps it's better for the
> country in the long run for Kerry to win. At least we'll be spared the
> promised endless lawsuits that will ensue if Kerry loses. OTOH, Kerry's
> presidency promises to be worse than Jimmy Carter's. Never has a
> presidential candidate had so few ideas or a less commanding presence.
Kerry is growing in leaps and bounds, while Bush looks tired and devoid
of new ideas, just rehashing the same old "Don't change the Commander in
Chief during a war" mantra.
Since the so-called "War on Terror" is open ended, what happens in 2008
when Bush has to stand down, assuming he is even re-elected? Will he
enact amentments to the Patriot Act to "defer" elections during wartime?
> When
"When". Yeup... :)
> he gets in, look for more Presidential edicts than even Clinton
> produced and wishy-washy positions on just about everything. Nothing
> will get done domestically, the war will go from bad to worse, and the
> terrorists will feel empowered by the weak president, so look for more
> and worse attacks by Al Qaeda.
Bush's Iraq policy, such as it is, is going nowhere, that much is
obvious. What's needed is a new approach, and that can only come from a
new man at the helm.
> It's going to be an interesting four years.
>
> Mark my words.
Ancient Chinese curse - may you live in interesting times.
--
Peter
Mike Zulauf
<gmgravesnos-DE7B...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> This time, the aftermath of this
> election promises to be nastier than the election itself, I'm afraid. If
> Bush wins, the election will be in contention for months, maybe years,
> because the crybaby Democrats are going to be such poor losers that they
> are going to challenge any result that does NOT result in a Kerry
> victory.
You're stoned if you think that the republicans won't use any and every
method they can think of to get their boy in office. Just look at all
of the cynical, questionable, and even plainly illegal things they've
done already.
Not that I think the democrats are much better in this respect.
Hope for a blowout. . .
Mike
--
Mike Zulauf
mazu...@met.utah.edu
C Lund
<gmgravesnos-DE7B...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> OTOH, if Kerry is elected, I suspect that Bush & Co., will just fade
> quietly away. So from that standpoint, perhaps it's better for the
> country in the long run for Kerry to win. At least we'll be spared the
> promised endless lawsuits that will ensue if Kerry loses.
Instead we'll see Kerry bogged down in endless lawsuits about blowjobs
or some similarly trivial issue. Frankly, the crybaby Republicans
didn't exactly show good sportsmanship over losing the White House to
Clinton. Thus Kenneth Starr.
> OTOH, Kerry's
> presidency promises to be worse than Jimmy Carter's. Never has a
> presidential candidate had so few ideas or a less commanding presence.
You think bush has any ideas at all? Or a commanding presence?
> When he gets in, look for more Presidential edicts than even Clinton
> produced and wishy-washy positions on just about everything. Nothing
> will get done domestically,
Hmm.. I keep reading that bush has spent more time on vacation than
any other president before him. Is that true?
> the war will go from bad to worse,
That will happen no matter who's in the White House. Mind you, if it
weren't for those idiots currently in charge, you wouldn't even be in
that war.
> and the
> terrorists will feel empowered by the weak president, so look for more
> and worse attacks by Al Qaeda.
There will be more attacks from Al Qaeda no matter who's in the White
House. However, bush is the best recruitment officer Al Qaeda ever
had. They'd miss him if he left.
Oh, and how do you feel about the Iranian endorsement for bush?
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Snit
clund-2E5D5A....@amstwist00.chello.com on 10/25/04 1:48 PM:
> In article
> <gmgravesnos-DE7B...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> OTOH, if Kerry is elected, I suspect that Bush & Co., will just fade
>> quietly away. So from that standpoint, perhaps it's better for the
>> country in the long run for Kerry to win. At least we'll be spared the
>> promised endless lawsuits that will ensue if Kerry loses.
>
> Instead we'll see Kerry bogged down in endless lawsuits about blowjobs
> or some similarly trivial issue. Frankly, the crybaby Republicans
> didn't exactly show good sportsmanship over losing the White House to
> Clinton. Thus Kenneth Starr.
Hey, wait - not only did Clinton have an affair (perhaps the first president
in history to do so), but, gasp! he *lied* about it.
Do I support or excuse his lying - of course not... it was wrong. Do I keep
that wrong in perspective - I do... it is irrelevant to his job as
president, though perhaps relevant to the sexual harassment charges against
him.... charges that suddenly went away when he left the White House. No
political motivation there!
>
>> OTOH, Kerry's
>> presidency promises to be worse than Jimmy Carter's. Never has a
>> presidential candidate had so few ideas or a less commanding presence.
>
> You think bush has any ideas at all? Or a commanding presence?
LOL... Bush has ideas... bomb Iraq... chew... bomb Iraq... chew... bomb
Iraq... yes... must bomb Iraq... hmmm, there was something else.... oh, to
hell with it... just bomb Iraq.... HELP, I'M CHOKING!
>
>> When he gets in, look for more Presidential edicts than even Clinton
>> produced and wishy-washy positions on just about everything. Nothing
>> will get done domestically,
>
> Hmm.. I keep reading that bush has spent more time on vacation than
> any other president before him. Is that true?
Well, they were "working vacations". :)
>
>> the war will go from bad to worse,
>
> That will happen no matter who's in the White House. Mind you, if it
> weren't for those idiots currently in charge, you wouldn't even be in
> that war.
Well, the war would be very different... the US would be going after the
people that are attacked us.
>
>> and the
>> terrorists will feel empowered by the weak president, so look for more
>> and worse attacks by Al Qaeda.
>
> There will be more attacks from Al Qaeda no matter who's in the White
> House. However, bush is the best recruitment officer Al Qaeda ever
> had. They'd miss him if he left.
>
> Oh, and how do you feel about the Iranian endorsement for bush?
--
Jason McNorton
Yeah, he'll keep $10k snob trap shotguns around, but his voting history
is of banning as much as he possibly can. His hunting excursions is the
laughing stock of the hunter/firearms crowd.
George Graves
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Right......
George Graves
C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
I don't like Bush. I don't care WHO endorses him or not.
George Graves
pe...@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter Hayes) wrote:
Obvious. The only question is where will we find him? There's no "new
man" running. Just another power crazy politician without even a CLUE as
to what's going on.
>
> > It's going to be an interesting four years.
> >
> > Mark my words.
>
> Ancient Chinese curse - may you live in interesting times.
--
George Graves
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Let's talk about this is two years, I'll bet I'm at least 90% correct.
> Seems much of what you say is
> based on conjecture and guess work, if not just blind hope. Take the after
> math of the election - if it is close, *both* sides have their lawyers
> ready.
But so far, only one has admitted it.
>
> Look at the last election - based on the full recount of Florida, Bush
> lost... and yet he still went to court. The fact that he was able to get
> away with such shenanigans has set a very, very dangerous precedent for the
> country. There should have been as accurate of a count as possible - and if
> an accurate count was not possible, a repeat election.
Here's the problem. Your "based on the full recount of Florida, Bush
lost... " depends upon who you ask. Most experts agree that based on a
full account Bush won. OTOH, when the count gets this close, what went
on in Florida is of little consequence because the numbers were already
so close as to be well within the statistical margin for error. That
means that either way, the margin for error is greater than the
difference in the count. That makes many states' results suspect,
Including a number that narrowly went for Algore, so it was not just
Florida. And it's not that cut-and-dry. A new election was what was
needed, but I see why they didn't do it. There was no guarantee that the
results of a second election wouldn't mirror the first.
Oxford
> > http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/sportsmen/
>
> Yeah, he'll keep $10k snob trap shotguns around, but his voting history
> is of banning as much as he possibly can. His hunting excursions is the
> laughing stock of the hunter/firearms crowd.
Jason, your a TOTAL idiot.
Kerry has never said or voted for such things, you just have been
brainwashed. Is he against assault rifles, sure, EVERY reasonable person
is, except maybe a tiny few in the Bush administration.
Come on, Jason... THINK a little before you post again.
George Graves
George Graves
"MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sounds like Democrats all right!
Jason McNorton
ext.news.prodigy.com>, gmgra...@pacbell.net says...
The popular vote is simply used for guiding the state legislature for
selecting which electors to send to DC. True Bush won all the recounts,
and even the projected ones by the media, but within that margin of
error it's really up to the state.
The state sent Bush ones. QED.
George Graves
Phil Earnhardt <p...@dim.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:56:56 GMT, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydp...@spamac.com> wrote:
>
> >You're ignoring the hordes of lawyers from both sides that are just
> >sitting there waiting for the election results.
>
> There was plenty of dubious stuff that happened in 2000 that the
> Republicans could have pursued. I believe it was Missouri or Illinois.
> They did not. And there was a famous case where Nixon clearly could
> have quibbled about the results (1964?) again, I believe, in Illinois.
> He did not.
1960, actually, but you are correct, it was Illinois, Cook County
(Chicago) in fact.
> Unless the Republicans pull an Al Gore in this election, I see no
> reason to believe that their actions are purely defensive.
>
> >I think that unless one or the other wins decisively, we are in for
> >some nasty shit!
Kerry has stated that even if Bush wins decisively, he will challenge
every state that went for Bush in court. Sounds like a mess to me.
>
> I don't know. Only one party has decided to start "preepmtive"
> protests about the election.
Yeah. Guess who?
Jason McNorton
> Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/sportsmen/
> >
> > Yeah, he'll keep $10k snob trap shotguns around, but his voting history
> > is of banning as much as he possibly can. His hunting excursions is the
> > laughing stock of the hunter/firearms crowd.
>
> Jason, your a TOTAL idiot.
It's 'you're'.
> Kerry has never said or voted for such things, you just have been
> brainwashed. Is he against assault rifles, sure, EVERY reasonable person
> is, except maybe a tiny few in the Bush administration.
>
> Come on, Jason... THINK a little before you post again.
Assault rifles are select fire and have been regulated since 1934.
Therefore, it's not an issue right? Or do you mean 'assault weapon'.
How do you define those, btw? There is no legal term now for it
anymore.
'Assault weapon' is literally anything a politician decides it is. It's
totally arbitrary. Go educate on this subject before you mouth off son.
Mike Zulauf
<gmgravesnos-9D0E...@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Kerry has stated that even if Bush wins decisively, he will challenge
> every state that went for Bush in court. Sounds like a mess to me.
Reference?
Mike Zulauf
<gmgravesnos-B7A1...@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> A new election was what was
> needed, but I see why they didn't do it. There was no guarantee that the
> results of a second election wouldn't mirror the first.
If it was done as a run-off, with only the top two on the ballot, it
seems pretty likely that the result would have been different.
Phil Earnhardt
<gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >I think that unless one or the other wins decisively, we are in for
>> >some nasty shit!
>
>Kerry has stated that even if Bush wins decisively, he will challenge
>every state that went for Bush in court. Sounds like a mess to me.
You know, Senator John Kerry may ultimately precipitate a revolt
against the lawyers in America. In the long run, that might be a good
thing.
--phil
GreyCloud
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> In article
> <gmgravesnos-DE7B...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> You're ignoring the hordes of lawyers from both sides that are just
> sitting there waiting for the election results.
>
And 99% of the lawyers give the rest a bad name.
> I think that unless one or the other wins decisively, we are in for
> some nasty shit!
>
> To say that the dems are the only ones is to ignore all news....
I'm glad I live way out in the country.
--
---------------------------------
Th3 G0ld3n Yrs Sux0r
George Graves
Mike Zulauf <mazu...@met.utah.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <gmgravesnos-9D0E...@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Kerry has stated that even if Bush wins decisively, he will challenge
> > every state that went for Bush in court. Sounds like a mess to me.
>
> Reference?
>
> Mike
Edwards. last week's 'Meet the Press.'
David Fritzinger
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:56:56 GMT, Lloyd Parsons
> >some nasty shit!
> >
> >To say that the dems are the only ones is to ignore all news....
>
> "If every vote is allowed to be cast, and if every vote is counted,
> John Kerry will be president within a day of that election."
>
> I can't recall any Republican saying on national tv that the only
> acceptable result of the election is for Bush to be the winner.
Your problem, Mayor, is that you appear to have a severe reading
comprehension disorder. Your take on what Holder said is nothing like
what he actually said. What he said is, if it is a fair election,
Kerry will be the winner. Which is quite different than your take on
what he said.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Oxford
> > Jason, your a TOTAL idiot.
>
> It's 'you're'.
yeah, egg on face... i get to typing too fast to notice...
> > Kerry has never said or voted for such things, you just have been
> > brainwashed. Is he against assault rifles, sure, EVERY reasonable person
> > is, except maybe a tiny few in the Bush administration.
> >
> > Come on, Jason... THINK a little before you post again.
>
> Assault rifles are select fire and have been regulated since 1934.
> Therefore, it's not an issue right? Or do you mean 'assault weapon'.
> How do you define those, btw? There is no legal term now for it
> anymore.
>
> 'Assault weapon' is literally anything a politician decides it is. It's
> totally arbitrary. Go educate on this subject before you mouth off son.
Look... I, nor anyone needs fancy "definitions" of what kills quickly...
Assault Rifle, or Assault Weapon... it makes no difference, sounds like
you want all "Assaults" to be legal...
Look, guns are tools of the weak. They are nothing more than extensions
of the fist. If you are angry, get some help but don't bore us with your
worn out argument that we need "guns" to be protected.
Jason McNorton
Well then you just want to ban guns. I happen to support freedom and
the rights of the constitution. And sticking 'assault' on something
doesn't make it evil.
So basically, you have no idea what it is you want banned, but you just
want them banned real good.
Talk about idiocy.
Snit
MPG.1be78330c...@news-40.giganews.com on 10/25/04 8:40 PM:
Would you have a problem with my stockpiling anthrax, nuclear bombs, and
other arms in my basement?
The question is *not* should we limit arms - the question is where should
the limit be.
Jason McNorton
SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID says...
Sure.
> The question is *not* should we limit arms - the question is where should
> the limit be.
That stuff would be considered 'Any of Weapon' by the BATFE. Those are
highly regulated.
Since firearms are protected by the 2nd, the stuff your talking about
does not apply. I know you'll drag the 'gun=nuke' argument on until
eternity, but it's so much nonsense. If you get confused, re-read what
I just wrote until you get it.
Snit
You mean you would limit my arms! Don't you believe in the second
amendment?
>
>> The question is *not* should we limit arms - the question is where should
>> the limit be.
>
> That stuff would be considered 'Any of Weapon' by the BATFE. Those are
> highly regulated.
Sure, but when did they get the right to go against the second amendment?
Are you suggesting they should be able to regulate fire arms?
>
> Since firearms are protected by the 2nd, the stuff your talking about
> does not apply.
The second amendment talks about "arms". If you want to know more about
what may have been meant by that word, look at the writings of the founding
fathers - they clearly use the word "arms" to mean weapons other than
firearms. Look, for example, at the Federalist Papers:
The word "arms" shows up in several of the Federalist Papers. It is used in
reference to military arms as well as personal arms. They even refer to
"British arms", "arms and arts of foreign nations", and "arms of the
republic". Arms were clearly not just firearms, though that is a common
misconception tossed around on this topic.
> I know you'll drag the 'gun=nuke' argument on until eternity, but it's so much
> nonsense.
Just because guns and nukes are both arms, that does not mean that guns and
nukes are the same. See if this helps:
_.----------.
,-'' `--.
,' `.
,' ,-----. ,-----. `.
/ / \ / \ \
; / \ / \ :
| ( ) ( ) |
: \ Guns / \ Nukes / ;
\ \ / \ / /
`. `-----' `-----' ,'
`. ,'
`--. Arms _.-'
`----------''
While that may look, at first, to be an alien head, it is a Venn diagram.
> If you get confused, re-read what I just wrote until you get it.
I get it - you are erroneously equating "arms" with "firearms".
So, do I get my nukes or do we agree that arms should be limited?
Jason McNorton
And there's limits to free speech too doofus. Your all or nothing
insanity is sooo tiring.
> >> The question is *not* should we limit arms - the question is where should
> >> the limit be.
> >
> > That stuff would be considered 'Any of Weapon' by the BATFE. Those are
> > highly regulated.
>
> Sure, but when did they get the right to go against the second amendment?
Again, the 2nd refers to small arms. Look at the damn Federalist papers
for the definitions. Anything more powerful is considered ordnance.
> Are you suggesting they should be able to regulate fire arms?
In some ways yes. Like with free speech, obviously. It's not 100% or
0%.
Duh.
Except that in the constitution it's ordnance and arms. nukes don't fit
in the same catagory whatsoever has arms.
> > If you get confused, re-read what I just wrote until you get it.
>
> I get it - you are erroneously equating "arms" with "firearms".
>
> So, do I get my nukes or do we agree that arms should be limited?
They are limited. Machine guns are restricted and hard to get.
Anything beyond the semi-auto needs higher regulation. Even semi-auto
needs background checks and so on, which I'm not against. I'm ok with
needing licensing with concealed carry, but they must be 'shall issue'
types.
So, now we've cleared that up. Will you tell me where you stand on it?
Don't repeat 'nukes=guns'. Don't talk about anthrax. Where do you
personally stand on firearms? Do you differ from what I say in the
above paragraph? If so, why? And please stay ON TOPIC here, no nukes
or VX gas nonsense.
I bet you can't do it.
Mayor of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article <BDA32048.D56A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
Not so fast there, Jason. Up until the turn of the 20th century it was
not uncommon for the private yachts of the ultra-rich to be outfitted
with some type of cannon.
--
"The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies."
French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin
Jason McNorton
ev5...@hotmail.com says...
I'm not exactly sure where the line needs to be drawn. But I know semi-
autos have been around for a really long time, and there's no need for
banning them. Machine guns don't need to be banned either, and aren't
in most states. Just very heavily regulated to the point you have to be
very rich to get them.
Of course, on the black market you can get one for quite cheap.
Mayor of R'lyeh
I've never figured out why machine guns need to be treated any
differently than any other type of firearm. They were only heavily
regulated in the 30's in a failed attempt to keep the criminals from
outgunningthe cops.
What we need to do is to make the punishment so severe for comitting a
crime with any type of weapon that it becomes less likely to happen.
I'm all for handing out death sentences with very limited amounts and
types of possible appeals for that sort of thing.
Mike Zulauf
<gmgravesnos-43D4...@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article <mazulauf-1FB8B7...@nntp0.pdx.net>,
> Mike Zulauf <mazu...@met.utah.edu> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <gmgravesnos-9D0E...@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> > George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Kerry has stated that even if Bush wins decisively, he will challenge
> > > every state that went for Bush in court. Sounds like a mess to me.
> >
> > Reference?
> >
> > Mike
>
> Edwards. last week's 'Meet the Press.'
I'm afraid I don't believe you (you have a history of posting similar
unsubstantiated claims). I've tried to find references to this online,
and I can't.
Got any links to transcripts, etc?
Mike
ps - I could be pedantic, and say that Edwards isn't Kerry. But it's
close enough for me - assuming you can back up your claim.
--
Mike Zulauf
mazu...@met.utah.edu
Oxford
> > Look, guns are tools of the weak. They are nothing more than extensions
> > of the fist. If you are angry, get some help but don't bore us with your
> > worn out argument that we need "guns" to be protected.
>
> Well then you just want to ban guns. I happen to support freedom and
> the rights of the constitution. And sticking 'assault' on something
> doesn't make it evil.
Nah, I'm not out to ban them, just take models that have no purpose
outside of hunting out of the mix. I've always thought making it illegal
to have a gun that is less than 30 inches, 6 pounds would be a crime,
punishable by death. That would clear up "the embarrassing problem"
America has with guns pretty quick.
> So basically, you have no idea what it is you want banned, but you just
> want them banned real good.
Nah, I understand it's a tough issue, I respect people that use them
properly... but to have 40,000 people killed every year is completely
crazy. Canada doesn't have this problem, no country in europe does,
Japan certainly doesn't... only... 3rd world countries... and "us"...
Jason... you are on the wrong side... so sad, so sad...
Jason McNorton
> Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Look, guns are tools of the weak. They are nothing more than extensions
> > > of the fist. If you are angry, get some help but don't bore us with your
> > > worn out argument that we need "guns" to be protected.
> >
> > Well then you just want to ban guns. I happen to support freedom and
> > the rights of the constitution. And sticking 'assault' on something
> > doesn't make it evil.
>
> Nah, I'm not out to ban them, just take models that have no purpose
> outside of hunting out of the mix. I've always thought making it illegal
> to have a gun that is less than 30 inches, 6 pounds would be a crime,
> punishable by death. That would clear up "the embarrassing problem"
> America has with guns pretty quick.
Where the hell are you from?
In the USA, we still have this thing called 'freedoms'.
Also, the 2nd is not about hunting.
> > So basically, you have no idea what it is you want banned, but you just
> > want them banned real good.
>
> Nah, I understand it's a tough issue, I respect people that use them
> properly... but to have 40,000 people killed every year is completely
> crazy. Canada doesn't have this problem, no country in europe does,
> Japan certainly doesn't... only... 3rd world countries... and "us"...
>
> Jason... you are on the wrong side... so sad, so sad...
Stfu idiot. You don't know anything about this subject. A lot more
crimes are stopped with guns. The number is closer to 30,000 and over
half are suicides. 15 thousand gun murders out of 275 million is not
very bad. And the utility of them cleary overcomes the negatives.
You are the one who is wrong 'oxford'. Goodbye now, you're completely
incapable of understanding basic human rights and freedoms, and that's
something that utterly sickens me.
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
>Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> > Look, guns are tools of the weak. They are nothing more than extensions
>> > of the fist. If you are angry, get some help but don't bore us with your
>> > worn out argument that we need "guns" to be protected.
>>
>> Well then you just want to ban guns. I happen to support freedom and
>> the rights of the constitution. And sticking 'assault' on something
>> doesn't make it evil.
>
>Nah, I'm not out to ban them, just take models that have no purpose
>outside of hunting out of the mix.
The Second Amendment isn't in place to preserve hunting.
> I've always thought making it illegal to have a gun that is less than 30 inches, 6 pounds would be a crime,
>punishable by death.
Of course we wouldn't want to do anything like punish actual criminals
who use guns or anything.
> That would clear up "the embarrassing problem" America has with guns pretty quick.
America has no 'embarrassing problem' with guns.
>> So basically, you have no idea what it is you want banned, but you just
>> want them banned real good.
>
>Nah, I understand it's a tough issue, I respect people that use them
>properly... but to have 40,000 people killed every year is completely
>crazy.
Never mind that ~60% of them are suicides.
> Canada doesn't have this problem, no country in europe does,
>Japan certainly doesn't... only... 3rd world countries... and "us"...
>
>Jason... you are on the wrong side... so sad, so sad...
No you are sadly misinformed. America is far from the most violent
country in the civilized world.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html
Jason McNorton
Also, take a good look at this. This is the 'model' of gun banning..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?
xml=/news/2004/10/22/ncrime22.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/22/ixhome.html
"A different set of recorded crime figures showed that gun crime
continued to rise. In the 12 months to June last year there were 10,280
offences. In the year to June this year, the figure rose to 10,590 -
more than double the rate in 1997 when Labour came to power."
That's an awful lot for a much smaller country. And the rest of their
non-gun crimes are far worse than the USA's.
So if you ban guns, you still have rampant crime, gun crime too. Plus
you've made it impossible for people to defend themselves.
Really accomplishes a lot doesn't it. Oh wait, it's more feelgood
liberal hippie nonsense that doesn't even work in theory.
George Graves
wrote:
Hmmm. You don't seem to understand gun ownership too well. Most gun
owners don't own and like guns for their defensive (or even their
offensive) potential. Most people own guns because they are often
beautiful pieces of well-made machinery, and they are fun to shoot,
and/or they are weapons designed for hunting as many Americans like to
hunt. I'm not real surprised that you misunderstand gun ownership, most
anti-gun liberals are in the same boat. They simply don't understand or
they misunderstand (often intentionally) the motives of the gun crowd.
Oxford
> > Look, guns are tools of the weak. They are nothing more than extensions
> > of the fist. If you are angry, get some help but don't bore us with your
> > worn out argument that we need "guns" to be protected.
>
> Hmmm. You don't seem to understand gun ownership too well. Most gun
> owners don't own and like guns for their defensive (or even their
> offensive) potential. Most people own guns because they are often
> beautiful pieces of well-made machinery, and they are fun to shoot,
> and/or they are weapons designed for hunting as many Americans like to
> hunt. I'm not real surprised that you misunderstand gun ownership, most
> anti-gun liberals are in the same boat. They simply don't understand or
> they misunderstand (often intentionally) the motives of the gun crowd.
nope, i understand the issue quite well, i look at numbers of "humans"
killed each year in the US, Japan, Canada, Europe. Then base those
"facts" on current gun use and ownership in the US.
You are simply trying to skirt the issue and explain away all these
murders as "it wasn't my gun" so it's "okay"... problem is... it's a
huge emotional, and $$$ drain to our society... for little gain...
Maybe cut off 1 joint of "any finger you choose" if your "gun" is used
to harm another human. That would be fair and quickly solve the problem
without much harm to anyone.
We need to get realistic, not pander to the responsible gun owners. This
way, they would have nothing to worry about, and the problem would be
solved, basically "overnight"... and pretty cheaply.
Or...
Do the eBay thing and have public feedback on every gun owner, you get 3
negatives, and your gun is taken away for life. This would put the
public fully in charge of the decision, the police fully in charge of
enforcing the "feedback law"...
I'll always remember an exchange student that stayed with us years ago.
He was from somewhere in Wales. And I guess if you get caught "drinking
and driving" you have your license taken away for "life"...
Ah, the value of good ideas... :)
Oxford
> > Jason... you are on the wrong side... so sad, so sad...
>
> Also, take a good look at this. This is the 'model' of gun banning..
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?
> xml=/news/2004/10/22/ncrime22.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/22/ixhome.html
Yeah, I love the part:
"3,000 offences of aggression and violence, from spitting and threats to
murder by bullet".
The real numbers show less people are "murdered by bullet" in a year
than go down in a week in the US. sad, so sad...
> "A different set of recorded crime figures showed that gun crime
> continued to rise. In the 12 months to June last year there were 10,280
> offences. In the year to June this year, the figure rose to 10,590 -
> more than double the rate in 1997 when Labour came to power."
Sure, but those weren't murders... I guess that's the crux, in Europe
there are some gun crimes, but in the US there are actual gun deaths.
and LOTS of them.
> That's an awful lot for a much smaller country. And the rest of their
> non-gun crimes are far worse than the USA's.
>
> So if you ban guns, you still have rampant crime, gun crime too. Plus
> you've made it impossible for people to defend themselves.
I'm not for banning guns... I just want people that own them to be
responsible and pay with a part of their body if their gun is used
inappropriately.
> Really accomplishes a lot doesn't it. Oh wait, it's more feelgood
> liberal hippie nonsense that doesn't even work in theory.
There is nothing "hippy" about being smart...
Here's some facts for you to look over.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html
Only Brazil, N. Ireland, Estonia are less safe than the US, all the
other MAJOR countries have far less gun crime. England as you pointed
out... is .11, far far far lower than the US at 3.72.
You are fighting the wrong fight, so sad, so sad...
Just think of the bigger picture... what if Lincoln hadn't been shot, or
JFK, or Reagan, or the Pope or John Lennon, on and on...
I'm just saying Guns cause a lot of pain for little gain....
And you seem blind to it all.
oxford
-
Jason McNorton
They cause a lot more gain than pain, in my opinion. You can not
uninvent guns. Banning them just leads to criminals only having them.
The US is a violent country for reasons other than gun rights. That's
the crux of it all.
I'm very much for throwing the book at and executing murderers,
regardless of what method they use.
Again, there's a lot of DUI deaths out there. By your logic of banning
the tools criminals use, both booze and cars would have to be banned.
I have a lot of guns, and I have a carry permit. I have it to protect
my life. People get carjacked and worse around cities here. It's a
violent nutty culture, mostly due to immigration and minorities, sorry
to say. Homogenious places like Japan or how Europe used to be have
less problems with that. Europe's crime rate is skyrocketing of course,
due to a combination of harsh anti-defense laws and increased
immigration.
BTW, think of all the famous people we'd have alive if it weren't for
cars or planes. JFK Jr, Princess Diana, James Dean, and on and on.
Your appeal to emotion, suggesting if guns just didn't exist things
would be wonderful, doesn't work.
Oxford
> Where the hell are you from?
I'm from the States, don't worry...
>
> In the USA, we still have this thing called 'freedoms'.
Yes, and this gives people more "freedom" to walk around in full safety.
>
> Also, the 2nd is not about hunting.
And I never said it did...
> > > So basically, you have no idea what it is you want banned, but you just
> > > want them banned real good.
> >
> > Nah, I understand it's a tough issue, I respect people that use them
> > properly... but to have 40,000 people killed every year is completely
> > crazy. Canada doesn't have this problem, no country in europe does,
> > Japan certainly doesn't... only... 3rd world countries... and "us"...
> >
> > Jason... you are on the wrong side... so sad, so sad...
>
> Stfu idiot. You don't know anything about this subject. A lot more
> crimes are stopped with guns. The number is closer to 30,000 and over
> half are suicides. 15 thousand gun murders out of 275 million is not
> very bad. And the utility of them cleary overcomes the negatives.
Jason... Are you even thinking???
Suicides by Guns are still problems with Guns, not Suicides.
15,000 thousand when it could be Zero is not something to take lightly.
It's still the highest BY FAR of any developed Country.
What utility do they serve in a modern society? Sport is the ONLY one.
The rest is fear trying to fend fear...
> You are the one who is wrong 'oxford'. Goodbye now, you're completely
> incapable of understanding basic human rights and freedoms, and that's
> something that utterly sickens me.
Actually, I have you in a tailspin since you can rationally come up with
any reason for a Gun to be owned... Outside of hunting of course.
It seems you weren't raised well enough to think matters through... Come
on Jason... show us a reason why anyone needs a Gun, I'll places bets
you can't.
:)
oxford
-
Oxford
> >Nah, I'm not out to ban them, just take models that have no purpose
> >outside of hunting out of the mix.
>
> The Second Amendment isn't in place to preserve hunting.
??? But it could be... It's not like we need a militia to protect us
from a government. Only the "black helicopter crowd" believes that.
> > I've always thought making it illegal to have a gun that is less than 30
> > inches, 6 pounds would be a crime,
> >punishable by death.
>
> Of course we wouldn't want to do anything like punish actual criminals
> who use guns or anything.
Sure, I'm all for cutting of Joints of Fingers or putting them to
Death... read my other thoughts on this in other posts...
> > That would clear up "the embarrassing problem" America has with guns pretty
> > quick.
>
> America has no 'embarrassing problem' with guns.
The Mayor has never traveled... America is a joke on this subject... not
unlike the fact we have Bush running things, come to think of it :)
> >> So basically, you have no idea what it is you want banned, but you just
> >> want them banned real good.
> >
> >Nah, I understand it's a tough issue, I respect people that use them
> >properly... but to have 40,000 people killed every year is completely
> >crazy.
>
> Never mind that ~60% of them are suicides.
And suicides by guns aren't a problem??? ... SURE they are... it still
causes much pain for the victim, the family, etc. With no guns, I'd
place bets Suicides would drop by half or more. Come on Mayor, think
things ALL the way through...
> > Canada doesn't have this problem, no country in europe does,
> >Japan certainly doesn't... only... 3rd world countries... and "us"...
> >
> >Jason... you are on the wrong side... so sad, so sad...
>
> No you are sadly misinformed. America is far from the most violent
> country in the civilized world.
> http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html
Yeah, we are behind Mexico, Estonia, Brazil...
And I guess you are "proud" of that Mayor????
No wonder you are a Bush supporter and Windows user...
We want the worst, we want the worst!!! - Mayor of R'lyeh
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
>Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
At one time they were peddling a compilation of 'All In The Family' on
late night tv. One of the clips they used was Gloria all upset and
arguing with Archie about guns. She said something like 'Daddy, don't
you know how many people are killed by guns every year?' To which
Archie replied 'Would you feel better if they were shoved out of
windows?'
It seems that in Oxford's case the answer is 'Yes'. He would most
definitely feel better if they were shoved out of windows. What else
could possibly explain his looking at the chart I posted, totally
ignoring all the other data on the page that shows that the US is far
from the place with the most violent deaths in the world any way you
want to slice it and declaring the US one of the less safe places
based solely on gun usage?
Oxford doesn't care about people. He's just fixated on guns.
C Lund
<gmgravesnos-3270...@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > That will happen no matter who's in the White House. Mind you, if it
> > > weren't for those idiots currently in charge, you wouldn't even be in
> > > that war.
> > Well, the war would be very different... the US would be going after the
> > people that are attacked us.
> Right......
Who else but bush & Co would have run off on a wild goose chase in
Iraq?
> --
> George Graves
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Jason McNorton
Compare the US's suicide rates with other countries with hard gun laws.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html
You really think it would go down any, when those other countries have
such higher rates? It's not the freaking gun, you weirdo.
Jason McNorton
cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no says...
> In article
> <gmgravesnos-3270...@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > > That will happen no matter who's in the White House. Mind you, if it
> > > > weren't for those idiots currently in charge, you wouldn't even be in
> > > > that war.
> > > Well, the war would be very different... the US would be going after the
> > > people that are attacked us.
> > Right......
>
> Who else but bush & Co would have run off on a wild goose chase in
> Iraq?
Since kerry voted for it, and clinton said over and over they were a
real threat and needed to be dealt with, I'd say a lot of people would.
Jason McNorton
> Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Where the hell are you from?
>
> I'm from the States, don't worry...
> >
> > In the USA, we still have this thing called 'freedoms'.
>
> Yes, and this gives people more "freedom" to walk around in full safety.
> >
> > Also, the 2nd is not about hunting.
>
> And I never said it did...
>
> > > > So basically, you have no idea what it is you want banned, but you just
> > > > want them banned real good.
> > >
> > > Nah, I understand it's a tough issue, I respect people that use them
> > > properly... but to have 40,000 people killed every year is completely
> > > crazy. Canada doesn't have this problem, no country in europe does,
> > > Japan certainly doesn't... only... 3rd world countries... and "us"...
> > >
> > > Jason... you are on the wrong side... so sad, so sad...
> >
> > Stfu idiot. You don't know anything about this subject. A lot more
> > crimes are stopped with guns. The number is closer to 30,000 and over
> > half are suicides. 15 thousand gun murders out of 275 million is not
> > very bad. And the utility of them cleary overcomes the negatives.
>
> Jason... Are you even thinking???
>
> Suicides by Guns are still problems with Guns, not Suicides.
>
> 15,000 thousand when it could be Zero is not something to take lightly.
>
> It's still the highest BY FAR of any developed Country.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html
The *gun* suicide rate is higher, but the overall rate is far lower than
many. Remember, this chart is showing 1993 US stats, the other
country's rates in all catagories have gotten worse, while our rates
have improved a lot.
I'm dangerously close to kill filing you, and I've never done that on
usenet in nearly 8 years of use.
I've never seen someone so totally willfully ignorant. Read the actual
page, the whole damn thing.
> What utility do they serve in a modern society? Sport is the ONLY one.
> The rest is fear trying to fend fear...
Well, since the bad guys are going to have them anyway, I'd say give the
good citizens a fighting chance. And besides, people are killed with
knives, lead pipes, strangulation.. All sorts of methods. I want a
defense that'll put a stop to any attack.
> > You are the one who is wrong 'oxford'. Goodbye now, you're completely
> > incapable of understanding basic human rights and freedoms, and that's
> > something that utterly sickens me.
>
> Actually, I have you in a tailspin since you can rationally come up with
> any reason for a Gun to be owned... Outside of hunting of course.
>
> It seems you weren't raised well enough to think matters through... Come
> on Jason... show us a reason why anyone needs a Gun, I'll places bets
> you can't.
oxford, you're a genuine kook.
First off, who are you to decide what someone needs? That alone blows
you out of the water.
Second, defense, target shooting, and hunting. I don't hunt, but I do
the other two. Thank God for my rights. And thank God obsessed gun
phobic strange people like you, oxford, don't make up the rules.
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
>Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >Nah, I'm not out to ban them, just take models that have no purpose
>> >outside of hunting out of the mix.
>>
>> The Second Amendment isn't in place to preserve hunting.
>
>??? But it could be... It's not like we need a militia to protect us
>from a government. Only the "black helicopter crowd" believes that.
>
>> > I've always thought making it illegal to have a gun that is less than 30
>> > inches, 6 pounds would be a crime,
>> >punishable by death.
>>
>> Of course we wouldn't want to do anything like punish actual criminals
>> who use guns or anything.
>
>Sure, I'm all for cutting of Joints of Fingers or putting them to
>Death... read my other thoughts on this in other posts...
>
>> > That would clear up "the embarrassing problem" America has with guns pretty
>> > quick.
>>
>> America has no 'embarrassing problem' with guns.
>
>The Mayor has never traveled...
Oh, I've travelled. I've listened to self-righteous foreigners tell me
how America is a mess and that their country is perfect. The
difference I knew bullshit when I heard it while you didn't.
> America is a joke on this subject... not
>unlike the fact we have Bush running things, come to think of it :)
Maybe one day we'll get to be a banana republic like France and
Germany where third world dictators can buy our entire government for
a few oil contracts. Apparently that's what it would take to make you
happy with our government.
>
>> >> So basically, you have no idea what it is you want banned, but you just
>> >> want them banned real good.
>> >
>> >Nah, I understand it's a tough issue, I respect people that use them
>> >properly... but to have 40,000 people killed every year is completely
>> >crazy.
>>
>> Never mind that ~60% of them are suicides.
>
>And suicides by guns aren't a problem??? ...
No more than suicide by any other method. I'm more worried about
someone killing others than someone offing themselves. Its their life.
If they want to end it that's their choice. Murder victims don't get
that choice.
> SURE they are... it still
>causes much pain for the victim, the family, etc. With no guns, I'd
>place bets Suicides would drop by half or more. Come on Mayor, think
>things ALL the way through...
LOL! If you only knew how to read that chart I posted you'd see that
the suicide rate and the gun ownership rate don't correlate at all.
>
>> > Canada doesn't have this problem, no country in europe does,
>> >Japan certainly doesn't... only... 3rd world countries... and "us"...
>> >
>> >Jason... you are on the wrong side... so sad, so sad...
>>
>> No you are sadly misinformed. America is far from the most violent
>> country in the civilized world.
>> http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html
>
>Yeah, we are behind Mexico, Estonia, Brazil...
And France, Denmark, Austria, Belgium, etc. You are aware that there
are more ways to die a violent death than through gunshots aren't you?
You sure aren't acting like it.
>And I guess you are "proud" of that Mayor????
Are you proud of being more fixated on guns than you are on more
common causes of violent deaths?
>
>No wonder you are a Bush supporter and Windows user...
>
>We want the worst, we want the worst!!! - Mayor of R'lyeh
You've got to be messing with me. No one is actually this stupid.
Chimichanga
> Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Jason, your a TOTAL idiot.
> >
> > It's 'you're'.
>
> yeah, egg on face... i get to typing too fast to notice...
>
> > > Kerry has never said or voted for such things, you just have been
> > > brainwashed. Is he against assault rifles, sure, EVERY reasonable person
> > > is, except maybe a tiny few in the Bush administration.
> > >
> > > Come on, Jason... THINK a little before you post again.
> >
> > Assault rifles are select fire and have been regulated since 1934.
> > Therefore, it's not an issue right? Or do you mean 'assault weapon'.
> > How do you define those, btw? There is no legal term now for it
> > anymore.
> >
> > 'Assault weapon' is literally anything a politician decides it is. It's
> > totally arbitrary. Go educate on this subject before you mouth off son.
>
> Look... I, nor anyone needs fancy "definitions" of what kills quickly...
> Assault Rifle, or Assault Weapon... it makes no difference, sounds like
> you want all "Assaults" to be legal...
Are you implying that assault rifles (weapons, whatever) kill quicker
than non-assault versions? If so, I'm curious as to why you think so.
>
> Look, guns are tools of the weak. They are nothing more than extensions
> of the fist. If you are angry, get some help but don't bore us with your
> worn out argument that we need "guns" to be protected.
Guns are for the weak? Why do you think that?
Chang
Chimichanga
Oxford <cs...@mac.com> wrote:
> Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Look, guns are tools of the weak. They are nothing more than extensions
> > > of the fist. If you are angry, get some help but don't bore us with your
> > > worn out argument that we need "guns" to be protected.
> >
> > Well then you just want to ban guns. I happen to support freedom and
> > the rights of the constitution. And sticking 'assault' on something
> > doesn't make it evil.
>
> Nah, I'm not out to ban them, just take models that have no purpose
> outside of hunting out of the mix. I've always thought making it illegal
> to have a gun that is less than 30 inches, 6 pounds would be a crime,
> punishable by death. That would clear up "the embarrassing problem"
> America has with guns pretty quick.
>
Why? What would that solve? When I was a younger I was riding my new
street bike down the road and was stopped by a neighbor who wanted to
check my insurance and license. They told me that I had no reason to be
out driving unless I was going to the store or had some other reason to
be somewhere. Your argument here is identical.
And I know a lot of people that hunt with guns considered to be of the
'assault' variety. I wonder what makes you think that these types of
guns are any different than 'non-assault' models?
Maybe we should ban race cars or 'sport' models. After all, they have
no purpose outside of getting you to the grocery store.
Chang
Chimichanga
wrote:
> Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Where the hell are you from?
>
> I'm from the States, don't worry...
> >
> > In the USA, we still have this thing called 'freedoms'.
>
> Yes, and this gives people more "freedom" to walk around in full safety.
At the expense of *my* freedom? And do you really think that banning
guns would allow you to walk around in "full safety"? No, criminals
would assault you because they are criminals. And, since they are
criminals, would ignore any gun laws. Either that, they would assault
you with other assault weapons, such as knives, baseball bats, sharpened
screwdrivers, whatever.
You think that banning guns is going to solve a problem, yet you have no
proof, only speculation.
Here is a good reason: Because I want one.
Because I like gathering with a few good friends to relax and shoot
target clays on the weekend with my shotgun.
Because I like bonding with my father at the rifle range, plinking cans
or trying to see who can get closer to the bulls-eye.
Because I like the security of protecting my home with the best means
possible.
Wether you agree or disagree with any of those reasons matters little.
Freedom to bear arms is written into the constitution, it is a freedom
that I enjoy today, and it is a freedom that should not be infringed
upon because someone does not agree with my reasons.
I should not have to provide a reason or prove 'acceptable use'. Just
like you don't have to have a reason for owning a playstation or
computer or a baseball bat.
Chang
C Lund
Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <clund-E71E3B....@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no says...
> > In article
> > <gmgravesnos-3270...@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> > George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > > That will happen no matter who's in the White House. Mind you, if it
> > > > > weren't for those idiots currently in charge, you wouldn't even be in
> > > > > that war.
> > > > Well, the war would be very different... the US would be going after the
> > > > people that are attacked us.
> > > Right......
> > Who else but bush & Co would have run off on a wild goose chase in
> > Iraq?
> Since kerry voted for it,
Would he have voted for it if he had been spared the repeated lies of
bush & Co?
> and clinton said over and over they were a
> real threat and needed to be dealt with,
Who was it Clinton said over and over were a real threat? Saddam
Hussein or Al Qaeda? I know he tried to warn bush & C about Al Qaeda,
but they were more interested in "getting" Saddam at the time.
> I'd say a lot of people would.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Chimichanga
wrote:
> Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Jason... you are on the wrong side... so sad, so sad...
> >
> > Also, take a good look at this. This is the 'model' of gun banning..
> >
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?
> > xml=/news/2004/10/22/ncrime22.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/22/ixhome.html
>
> Yeah, I love the part:
>
> "3,000 offences of aggression and violence, from spitting and threats to
> murder by bullet".
>
> The real numbers show less people are "murdered by bullet" in a year
> than go down in a week in the US. sad, so sad...
>
> > "A different set of recorded crime figures showed that gun crime
> > continued to rise. In the 12 months to June last year there were 10,280
> > offences. In the year to June this year, the figure rose to 10,590 -
> > more than double the rate in 1997 when Labour came to power."
>
> Sure, but those weren't murders... I guess that's the crux, in Europe
> there are some gun crimes, but in the US there are actual gun deaths.
> and LOTS of them.
>
> > That's an awful lot for a much smaller country. And the rest of their
> > non-gun crimes are far worse than the USA's.
> >
> > So if you ban guns, you still have rampant crime, gun crime too. Plus
> > you've made it impossible for people to defend themselves.
>
> I'm not for banning guns... I just want people that own them to be
> responsible and pay with a part of their body if their gun is used
> inappropriately.
"used inappropriately" ... you mean like all those idiots out there
behind the wheel of a 4000 pound murder weapon?
But I agree completely with your statement here.
>
> > Really accomplishes a lot doesn't it. Oh wait, it's more feelgood
> > liberal hippie nonsense that doesn't even work in theory.
>
> There is nothing "hippy" about being smart...
>
> Here's some facts for you to look over.
>
> http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html
>
> Only Brazil, N. Ireland, Estonia are less safe than the US, all the
> other MAJOR countries have far less gun crime. England as you pointed
> out... is .11, far far far lower than the US at 3.72.
>
> You are fighting the wrong fight, so sad, so sad...
>
> Just think of the bigger picture... what if Lincoln hadn't been shot, or
> JFK, or Reagan, or the Pope or John Lennon, on and on...
>
> I'm just saying Guns cause a lot of pain for little gain....
>
> And you seem blind to it all.
>
> oxford
>
> -
Actually, you seem to be blind to it all. You said guns "cause a lot of
pain for little gain", when in reality it is "cause a lot of gain for
little pain".
Far more people enjoy their right to own and use their firearms than
there are crimes with them. Millions of people enjoy the freedom of
recreational shooting sport and hunting. There is a lot of "gain"
there. You choose to ignore this fact and spin it for your own
justification (as most anti-gun fanatics do).
Yes, our right to own firearms does come with a price...accidental
deaths and injuries. I seriously doubt that banning guns would have a
dramatic effect in crime statistics, or a effect at all.
Chang
Snit
>>>> Would you have a problem with my stockpiling anthrax, nuclear bombs, and
>>>> other arms in my basement?
>>>
>>> Sure.
>>
>> You mean you would limit my arms! Don't you believe in the second
>> amendment?
>
> And there's limits to free speech too doofus. Your all or nothing
> insanity is sooo tiring.
Um, that is my point. The question is not *if* we limit arms, but where to
draw the line. Look at the very next line... one you quoted from me.
>
>>>> The question is *not* should we limit arms - the question is where should
>>>> the limit be.
>>>
>>> That stuff would be considered 'Any of Weapon' by the BATFE. Those are
>>> highly regulated.
>>
>> Sure, but when did they get the right to go against the second amendment?
>
> Again, the 2nd refers to small arms. Look at the damn Federalist papers
> for the definitions. Anything more powerful is considered ordnance.
Quotes, please. I reference counter examples from the Federalist papers,
below.
>
>> Are you suggesting they should be able to regulate fire arms?
>
> In some ways yes. Like with free speech, obviously. It's not 100% or
> 0%.
Of course we should ... that is my point.
Funny how you do not comment on the quotes from the Federalist papers,
above...
>
>>> If you get confused, re-read what I just wrote until you get it.
>>
>> I get it - you are erroneously equating "arms" with "firearms".
>>
>> So, do I get my nukes or do we agree that arms should be limited?
>
> They are limited. Machine guns are restricted and hard to get.
> Anything beyond the semi-auto needs higher regulation. Even semi-auto
> needs background checks and so on, which I'm not against. I'm ok with
> needing licensing with concealed carry, but they must be 'shall issue'
> types.
Sounds like we are largely in agreement - you may even have your idea where
the line should be drawn better thought out that I do.
>
> So, now we've cleared that up. Will you tell me where you stand on it?
Easy: there should be a line. Any line we draw will be somewhat
arbitrary... but it is needed... like the voting age. I do not know enough
about arms to say where I want the line to be.
> Don't repeat 'nukes=guns'.
I never even suggested such a silly thing. Do you understand the Venn
diagram, above?
> Don't talk about anthrax.
When made as a weapon, it is a form of armement.
> Where do you personally stand on firearms?
Me - I don't like'm. Have no desire to own one.
> Do you differ from what I say in the above paragraph? If so, why? And please
> stay ON TOPIC here, no nukes or VX gas nonsense.
The topic is arms, but it seems we are largely in agreement.
>
> I bet you can't do it.
Fit your silly rules... why would I?
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
Oxford
> > Look... I, nor anyone needs fancy "definitions" of what kills quickly...
> > Assault Rifle, or Assault Weapon... it makes no difference, sounds like
> > you want all "Assaults" to be legal...
>
> Are you implying that assault rifles (weapons, whatever) kill quicker
> than non-assault versions? If so, I'm curious as to why you think so.
Duh... They are built for "speed" of fire... thus, faster at killing...
So you don't think either???
> > Look, guns are tools of the weak. They are nothing more than extensions
> > of the fist. If you are angry, get some help but don't bore us with your
> > worn out argument that we need "guns" to be protected.
>
> Guns are for the weak? Why do you think that?
Well, you just have to look at the people that own Guns to see multiple
reasons...
They are by and large people with:
Low self-esteem
Small Penis
Live in Trailer Parks / Ghettos / Barrios
or
Mansions isolated from everyone.
Little education
---
Now I do make provisions for hunting since that's a deeply rooted
cultural activity to "survive". (Bonus points for Bow Hunters :)
But people that for some reason need Guns for "protection" are sadly
misguided and is simply physical evidence of a culture that is not
highly evolved.
oxford
-
Oxford
> > Nah, I'm not out to ban them, just take models that have no purpose
> > outside of hunting out of the mix. I've always thought making it illegal
> > to have a gun that is less than 30 inches, 6 pounds would be a crime,
> > punishable by death. That would clear up "the embarrassing problem"
> > America has with guns pretty quick.
> >
>
> Why? What would that solve? When I was a younger I was riding my new
> street bike down the road and was stopped by a neighbor who wanted to
> check my insurance and license. They told me that I had no reason to be
> out driving unless I was going to the store or had some other reason to
> be somewhere. Your argument here is identical.
But you weren't harming anyone but yourself... so unless you used your
bike as a weapon there would be no problem... they were just trying to
help a kid go down a healthy path... Not sure what your analogy has
anything to do with my suggestion above...
> And I know a lot of people that hunt with guns considered to be of the
> 'assault' variety. I wonder what makes you think that these types of
> guns are any different than 'non-assault' models?
I'm simply against guns "designed" for mass killing... a shotgun is
clearly not in the same class.
> Maybe we should ban race cars or 'sport' models. After all, they have
> no purpose outside of getting you to the grocery store.
And yes, I've suggested that before... Cars kill more than guns... but
we need to fight battles where they will do the most good for a
society... starting with Cars, then moving on to Guns doesn't make much
sense.
Oxford
> > Yes, and this gives people more "freedom" to walk around in full safety.
>
> At the expense of *my* freedom? And do you really think that banning
> guns would allow you to walk around in "full safety"? No, criminals
> would assault you because they are criminals. And, since they are
> criminals, would ignore any gun laws. Either that, they would assault
> you with other assault weapons, such as knives, baseball bats, sharpened
> screwdrivers, whatever.
Just look at Logic okay... Imagine a world with ZERO Guns. Surprise,
surprise, NO gun deaths last year... Why? No guns...
Is that simple enough for you?
Sure criminals would exist either way, but having a criminal without an
"extended" fast fist... would FAR better my chances than a criminal with
this "fast fist"...
I think you need to examine what i gun "is"... it's a fast way to EXTEND
THE FIST... nothing more... A knife... big deal... I could run from that
if need... a Gun I can't... (please THINK through your replies)
I'll give you a knife, I'll use a gun... and challenge you to a dual...
Okay???
To hear you say it... it's the "same"...
NOT.
> You think that banning guns is going to solve a problem, yet you have no
> proof, only speculation.
The proof is right above, there is no way you can argue against it...
> > It seems you weren't raised well enough to think matters through... Come
> > on Jason... show us a reason why anyone needs a Gun, I'll places bets
> > you can't.
>
> Here is a good reason: Because I want one.
And Kids want candy and robbers want to rob banks... so you are saying
we should let them???
What are you a child? Unable to reason?
> Because I like gathering with a few good friends to relax and shoot
> target clays on the weekend with my shotgun.
And I never said that was a bad thing, just guns smaller than 30
inches... less than 6 pounds.... would be punishable by death... easy,
easy... to solve...
> Because I like bonding with my father at the rifle range, plinking cans
> or trying to see who can get closer to the bulls-eye.
And no one is stopping you from this "red neck" experience...
> Because I like the security of protecting my home with the best means
> possible.
Idiot!!!!!!! You are LESS safe with a Gun around... can't you fight
with the spoken word?
Maybe you can't and that your problem?????
Then get back to school and perhaps you will learn a gun isn't need to
"protect you"...
> Wether you agree or disagree with any of those reasons matters little.
> Freedom to bear arms is written into the constitution, it is a freedom
> that I enjoy today, and it is a freedom that should not be infringed
> upon because someone does not agree with my reasons.
And I'm not saying we need to infringe upon that... just update the
amendment to reflect the new gun technology that has occurred over the
last 200 years or so.
Ignorance isn't getting you anywhere with me...
> I should not have to provide a reason or prove 'acceptable use'. Just
> like you don't have to have a reason for owning a playstation or
> computer or a baseball bat.
Why are you getting caught up in issues that don't matter... I'm not for
any "acceptable use" wording... just a gun size that makes it
inefficient for criminals to own, carry or use them.
Look, there are simple answers to this... but you have to THINK to
craft them...
oxford
-
Oxford
> > It's still the highest BY FAR of any developed Country.
>
> http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html
>
> The *gun* suicide rate is higher, but the overall rate is far lower than
> many. Remember, this chart is showing 1993 US stats, the other
> country's rates in all catagories have gotten worse, while our rates
> have improved a lot.
Yeah, I agree, the data is old... but it still reflects the ratios that
are likely similar today... I see a 1998 number of 30,708.... so it
does tend to be trending down... but Zero is the goal and I don't see it
happening until people have cleaned them out of their houses / farms,
etc...
> I'm dangerously close to kill filing you, and I've never done that on
> usenet in nearly 8 years of use.
>
> I've never seen someone so totally willfully ignorant. Read the actual
> page, the whole damn thing.
I've read it all... It's just I'm right and I'm pissing you off...
> > What utility do they serve in a modern society? Sport is the ONLY one.
> > The rest is fear trying to fend fear...
>
> Well, since the bad guys are going to have them anyway, I'd say give the
> good citizens a fighting chance. And besides, people are killed with
> knives, lead pipes, strangulation.. All sorts of methods. I want a
> defense that'll put a stop to any attack.
Yeah, but guns are far more effective... and that's the problem...
again, I'm not for banning them entirely... just the ones that cause the
most harm... Sure if you want Johnny to use a shotgun to kill his sister
Sue, then... yes... "let's take won for the team!" Let's just clean up
the little guns that do big damage.
> > It seems you weren't raised well enough to think matters through... Come
> > on Jason... show us a reason why anyone needs a Gun, I'll places bets
> > you can't.
>
> oxford, you're a genuine kook.
Nah, I'm just a person that thinks issues all the way through... and
clearly your comebacks have been weak at best... rightfully, since you
don't have much to go on... but even the point you are trying to defend
guns is laughable.
> First off, who are you to decide what someone needs? That alone blows
> you out of the water.
>
> Second, defense, target shooting, and hunting. I don't hunt, but I do
> the other two. Thank God for my rights. And thank God obsessed gun
> phobic strange people like you, oxford, don't make up the rules.
And I've repeatedly said, I'm not against all guns, just ones that are
used in MOST deaths... Sure there are a few hunting deaths and random /
freak skeet and target deaths each year... I'm not saying anything about
those... I'm just standing up to stop the mindless crime and suicide
deaths which could be easily stopped if we didn't have a, dark, ignorant
section of our society...
oxford
-
George Graves
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Wonderful! Did you ever notice that almost everything that Archie said
was CORRECT? Very clever of the leftwing Mr. Norman Lear. Create a
character who is a buffoon, someone that most people would not like to
be compared with, and then have that character (complete with American
Flag lapel pin) speak the truth while the more likable young people in
the show speak left-wing gibberish. Watch those old shows and see how
little Left-wing idiocy has changed over the last 30 or so years.
> It seems that in Oxford's case the answer is 'Yes'. He would most
> definitely feel better if they were shoved out of windows. What else
> could possibly explain his looking at the chart I posted, totally
> ignoring all the other data on the page that shows that the US is far
> from the place with the most violent deaths in the world any way you
> want to slice it and declaring the US one of the less safe places
> based solely on gun usage?
> Oxford doesn't care about people. He's just fixated on guns.
--
George Graves
------------------
John Kerry - Betraying America Since 1971
George Graves
Oxford <cs...@mac.com> wrote:
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > Look, guns are tools of the weak. They are nothing more than extensions
> > > of the fist. If you are angry, get some help but don't bore us with your
> > > worn out argument that we need "guns" to be protected.
> >
> > Hmmm. You don't seem to understand gun ownership too well. Most gun
> > owners don't own and like guns for their defensive (or even their
> > offensive) potential. Most people own guns because they are often
> > beautiful pieces of well-made machinery, and they are fun to shoot,
> > and/or they are weapons designed for hunting as many Americans like to
> > hunt. I'm not real surprised that you misunderstand gun ownership, most
> > anti-gun liberals are in the same boat. They simply don't understand or
> > they misunderstand (often intentionally) the motives of the gun crowd.
>
> nope, i understand the issue quite well,
You speak as if you do not, however.
--
George Graves
------------------
John Kerry Betraying America Since 1971
GreyCloud
Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>
>>Again, the 2nd refers to small arms. Look at the damn Federalist papers
>>for the definitions. Anything more powerful is considered ordnance.
>
>
> Not so fast there, Jason. Up until the turn of the 20th century it was
> not uncommon for the private yachts of the ultra-rich to be outfitted
> with some type of cannon.
>
Well, now ocean cruising yachts are well equipped with high powered
rifles and machine guns. Go into oriental waters or even off Latin
American waters and you'll find theives that are well armed.
--
---------------------------------
Th3 G0ld3n Yrs Sux0r
Mike Zulauf
Mike Zulauf <mazu...@met.utah.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <gmgravesnos-43D4...@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <mazulauf-1FB8B7...@nntp0.pdx.net>,
> > Mike Zulauf <mazu...@met.utah.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <gmgravesnos-9D0E...@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Kerry has stated that even if Bush wins decisively, he will challenge
> > > > every state that went for Bush in court. Sounds like a mess to me.
> > >
> > > Reference?
> > >
> > > Mike
> >
> > Edwards. last week's 'Meet the Press.'
>
> I'm afraid I don't believe you (you have a history of posting similar
> unsubstantiated claims). I've tried to find references to this online,
> and I can't.
>
> Got any links to transcripts, etc?
I'm still waiting on this George. . .
Here, I'll even help you out:
<http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6200928/>
That's the transcript from "Meet the Press", October 10 2004 when John
Edwards was a guest (he hasn't been on since then).
Interestingly, I can't find where he says what you claim. Can you point
it out to me?
Or would you prefer to retract your claim?
Mike
--
Mike Zulauf
mazu...@met.utah.edu
Oxford
> They cause a lot more gain than pain, in my opinion. You can not
> uninvent guns. Banning them just leads to criminals only having them.
Yes, and that's why i'm PRO "cut of the joint of a finger" of your
choice... if you have one... It's radical for sure... but it would work
:)
> The US is a violent country for reasons other than gun rights. That's
> the crux of it all.
True... much of it stems from our long history of plundering / moving
on, etc... but throwing in a deadly, fairly modern contraption doesn't
help does it?
> I'm very much for throwing the book at and executing murderers,
> regardless of what method they use.
>
> Again, there's a lot of DUI deaths out there. By your logic of banning
> the tools criminals use, both booze and cars would have to be banned.
I'd throw more than a "book" smirk... that's why the finger or "toes?"
idea would work so darn well... :) Sure DUI's cause deaths, but if you
notice society is waking up to that and has sharply dropped those rates
over the lasts 10 years... fines, limit your driving... have worked.
Maybe a $5,000 fine if a gun is found outside a shooting range or out of
your house? Would that get your attention? Maybe that's the easiest
answer... the money would go to crime victims... etc...
> I have a lot of guns, and I have a carry permit. I have it to protect
> my life. People get carjacked and worse around cities here. It's a
> violent nutty culture, mostly due to immigration and minorities, sorry
> to say. Homogenious places like Japan or how Europe used to be have
> less problems with that. Europe's crime rate is skyrocketing of course,
> due to a combination of harsh anti-defense laws and increased
> immigration.
Your nuts! Why don't you change the society around you... why play
deeper into your irrational fears? There is no reason to live that
way... if you are weak and fearful, just move if you are such a scaredy
cat? Strong men don't own Guns.
> BTW, think of all the famous people we'd have alive if it weren't for
> cars or planes. JFK Jr, Princess Diana, James Dean, and on and on.
> Your appeal to emotion, suggesting if guns just didn't exist things
> would be wonderful, doesn't work.
I agree, cars suck, planes are filling our planet with fumes, life
sucks, the end is near...
I'm just saying if you add every death up... sort by descending order...
you'd need to shut down McDonald's first... then Guns, then Cars...
Have a nice day!
oxford
-
Jason McNorton
SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID says...
Um, I asked your question on it. You stated you are ignorant and can't
answer where the line should be drawn. You also publically stated that
you are an unarmed potential victim, which isn't too bright.
However, it's wise of you to admit you don't know enough about the
subject to comment.
Jason McNorton
> Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > It's still the highest BY FAR of any developed Country.
> >
> > http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html
> >
> > The *gun* suicide rate is higher, but the overall rate is far lower than
> > many. Remember, this chart is showing 1993 US stats, the other
> > country's rates in all catagories have gotten worse, while our rates
> > have improved a lot.
>
> Yeah, I agree, the data is old... but it still reflects the ratios that
> are likely similar today... I see a 1998 number of 30,708.... so it
> does tend to be trending down... but Zero is the goal and I don't see it
> happening until people have cleaned them out of their houses / farms,
> etc...
Sure. In a perfect world of your creating, there'd be no murder. Well,
that doesn't exist except for inside your head.
> > I'm dangerously close to kill filing you, and I've never done that on
> > usenet in nearly 8 years of use.
> >
> > I've never seen someone so totally willfully ignorant. Read the actual
> > page, the whole damn thing.
>
> I've read it all... It's just I'm right and I'm pissing you off...
You're far from 'right' about anything here. What's pissing me off is
your know it all attitude and utopian goofball ideals in the face of all
contrary evidence.
> > > What utility do they serve in a modern society? Sport is the ONLY one.
> > > The rest is fear trying to fend fear...
> >
> > Well, since the bad guys are going to have them anyway, I'd say give the
> > good citizens a fighting chance. And besides, people are killed with
> > knives, lead pipes, strangulation.. All sorts of methods. I want a
> > defense that'll put a stop to any attack.
>
> Yeah, but guns are far more effective... and that's the problem...
> again, I'm not for banning them entirely... just the ones that cause the
> most harm... Sure if you want Johnny to use a shotgun to kill his sister
> Sue, then... yes... "let's take won for the team!" Let's just clean up
> the little guns that do big damage.
Far more effective for defense, yep. Cars are far more effective than
horses at getting around too, but a lot more people die from car
accidents. Though then again there's Chris Reeve, so best to ban horses
too to get that number to zero.
> > > It seems you weren't raised well enough to think matters through... Come
> > > on Jason... show us a reason why anyone needs a Gun, I'll places bets
> > > you can't.
> >
> > oxford, you're a genuine kook.
>
> Nah, I'm just a person that thinks issues all the way through... and
> clearly your comebacks have been weak at best... rightfully, since you
> don't have much to go on... but even the point you are trying to defend
> guns is laughable.
You have not thought out anything. All the data shows that gun
avaialability has zero impact on suicide rates, and a very small impact
on increased murders. There's also very strong data that shows other
crimes against persons increases a lot when you take away citizen
defense methods.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226493644/qid=1098825805/sr=2-
1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/002-3841447-4573608
You may want to give that a look.
> > First off, who are you to decide what someone needs? That alone blows
> > you out of the water.
> >
> > Second, defense, target shooting, and hunting. I don't hunt, but I do
> > the other two. Thank God for my rights. And thank God obsessed gun
> > phobic strange people like you, oxford, don't make up the rules.
>
> And I've repeatedly said, I'm not against all guns, just ones that are
> used in MOST deaths... Sure there are a few hunting deaths and random /
> freak skeet and target deaths each year... I'm not saying anything about
> those... I'm just standing up to stop the mindless crime and suicide
> deaths which could be easily stopped if we didn't have a, dark, ignorant
> section of our society...
The 'assault weapons' were never used in most deaths. In fact, look at
the rates here:
http://www.awbansunset.com/crime.html
The so-called assault weapons were never used for more than 5% of gun
crime, and most stats have it as 3% or so.
I know none of these facts will change your mind, which is why I'm so
frustrated with you. Your appeals to emotions and 'why does anyone NEED
xxx' is all you have for an argument. I have the data and facts.
Jason McNorton
> Chimichanga <ch...@changa.com> wrote:
>
> > > Look... I, nor anyone needs fancy "definitions" of what kills quickly...
> > > Assault Rifle, or Assault Weapon... it makes no difference, sounds like
> > > you want all "Assaults" to be legal...
> >
> > Are you implying that assault rifles (weapons, whatever) kill quicker
> > than non-assault versions? If so, I'm curious as to why you think so.
>
> Duh... They are built for "speed" of fire... thus, faster at killing...
> So you don't think either???
How so? They aren't machine guns, just standard semi-auto copies of the
military models. There's nothing more or less deadly about them than
any other semi-auto rifle. They just look scary to liberals, so they
want them banned.. The facts be damned.
> > > Look, guns are tools of the weak. They are nothing more than extensions
> > > of the fist. If you are angry, get some help but don't bore us with your
> > > worn out argument that we need "guns" to be protected.
> >
> > Guns are for the weak? Why do you think that?
>
> Well, you just have to look at the people that own Guns to see multiple
> reasons...
>
> They are by and large people with:
>
> Low self-esteem
> Small Penis
> Live in Trailer Parks / Ghettos / Barrios
> or
> Mansions isolated from everyone.
> Little education
You're insane. There's 80 million gun owners in the USA. You are
unbelievably biased and ignorant.
>
> Now I do make provisions for hunting since that's a deeply rooted
> cultural activity to "survive". (Bonus points for Bow Hunters :)
>
> But people that for some reason need Guns for "protection" are sadly
> misguided and is simply physical evidence of a culture that is not
> highly evolved.
Well, I'm glad we have you from on high to come down and teach us how to
be evolved. Frankly, I think your childish immature utopian crapola
idealogy is what needs to evolve.
Jason McNorton
> Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > They cause a lot more gain than pain, in my opinion. You can not
> > uninvent guns. Banning them just leads to criminals only having them.
>
> Yes, and that's why i'm PRO "cut of the joint of a finger" of your
> choice... if you have one... It's radical for sure... but it would work
> :)
>
> > The US is a violent country for reasons other than gun rights. That's
> > the crux of it all.
>
> True... much of it stems from our long history of plundering / moving
> on, etc... but throwing in a deadly, fairly modern contraption doesn't
> help does it?
>
> > I'm very much for throwing the book at and executing murderers,
> > regardless of what method they use.
> >
> > Again, there's a lot of DUI deaths out there. By your logic of banning
> > the tools criminals use, both booze and cars would have to be banned.
>
> I'd throw more than a "book" smirk... that's why the finger or "toes?"
> idea would work so darn well... :) Sure DUI's cause deaths, but if you
> notice society is waking up to that and has sharply dropped those rates
> over the lasts 10 years... fines, limit your driving... have worked.
> Maybe a $5,000 fine if a gun is found outside a shooting range or out of
> your house? Would that get your attention? Maybe that's the easiest
> answer... the money would go to crime victims... etc...
Yer nuts. Period. What you have is called hoplophobia. I suggest you
really study this page as well:
http://www.phobia-fear-release.com/hoplophobia.html
> > I have a lot of guns, and I have a carry permit. I have it to protect
> > my life. People get carjacked and worse around cities here. It's a
> > violent nutty culture, mostly due to immigration and minorities, sorry
> > to say. Homogenious places like Japan or how Europe used to be have
> > less problems with that. Europe's crime rate is skyrocketing of course,
> > due to a combination of harsh anti-defense laws and increased
> > immigration.
>
> Your nuts! Why don't you change the society around you... why play
> deeper into your irrational fears? There is no reason to live that
> way... if you are weak and fearful, just move if you are such a scaredy
> cat? Strong men don't own Guns.
Sigh.. Again you attack the masculinity of people you don't agree with.
So childish. The problem is people like YOU, not law abiding gun
owners.
> > BTW, think of all the famous people we'd have alive if it weren't for
> > cars or planes. JFK Jr, Princess Diana, James Dean, and on and on.
> > Your appeal to emotion, suggesting if guns just didn't exist things
> > would be wonderful, doesn't work.
>
> I agree, cars suck, planes are filling our planet with fumes, life
> sucks, the end is near...
>
> I'm just saying if you add every death up... sort by descending order...
> you'd need to shut down McDonald's first... then Guns, then Cars...
Ok, you are truly nuts and/or just trolling. Sorry I ever responded to
you, goodbye.
Snit
Correct, I do not claim to be knowledgeable to be able to draw a line I
would be able to defend well.
> You also publically stated that you are an unarmed potential victim, which
> isn't too bright.
People who own guns are as likely to be hurt by the gun as they are to be
hurt by someone else with a gun.
>
> However, it's wise of you to admit you don't know enough about the
> subject to comment.
Yawn. You act like it is a bad thing I do not know enough to draw a line
for you. I see it as a good thing - I do not pretend to know what I do not.
I am still curious about your silly nukes=gun straw man. What were you
trying to get at?
Steve Carroll
Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
Believe me, even this admission won't preventing him from doing just
that. Give him a few minutes and you'll see one of the many Snit
entities come barging in with its own brand of 'logic'.
--
Snit: "In my view, Bush is guilty based on #1 and #2, but not #3 (he is
morally and criminally guilty, but not legally guilty)."
Snit, speaking in a legal context: "Bush is guilty of breaking the law"
Steve C
Jason McNorton
BS
> > However, it's wise of you to admit you don't know enough about the
> > subject to comment.
>
> Yawn. You act like it is a bad thing I do not know enough to draw a line
> for you. I see it as a good thing - I do not pretend to know what I do not.
>
> I am still curious about your silly nukes=gun straw man. What were you
> trying to get at?
I said it's wise of you not to comment, how is that a bad thing? I
think you should research the issue a little bit if you're going to
comment as much as you do though.
The guns=arms=nukes thing is something you've used all the time.
Oxford
> They are by and large people with:
> >
> > Low self-esteem
> > Small Penis
> > Live in Trailer Parks / Ghettos / Barrios
> > or
> > Mansions isolated from everyone.
> > Little education
>
> You're insane. There's 80 million gun owners in the USA. You are
> unbelievably biased and ignorant.
80 Million? 1 in 3 americans has a gun? no way... it's not nearly that
high... in your ignorance are probably counting all guns, and assigning
1 per person... that's silly math...
The truth hurts...
> > Now I do make provisions for hunting since that's a deeply rooted
> > cultural activity to "survive". (Bonus points for Bow Hunters :)
> >
> > But people that for some reason need Guns for "protection" are sadly
> > misguided and is simply physical evidence of a culture that is not
> > highly evolved.
>
> Well, I'm glad we have you from on high to come down and teach us how to
> be evolved. Frankly, I think your childish immature utopian crapola
> idealogy is what needs to evolve.
Nah, you are just having trouble debating this issue... so you are
giving up the chance to come to a reasonable answer.
Oxford
> > Yeah, I agree, the data is old... but it still reflects the ratios that
> > are likely similar today... I see a 1998 number of 30,708.... so it
> > does tend to be trending down... but Zero is the goal and I don't see it
> > happening until people have cleaned them out of their houses / farms,
> > etc...
>
> Sure. In a perfect world of your creating, there'd be no murder. Well,
> that doesn't exist except for inside your head.
Shouldn't we be striving for a perfect world?
Where's the error in that?
You seem fixated on tearing things down... why so?
> > I've read it all... It's just I'm right and I'm pissing you off...
>
> You're far from 'right' about anything here. What's pissing me off is
> your know it all attitude and utopian goofball ideals in the face of all
> contrary evidence.
Don't you understand how to even use "logic" to solve a problem????
Imagine a world where EVERYONE had a loaded Gun, one in EACH Hand.
Now think of the consequences of this "supposition".
Would it be a better place to live, happy, carefree and so on...
Imagine a world where EVERYONE had no Guns in EITHER Hand.
Now think of the consequences of this "supposition".
Would it be a better place to live, happy, carefree and so on...
I will challenge you to work out the math...
(smirk)
Don't you see this is the easy way solve this issue?
Maybe you weren't well educated, and perhaps that proves my earlier
theory.
> > Yeah, but guns are far more effective... and that's the problem...
> > again, I'm not for banning them entirely... just the ones that cause the
> > most harm... Sure if you want Johnny to use a shotgun to kill his sister
> > Sue, then... yes... "let's take won for the team!" Let's just clean up
> > the little guns that do big damage.
>
> Far more effective for defense, yep. Cars are far more effective than
> horses at getting around too, but a lot more people die from car
> accidents. Though then again there's Chris Reeve, so best to ban horses
> too to get that number to zero.
Now your acting crazy... Just because you can't have your childish ways,
doesn't mean they are "correct"...
> > Nah, I'm just a person that thinks issues all the way through... and
> > clearly your comebacks have been weak at best... rightfully, since you
> > don't have much to go on... but even the point you are trying to defend
> > guns is laughable.
>
> You have not thought out anything. All the data shows that gun
> avaialability has zero impact on suicide rates, and a very small impact
> on increased murders. There's also very strong data that shows other
> crimes against persons increases a lot when you take away citizen
> defense methods.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226493644/qid=1098825805/sr=2-
> 1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/002-3841447-4573608
Again... USE LOGIC... Zero GUNS on the Planet, Less Suicide's by Guns.
Is that true or false?
Maybe we need to go back to 1st Grade with you?
Is that what will help you?
I'm realllly trying... speaking as plain as I can to you....
>
> The 'assault weapons' were never used in most deaths. In fact, look at
> the rates here:
>
> http://www.awbansunset.com/crime.html
Yes, and up until a few weeks ago we had bans on some of these Guns...
now we don't so the numbers rise... Again, LOGIC can come in handy here!
> The so-called assault weapons were never used for more than 5% of gun
> crime, and most stats have it as 3% or so.
let's see... 3% of 36,000 Gun Deaths...
So you are saying 1080 dead people every year is nothing to be concerned
about? Why to you REFUSE to THINK things through... Does a Gun do your
thinking for you... are you that WEAK???
> I know none of these facts will change your mind, which is why I'm so
> frustrated with you. Your appeals to emotions and 'why does anyone NEED
> xxx' is all you have for an argument. I have the data and facts.
Yes, but you are totally lacking in LOGIC skills... AND you don't factor
out the facts you have pulled up... So what am I to do... Agree with a
fool?
Nah, I've helped you along, but maybe a Gun is what you need to feel
equal in this world... It's becoming quite clear, your mind doesn't have
much coordination.
oxford
-
Oxford
> > Maybe a $5,000 fine if a gun is found outside a shooting range or out of
> > your house? Would that get your attention? Maybe that's the easiest
> > answer... the money would go to crime victims... etc...
>
> Yer nuts. Period. What you have is called hoplophobia. I suggest you
> really study this page as well:
>
> http://www.phobia-fear-release.com/hoplophobia.html
snit, you haven't be following the conversation... I'm not scared of
guns... nor have any phobia about them... I'm just helping some people
understand the issues around them and 35Kish people die every year
because of them...
> > Your nuts! Why don't you change the society around you... why play
> > deeper into your irrational fears? There is no reason to live that
> > way... if you are weak and fearful, just move if you are such a scaredy
> > cat? Strong men don't own Guns.
>
> Sigh.. Again you attack the masculinity of people you don't agree with.
> So childish. The problem is people like YOU, not law abiding gun
> owners.
Again, your not following along... that comment makes no since in this
context...
> > > BTW, think of all the famous people we'd have alive if it weren't for
> > > cars or planes. JFK Jr, Princess Diana, James Dean, and on and on.
> > > Your appeal to emotion, suggesting if guns just didn't exist things
> > > would be wonderful, doesn't work.
> >
> > I agree, cars suck, planes are filling our planet with fumes, life
> > sucks, the end is near...
> >
> > I'm just saying if you add every death up... sort by descending order...
> > you'd need to shut down McDonald's first... then Guns, then Cars...
>
> Ok, you are truly nuts and/or just trolling. Sorry I ever responded to
> you, goodbye.
We're just having a little debate about the issues surrounding guns...
It's kinda fun, and I'm helping a few lost souls out in the process...
enjoy...
oxford
Jason McNorton
> Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > They are by and large people with:
> > >
> > > Low self-esteem
> > > Small Penis
> > > Live in Trailer Parks / Ghettos / Barrios
> > > or
> > > Mansions isolated from everyone.
> > > Little education
> >
> > You're insane. There's 80 million gun owners in the USA. You are
> > unbelievably biased and ignorant.
>
> 80 Million? 1 in 3 americans has a gun? no way... it's not nearly that
> high... in your ignorance are probably counting all guns, and assigning
> 1 per person... that's silly math...
>
> The truth hurts...
Here's the actual number, pretty close to my estimate:
Privately owned firearms in the U.S.: Over 200 million, including 65-70
million handguns. The number rose by 52 million during the 1990s.
(BATFE)
Gun owners in the U.S.: 60-65 million; 30-35 million own handguns
> > > Now I do make provisions for hunting since that's a deeply rooted
> > > cultural activity to "survive". (Bonus points for Bow Hunters :)
> > >
> > > But people that for some reason need Guns for "protection" are sadly
> > > misguided and is simply physical evidence of a culture that is not
> > > highly evolved.
> >
> > Well, I'm glad we have you from on high to come down and teach us how to
> > be evolved. Frankly, I think your childish immature utopian crapola
> > idealogy is what needs to evolve.
>
> Nah, you are just having trouble debating this issue... so you are
> giving up the chance to come to a reasonable answer.
I prove you incorrect each time with sourced facts. You haven't
provided crap.
Jason McNorton
Again, you ignored everything I said, and concentrate of emotions and
numbers. You want to imagine some perfect world of no violence. Well,
3000 were killed by planes and box cutters and islam.
You simply can not uninvent guns.. Sorry.
Also, you claim that you want to ban the kinds of guns that do the most
damage. I point out that the assault weapons were 3%. Then you change
the subject and say that's too much. There's no arguing with you,
you're void of any rationality.
Jason McNorton
====
Privately owned firearms in the U.S.: Over 200 million, including 65-70
million handguns. The number rose by 52 million during the 1990s.
(BATFE)
Gun owners in the U.S.: 60-65 million; 30-35 million own handguns
American households that have firearms: Approx. 45%
======
65 million gun owners, 15,000 murders with guns a year.
That's 0.00023076923076923076% of gun owners using them in a crime per
year.
Per gun it's 0.000075%.
And for this I'm supposed to give up a basic constitutional right and my
self defense and enjoyment of sport with guns.
The math shows you're a hysterical lunatic. I think we've wrapped up
this nicely. Now go away troll.
Snit
fretwizz-59EAA7...@netnews.comcast.net on 10/26/04 2:55 PM:
Note: accusation from Steve with no support.
George Graves
wrote:
> Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Yeah, I agree, the data is old... but it still reflects the ratios that
> > > are likely similar today... I see a 1998 number of 30,708.... so it
> > > does tend to be trending down... but Zero is the goal and I don't see it
> > > happening until people have cleaned them out of their houses / farms,
> > > etc...
> >
> > Sure. In a perfect world of your creating, there'd be no murder. Well,
> > that doesn't exist except for inside your head.
>
> Shouldn't we be striving for a perfect world?
>
> Where's the error in that?
Mostly because of what would go with it. First of all, there would be
violent disagreement about what constituted a perfect world, as well as
over the road to take to get there.
George Graves
wrote:
> Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > They are by and large people with:
> > >
> > > Low self-esteem
> > > Small Penis
> > > Live in Trailer Parks / Ghettos / Barrios
> > > or
> > > Mansions isolated from everyone.
> > > Little education
> >
> > You're insane. There's 80 million gun owners in the USA. You are
> > unbelievably biased and ignorant.
>
> 80 Million? 1 in 3 americans has a gun? no way... it's not nearly that
> high... in your ignorance are probably counting all guns, and assigning
> 1 per person... that's silly math...
>
> The truth hurts...
Truth Huh? Try:
http://www.claremont.org/projects/doctors/021020wheeler.html
or
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/942388/posts
or
http://www.usiap.org/Viewpoints/Nation/Impeachment/IgnoringTheEvidence.ht
ml
There are an awful of lot of sources throwing that 80 million number
around for it to be false, Oxford.
Jason McNorton
ext.news.prodigy.com>, gmgra...@pacbell.net says...
I posted a site from the early 90's showing it to be 65m, and 80m is
probably closer the mark. I also showed how tiny the 15,000 murders per
year is compared to 65m.
It's not the numbers, it's the guns themselves they hate. They just
hate them, it's a phobia. No rational thought involved.
Snit
10/26/04 5:01 PM:
> Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> Maybe a $5,000 fine if a gun is found outside a shooting range or out of
>>> your house? Would that get your attention? Maybe that's the easiest
>>> answer... the money would go to crime victims... etc...
>>
>> Yer nuts. Period. What you have is called hoplophobia. I suggest you
>> really study this page as well:
>>
>> http://www.phobia-fear-release.com/hoplophobia.html
>
> snit, you haven't be following the conversation...
Hmmm, you think I have not been following the conversation... yet apparently
you do not even know who you were talking to. :)
I think you made a wee little error there. No harm... just teasing you for
it.
Snit
Had you merely asked me to support my claim with statistics you could have
made yourself appear reasonable.
Let us look at some stats:
It is estimated that over 17,000 persons per year are treated for
unintentional, nonfatal gunshot wounds in hospital emergency
departments.
Source: Sinauer N., Annest J., and Mercy J. (1996) Unintentional, nonfatal
firearm-related injuries. JAMA. 275, 1740-1743.
In 2000, 55,087 nonfatal firearm injuries and 21,187 bb/pellet gun
injuries were treated in US emergency departments.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2001) Web-based Injury
Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS), Nonfatal and Fatal Gunfire
injuries, 2000.
In 2000, an estimated 21,187 persons with injuries related to BB and
pellet guns were treated in U.S. hospital emergency rooms.
Source: Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2001). WISQARS. National
Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
From 1981 to 2000, firearms were involved in 354,540 suicides, 281,904
homicides, and 27,470 unintentional shooting deaths.
Source: Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2002). National Vital
Statistics Report, Vol. 50, No. 15, September 16, 2002, p. 44.
In 2000, 75,685 people suffered from nonfatal firearm injuries.
Source: Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2001). WISQARS. National
Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
In 2000, more than 2,200 Americans aged 18 and under died from bullet
wounds, which equals six young people per day.
Source: Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2001). WISQARS. National
Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
-------
Now, care to show the stats on people hurting others...
Though, to be honest, I did word things poorly... I should have stated that
people are more likely to hurt themselves or others in an accident than to
hurt someone they are defending themselves against. My original claim was
worded inaccurately... does this make a difference, esp. when you see some
of the related facts.
Again, sorry for my incorrect wording - I knew what I meant. :)
>
>>> However, it's wise of you to admit you don't know enough about the
>>> subject to comment.
>>
>> Yawn. You act like it is a bad thing I do not know enough to draw a line
>> for you. I see it as a good thing - I do not pretend to know what I do not.
>>
>> I am still curious about your silly nukes=gun straw man. What were you
>> trying to get at?
>
> I said it's wise of you not to comment, how is that a bad thing?
Tone. Look at your whole comment. Clearly you were not pleased with me.
:)
> I think you should research the issue a little bit if you're going to comment
> as much as you do though.
Which comment of mine do you disagree with on this issue?
>
> The guns=arms=nukes thing is something you've used all the time.
Nope. Never suggested guns=nukes. Guns and nukes are, however, both arms.
You can see the Venn diagram, above.
Jason McNorton
Some 2 million crimes a year are detered directly with guns, with nearly
all of them not having a shot fired. Just showing it is usually enough
to end the situation.
So your #'s don't matter. It's possible that more are shot, but much
more is deterred.