Great argument for gun control

[brattt]

Women shouldn't carry guns because they don't know if they are going to be
raped.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCvng-jSp60&feature=player_embedded

---------------------------------------------------------
On Jan 24 2013 3:55 PM, VegasJerry wrote: That why the President and I
support the Second Amendment allowing a person to have a handgun in their
home.

On Dec. 18, 2012 | 2:03 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
I'm willing to allow police to be the only people allowed to be armed, and
to give them the power to stop and search anybody at any time, and to get
warrants to search any home. I want the penalty of owning or carrying a
weapon to be life in prison. And I don't want any further discussion on
that. The time has come.

[fffurken]

On Feb 20, 11:17 am, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

> Women shouldn't carry guns because they don't know if they are going to be
> raped.

But that isn't the argument.

The argument is that a woman may think, wrongly, that she is about to
be raped and so starts shooting.

[brewmaster]

Except....women DO carry guns, and that hasn't happened yet. Very silly
argument by moron with no capacity to think (the congressman, not you fff)

[fffurken]

On Feb 20, 5:51 pm, "brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

> > > Women shouldn't carry guns because they don't know if they are going to be
> > > raped.
>
> > But that isn't the argument.
>
> > The argument is that a woman may think, wrongly, that she is about to
> > be raped and so starts shooting.
>

> Except...women DO carry guns, and that hasn't happened yet.  Very silly

> argument by moron with no capacity to think (the congressman, not you fff)

It may not be a legitimate argument but it's not the argument susan
thinks it is, whatever that is.

[Dutch]

brattt wrote:
> Women shouldn't carry guns because they don't know if they are going to be
> raped.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCvng-jSp60&feature=player_embedded

Men shouldn't carry guns because they can't tell the difference between
burglars and teenagers walking home with tea and Skittles.

[brattt]

This is stupid even for you. You don't know what I think it is, and yet
you know it's not what I think it is? I guess B-BillB's omniscience has
rubbed off on you.

[fffurken]

On Feb 20, 7:29 pm, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

> > It may not be a legitimate argument but it's not the argument susan
> > thinks it is, whatever that is.
>
> This is stupid even for you.  You don't know what I think it is, and yet
> you know it's not what I think it is?  I guess B-BillB's omniscience has
> rubbed off on you.

Figure that out all by yourself did you?

You see, when you get a little further up the intellectual ladder, you
figure that out, THEN you figure out that I had that figured out when
I wrote it and THEN.. Eureka! You *realise* it's humour.

Of course, this all happens in an unconscious millisecond in the brain
of an intelligent person.

Now, secondly, can you figure out what my *deliberate* use of the word
'legitimate' might have been all about?

[da pickle]

You don't even read what you write, do you, ffffffkoff?

[fffurken]

> You don't even read what you write, do you, ffffffkoff?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Considering you are such a scatterbrain, it's no wonder conscious
thought is so foreign to you.

PS. Would you mind turning down Fox, I can hear it from here.

[da pickle]

On 2/20/2013 2:34 PM, fffurken wrote:
> On Feb 20, 8:27 pm, da pickle <jcpick...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/20/2013 1:43 PM, fffurken wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 20, 7:29 pm, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>> It may not be a legitimate argument but it's not the argument susan
>>>>> thinks it is, whatever that is.
>>
>>>> This is stupid even for you. You don't know what I think it is, and yet
>>>> you know it's not what I think it is? I guess B-BillB's omniscience has
>>>> rubbed off on you.
>>
>>> Figure that out all by yourself did you?
>>
>>> You see, when you get a little further up the intellectual ladder, you
>>> figure that out, THEN you figure out that I had that figured out when
>>> I wrote it and THEN.. Eureka! You *realise* it's humour.
>>
>>> Of course, this all happens in an unconscious millisecond in the brain
>>> of an intelligent person.
>>
>>> Now, secondly, can you figure out what my *deliberate* use of the word
>>> 'legitimate' might have been all about?
>>
>> You don't even read what you write, do you, ffffffkoff?
>

> Considering you are such a scatterbrain, it's no wonder conscious
> thought is so foreign to you.
>
> PS. Would you mind turning down Fox, I can hear it from here.

Fox has nothing to do with your latest ffffffkup.

Susan posts an interesting clip ... you cannot even wait two hours for
making a stupid (typical) fffffffkn fffffkup reply. You should
reconsider posting anything at all.

[fffurken]

> reconsider posting anything at all.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

What are you trying to do with a post like that?

*Prove* that you're a scatterbrain?

Don't fucking bother, I already know that.

[brattt]

On Feb 20 2013 2:34 PM, fffurken wrote:


> PS. Would you mind turning down Fox, I can hear it from here.

LOL it's the ONLY way you could hear if from there

[BillB]

On 20/02/2013 12:37 PM, da pickle wrote:

> Susan posts an interesting clip ... you cannot even wait two hours for
> making a stupid (typical) fffffffkn fffffkup reply. You should
> reconsider posting anything at all.

1. The clip wasn't interesting.
2. fffurken's reply was not stupid. He simply pointed out that susan
was, once again, (deliberately) misrepresenting the speaker's message.


If his comment was stupid in any way, it can only be because you assume
**everyone already knows** susan is not trustworthy, that she will
gleefully twist what someone says in an attempt to bolster her warped
political views, and that everything she says needs to be independently
checked for veracity.

Is that what you're trying to say?

[fffurken]

On Feb 20, 8:53 pm, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

> > PS. Would you mind turning down Fox, I can hear it from here.
>
> LOL   it's the ONLY way you could hear if from there

I'm not a Homo FoxNewsien if that's what you mean.

Did you figure out what my deliberate use of the word 'legitimate'
might have been all about yet?

[brattt]

On Feb 20 2013 2:59 PM, BillB wrote:


Perhaps you could parse this sentence them?

"It may not be a legitimate argument but it's not the argument susan
thinks it is, whatever that is."

[da pickle]

Susan did not misrepresent anything. Her opinion was that the idiot was
saying women were too stupid to be trusted with anything so serious as
defending themselves against rape. fffffffffkoff said the idiot was
saying that women were too stupid to know the difference between getting
raped and not getting raped ... so Susan was stupid to say exactly the
same thing.

Now you come along, as expected to just drop another turd into the bowl.

[fffurken]

On Feb 20, 9:21 pm, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

> Perhaps you could parse this sentence them?
>
> "It may not be a legitimate argument but it's not the argument susan
> thinks it is, whatever that is."

This what I fucking mean!

In one ear and straight out the other.

I already explained to you that it was *deliberate*. It was H-U-M-U-O-
R

So the way I see it, you have just two choices left now. Either call
me a liar or shut the fuck up about it.

[fffurken]

On Feb 20, 9:27 pm, da pickle <jcpick...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

> Susan did not misrepresent anything.  Her opinion was that the idiot was
> saying women were too stupid to be trusted with anything so serious as
> defending themselves against rape.  fffffffffkoff said the idiot was
> saying that women were too stupid to know the difference between getting
> raped and not getting raped ... so Susan was stupid to say exactly the
> same thing.

Scatterbrain.

[brattt]

and just to add to B-BillB and ffff's confusion, he has since apologized
for saying it.

[brattt]

On Feb 20 2013 3:20 PM, fffurken wrote:

> On Feb 20, 8:53�pm, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > PS. Would you mind turning down Fox, I can hear it from here.
> >
> > LOL � it's the ONLY way you could hear if from there
>
> I'm not a Homo FoxNewsien if that's what you mean.

No ffffffffffffff that's not what I meant at all - and you know it.

> Did you figure out what my deliberate use of the word 'legitimate'
> might have been all about yet?

I'm pretty sure I know what legitimate means - and I don't even have to
look it up.

[fffurken]

On Feb 20, 9:38 pm, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

> > Did you figure out what my deliberate use of the word 'legitimate'
> > might have been all about yet?
>
> I'm pretty sure I know what legitimate means - and I don't even have to
> look it up.

O-K then..

So, what if I said a sentence like "Politician makes gaffe about rape"
and a word like 'legitimate'.

Would that ring any bells, at all, susan?

[BillB]

On 20/02/2013 1:38 PM, brattt wrote:

>> I'm not a Homo FoxNewsien if that's what you mean.
>
>
> No ffffffffffffff that's not what I meant at all - and you know it.

I'm curious to know what you *did* mean. He obviously has internet, so
why can't he watch Fox News? It streams live on a number of different
websites.

[BillB]

On 20/02/2013 1:27 PM, da pickle wrote:

> Susan did not misrepresent anything. Her opinion was that the idiot was
> saying women were too stupid to be trusted with anything so serious as
> defending themselves against rape.

lol...he's doubling down on susan's dishonesty.

[brewmaster]

On Feb 20 2013 1:29 PM, fffurken wrote:

> On Feb 20, 9:21�pm, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps you could parse this sentence them?
> >
> > "It may not be a legitimate argument but it's not the argument susan
> > thinks it is, whatever that is."
>
> This what I fucking mean!
>
> In one ear and straight out the other.
>
> I already explained to you that it was *deliberate*. It was H-U-M-U-O-
> R

You misspelled the already misspelled British spelling of humor.

[brattt]

How about I do both ffffffffff

LIAR

10-4

[fffurken]

On Feb 20, 9:57 pm, "brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

> > > Perhaps you could parse this sentence them?
>
> > > "It may not be a legitimate argument but it's not the argument susan
> > > thinks it is, whatever that is."
>
> > This what I fucking mean!
>
> > In one ear and straight out the other.
>
> > I already explained to you that it was *deliberate*. It was H-U-M-U-O-
> > R
>
> You misspelled the already misspelled British spelling of humor.

Yeah, I'll agree with that, right after you tell me who INVENTED THE
FUCKING LANGUAGE!

[fffurken]

On Feb 20, 9:57 pm, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

> > So the way I see it, you have just two choices left now. Either call
> > me a liar or shut the fuck up about it.
>
> How about I do both ffffffffff
>
> LIAR
>
> 10-4

What do you mean do "both"? Are you going on vacation too?

[brewmaster]

So? Somebody once kicked a round rock through a hole and invented soccer.
Americans improved it and made it football, just as we improved the
language.

[fffurken]

On Feb 20, 10:58 pm, "brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

> > > You misspelled the already misspelled British spelling of humor.
>
> > Yeah, I'll agree with that, right after you tell me who INVENTED THE
> > FUCKING LANGUAGE!
>
> So?  Somebody once kicked a round rock through a hole and invented soccer.
>  Americans improved it and made it football, just as we improved the
> language.

So? Does that make 'humour' a misspelled word? I don't think so.

PS. American football is nothing like football.

[brewmaster]

It is now, as per Noah Webster.

>
> PS. American football is nothing like football.

American football IS football.

[fffurken]

On Feb 20, 11:43 pm, "brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

> > So? Does that make 'humour' a misspelled word? I don't think so.
>
> It is now, as per Noah Webster.

Yeah, well tell Noah Webster he's full of shit.

> > PS. American football is nothing like football.
>
> American football IS football.

315 million people and few Canadians might think so, but that's about
it.

[Alim Nassor]

On Feb 20, 3:38 pm, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> On Feb 20 2013 3:20 PM, fffurken wrote:
>
> > On Feb 20, 8:53 pm, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > PS. Would you mind turning down Fox, I can hear it from here.
>
> > > LOL   it's the ONLY way you could hear if from there
>
> > I'm not a Homo FoxNewsien if that's what you mean.
>
> No ffffffffffffff   that's not what I meant at all - and you know it.
>
> > Did you figure out what my deliberate use of the word 'legitimate'
> > might have been all about yet?
>
> I'm pretty sure I know what legitimate means - and I don't even have to
> look it up.

Did you ask Jerry?

[Bill Vanek]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:26:43 -0800, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>brattt wrote:
>> Women shouldn't carry guns because they don't know if they are going to be
>> raped.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCvng-jSp60&feature=player_embedded
>
>Men shouldn't carry guns because they can't tell the difference between
>burglars and teenagers walking home with tea and Skittles.

George Zimmerman knew the difference.

[Dutch]

ouch! I don't even think he's that guilty.

[Bill Vanek]

I think you misunderstood what I meant.

[FL Turbo]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 04:51:15 -0800 (PST), fffurken
<fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 20, 11:17 am, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Women shouldn't carry guns because they don't know if they are going to be
>> raped.
>

>But that isn't the argument.
>
>The argument is that a woman may think, wrongly, that she is about to
>be raped and so starts shooting.

Anti-gun fanatics seem to think that a raped woman lieing dead in an
alley is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to the police
how her attacker got those bullet holes in him.
(Ann Colter ?)

[Pepe Papon]

Maybe not. Pickle ain't too bright, so it's entirely possible that he
can't see the distinction between the susan's and fffurken's versions
of the argument.
--

Pepe "Way Smarter than Popinjay" Papon

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:26:43 -0800, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>brattt wrote:
>> Women shouldn't carry guns because they don't know if they are going to be
>> raped.
>>

>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCvng-jSp60&feature=player_embedded
>
>Men shouldn't carry guns because they can't tell the difference between
>burglars and teenagers walking home with tea and Skittles.

That's a good argument to show the stupidity of the video, but it's
not a good argument for gun control.

[fffurken]

On 21 Feb, 04:50, FL Turbo <noem...@notime.com> wrote:

> >> Women shouldn't carry guns because they don't know if they are going to be
> >> raped.
>
> >But that isn't the argument.
>
> >The argument is that a woman may think, wrongly, that she is about to
> >be raped and so starts shooting.
>
> Anti-gun fanatics seem to think that a raped woman lieing dead in an
> alley is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to the police
> how her attacker got those bullet holes in him.
> (Ann Colter ?)

Sure they do Turbo. Sure they do.

[da pickle]

Some sure do ... and some sure do defend them ... fffffffkup

[fffurken]

> Some sure do ... and some sure do defend them ... fffffffkup- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I preferred it when you used to lie through your stupid teeth writing
your reports.

At least that was a more central place for everyone to see what a
worthless asshole you are.

[da pickle]

> Pepe "Way Smarter than ffffffkn" Papon

Neither Susan nor ffffffffkup has a version of the argument ... the
idiot talking makes a stupid comment that obviously implies that he
thinks women are too stupid to make a rational decision about the use of
a handgun. He says they might take out their gun and "pop someone" ...
just because they feel uneasy. What a preposterous "argument" for a
woman to be disqualified from protecting herself with a handgun.

fffffffffkup doesn't understand what Susan is talking about and he then
says the same thing. Pepe the wonder dog decides that distinctions are
significant with the opinions being expressed, but he has not an opinion
of his own ... as usual.

Even the idiot has enough sense to realize that his comments were crap
and has apologized, as he should have. ffffffffkup and Pepe will
continue to spout nonsense and BillB will continue to drop the
occasional turd into the cess pool.

[fffurken]

On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, da pickle <jcpick...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

> Neither Susan nor ffffffffkup has a version of the argument ... the
> idiot talking makes a stupid comment that obviously implies that he
> thinks women are too stupid to make a rational decision about the use of
> a handgun.

Scatterbrain.

[da pickle]

I agree he was ... and you too, ffffffkoff

[fffurken]

It takes a whole lot of willful interpretation to arrive at the
conclusion that he was saying "women are too stupid to make a rational

decision about the use of a handgun."

But don't let that stop you, you are Homo Foxnewsien.

[da pickle]

What did he say? Some woman would feel uneasy and pop a cap on someone;
therefore, don't give her a gun. ffffffkupagain

[fffurken]

On Feb 21, 9:00 pm, da pickle <jcpick...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

> What did he say?  Some woman would feel uneasy and pop a cap on someone;
> therefore, don't give her a gun.

And just think, if he said the exact same thing about a man, there'd
be none of this fuss.

[da pickle]

On 2/21/2013 3:05 PM, fffurken wrote:

He specifically implied that the WOMAN would just be too stupid to
handle the gun ... good to know that the stupid comment would have been
stupid if a man was substituted, but that was not the point of the
comment at all. You have successfully continued your ffffffkup ... keep
it up, ffffffkup.

[fffurken]

Why bother.

--
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only drag you down to their
level and beat you with experience.”

[da pickle]

Can't keep it up?

[Dutch]

It's not a well crafted argument, but the idea behind it is a major
point in the gun control argument, guns everywhere, willy-nilly, with
little control over who can access them, leads to gun violence.

[fffurken]

On Feb 21, 9:36 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

> the idea behind it is a major
> point in the gun control argument, guns everywhere, willy-nilly, with
> little control over who can access them, leads to gun violence.

Someone please try to explain this to pickle. I can't be bothered.

[Dutch]

Bill Vanek wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 19:06:10 -0800, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> Bill Vanek wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:26:43 -0800, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> brattt wrote:
>>>>> Women shouldn't carry guns because they don't know if they are going to be
>>>>> raped.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCvng-jSp60&feature=player_embedded
>>>>
>>>> Men shouldn't carry guns because they can't tell the difference between
>>>> burglars and teenagers walking home with tea and Skittles.
>>>
>>> George Zimmerman knew the difference.
>>>
>>
>> ouch! I don't even think he's that guilty.
>
> I think you misunderstood what I meant.
>

What did you mean?

[da pickle]

Explain "this" ... you are a riot.

[brewmaster]

Except that that argument does not hold water. Most gun owners are
extremely well aware of the dangers of firearms. Occasionally, in a
country of 350 million, some dumbass does something stupid like shooting
his kid in his car by laying his gun down incorrectly. I'm more than
willing to abide these dumbasses than to give up the right of gun
ownership.

[BillB]

On 21/02/2013 1:55 PM, brewmaster wrote:

> Except that that argument does not hold water. Most gun owners are
> extremely well aware of the dangers of firearms. Occasionally, in a
> country of 350 million, some dumbass does something stupid like shooting
> his kid in his car by laying his gun down incorrectly. I'm more than
> willing to abide these dumbasses than to give up the right of gun
> ownership.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

[Dutch]

No they don't. Simplistic rhetoric like this is chimps throwing poop.

Try this one. Gun fanatics seem to think that piles of murdered children
is just the price we have to pay for freedom.

You're better than this.

[Dutch]

Who's asking you to do that?

[BillB]

It doesn't matter whether you are giving the guns to men, women, or
trained monkeys. As a policymaker, you obviously have to weigh the
potential benefits against the risks of tragedy and innocent victims.

It is an indisputable fact that if you give guns to people willy-nilly,
some crimes will be prevented. It is also an indisputable FACT that if
you give guns to people willy-nilly -- especially people who are
inherently vulnerable and therefore prone to exaggerated fears of
violence (petite women, the elderly, mo, etc) -- there WILL be incidents
of people prematurely popping off to the extreme detriment of innocent
victims. We know this, because it ALREADY happens all the time. Any
policymaker who ignores that fact in their policy deliberations is a
complete fucking idiot.

[da pickle]

*Exactly* how more-than-petite would a woman have to be to get
BillBigot's permission to own a gun?

[Dutch]

*Exactly* how dumb does a post have to be before you cancel out of it
rather than pressing Send?

[BillB]

On 21/02/2013 2:14 PM, da pickle wrote:

> *Exactly* how more-than-petite would a woman have to be to get
> BillBigot's permission to own a gun?

You can't discriminate. Thus the answer is simply a very high standard
of training and qualification for everyone across the board, especially
someone who wants to carry in public. I don't want random senile idiots
(like you) carrying loaded weapons around me. I would be an absolute
fool to want that. Highly trained *and* psychologically stable
individuals, like Jerry and Ramashiva, I'm fine with carrying around me
and my family.

[brewmaster]

You're all for piles of murdered children, so long as they are murdered at
least 1 day before drawing their first solo breath.

[brattt]

When did guns everywhere - willy-nilly come into this?


---------------------------------------------------------
On Jan 24 2013 3:55 PM, VegasJerry wrote: That why the President and I
support the Second Amendment allowing a person to have a handgun in their
home.

On Dec. 18, 2012 | 2:03 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
I'm willing to allow police to be the only people allowed to be armed, and
to give them the power to stop and search anybody at any time, and to get
warrants to search any home. I want the penalty of owning or carrying a
weapon to be life in prison. And I don't want any further discussion on
that. The time has come.

[Dutch]

Now you've switched to the abortion issue? You REALLY have to be better
than this.

In the faint hope of rescuing this conversation from becoming a complete
gutterball, I don't believe that supporters of gun rights think of piles
of murdered children as just the cost of doing business. I was using
that as an example of unproductive inflammatory rhetoric similar to the
Coulter quote.

[Dutch]

brattt wrote:
> On Feb 21 2013 3:36 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
>> Pepe Papon wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:26:43 -0800, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> brattt wrote:
>>>>> Women shouldn't carry guns because they don't know if they are going to
> be
>>>>> raped.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCvng-jSp60&feature=player_embedded
>>>>
>>>> Men shouldn't carry guns because they can't tell the difference between
>>>> burglars and teenagers walking home with tea and Skittles.
>>>
>>> That's a good argument to show the stupidity of the video, but it's
>>> not a good argument for gun control.
>>
>> It's not a well crafted argument, but the idea behind it is a major
>> point in the gun control argument, guns everywhere, willy-nilly, with
>> little control over who can access them, leads to gun violence.
>
>
> When did guns everywhere - willy-nilly come into this?

Gradually, over decades, as a result of weak laws, lack of enforcement,
unscrupulous gun manufacturers and dealers, a culture pervaded by guns
and violence, etc.. and here you are.

[fffurken]

On Feb 21, 9:57 pm, da pickle <jcpick...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

> >> the idea behind it is a major
> >> point in the gun control argument, guns everywhere, willy-nilly, with
> >> little control over who can access them, leads to gun violence.
>
> > Someone please try to explain this to pickle. I can't be bothered.
>
> Explain "this" ... you are a riot.

It's a small word, 4 letters.

[brewmaster]

There were no gun laws 200 years ago. Gun laws have become stricter and
stricter and more stupid over time, not weaker. The gun laws are a big
part of the problem.

[Bill Vanek]

That Martin was a thug. I'm not saying he deserved to die, but he
could have saved himself.

[Bill Vanek]

>On Feb 21 2013 3:28 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> a culture pervaded by guns
>> and violence, etc.. and here you are.

More accurately, a culture pervaded by violent subcultures.

[Dutch]

200 years ago? really? So?

> Gun laws have become stricter and
> stricter and more stupid over time, not weaker.

There are effectively no gun laws in the U.S. at present due to lack of
enforcement.

> The gun laws are a big
> part of the problem.

Gun laws make killing easier? How?

[Pepe Papon]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:08:39 -0600, da pickle
<jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

>. Pepe the wonder dog decides that distinctions are
>significant with the opinions being expressed, but he has not an opinion
>of his own ... as usual.

I never express an opinion? You're on drugs. You have no
connection whatsoever with reality. You must be confusing me with
you.
--

Pepe "Way Smarter than Popinjay" Papon

[Pepe Papon]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 04:55:38 -0800 (PST), fffurken
<fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 21 Feb, 12:44, da pickle <jcpick...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/21/2013 4:36 AM, fffurken wrote:

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 21 Feb, 04:50, FL Turbo <noem...@notime.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> Women shouldn't carry guns because they don't know if they are going to be
>> >>>> raped.
>>

>> >>> But that isn't the argument.
>>
>> >>> The argument is that a woman may think, wrongly, that she is about to
>> >>> be raped and so starts shooting.
>>
>> >> Anti-gun fanatics seem to think that a raped woman lieing dead in an
>> >> alley is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to the police
>> >> how her attacker got those bullet holes in him.
>> >> (Ann Colter ?)
>>

>> > Sure they do Turbo. Sure they do.
>>
>> Some sure do ... and some sure do defend them ... fffffffkup- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I preferred it when you used to lie through your stupid teeth writing
>your reports.

He's probably not lying. He has the analytical skills of a horseshoe
crab, so he probably really believes the crap he posts.

[Clave]

"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:r3mdi8ll0c2j1vbps...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:08:39 -0600, da pickle
> <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>. Pepe the wonder dog decides that distinctions are
>>significant with the opinions being expressed, but he has not an opinion
>>of his own ... as usual.
>
> I never express an opinion? You're on drugs. You have no
> connection whatsoever with reality. You must be confusing me with
> you.

No good comes from dealing with fuckwits like pickle.

Jim

[brattt]

On Feb 21 2013 8:25 PM, Dutch wrote:


> There are effectively no gun laws in the U.S. at present due to lack of
> enforcement.

So somehow you believe that making them stricter will help?

[Dutch]

brattt wrote:
> On Feb 21 2013 8:25 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
>
>> There are effectively no gun laws in the U.S. at present due to lack of
>> enforcement.
>
>
> So somehow you believe that making them stricter will help?

Not without enforcement.

[Alim Nassor]

There is always an acceptable level of risk. We accept a far higher
level of childhood death from many things other than guns.

[Alim Nassor]

So, why don't we try enforcing the laws we have, rather than write
more laws we either don't enforce, or that are only obeyed by the
people who are not part of the problem?

[Dutch]

List some of these other things we accept that result in a far higher
level of childhood death.

[Dutch]

I think that is an excellent suggestion, but it's not an either/or
proposition.

[brattt]

Motor Vehicle 6,683 8.1
Drowning 1,056 1.3
Fire/Burn 544 0.7
Poisoning 972 1.2
Suffocation/Strangulation 1,263 1.5
Firearm 138 0.2

[brattt]

why not? seems to me that it would be easier to enforce the laws now in
place rather than add even more laws and try to enforce them all.

[Dutch]

We don't accept any of those, we do everything in our power to stop
them, we create regulations and penalties to minimize them. Motor
vehicles for example; you have to pass a stringent set of tests to be
allowed to drive and while on the road you are subject to a myriad of
limits on where and how you drive. If you violate any of those
regulations you are subject to penalties.

I take back my previous attempt at civility, you people really DO
consider piles of murdered children as just the cost of freedom.

Another thing, there is a qualitative difference between a death in an
automobile accident and a murder, the two don't actually belong in the
same discussion.

[brattt]

Tell me what your thought are on the people killed in the Waco massacre?

[Alim Nassor]

Name the regulations that help prevent children from drowning?

And please show me the constitutional guarantee to ride in an
automobile.

[popinjay999]

On Feb 22, 2:06 pm, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>
> Tell me what your thought are on the people killed in the Waco massacre?
>

Well, that was done under a democrat president, so probably not so bad.

[Dutch]

brattt wrote:
>
> Tell me what your thought are on the people killed in the Waco massacre?

More innocent children dead, indirectly this time, as a result of guns.
In this case it was complicated by the fact that the guns were being
hoarded by a lunatic religious cult leader. So it is simultaneously an
indictment of multiple forms of extremism.

The adults who died, in the case of the Davidians, should have known
better than to get involved in that stupid, dangerous shit. The agents
who died were killed in the line of duty.

The whole thing could have been avoided if people had acted lawfully.

[Dutch]

There are regulations in Canada about fencing swimming pools, and public
swimming areas must be patrolled by lifeguards.

> And please show me the constitutional guarantee to ride in an
> automobile.

Why? Are you suggesting that U.S. citizens should be prohibited from
doing anything that isn't specifically guaranteed in the constitution?

[popinjay999]

On Feb 22, 3:58 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>
> The whole thing could have been avoided if people had acted lawfully.

The whole thing could have been avoided if Janet Reno wasn't such a
fucking democrat bull dike nazi. Karesh went into town every day,
they could have jacked him up when he was away from the compound.
It's like the Clinton Administration wanted to burn those kids. Wtf
are you talking about?

[Dutch]

The ATF made mistakes too, but you can't deny that had the occupants of
the Waco compound had simply submitted to the search warrant as they
were legally obliged to do then none of the violence would have happened.

[Clave]

"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:80511710-c64a-4c44...@qm17g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

More woo-woo nonsense from our resident McCarthyite.

The the blame for those kids' deaths lies squarely at the burning-in-hell
feet of Koresh himself and no one else.

Jim

[brattt]

Every gun they had was legal.

The local sheriff had investigated them and found nothing illegal.

[Dutch]

brattt wrote:
> On Feb 22 2013 6:35 PM, Clave wrote:
>
>> "popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:80511710-c64a-4c44...@qm17g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Feb 22, 3:58 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The whole thing could have been avoided if people had acted lawfully.
>>>
>>>
>>> The whole thing could have been avoided if Janet Reno wasn't such a
>>> fucking democrat bull dike nazi. Karesh went into town every day,
>>> they could have jacked him up when he was away from the compound.
>>> It's like the Clinton Administration wanted to burn those kids. Wtf
>>> are you talking about?
>>
>> More woo-woo nonsense from our resident McCarthyite.
>>
>> The the blame for those kids' deaths lies squarely at the burning-in-hell
>> feet of Koresh himself and no one else.
>>
>> Jim
>
>
> Every gun they had was legal.
>
> The local sheriff had investigated them and found nothing illegal.

That doesn't mean shit. They ATF had a legal warrant.

[Alim Nassor]

What laws had been broken, prior to the seige?

[Alim Nassor]

There are no such universal lifeguard regs in the US when it comes to
public swimming areas.

>
> > And please show me the constitutional guarantee to ride in an
> > automobile.
>
> Why? Are you suggesting that U.S. citizens should be prohibited from
> doing anything that isn't specifically guaranteed in the constitution?

No, not at all.

[Alim Nassor]

On Feb 22, 8:20 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> brattt wrote:
> > On Feb 22 2013 6:35 PM, Clave wrote:
>

> >> "popinjay999" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

Based on total bullshit.

[Clave]

"brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:7sglv9x...@news.ezprovider.com...

> On Feb 22 2013 6:35 PM, Clave wrote:
>
>> "popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:80511710-c64a-4c44...@qm17g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Feb 22, 3:58 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The whole thing could have been avoided if people had acted lawfully.
>> >
>> >
>> > The whole thing could have been avoided if Janet Reno wasn't such a
>> > fucking democrat bull dike nazi. Karesh went into town every day,
>> > they could have jacked him up when he was away from the compound.
>> > It's like the Clinton Administration wanted to burn those kids. Wtf
>> > are you talking about?
>>
>> More woo-woo nonsense from our resident McCarthyite.
>>
>> The the blame for those kids' deaths lies squarely at the burning-in-hell
>> feet of Koresh himself and no one else.
>>
>> Jim
>
>
> Every gun they had was legal.
>
> The local sheriff had investigated them and found nothing illegal.

Irrelevant.

Jim

[Clave]

"Alim Nassor" <alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9f559e5c-a2f9-46e7...@m9g2000pby.googlegroups.com...

That's for a court to decide, not armchair Usenet woo-woos.

Jim

[Dutch]

We should be able to agree that regulations to protect safety are a good
thing.

>>
>>> And please show me the constitutional guarantee to ride in an
>>> automobile.
>>
>> Why? Are you suggesting that U.S. citizens should be prohibited from
>> doing anything that isn't specifically guaranteed in the constitution?
>
> No, not at all.

There is a myriad of layers of rules, laws, and regulations to make it
as safe as possible to ride in a car. The same should exist with guns.

[Dutch]

It is also not for the person subject to the warrant to decide.