Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: The History of Gun Control
57 views
Skip to first unread message
brattt
Dec 17, 2012, 9:39:14 PM12/17/12
to
I didn't attribute because I don't know who wrote it.
brattt
Dec 17, 2012, 9:38:27 PM12/17/12
to
Careful of what you wish for...
The History of Gun Control
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 191
5 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of
13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were
rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
Let’s see how many defenseless people were exterminated in the 20th
Century because of gun control:
Country Year(s) People
Exterminated
USSR 1929-1953 20,000,000
Turkey 1915-1917 1,500,000
Germany 1939-1945 13,000,000
China 1948-1952 20,000,000
Guatemala 1964-1981 100,000
Uganda 1971-1979 300,000
Cambodia 1975-1977 1,000,000
Total: 56 million.
Governments around the World need a history lesson.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new
law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own
government, a program costing Australian taxpayers more than $500 million
dollars. The first year results are now in:
1) Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
2) Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.
3) Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!)
4) In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300
percent.
Note, that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals
did not, and criminals still possess their guns! While figures over the
previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms,
this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals
now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the
ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety
has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in
successfully ridding Australian society of guns.
The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save
lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the
law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late! The next time someone
talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are ‘citizens.’ Without them, we are ’subjects.’
http://old.postworthy.com/?p=39114
********************************
It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five
years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology
acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of
firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with
a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says
the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that
the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9
percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists --
both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a
gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in
Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9
percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped
19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped
32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does
prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights
the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of
the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.
Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite
gun ban," D.C. Examiner, April 8, 2009:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
********************************
The odd thing about gun control is that a culture of censorship often
increases after anti-gun laws fail to deliver. So, it would be hard for an
Australian writer to submit a piece on Switzerland’s pro-gun ownership
culture and low gun crime rate because our media isn’t “ready” to accept
opposing views. Only a “thought control” culture can sustain a “gun
control” culture.
At times like these, it’s easy to fall prey to post-massacre opportunists.
Still, reason and not emotion is our best guide. The facts (to quote the
Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia) are as follows:
Between July 1 1997 and 30 June 1999 nine in ten offenders of
firearm-related homicide were unlicensed firearm owners.
Raw data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) reveals that while
suicide by firearms is continuing to decrease from a high in the 1980s,
suicide by hanging steadily increased throughout the 1990s and increased
for three consecutive years after the 1996 buy-back.
In the year 2002/2003, over 85% of firearms used to commit murder were
unregistered. Recent legislation introduced by all states further
strengthened controls on access to legitimate handguns by sporting
shooters.
The AIC’s ‘Homicide in Australia: 2006-07 National Homicide Monitoring
Program annual report’ stated that 93 per cent of firearms involved in
homicides had never been registered and were used by unlicensed
individuals.
Gun control is a myth, or rather a mountain of myths sustained by
campaigning elites in secure buildings with armed bodyguards.
America, don’t repeat Australia’s gun control mistake:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/19/america-dont-repeat-australias-gun-control-mistake/#ixzz2FBztmIkq
******************************
Gun Control in Australia - Watch and Weep http://youtu.be/fGaDAThOHhA
---------------------------------------------------------
Jerry's litigate that Walmart employees did not strike Walmart
LABOR BOARD CALLS WALMART STRIKE DECISION 'COMPLEX'
On Nov. 29, Jerry n'Vegas wrote
Walmart employees did not strike Walmart.
http://tinyurl.com/cmskadk
The History of Gun Control
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 191
5 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of
13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were
rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
Let’s see how many defenseless people were exterminated in the 20th
Century because of gun control:
Country Year(s) People
Exterminated
USSR 1929-1953 20,000,000
Turkey 1915-1917 1,500,000
Germany 1939-1945 13,000,000
China 1948-1952 20,000,000
Guatemala 1964-1981 100,000
Uganda 1971-1979 300,000
Cambodia 1975-1977 1,000,000
Total: 56 million.
Governments around the World need a history lesson.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new
law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own
government, a program costing Australian taxpayers more than $500 million
dollars. The first year results are now in:
1) Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
2) Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.
3) Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!)
4) In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300
percent.
Note, that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals
did not, and criminals still possess their guns! While figures over the
previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms,
this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals
now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the
ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety
has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in
successfully ridding Australian society of guns.
The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save
lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the
law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late! The next time someone
talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are ‘citizens.’ Without them, we are ’subjects.’
http://old.postworthy.com/?p=39114
********************************
It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five
years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology
acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of
firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with
a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says
the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that
the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9
percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists --
both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a
gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in
Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9
percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped
19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped
32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does
prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights
the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of
the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.
Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite
gun ban," D.C. Examiner, April 8, 2009:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
********************************
The odd thing about gun control is that a culture of censorship often
increases after anti-gun laws fail to deliver. So, it would be hard for an
Australian writer to submit a piece on Switzerland’s pro-gun ownership
culture and low gun crime rate because our media isn’t “ready” to accept
opposing views. Only a “thought control” culture can sustain a “gun
control” culture.
At times like these, it’s easy to fall prey to post-massacre opportunists.
Still, reason and not emotion is our best guide. The facts (to quote the
Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia) are as follows:
Between July 1 1997 and 30 June 1999 nine in ten offenders of
firearm-related homicide were unlicensed firearm owners.
Raw data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) reveals that while
suicide by firearms is continuing to decrease from a high in the 1980s,
suicide by hanging steadily increased throughout the 1990s and increased
for three consecutive years after the 1996 buy-back.
In the year 2002/2003, over 85% of firearms used to commit murder were
unregistered. Recent legislation introduced by all states further
strengthened controls on access to legitimate handguns by sporting
shooters.
The AIC’s ‘Homicide in Australia: 2006-07 National Homicide Monitoring
Program annual report’ stated that 93 per cent of firearms involved in
homicides had never been registered and were used by unlicensed
individuals.
Gun control is a myth, or rather a mountain of myths sustained by
campaigning elites in secure buildings with armed bodyguards.
America, don’t repeat Australia’s gun control mistake:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/19/america-dont-repeat-australias-gun-control-mistake/#ixzz2FBztmIkq
******************************
Gun Control in Australia - Watch and Weep http://youtu.be/fGaDAThOHhA
---------------------------------------------------------
Jerry's litigate that Walmart employees did not strike Walmart
LABOR BOARD CALLS WALMART STRIKE DECISION 'COMPLEX'
On Nov. 29, Jerry n'Vegas wrote
Walmart employees did not strike Walmart.
http://tinyurl.com/cmskadk
popinjay999
Dec 18, 2012, 12:36:05 AM12/18/12
to
On Dec 17, 6:39 pm, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> I didn't attribute because I don't know who wrote it.
I think Alim wrote it.
> I didn't attribute because I don't know who wrote it.
Alim Nassor
Dec 18, 2012, 12:51:09 AM12/18/12
to
Dutch
Dec 18, 2012, 4:34:51 AM12/18/12
to
brattt wrote:
> Careful of what you wish for...
> The History of Gun Control
Do you know of any non Tea Party whackjob sources?
> Careful of what you wish for...
> The History of Gun Control
Dutch
Dec 18, 2012, 4:40:42 AM12/18/12
to
brattt wrote:
> In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
> about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
> and exterminated.
>
> In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 191
> 5 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were
> rounded up and exterminated.
>
> Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of
> 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were
> rounded up and exterminated.
>
> China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
> political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
> exterminated.
>
> Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
> Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
> exterminated.
>
> Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
> Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
>
> Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
> educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
> exterminated.
So all these massacres are just a convenient excuse huh?
> In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
> about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
> and exterminated.
>
> In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 191
> 5 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were
> rounded up and exterminated.
>
> Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of
> 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were
> rounded up and exterminated.
>
> China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
> political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
> exterminated.
>
> Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
> Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
> exterminated.
>
> Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
> Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
>
> Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
> educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
> exterminated.
Who do you figure the US government is fixin' to exterminate?
brattt
Dec 18, 2012, 7:16:53 AM12/18/12
to
liberal. Good try though. And he didn't write it - just passed it on.
So what part is wrong now that you know it came from a liberal?
Abbey Johnsson
Dec 18, 2012, 9:05:18 AM12/18/12
to
forgetting for a moment whether we have a right to them or not, what do
you think they are needed for ? hunting? home innvasion protection from
things like burglars? future "doomsday" scenerio where the govt is coming
after us or economic collapse ? some other reason?
To be fair, i'll share my opinion. i dont like hunting but i'll go along
with it but they arent needed for hunting. home invasion protection can
be taken care of with regular guns. and the doomsday/econ collapse
scenerios are wacko's. its ridiculous to have assault weapons laying
around for such a far fetched idea.
brattt
Dec 18, 2012, 9:11:50 AM12/18/12
to
animal population. Where I grew up deer were a favorite with hunters -
and even with *deer season* there wasn't a day that went by that I didn't
see a deer by the side of the road having been hit by a car.
I don't understand the opposition to having background checks always
required. It just seems like common sense to me.
Alim Nassor
Dec 18, 2012, 9:17:15 AM12/18/12
to
a hint, it has nothing to do with hunting, or home invasions.
Alim Nassor
Dec 18, 2012, 9:17:52 AM12/18/12
to
dealer.
VegasJerry
Dec 18, 2012, 9:25:02 AM12/18/12
to
On Monday, December 17, 2012 6:38:27 PM UTC-8, brattt wrote:
> Careful of what you wish for...
> The History of Gun Control
>
> In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
> about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
> and exterminated.
>
- Blab, blab,blab….
> Careful of what you wish for...
> The History of Gun Control
>
> In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
> about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
> and exterminated.
>
You really think that you owning a gun could stop the government from 'taking you over' if they wanted to? You think you could sit in your house and fire your ''assault" weapon, with its 50-bullet clip and they'd run off? Remember Ruby Ridge?
You'll note that Englanders were without weapons. Even the cops didn’t carry. Did the mean old government take them over?
We should make it easier for law-abiding citizens to obtain and carry weapons? That's what lead to the school shooting. The gun nuts still refuse background checks at gun shows. They still refuse to stop the sale of assault weapons. They still refuse to limit clip size by even one bullet.
Jerry 'n Vegas
Alim Nassor
Dec 18, 2012, 9:33:15 AM12/18/12
to
even know the difference in a clip and a magazine. STFU and STFD.
Beldumb TurdSavant
Dec 18, 2012, 10:03:18 AM12/18/12
to
purchased in the US were at Gun Shows and in most states background checks
were not required.
brattt
Dec 18, 2012, 10:18:07 AM12/18/12
to
mary in vegas
Dec 18, 2012, 10:57:37 AM12/18/12
to
of texas. alim could lead the way...they would be ready when the govt
comes to get them. i figure given enough time, they would eventually wind
up killing each other.
you people who think ordinary citizens NEED these kinds of weapons are the
reason these tragedies happen. MY RIGHTS MY RIGHTS...what about OUR
rights?
you can go to any gun show and get whatever you want...NO PROBLEM. this
whole thing is a joke...and innocent people get to suffer..
AMERICA...what a country...
mary in vegas
da pickle
Dec 18, 2012, 12:00:20 PM12/18/12
to
anyone who feels helpless in the face of such a tragedy. I also cry for
those who lost loved ones.
Your outrage is understandable. I hope it makes you feel a little better. I
hope at a different time you might be able to vent it in a productive
manner.
Dave the Clueless
Dec 18, 2012, 12:39:35 PM12/18/12
to
-------
It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand
by itself. - Thomas Jefferson
VegasJerry
Dec 18, 2012, 2:20:00 PM12/18/12
to
On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 6:33:15 AM UTC-8, Alim Nassor wrote:
> On Dec 18, 8:25 am, VegasJerry <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, December 17, 2012 6:38:27 PM UTC-8, brattt wrote:
> > > Careful of what you wish for...
> > > The History of Gun Control
> >
> > > In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
> > > about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
> > > and exterminated.
> >
> > - Blab, blab,blab….
> >
> > You really think that you owning a gun could stop the government from 'taking you over' if they wanted to? You think you could sit in your house and fire your ''assault" weapon, with its 50-bullet clip and they'd run off? Remember Ruby Ridge?
> >
> > You'll note that Englanders were without weapons. Even the cops didn’t carry. Did the mean old government take them over?
> >
> > We should make it easier for law-abiding citizens to obtain and carry weapons? That's what lead to the school shooting. The gun nuts still refuse background checks at gun shows. They still refuse to stop the sale of assault weapons. They still refuse to limit clip size by even one bullet.
> >
> > Jerry 'n Vegas
.> You sir are an idiot. You claim to be an expert on guns
> On Dec 18, 8:25 am, VegasJerry <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, December 17, 2012 6:38:27 PM UTC-8, brattt wrote:
> > > Careful of what you wish for...
> > > The History of Gun Control
> >
> > > In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
> > > about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
> > > and exterminated.
> >
> > - Blab, blab,blab….
> >
> > You really think that you owning a gun could stop the government from 'taking you over' if they wanted to? You think you could sit in your house and fire your ''assault" weapon, with its 50-bullet clip and they'd run off? Remember Ruby Ridge?
> >
> > You'll note that Englanders were without weapons. Even the cops didn’t carry. Did the mean old government take them over?
> >
> > We should make it easier for law-abiding citizens to obtain and carry weapons? That's what lead to the school shooting. The gun nuts still refuse background checks at gun shows. They still refuse to stop the sale of assault weapons. They still refuse to limit clip size by even one bullet.
> >
> > Jerry 'n Vegas
No I do not and you can't show where I do.
(Making you, sir the idiot).
> STFU and STFD.
Looks like you'll have to take your own advice.
Or show why you're still protecting the Gun Show Loop Hole and why you protect the purchase of assault weapons with large clips and armor-piercing bullets.
You lose again, asshole.
Jerry (lol) 'n Vegas
*And take the little racist bitch with you.
"I am a racist. I hate niggers and spics and slants."
-- Stupid Susan (SS) (11-21-12)
mary in vegas
Dec 18, 2012, 3:42:55 PM12/18/12
to
semi-automatic weapons and all those bullets that go with it?
mary in vegas
fffurken
Dec 18, 2012, 3:55:11 PM12/18/12
to
On Dec 18, 5:00 pm, da pickle <jcpickels@[nospam]hotmail.com> wrote:
> I can feel your sorrow at this latest outrage of evil. I sympathize with
> anyone who feels helpless in the face of such a tragedy. I also cry for
> those who lost loved ones.
>
> Your outrage is understandable. I hope it makes you feel a little better. I
> hope at a different time you might be able to vent it in a productive
> manner.
lol pickass can't help himself being a condescending douchebag even to
> I can feel your sorrow at this latest outrage of evil. I sympathize with
> anyone who feels helpless in the face of such a tragedy. I also cry for
> those who lost loved ones.
>
> Your outrage is understandable. I hope it makes you feel a little better. I
> hope at a different time you might be able to vent it in a productive
> manner.
his "friends".
da pickle
Dec 18, 2012, 4:00:34 PM12/18/12
to
weapons and millions of bullets. They will always have them. Only criminals
misuse any weapon.
Abbey Johnsson
Dec 18, 2012, 5:56:08 PM12/18/12
to
On Dec 18 2012 9:17 AM, Alim Nassor wrote:
i'll ask you. what exactly do you personally need such weapons for? do
you use them for hunting? do you think you need them to thwart a normal
home invasion such as a burglary? do you believe the govt is going to
come after you so you need to fight the gmen off? do you believe there is
an economic collapse coming and you have to defend your home from the
hungry masses? some other reason (please elaborate)?
i'm being serious here. i apologize if my questions sound snarky.
how bout machine guns? should you be allowed to have those? why or why
not? where does it stop in your mind that some weapon should not be
allowed?
here my opinion on the 2nd amendment. its outdated. it was written
240 yrs ago and we live in a much different world now. theyre not god
given rights. they were written by men. i dont think its a good idea to
pack 7 or 10 billion people onto this little planet and give each of them
a gun.
btw, did you see bill oreilly last night? even he laughed at the idea
of people defending themselves from the govt agents coming to get them.
he said something like , 'if they want to come to your house and take your
guns away, they'll do it, no problem. you wont stand a chance" . and then
he smiled and laughed.
VegasJerry
Dec 18, 2012, 6:25:29 PM12/18/12
to
You think The First Amendment has been under attack over the years? You better keep an eye on The Second Amendment we don't want to lose that.
Why are you gun-nuts still protecting the Gun Show Loop Hole? Why do you protect the purchase of assault weapons with large clips and armor-piercing bullets?
Jerry (still armed) 'n Vegas
Why are you gun-nuts still protecting the Gun Show Loop Hole? Why do you protect the purchase of assault weapons with large clips and armor-piercing bullets?
Jerry (still armed) 'n Vegas
Alim Nassor
Dec 18, 2012, 6:27:59 PM12/18/12
to
On Dec 18, 9:03 am, "Beldumb TurdSavant" <a866...@webnntp.invalid>
Your statistic is flawed. 40% may be bought at gun shows but the
majority of those ARE bought from licensed dealers. Private
transactions between one citizen and another do not require a
background check, in most instances. I'm open to suggestions about
how to do that.
majority of those ARE bought from licensed dealers. Private
transactions between one citizen and another do not require a
background check, in most instances. I'm open to suggestions about
how to do that.
Alim Nassor
Dec 18, 2012, 6:29:40 PM12/18/12
to
transaction between private citizens loophole. That transaction may
be conducted anywhere. I'm not sure I want the government having even
more of it's nose in my business,
VegasJerry
Dec 18, 2012, 6:34:41 PM12/18/12
to
Yea, actually it is. Even the Republican gun-nut politicians recognized that. It's how they address it.
> It's a transaction between private citizens loophole. That transaction may
> be conducted anywhere.
> I'm not sure I want the government having even
> more of it's nose in my business,
Jerry
Alim Nassor
Dec 18, 2012, 6:35:51 PM12/18/12
to
bet that your knowledge of weapons exceeded mine. You apparently
don't know shit. You STILL don't know the difference in a clip and a
magazine. You don't even understand the supposed gun show
loophole. Assault weapons are protected by the second amendment in
precisely the manner I described when you asked the question the first
time. You have covered your ears and shouted "LA LA LA" rather than
address what I said. A ban on large magazines wouldn't make much
difference in these shooting. I can change mags in about 2
seconds.
You armor piercing bullet comment is another ridiculous example of
your stupidity when it comes to firearms. ANY modern rifle in a
caliber suitable for deer hunting will blow right through any soft
body armor on the market. It's possible to make a soft body armor
vest that might stop a .308, but it would be so thick and heavy, no
one would wear it.
Alim Nassor
Dec 18, 2012, 6:57:17 PM12/18/12
to
written, "the security of a free state". The 2nd amendment was
written to guarantee the ability to resist tyranny, from without and
within. An armed populace has never been the victim of a genocide.
The first step of a genocide is disarming the population.
People claim that such a thing is not possible here, but history has
shown otherwise, over and over. Do you think the Jews of Germany had
any idea in the 1920's what was coming down the road? It happened
over and over since then, in modern times, that a civilian population,
without the means to resist has been the victim of mass murder by
their own government. Cambodia, Armenia, Rwanda, China, North Korea,
Ethiopia, Biafra, Angola, etc, etc. In almost all cases, the victim
population had almost no means of resistance.
But, you say, what can some ordinary guys do against a modern
military, when all they have are guns. I refer you to the Jews of
Warsaw. In world War 2, a handful of Jews, armed with only the guns
they took off of their murderous captors, held of an entire German
army for 4 weeks before finally succumbing. What would those Jews
have given for a few thousand assault rifles and a million rounds of
ammo?
>
> how bout machine guns? should you be allowed to have those? why or why
> not? where does it stop in your mind that some weapon should not be
> allowed?
has always existed. The government took a heavy handed approach in
1934 and regulated the ownership, but it's very easy to buy one even
today. My son owns 2. I am considering the purchase of one right
now. By the same regulations, you can in fact buy a howitzer or a
bazooka. Keep in mind that of million or so NFA weapons in the hands
of private citizens, not ONE has even been used in a crime.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the arms protected by the 2nd
Amendment are those which a civilian would be expected to provide
himself, if he were called up as part of a militia. The weapons
commonly carried by an individual soldier. His rifle, his sidearm,
etc.
>
> here my opinion on the 2nd amendment. its outdated. it was written
> 240 yrs ago and we live in a much different world now. theyre not god
> given rights. they were written by men. i dont think its a good idea to
> pack 7 or 10 billion people onto this little planet and give each of them
> a gun.
It is no more outdated than the First Amendment. The Pen in Mightier
> here my opinion on the 2nd amendment. its outdated. it was written
> 240 yrs ago and we live in a much different world now. theyre not god
> given rights. they were written by men. i dont think its a good idea to
> pack 7 or 10 billion people onto this little planet and give each of them
> a gun.
Than the Sword, right? The Founders could not have imagined the 24
hour news cycle, TV, radio, the internet, when they wrote the 1st. Do
we need to revisit it because of that? Has freedom of the press gone
too far?
> btw, did you see bill oreilly last night? even he laughed at the idea
> of people defending themselves from the govt agents coming to get them.
> he said something like , 'if they want to come to your house and take your
> guns away, they'll do it, no problem. you wont stand a chance" . and then
> he smiled and laughed.
scale attempt at confiscation, I think there would be a mass
uprising. There aren't enough cops and military to attempt. it. Who
wants to lead the charge up a committed patriots front sidewalk?
brewmaster
Dec 18, 2012, 6:54:44 PM12/18/12
to
to go into a licensed gun dealer, fill out paperwork, and have the dealer
hold the gun for the same waiting period as buying a new gun (I live in
CA). Couldn't we have something where every gun show has to contract with
a local gun dealer to provide the paperwork and hold the guns for the
waiting period? The dealer could collect a fee, 5% of the sale price for
example, and the purchaser would have to return to that dealer's primary
location after the waiting period to pick up the gun.
Alim Nassor
Dec 18, 2012, 7:10:10 PM12/18/12
to
media, that they know will appeal to brainless morons like yourself.
Alim Nassor
Dec 18, 2012, 7:13:17 PM12/18/12
to
downtown, late at night when stolen guns are being sold out of the
trunk of a car?
Alim Nassor
Dec 18, 2012, 7:14:04 PM12/18/12
to
abiding gun owners, while the new laws have no perceptible impact on
criminals.
brewmaster
Dec 18, 2012, 7:24:28 PM12/18/12
to
guns from private parties? Obviously, this isn't where illegal firearms
are transferred as you say, but wouldn't my idea help close the "gun show
loophole" thus making all the pantywaist liberals happier?
BillB
Dec 18, 2012, 7:34:29 PM12/18/12
to
On 18/12/2012 4:24 PM, brewmaster wrote:
> Well isn't Jerry implying that criminals now go to gun shows and buy their
> guns from private parties? Obviously, this isn't where illegal firearms
> are transferred as you say, but wouldn't my idea help close the "gun show
> loophole" thus making all the pantywaist liberals happier?
You really don't care that 30,000 fellow citizens a year are being
> Well isn't Jerry implying that criminals now go to gun shows and buy their
> guns from private parties? Obviously, this isn't where illegal firearms
> are transferred as you say, but wouldn't my idea help close the "gun show
> loophole" thus making all the pantywaist liberals happier?
killed by guns, do you?
Pretend you did care, just a little. What would YOU do about it? Nothing?
brewmaster
Dec 18, 2012, 7:49:49 PM12/18/12
to
indicate some level of caring? Personally, I think all people without
criminal records, should be required to take gun safety classes, and
should be required to own firearms.
BillB
Dec 18, 2012, 8:00:36 PM12/18/12
to
On 18/12/2012 4:49 PM, brewmaster wrote:
> On Dec 18 2012 4:34 PM, BillB wrote:
>
>> On 18/12/2012 4:24 PM, brewmaster wrote:
>>
>>> Well isn't Jerry implying that criminals now go to gun shows and buy their
>>> guns from private parties? Obviously, this isn't where illegal firearms
>>> are transferred as you say, but wouldn't my idea help close the "gun show
>>> loophole" thus making all the pantywaist liberals happier?
>>
>> You really don't care that 30,000 fellow citizens a year are being
>> killed by guns, do you?
>>
>> Pretend you did care, just a little. What would YOU do about it? Nothing?
>
> I proposed a method to close the "gun show loophole". Doesn't that
> indicate some level of caring?
Not really. You made it sound like it would be something you'd be
> On Dec 18 2012 4:34 PM, BillB wrote:
>
>> On 18/12/2012 4:24 PM, brewmaster wrote:
>>
>>> Well isn't Jerry implying that criminals now go to gun shows and buy their
>>> guns from private parties? Obviously, this isn't where illegal firearms
>>> are transferred as you say, but wouldn't my idea help close the "gun show
>>> loophole" thus making all the pantywaist liberals happier?
>>
>> You really don't care that 30,000 fellow citizens a year are being
>> killed by guns, do you?
>>
>> Pretend you did care, just a little. What would YOU do about it? Nothing?
>
> I proposed a method to close the "gun show loophole". Doesn't that
> indicate some level of caring?
willing to do to appease "pantywaist liberals." Mocking people who
care indicates a lack of caring yourself.
Personally, I think all people without
> criminal records, should be required to take gun safety classes, and
> should be required to own firearms.
and cost, and you'd be moving 180 degrees AWAY from the ideal. Do you
not understand that it's the sheer number of guns in the US that has
caused its gun crime to be in a different universe from other modern,
wealthy countries (who themselves have too much violence)?
fffurken
Dec 18, 2012, 8:23:51 PM12/18/12
to
On Dec 18, 11:57 pm, Alim Nassor <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> People claim that such a thing is not possible here, but history has
> shown otherwise, over and over. Do you think the Jews of Germany had
> any idea in the 1920's what was coming down the road? It happened
> over and over since then, in modern times, that a civilian population,
> without the means to resist has been the victim of mass murder by
> their own government. Cambodia, Armenia, Rwanda, China, North Korea,
> Ethiopia, Biafra, Angola, etc, etc. In almost all cases, the victim
> population had almost no means of resistance.
So you don't see any appreciable difference living in the United
> People claim that such a thing is not possible here, but history has
> shown otherwise, over and over. Do you think the Jews of Germany had
> any idea in the 1920's what was coming down the road? It happened
> over and over since then, in modern times, that a civilian population,
> without the means to resist has been the victim of mass murder by
> their own government. Cambodia, Armenia, Rwanda, China, North Korea,
> Ethiopia, Biafra, Angola, etc, etc. In almost all cases, the victim
> population had almost no means of resistance.
States in 2012?
You really fear your own government?
I'm sorry Alim, but there's a word for that - Crazy.
FL Turbo
Dec 18, 2012, 8:51:38 PM12/18/12
to
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:27:59 -0800 (PST), Alim Nassor
----------------------------------------------------------------
(like Sarah Brady and her organization) throw the term "gun show
loophole" out without anyone explaining precisely what it is.
That is done intentionally to leave the impression with the general
public that background checks do not have to be conducted for a
purchase at a gun show.
Of course as you correctly point out, licensed dealers must perform
exactly the same background check at a gun show that they would do in
their store or anywhere for that matter.
So basically, the "loophole" means that citizens can still make
private transactions with each other without any paperwork sent to the
government.
But hang on: regulations on private transactions are probably in the
pipeline.
----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Why not close the gun show loophole? I just read that 40% of guns
>> purchased in the US were at Gun Shows and in most states background checks
>> were not required.
>
>Your statistic is flawed. 40% may be bought at gun shows but the
>majority of those ARE bought from licensed dealers. Private
>transactions between one citizen and another do not require a
>background check, in most instances. I'm open to suggestions about
>how to do that.
For quite a few years now, I've seen the professional Gun Grabbers
>> Why not close the gun show loophole? I just read that 40% of guns
>> purchased in the US were at Gun Shows and in most states background checks
>> were not required.
>
>Your statistic is flawed. 40% may be bought at gun shows but the
>majority of those ARE bought from licensed dealers. Private
>transactions between one citizen and another do not require a
>background check, in most instances. I'm open to suggestions about
>how to do that.
(like Sarah Brady and her organization) throw the term "gun show
loophole" out without anyone explaining precisely what it is.
That is done intentionally to leave the impression with the general
public that background checks do not have to be conducted for a
purchase at a gun show.
Of course as you correctly point out, licensed dealers must perform
exactly the same background check at a gun show that they would do in
their store or anywhere for that matter.
So basically, the "loophole" means that citizens can still make
private transactions with each other without any paperwork sent to the
government.
But hang on: regulations on private transactions are probably in the
pipeline.
Alim Nassor 1
Dec 18, 2012, 9:01:02 PM12/18/12
to
down to 50 years lows.
Alim Nassor 1
Dec 18, 2012, 9:03:17 PM12/18/12
to
the vast overreach, the vast encroachment on our civil liberties by
the government.
FL Turbo
Dec 18, 2012, 9:03:51 PM12/18/12
to
Do you NEED all the money you earn or have?
To me, allowing anyone or any government telling a citizen what he
NEEDS and what he doesn't, is dangerous ground to even be considering
when it comes to Government.
(Slippery Slope and all that, y'know.)
It should give anyone a case of the Shivering Fits to think that some
day Government could be deciding for everyone what they really NEED.
fffurken
Dec 18, 2012, 9:08:15 PM12/18/12
to
changing the goalposts, don't write (crazy) tripe if you don't want to
own it.
Alim Nassor 1
Dec 18, 2012, 9:23:44 PM12/18/12
to
conditions that existed in prewar Germany. Horrible economic
conditions, millions out of work. This is what allows strongmen to
take control. Sure, the US is more modern, more enlightened, and the
possibility is remote. It is not however, impossible.
fffurken
Dec 18, 2012, 9:26:21 PM12/18/12
to
On Dec 19, 2:23 am, Alim Nassor 1 <AlimNass...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Is that the same as mass murder by your own government? You're
> > changing the goalposts, don't write (crazy) tripe if you don't want to
> > own it.
>
> Oh, I'll own it all.
O-K
> > Is that the same as mass murder by your own government? You're
> > changing the goalposts, don't write (crazy) tripe if you don't want to
> > own it.
>
> Oh, I'll own it all.
> The conditions in the US are similar to the
> conditions that existed in prewar Germany. Horrible economic
> conditions, millions out of work. This is what allows strongmen to
> take control. Sure, the US is more modern, more enlightened, and the
> possibility is remote. It is not however, impossible.
Alim Nassor 1
Dec 18, 2012, 9:28:24 PM12/18/12
to
bub
Dec 18, 2012, 9:28:28 PM12/18/12
to
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 07:03:18 -0800, "Beldumb TurdSavant"
<a86...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> I just read that 40% of guns
>purchased in the US were at Gun Shows and in most states background checks
>were not required.
every gun show i've been to you need a state permit for any handgun
<a86...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> I just read that 40% of guns
>purchased in the US were at Gun Shows and in most states background checks
>were not required.
purchase. even between private parties the purchaser must have a
permit for a handgun
and to get a permit you have to have a background check
bub
Dec 18, 2012, 9:34:44 PM12/18/12
to
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:14:04 -0800 (PST), Alim Nassor
<alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The answer always seems to be to put more of a burden on the law
>abiding gun owners, while the new laws have no perceptible impact on
>criminals.
. two guys outside a convenience store.. they intend tie up the clerk
<alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The answer always seems to be to put more of a burden on the law
>abiding gun owners, while the new laws have no perceptible impact on
>criminals.
and rob the store can't you see them discussing they better leave
their guns in the car because there's law against them using it for a
holdup
Alim Nassor 1
Dec 18, 2012, 9:39:02 PM12/18/12
to
On Dec 18, 8:34 pm, bub <b...@plottus.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:14:04 -0800 (PST), Alim Nassor
>
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:14:04 -0800 (PST), Alim Nassor
>
> <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >The answer always seems to be to put more of a burden on the law
> >abiding gun owners, while the new laws have no perceptible impact on
> >criminals.
>
> . two guys outside a convenience store.. they intend tie up the clerk
> and rob the store can't you see them discussing they better leave
> their guns in the car because there's law against them using it for a
> holdup
LOL.
> >The answer always seems to be to put more of a burden on the law
> >abiding gun owners, while the new laws have no perceptible impact on
> >criminals.
>
> . two guys outside a convenience store.. they intend tie up the clerk
> and rob the store can't you see them discussing they better leave
> their guns in the car because there's law against them using it for a
> holdup
Just like the sign that says, no guns allowed will stop anyone who
wants to commit a crime in te building.
bub
Dec 18, 2012, 9:59:24 PM12/18/12
to
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:56:08 -0800, "Abbey Johnsson"
<ac6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> what exactly do you personally need such weapons for?
i think mark levin said they are not the 'bill of needs' they are the
<ac6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> what exactly do you personally need such weapons for?
'bill of rights'
> here my opinion on the 2nd amendment. its outdated. it was written
>240 yrs ago and we live in a much different world now.
quill pens only huh?
do you really need newsgroups and all that freedom of speech? do you
need a computer to share you opinions with others? do you need freedom
of press with 24 of news from around the world and countless reporters
spouting their opinion?
300,000,000 guns in the usa.. 14000 gun related homicides
get out your abacus and see that it is a very very very small
percentage of guns used for homicides.. most gun owners are law
abiding... period
Tim Norfolk
Dec 18, 2012, 10:19:51 PM12/18/12
to
Tim Norfolk
Dec 18, 2012, 10:23:04 PM12/18/12
to
Tim Norfolk
Dec 18, 2012, 10:23:54 PM12/18/12
to
Abbey Johnsson
Dec 18, 2012, 10:52:49 PM12/18/12
to
'doomsday' scenerio. bill oreilly laughed about that again tonight.
the collateral damage seems excessive if that indeed is the reason
people need these assault weapons.
BillB
Dec 18, 2012, 11:02:29 PM12/18/12
to
Now that we have gotten that out of the way...a "strongman" taking over
the US? LOL!! That's is also something you need to tell the intake
nurse. Something might drop off a 747 and hit your house too. What are
you doing about that, huh?
Describing economic conditions in the US as horrible in a comparison to
prewar Germany is a complete laugh. What was the real per capita
economic output in prewar Germany?
bub
Dec 19, 2012, 2:15:24 AM12/19/12
to
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:52:49 -0800, "Abbey Johnsson"
<ac6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>dont be obtuse. i got my answer. he wants to be prepared for the
>'doomsday' scenerio.
thanks for your concise and well thought out response to my questions
<ac6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>dont be obtuse. i got my answer. he wants to be prepared for the
>'doomsday' scenerio.
popinjay999
Dec 19, 2012, 9:40:24 AM12/19/12
to
It's pretty easy to get. He's a phony conservative. Don't you
understand that the biggest threat we face is from traitors within?
The Left is extremely well organized, and the Right is fractionalized
and has been for decades. For God's sake, Ronald Reagan himself, gave
tremendous aid and help to communist nations. We have been screwed
for decades by people who are supposed to be on our side. But this is
Marxist design. Even the NRA has had its share of phonies and
traitors to the cause.
understand that the biggest threat we face is from traitors within?
The Left is extremely well organized, and the Right is fractionalized
and has been for decades. For God's sake, Ronald Reagan himself, gave
tremendous aid and help to communist nations. We have been screwed
for decades by people who are supposed to be on our side. But this is
Marxist design. Even the NRA has had its share of phonies and
traitors to the cause.
johnny_t
Dec 19, 2012, 9:59:03 AM12/19/12
to
So you're seriously proposing that if there is gun control in the US,
large populations of people are going to be rounded up and exterminated.
GTFO...
Who do you think it will be? The illegals? The Tea Partiers? Who is
in danger of being rounded up and being exterminated if we have gun
control in the US?
--
________________________________________________________________
RGP is not a good
representative cross section of the nation.
Popinjay Aug 24,2012
large populations of people are going to be rounded up and exterminated.
GTFO...
Who do you think it will be? The illegals? The Tea Partiers? Who is
in danger of being rounded up and being exterminated if we have gun
control in the US?
--
________________________________________________________________
RGP is not a good
representative cross section of the nation.
Popinjay Aug 24,2012
mary in vegas
Dec 19, 2012, 10:53:02 AM12/19/12
to
On Dec 18 2012 1:00 PM, da pickle wrote:
> "mary in vegas" <mar...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 18 2012 9:00 AM, da pickle wrote:
> >
> >> "mary in vegas" <mar...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>> let's round all the semi-automatic weapon lovers and put them in the
state
> >>> of texas. alim could lead the way...they would be ready when the govt
> >>> comes to get them. i figure given enough time, they would eventually
wind
> >>> up killing each other.
> >>>
> >>> you people who think ordinary citizens NEED these kinds of weapons are
the
> >>> reason these tragedies happen. MY RIGHTS MY RIGHTS...what about OUR
> >>> rights?
> >>>
> >>> you can go to any gun show and get whatever you want...NO PROBLEM. this
> >>> whole thing is a joke...and innocent people get to suffer..
> >>>
> >>> AMERICA...what a country...
> >>> mary in vegas
> >>
> >> I can feel your sorrow at this latest outrage of evil. I sympathize with
> >> anyone who feels helpless in the face of such a tragedy. I also cry for
> >> those who lost loved ones.
> >>
> >> Your outrage is understandable. I hope it makes you feel a little better.
I
> >> hope at a different time you might be able to vent it in a productive
> >> manner.
> >
> > mr pickle...are you saying yu think people should have access to
> > semi-automatic weapons and all those bullets that go with it?
> >
> > mary in vegas
>
> People already have access to hundreds of thousands of semi automatic
> weapons and millions of bullets. They will always have them. Only criminals
> misuse any weapon.
once upon a time in the not too distant past people had access to heroin,
morphine and any and all drugs....hmmmm...don't seem to have that anymore.
once upon a time EVERYBODY and their mother smoked...hmmm...don't have
that anymore.
don't think things can't change...they can.
mary in vegas
> "mary in vegas" <mar...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 18 2012 9:00 AM, da pickle wrote:
> >
> >> "mary in vegas" <mar...@cox.net> wrote:
state
> >>> of texas. alim could lead the way...they would be ready when the govt
> >>> comes to get them. i figure given enough time, they would eventually
wind
> >>> up killing each other.
> >>>
> >>> you people who think ordinary citizens NEED these kinds of weapons are
the
> >>> reason these tragedies happen. MY RIGHTS MY RIGHTS...what about OUR
> >>> rights?
> >>>
> >>> you can go to any gun show and get whatever you want...NO PROBLEM. this
> >>> whole thing is a joke...and innocent people get to suffer..
> >>>
> >>> AMERICA...what a country...
> >>> mary in vegas
> >>
> >> I can feel your sorrow at this latest outrage of evil. I sympathize with
> >> anyone who feels helpless in the face of such a tragedy. I also cry for
> >> those who lost loved ones.
> >>
> >> Your outrage is understandable. I hope it makes you feel a little better.
I
> >> hope at a different time you might be able to vent it in a productive
> >> manner.
> >
> > mr pickle...are you saying yu think people should have access to
> > semi-automatic weapons and all those bullets that go with it?
> >
> > mary in vegas
>
> People already have access to hundreds of thousands of semi automatic
> weapons and millions of bullets. They will always have them. Only criminals
> misuse any weapon.
once upon a time in the not too distant past people had access to heroin,
morphine and any and all drugs....hmmmm...don't seem to have that anymore.
once upon a time EVERYBODY and their mother smoked...hmmm...don't have
that anymore.
don't think things can't change...they can.
mary in vegas
da pickle
Dec 19, 2012, 11:16:18 AM12/19/12
to
heroin or morphine or cigarettes ... you can get them. Perhaps the
constitutional amendment against alcohol is a better example for you to
consider. And is the war on drugs a net win or a net loss? Opinions
differ. I think it is not a good use of limited resources.
No one "needs" a semi-automatic "arm", but that is not a reasonable way
to approach a proposed solution to the "lunatic" killing people problem.
The problem is not guns, the problem is lunatics. [And the misuse of
the word "lunatic" is intentional.]
popinjay999
Dec 19, 2012, 11:29:36 AM12/19/12
to
On Dec 19, 6:59 am, johnny_t <nobod...@home.com> wrote:
> So you're seriously proposing that if there is gun control in the US,
> large populations of people are going to be rounded up and exterminated.
>
> GTFO...
>
> Who do you think it will be? The illegals? The Tea Partiers? Who is
> in danger of being rounded up and being exterminated if we have gun
> control in the US?
>
It's a gradual process. There will have to be eventual disarming of
> So you're seriously proposing that if there is gun control in the US,
> large populations of people are going to be rounded up and exterminated.
>
> GTFO...
>
> Who do you think it will be? The illegals? The Tea Partiers? Who is
> in danger of being rounded up and being exterminated if we have gun
> control in the US?
>
our people, a simultaneous formation of a world army for the world
government, transfer of power to the world government, and then a
physical invasion of our country. By then there will be semi-famine
throughout our country because they've driven half the farmers out of
business. But eventually, yes, there will have to be large scale
reduction of the populace to "manageable proportions". Much of it
will probably be through famine, like I said, but many people will be
executed too.
da pickle
Dec 19, 2012, 11:30:48 AM12/19/12
to
On 12/19/2012 8:59 AM, johnny_t wrote:
> So you're seriously proposing that if there is gun control in the US,
> large populations of people are going to be rounded up and exterminated.
>
> GTFO...
>
> Who do you think it will be? The illegals? The Tea Partiers? Who is
> in danger of being rounded up and being exterminated if we have gun
> control in the US?
I did not read it that way, but YMMV.
> So you're seriously proposing that if there is gun control in the US,
> large populations of people are going to be rounded up and exterminated.
>
> GTFO...
>
> Who do you think it will be? The illegals? The Tea Partiers? Who is
> in danger of being rounded up and being exterminated if we have gun
> control in the US?
If the federal government outlaws all guns in the USA and there are
draconian enforcement procedures (like search and seize and jail terms
for anyone found with a gun), there might indeed be people being rounded
up and maybe not exterminated, but removed from society. And should
that occur, there might be "armed" resistance to the procedure being
considered. In the examples given, the populace gave up their arms
without a "fight" ... that will not occur in the USA.
popinjay999
Dec 19, 2012, 11:33:15 AM12/19/12
to
She seemed like a normal person.
popinjay999
Dec 19, 2012, 11:37:45 AM12/19/12
to
On Dec 19, 8:30 am, da pickle <jcpick...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I did not read it that way, but YMMV.
>
> If the federal government outlaws all guns in the USA and there are
> draconian enforcement procedures (like search and seize and jail terms
> for anyone found with a gun), there might indeed be people being rounded
> up and maybe not exterminated, but removed from society. And should
> that occur, there might be "armed" resistance to the procedure being
> considered. In the examples given, the populace gave up their arms
> without a "fight" ... that will not occur in the USA.
You just have to study how it's been done in other places in different
>
> I did not read it that way, but YMMV.
>
> If the federal government outlaws all guns in the USA and there are
> draconian enforcement procedures (like search and seize and jail terms
> for anyone found with a gun), there might indeed be people being rounded
> up and maybe not exterminated, but removed from society. And should
> that occur, there might be "armed" resistance to the procedure being
> considered. In the examples given, the populace gave up their arms
> without a "fight" ... that will not occur in the USA.
times. Like I said in another post, there must be control of the food
supply, collectivize and nationalize farms and industry. Create a
famine. Trust me, the groundwork is being laid now as we speak. They
have to create "emergencies".
da pickle
Dec 19, 2012, 11:47:51 AM12/19/12
to
is one of them.
da pickle
Dec 19, 2012, 11:48:46 AM12/19/12
to
popinjay999
Dec 19, 2012, 11:53:26 AM12/19/12
to
On Dec 19, 8:47 am, da pickle <jcpick...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/19/2012 10:33 AM, popinjay999 wrote:
>
> > And when you met Mary, you had no idea she was whacked out, did you.
>
> On 12/19/2012 10:33 AM, popinjay999 wrote:
>
> > And when you met Mary, you had no idea she was whacked out, did you.
>
> There are actually very few things on which we disagree, Paul ... this
> is one of them.
What are you saying, that you DID recognize it?
> is one of them.
da pickle
Dec 19, 2012, 12:34:29 PM12/19/12
to
mo_ntresor
Dec 19, 2012, 3:33:02 PM12/19/12
to
On Dec 18 2012 8:23 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
> > Oh, I'll own it all. The conditions in the US are similar to the
> > conditions that existed in prewar Germany. Horrible economic
> > conditions, millions out of work. This is what allows strongmen to
> > take control. Sure, the US is more modern, more enlightened, and the
> > possibility is remote. It is not however, impossible.
>
> Germany was the most enlightened and educated nation of its time.
national pride, directed notions of common "good" lead to totalitarian
> > Oh, I'll own it all. The conditions in the US are similar to the
> > conditions that existed in prewar Germany. Horrible economic
> > conditions, millions out of work. This is what allows strongmen to
> > take control. Sure, the US is more modern, more enlightened, and the
> > possibility is remote. It is not however, impossible.
>
> Germany was the most enlightened and educated nation of its time.
statism.
mo_ntresor
mo_ntresor
Dec 19, 2012, 3:36:30 PM12/19/12
to
On Dec 18 2012 8:52 PM, Abbey Johnsson wrote:
> > does this apply to the 1st amendment as well? .just parchment and
> > quill pens only huh?
> > do you really need newsgroups and all that freedom of speech? do you
> > need a computer to share you opinions with others? do you need freedom
> > of press with 24 of news from around the world and countless reporters
> > spouting their opinion?
> >
> > 300,000,000 guns in the usa.. 14000 gun related homicides
> > get out your abacus and see that it is a very very very small
> > percentage of guns used for homicides.. most gun owners are law
> > abiding... period
>
> dont be obtuse. i got my answer. he wants to be prepared for the
> 'doomsday' scenerio. bill oreilly laughed about that again tonight.
>
> the collateral damage seems excessive if that indeed is the reason
> people need these assault weapons.
some of us don't take marching orders from tv shitheads. you and your ilk
> > does this apply to the 1st amendment as well? .just parchment and
> > quill pens only huh?
> > do you really need newsgroups and all that freedom of speech? do you
> > need a computer to share you opinions with others? do you need freedom
> > of press with 24 of news from around the world and countless reporters
> > spouting their opinion?
> >
> > 300,000,000 guns in the usa.. 14000 gun related homicides
> > get out your abacus and see that it is a very very very small
> > percentage of guns used for homicides.. most gun owners are law
> > abiding... period
>
> dont be obtuse. i got my answer. he wants to be prepared for the
> 'doomsday' scenerio. bill oreilly laughed about that again tonight.
>
> the collateral damage seems excessive if that indeed is the reason
> people need these assault weapons.
don't present anything we can't hear from a hundred morons on nbc
affiliates.
mo_ntresor
Dutch
Dec 19, 2012, 6:09:59 PM12/19/12
to
fffurken
Dec 19, 2012, 6:21:21 PM12/19/12
to
On Dec 19, 2:59 am, bub <b...@plottus.com> wrote:
> 300,000,000 guns in the usa.. 14000 gun related homicides
> get out your abacus and see that it is a very very very small
> percentage of guns used for homicides..
Shouldn't you be looking at how many gun related homicides there are
> 300,000,000 guns in the usa.. 14000 gun related homicides
> get out your abacus and see that it is a very very very small
> percentage of guns used for homicides..
to overall homicides rather than the number of guns in the America?
>most gun owners are law abiding... period
imagine if that wasn't the case? No, neither can I.
Alim Nassor
Dec 19, 2012, 6:22:44 PM12/19/12
to
Alim Nassor
Dec 19, 2012, 6:22:57 PM12/19/12
to
On Dec 18, 9:23 pm, Tim Norfolk <timsn...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 9:28:28 PM UTC-5, bub wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 07:03:18 -0800, "Beldumb TurdSavant"
>
> > On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 07:03:18 -0800, "Beldumb TurdSavant"
>
> > <a866...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > I just read that 40% of guns
>
> > >purchased in the US were at Gun Shows and in most states background checks
>
> > >were not required.
>
> > every gun show i've been to you need a state permit for any handgun
>
> > purchase. even between private parties the purchaser must have a
>
> > permit for a handgun
>
> > and to get a permit you have to have a background check
>
> Not in Ohio.
Or Texas
>
> > > I just read that 40% of guns
>
> > >purchased in the US were at Gun Shows and in most states background checks
>
> > >were not required.
>
> > every gun show i've been to you need a state permit for any handgun
>
> > purchase. even between private parties the purchaser must have a
>
> > permit for a handgun
>
> > and to get a permit you have to have a background check
>
> Not in Ohio.
Alim Nassor
Dec 19, 2012, 6:24:40 PM12/19/12
to
Fathers to prevent tyranny, from without, and within.
Alim Nassor
Dec 19, 2012, 6:26:38 PM12/19/12
to
they went to be free and today the woke of victims of tyranny. It's a
slow gradual process.
Dutch
Dec 19, 2012, 6:41:18 PM12/19/12
to
Alim Nassor wrote:
> I'm telling you that an armed populace was desired by the Founding
> Fathers to prevent tyranny, from without, and within.
Your Founding Fathers also thought it was cool to own slaves. Society
> I'm telling you that an armed populace was desired by the Founding
> Fathers to prevent tyranny, from without, and within.
evolves.
Alim Nassor 1
Dec 19, 2012, 7:55:26 PM12/19/12
to
hungry madmen in the world. Look around, open your eyes.
Tim Norfolk
Dec 19, 2012, 8:04:09 PM12/19/12
to
Tim Norfolk
Dec 19, 2012, 8:05:33 PM12/19/12
to
popinjay999
Dec 19, 2012, 8:47:31 PM12/19/12
to
On Dec 19, 5:04 pm, Tim Norfolk <timsn...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Paul - most of the farmers are out of business. The bulk of our food production is by rental farmers, of one kind or another.
You just don't know what the fuck you're talking about at all. This
>
> Paul - most of the farmers are out of business. The bulk of our food production is by rental farmers, of one kind or another.
is one of the most ignorant statements you have ever uttered on this
newsgroup. I live in farm country, you dummy. I can walk to small
family farms from my house. Where do you come up with stupid shit
like this?
popinjay999
Dec 19, 2012, 8:49:46 PM12/19/12
to
On Dec 19, 4:55 pm, Alim Nassor 1 <AlimNass...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Society may evolve, men generally do not. There are always power
> hungry madmen in the world. Look around, open your eyes.
Technology evolves, but political principles are the same now as they
>
> Society may evolve, men generally do not. There are always power
> hungry madmen in the world. Look around, open your eyes.
were 3000 years ago. Political principles are eternal.
popinjay999
Dec 19, 2012, 8:53:33 PM12/19/12
to
On Dec 19, 3:41 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> Your Founding Fathers also thought it was cool to own slaves. Society
> evolves.
Do you people ever get enough of this? It is almost 2013 and today
>
> Your Founding Fathers also thought it was cool to own slaves. Society
> evolves.
you're talking about slaves and yesterday Opie was whining about
whites-only drinking fountains. I am quite sure you have never said a
word about modern day slavery like exists in communist countries like
Cuba. When are you going to evolve, fuckface?
mo_ntresor
Dec 19, 2012, 9:21:32 PM12/19/12
to
On Dec 19 2012 6:47 PM, popinjay999 wrote:
> > Paul - most of the farmers are out of business. The bulk of our food
production is by rental
> > farmers, of one kind or another.
>
> You just don't know what the fuck you're talking about at all. This
> is one of the most ignorant statements you have ever uttered on this
> newsgroup. I live in farm country, you dummy. I can walk to small
> family farms from my house. Where do you come up with stupid shit
> like this?
same in central illinois, iowa, s.dakota.
> > Paul - most of the farmers are out of business. The bulk of our food
production is by rental
> > farmers, of one kind or another.
>
> You just don't know what the fuck you're talking about at all. This
> is one of the most ignorant statements you have ever uttered on this
> newsgroup. I live in farm country, you dummy. I can walk to small
> family farms from my house. Where do you come up with stupid shit
> like this?
mo_ntresor
Dutch
Dec 19, 2012, 10:21:00 PM12/19/12
to
Dutch
Dec 19, 2012, 10:24:54 PM12/19/12
to
businesses are sprouting everywhere.
http://www.economist.com/node/21551047
Time for you gun maniacs to get into the game.
popinjay999
Dec 19, 2012, 10:40:36 PM12/19/12
to
On Dec 19, 7:24 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> Cuba is evolving too. Cubans can now buy and sell property, and private
Gee, that's a surprise. Dutch is criticizing the United States for
>
> Cuba is evolving too. Cubans can now buy and sell property, and private
slavery 150 years ago, and lauding communist Cuba for allowing a
sliver of freedom. I never saw THAT coming.
Dutch
Dec 20, 2012, 2:59:56 AM12/20/12
to
popinjay999 wrote:
> On Dec 19, 7:24 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Cuba is evolving too. Cubans can now buy and sell property, and private
>
>
>
> Gee, that's a surprise. Dutch is criticizing the United States for
> slavery 150 years ago
I did no such thing, you should learn to read for comprehension. I
> On Dec 19, 7:24 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Cuba is evolving too. Cubans can now buy and sell property, and private
>
>
>
> Gee, that's a surprise. Dutch is criticizing the United States for
> slavery 150 years ago
pointed out that The Founding Fathers owned slaves in order to give
another bright idea of theirs, the 2nd Amendment, some historical
perspective.
, and lauding communist Cuba for allowing a
> sliver of freedom. I never saw THAT coming.
about it.
Clave
Dec 20, 2012, 3:13:24 AM12/20/12
to
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:kaugm0$s4g$1...@dont-email.me...
> popinjay999 wrote:
<...>
> , and lauding communist Cuba for allowing a
>> sliver of freedom. I never saw THAT coming.
>
> Aren't you happy for them? I watched a documentary, they sure seem happy
> about it.
Jim
popinjay999
Dec 20, 2012, 3:29:52 AM12/20/12
to
On Dec 19, 11:59 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
> I
> pointed out that The Founding Fathers owned slaves in order to give
> another bright idea of theirs, the 2nd Amendment, some historical
> perspective.
>
You ignoramus. If other countries, including Cuba, had had an armed
>
>
> I
> pointed out that The Founding Fathers owned slaves in order to give
> another bright idea of theirs, the 2nd Amendment, some historical
> perspective.
>
populace, they would not have fallen to tyranny, which is the same
thing as slavery. If there had been a 2nd Amendment in China, 60
million people would not have been killed. You are privileged to be
in Canada where you are free to be as ignorant as you are.
Dutch
Dec 20, 2012, 4:23:59 AM12/20/12
to
popinjay999 wrote:
> On Dec 19, 11:59 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I
>> pointed out that The Founding Fathers owned slaves in order to give
>> another bright idea of theirs, the 2nd Amendment, some historical
>> perspective.
>>
>
>
>
> You ignoramus. If other countries, including Cuba, had had an armed
> populace, they would not have fallen to tyranny, which is the same
> thing as slavery.
You think you have a choice about what type of government you have?
> On Dec 19, 11:59 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I
>> pointed out that The Founding Fathers owned slaves in order to give
>> another bright idea of theirs, the 2nd Amendment, some historical
>> perspective.
>>
>
>
>
> You ignoramus. If other countries, including Cuba, had had an armed
> populace, they would not have fallen to tyranny, which is the same
> thing as slavery.
You're deluded. There's no difference between the parties.
> If there had been a 2nd Amendment in China, 60
> million people would not have been killed.
You are privileged to be
> in Canada where you are free to be as ignorant as you are.
popinjay999
Dec 20, 2012, 6:19:18 AM12/20/12
to
On Dec 20, 1:23 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> You think you have a choice about what type of government you have?
> You're deluded. There's no difference between the parties.
>
lol @ "parties. What does "parties" have to do with anything when
>
> You think you have a choice about what type of government you have?
> You're deluded. There's no difference between the parties.
>
communists are taking over? I'm a getting the feeling that you don't
know diddly squat about Cuban history.
da pickle
Dec 20, 2012, 8:18:27 AM12/20/12
to
ones.
brewmaster
Dec 20, 2012, 7:04:28 PM12/20/12
to
Tim Norfolk
Dec 20, 2012, 8:58:47 PM12/20/12
to
Tim Norfolk
Dec 20, 2012, 9:01:12 PM12/20/12
to
For example, some farms near Willard have 250,000 pigs per building, producing under contract.
0 new messages