GUNS In PARKS! I Truly Hope None Of You Gun Nuts' Kids Ever Get Shot In Our National Parks! Truly!
Christ'sCondom
defend your children against other gun-wielding nuts in Yellowstone
and the Great Smokies! Why, the Second Amendment demands gun
psychopaths to be allowed loaded guns in our scary and frightening
parks!
Personally, I've never visited a national park where I wasn't
threatened, pistol-whipped, or shot at. These places are fuckin'
dangerous!
Don't you think?
-------------------------------------
"House Approves Measure to Allow Guns Into National Parks"
By Perry Bacon Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Gun rights advocates have found a sweet spot in Democratic-dominated
Washington, and they are using it to aggressively push legislation.
Their latest victory came yesterday when the House passed a bill that
will allow people to bring concealed and loaded guns into national
parks. Advocates won with the help of moderate Democrats.
Those Democrats, many from states in the South and Midwest, joined
nearly all House Republicans to back yesterday's provision, which has
passed in the Senate and could become law this week. The gun bill
passed 279 to 147 in the House with the help of 105 Democratic votes;
145 Democrats opposed the bill.
The legislation was the latest defeat for gun-control advocates, who
had expected more success with a Democratic president and Democratic
majorities in both chambers of Congress.
The bill to grant the District of Columbia a voting member in the
House remains stalled after Senate Republicans attached a provision to
the legislation that effectively would repeal many of Washington's gun
restrictions.
Yesterday's provision, originally sponsored by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-
Okla.), would allow gun owners to bring the weapons into national
parks and wildlife refuges as long as they are permitted by the laws
of the state in which the park is located. The bill codifies a change
the Bush administration had sought in its final months, but a federal
judge blocked the effort in March.
Obama administration officials had not sought to overturn the judge's
ruling. But Coburn, who had long sought the change, inserted his
amendment this month on credit card legislation that is one of Obama's
top priorities. The move effectively forced Democrats to vote on the
gun provision if they wanted to pass the credit card bill.
A spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), one of
the Democratic backers of the bill, said Reid viewed the bill as
defending the Second Amendment.
A coalition of groups that included the Fraternal Order of Police and
the Association of National Park Rangers slammed the bill, saying it
will "increase the risk of poaching, vandalism of historic park
treasures and threats to park visitors and staff."
The House yesterday passed the larger legislation, which imposes new
rules on credit card companies, 361 to 64, and Obama could sign it as
soon as tomorrow.
After Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. suggested this year that the
Obama administration would seek to reinstate a ban on assault weapons,
a bloc of 65 House Democrats, many of whom voted for yesterday's
legislation, wrote to Holder saying they would oppose his effort.
Democratic aides privately admitted many Democrats feel pressure to
back bills on gun legislation or face political heat from the National
Rifle Association, particularly in more rural districts. Top
Democratic aides in both chambers plan to meet soon to develop a
strategy to block pro-gun provisions on Democratic bills.
"We have a Democratic president, a Democratic House and a Democratic
Senate, and we're passing more gun legislation than when there was a
Republican in the White House," said Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), a
gun-control advocate. "It's disappointing."
Gun rights advocates defended yesterday's bill as an effort to give
gun owners the same rights on national park land that they have
everywhere else.
Advocates said they will look to find other ways to push Democrats
into backing gun rights measures.
"The lessons of 1994 have not been forgotten," said Larry Pratt,
executive director of Gun Owners of America, referring to the year
President Bill Clinton signed an assault weapons ban into law. "The
Democrats lost control of Congress after passing a gun ban."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/20/AR2009052003613.html
Wayne
"Christ'sCondom" <slipu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5e06be81-36eb-4488...@s21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>I really, honestly, fervently hope those guns will allow you nuts to
> defend your children against other gun-wielding nuts in Yellowstone
> and the Great Smokies! Why, the Second Amendment demands gun
> psychopaths to be allowed loaded guns in our scary and frightening
> parks!
>
> Personally, I've never visited a national park where I wasn't
> threatened, pistol-whipped, or shot at. These places are fuckin'
> dangerous!
>
> Don't you think?
>
been to Yosemite? A downright scary place as far as crime is concerned.
Alberto Gonzalez
> I really, honestly, fervently hope those guns will allow you nuts to
> defend your children against other gun-wielding nuts in Yellowstone
> and the Great Smokies! Why, the Second Amendment demands gun
> psychopaths to be allowed loaded guns in our scary and frightening
> parks!
>
> Personally, I've never visited a national park where I wasn't
> threatened, pistol-whipped, or shot at. These places are fuckin'
> dangerous!
>
> Don't you think?
>
I think being able to carry-concealed in the Parks is great. Next time I'm
doing a little snow shoeing and some fuckhead right-wing asshole on a
snowmobile dusts me, I'll plug him a few rounds. Lovin' it!
Tony Wilson
"Christ'sCondom" <slipu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5e06be81-36eb-4488...@s21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Guns are needed in parks. If you've ever been out West in a park, you'd know
better. There are wild animals and criminals. When the rangers can promise
that NO one will ever get harmed and doesn't need a gun, then I'll think
about not carrying one. Until then, I have the right to protect myself. And
you DON"T have the right to take away my right to do so.
WangoTango
mygarb...@verizon.net says...
Don't give him logic, his mind is made up.
In his little fantasy world the criminals follow the law and the good
guys are the ones killing folks.
Dad
"Christ'sCondom" <slipu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5e06be81-36eb-4488...@s21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Suck what?
Dad
"Tony Wilson" <tw19...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a15ad44$0$11852$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> "Christ'sCondom" <slipu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5e06be81-36eb-4488...@s21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Guns are needed in parks. If you've ever been out West in a park,
> you'd know
> better. There are wild animals and criminals. When the rangers can
> promise
> that NO one will ever get harmed and doesn't need a gun, then I'll
> think
> about not carrying one. Until then, I have the right to protect
> myself. And
> you DON"T have the right to take away my right to do so.
>
Alberto Gonzalez
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2009/05/20/AR20090
> 52003613.html
>
> Guns are needed in parks. If you've ever been out West in a park,
> you'd know better. There are wild animals and criminals. When the
> rangers can promise that NO one will ever get harmed and doesn't need
> a gun, then I'll think about not carrying one. Until then, I have the
> right to protect myself. And you DON"T have the right to take away my
> right to do so.
>
Same source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/graphic/2008/02/28/GR2008022800363.html
"Serious crime in national parks is relatively rare considering the
number of visitors each year"
Seems like an non-issue to me. As for wild animals, why do you need a
concealed handgun to deal with them? In fact, a pistol is probably the
worst gun to have when faced with a rabid grizzly bear.
Alberto Gonzalez
news:MPG.247f77a0f...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
> In article <gv4ad3$8rb$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> mygarb...@verizon.net says...
>>
>> "Christ'sCondom" <slipu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:5e06be81-36eb-4488-96ae-922e488b41e8
@s21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
>> ...
>> >I really, honestly, fervently hope those guns will allow you nuts to
>> > defend your children against other gun-wielding nuts in Yellowstone
>> > and the Great Smokies! Why, the Second Amendment demands gun
>> > psychopaths to be allowed loaded guns in our scary and frightening
>> > parks!
>> >
>> > Personally, I've never visited a national park where I wasn't
>> > threatened, pistol-whipped, or shot at. These places are fuckin'
>> > dangerous!
>> >
>> > Don't you think?
>> >
>> Are you happier where the only people having guns are the criminals?
>> Ever been to Yosemite? A downright scary place as far as crime is
>> concerned.
>
> Don't give him logic, his mind is made up.
> In his little fantasy world the criminals follow the law and the good
> guys are the ones killing folks.
>
Who was it who shot their buddy in the face with a load of bird shot?
SaPeIsMa
"Alberto Gonzalez" <torture...@bush.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C129EADD48AAto...@85.214.105.209...
You would be scared to even pick up a gun, loaded or not
But keep up the fantasies..
SaPeIsMa
> "Tony Wilson" <tw19...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:4a15ad44$0$11852$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
> dyn/content/article/2009/05/20/AR20090
>> 52003613.html
>>
>> Guns are needed in parks. If you've ever been out West in a park,
>> you'd know better. There are wild animals and criminals. When the
>> rangers can promise that NO one will ever get harmed and doesn't need
>> a gun, then I'll think about not carrying one. Until then, I have the
>> right to protect myself. And you DON"T have the right to take away my
>> right to do so.
>>
>
> Same source:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/02/28/GR2008022800363.html
>
> "Serious crime in national parks is relatively rare considering the
> number of visitors each year"
>
Good
And this should reduce it even more
That's usually what happens when concealed carry is brought in to an area
It's why crime rates dropped faster in states with carry laws than the
national average.
> Seems like an non-issue to me. As for wild animals, why do you need a
> concealed handgun to deal with them? In fact, a pistol is probably the
> worst gun to have when faced with a rabid grizzly bear.
1) Depends on the pistol
2) It's better than no gun at all..
Dad
"Alberto Gonzalez" <torture...@bush.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C129F6DE400Fto...@85.214.105.209...
> Seems like an non-issue to me. As for wild animals, why do you need
> a
> concealed handgun to deal with them? In fact, a pistol is probably
> the
> worst gun to have when faced with a rabid grizzly bear.
How many of the national parks have bear in them, let alone a grizzly
which is not a bear species, just a gray haired brown bear. Also that
ol bear is only in about 4 states. That's not the brown animal that
you carry a gun to protect yourself from. Get real and show some human
intelligence.
Tony Wilson
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:xKydnSYIVs-JLYjX...@posted.cpinternet...
A .44 magnum, a good .50 caliber, and a few others are decent pistols when
you can't have your rifle with you every second. Six slugs of a .44 magnum
in a bear's head will drop him fast.
Dad
Snip>>> >
>>
> Who was it who shot their buddy in the face with a load of bird
> shot?
Didn't think you would remember even his name let alone that it's not
that uncommon, though rare to get peppered while hunting quail. Sort
of like getting into a sand storm and you can feel a few if any,
grains of sand hit your face.
Richard Cranium
<slipu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I really, honestly, fervently hope those guns will allow you nuts to
>defend your children against other gun-wielding nuts in Yellowstone
>and the Great Smokies! Why, the Second Amendment demands gun
>psychopaths to be allowed loaded guns in our scary and frightening
>parks!
>
>Personally, I've never visited a national park where I wasn't
>threatened, pistol-whipped, or shot at. These places are fuckin'
>dangerous!
>
>Don't you think?
>
Why should I think?
It's obvious that you don't!
Richard Cranium
<torture...@bush.com> wrote:
>Seems like an non-issue to me. As for wild animals, why do you need a
>concealed handgun to deal with them? In fact, a pistol is probably the
>worst gun to have when faced with a rabid grizzly bear.
What do you do when faced with that "rabid grizzly bear"? Ask your
mom to lay down spread eagle to entice him while you run away? I
guess you're always aware of the fact that you do not have to outrun
the bear; you just have to outrun your mom.
Alberto Gonzalez
news:Ma2dnWIl_sW-MojX...@posted.cpinternet:
>
> "Alberto Gonzalez" <torture...@bush.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C129EADD48AAto...@85.214.105.209...
>> "Christ'sCondom" <slipu...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:5e06be81-36eb-4488-96ae-922e488b41e8
@s21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
>> :
>>
>>> I really, honestly, fervently hope those guns will allow you nuts to
>>> defend your children against other gun-wielding nuts in Yellowstone
>>> and the Great Smokies! Why, the Second Amendment demands gun
>>> psychopaths to be allowed loaded guns in our scary and frightening
>>> parks!
>>>
>>> Personally, I've never visited a national park where I wasn't
>>> threatened, pistol-whipped, or shot at. These places are fuckin'
>>> dangerous!
>>>
>>> Don't you think?
>>>
>> I think being able to carry-concealed in the Parks is great. Next
>> time I'm doing a little snow shoeing and some fuckhead right-wing
>> asshole on a snowmobile dusts me, I'll plug him a few rounds. Lovin'
>> it!
>
> You would be scared to even pick up a gun, loaded or not
> But keep up the fantasies..
>
Typical right-winger making prejudgements about those you know nothing
about. Could you be more of a stereotype?
Alberto Gonzalez
news:xKydnSYIVs-JLYjX...@posted.cpinternet:
>
> "Alberto Gonzalez" <torture...@bush.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C129F6DE400Fto...@85.214.105.209...
>> "Tony Wilson" <tw19...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:4a15ad44$0$11852$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
>>
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
>> dyn/content/article/2009/05/20/AR20090
>>> 52003613.html
>>>
>>> Guns are needed in parks. If you've ever been out West in a park,
>>> you'd know better. There are wild animals and criminals. When the
>>> rangers can promise that NO one will ever get harmed and doesn't
>>> need a gun, then I'll think about not carrying one. Until then, I
>>> have the right to protect myself. And you DON"T have the right to
>>> take away my right to do so.
>>>
>>
>> Same source:
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/graphic/2008/02/28/GR2008
>> 022800363.html
>>
>> "Serious crime in national parks is relatively rare considering the
>> number of visitors each year"
>>
>
> Good
> And this should reduce it even more
> That's usually what happens when concealed carry is brought in to an
> area It's why crime rates dropped faster in states with carry laws
> than the national average.
>
http://www.utahshootingsports.com/usscstudy.htm
"Results: Crime rates against personal property continued to decline
after the passage of the concealed legislation of 1995. Violent crime
rates showed mixed results; assaults and robberies decreased, rape
increased, and murder increased among young men. Incidence of
unintentional firearm injuries fell from1992 to 1997. Crimes of
assault, rape and murder did not increase or decrease in months after
gun shows. The rate of revocation of conceal carry permits remains
below the level before the adoption of conceal carry law. Assaults and
weapons possession in schools had mixed trends. Assaults and weapons
possessions increased in elementary school, but remained unchanged in
secondary schools."
Just one counterexample. Then again, you did say "usually". However, I
would contend that these results are far more likely to predict results
in national parks, with sparse populations and little or no urban poor,
than results from states have denser populations and more urban poor.
>
>> Seems like an non-issue to me. As for wild animals, why do you need a
>> concealed handgun to deal with them? In fact, a pistol is probably
>> the worst gun to have when faced with a rabid grizzly bear.
>
> 1) Depends on the pistol
Fair enough
> 2) It's better than no gun at all..
>
Debateable. Shooting the bear with a pistol might just make him angry.
Alberto Gonzalez
Spoken like someone who watches too much TV
Alberto Gonzalez
dXrLIjXnZ2d...@bright.net:
You're comparing the former vice-president to a sand storm? Sounds about
right.
Alberto Gonzalez
@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
Ah yes - the classic right=wing response. Dissing mom. Good job.
Richard Cranium
<torture...@bush.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> A .44 magnum, a good .50 caliber, and a few others are decent pistols
>> when you can't have your rifle with you every second. Six slugs of a
>> .44 magnum in a bear's head will drop him fast.
>>
>Spoken like someone who watches too much TV
Not if he first tells the bear, "Make my day!"
Richard Cranium
<torture...@bush.com> wrote:
>du...@bunghole.com (Richard Cranium) wrote in news:4a15b435.141620031
>@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
>
>> On Thu, 21 May 2009 19:40:20 +0000 (UTC), Alberto Gonzalez
>> <torture...@bush.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Seems like an non-issue to me. As for wild animals, why do you need a
>>>concealed handgun to deal with them? In fact, a pistol is probably the
>>>worst gun to have when faced with a rabid grizzly bear.
>>
>>
>> What do you do when faced with that "rabid grizzly bear"? Ask your
>> mom to lay down spread eagle to entice him while you run away? I
>> guess you're always aware of the fact that you do not have to outrun
>> the bear; you just have to outrun your mom.
>
>Ah yes - the classic right=wing response. Dissing mom. Good job.
Not dissing mom, especially if she's a looker who can entice the bear.
Only problem could be that all you candy-ass liberals have changed the
environment so much that the bear may actually turn out to be gay.
Alberto Gonzalez
@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
Point well made.
Alberto Gonzalez
Are you saying bears are smart enough to choose their own sexual
orientation?
Tony Wilson
"Dad" <knoc...@fisher.net> wrote in message
news:qLadnQGEisGMM4jX...@bright.net...
If you're so concerned about keeping all posts to a minimum, then shut the
fuck up. You just added your own asshole comments and made one more extra
post. Yeah, I know, I just did it also. So what?? You don't own this place.
You've been a real wise-ass for a few years at least. If we both think guns
belong in parks, why attack someone on your side?? Maybe you'd be less
cranky if you called for your Mommie, finished breast-feeding, had your
diaper changed, and she put you down for a nap. And if you're too old for
that, go visit your proctologist so he can locate your head.
I'm dumping all the usenet subjects about guns. So I won't see your retarded
response where you call me a coward and think you got the last laugh. Fuck
off.
I'm not spending my life fighting with you children. We are winning. Guns
will be allowed to be carried in more places each year. You gun grabbers are
losing. And calling us gunloons and other names won't stop that. I only hope
someone is attacking you some day and I walk up with my concealed pistol and
you beg me to shoot the man who's attacking your family. I should tell you
to fuck off but they shouldn't suffer because you have manure for brains.
But if you alone are being attacked, I'm walking right past you. You don't
like us carrying guns?? Then you shouldn't like us using them to save you
either. Good luck with the criminals.
Richard Cranium
<torture...@bush.com> wrote:
Now you're saying that bears "choose": to be gay. I submit that they
are no different from gay men and women in that they are born with
their own unique sexual orientation. Stating it is a choice is just
the initial step towards eventually making said "choice" illegal,
leading to the arrest and incarceration of all gay bears. The next
step will be to apply the same rules to humans. I say that we must
organize a march against such mistreatment of gay grizzlies and the
Republic of Kalifornia is easily the bestl place for such a movement
to begin. What say you now?
Alberto Gonzalez
I am sorry if I misinterpretted you. I would agree with this position
that people (and perhaps animals) are born with whatever sexual
orientation they are born with. Can I conclude that we agree that
homosexuality is therefore not a choice or a lifestyle but something
more akin to gender or race?
> the initial step towards eventually making said "choice" illegal,
> leading to the arrest and incarceration of all gay bears. The next
> step will be to apply the same rules to humans. I say that we must
> organize a march against such mistreatment of gay grizzlies and the
> Republic of Kalifornia is easily the bestl place for such a movement
> to begin. What say you now?
>
I say that I agree that it is not a choice and therefore it should be
afforded all the same civil rights protections that any other defining
characteristic is afforded.
Richard Cranium
<torture...@bush.com> wrote:
EXCELLENT!
Now we must move on to design and implement a program to provide full
rights to all. We must recognize the rights of grizzlies, straight
and gay, to carry concealed weapons in their own habitat.
mordacp...@hotmail.com
> "Alberto Gonzalez" <torture.is.c...@bush.com> wrote in message
Did you even see pictures of Whittington after being shot?
There's no fucking way in hell a sand storm would leave anything close
to that kind of damage. I've been in enough of them to know.
Lamont Cranston
> On May 21, 12:54 pm, "Dad" <knock...@fisher.net> wrote:
> > "Alberto Gonzalez" <torture.is.c...@bush.com> wrote in
> > message
> >
> > news:Xns9C129F8EBA16to...@85.214.105.209...
> > Snip>>> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Who was it who shot their buddy in the face with a
> > > load of bird
> > > shot?
> >
> > Didn't think you would remember even his name let alone
> > that it's
> > not that uncommon, though rare to get peppered while
> > hunting quail.
> > Sort of like getting into a sand storm and you can feel
> > a few if
> > any, grains of sand hit your face.
>
> Did you even see pictures of Whittington after being shot?
Here's one *after* he was discharged from the hospital:
http://tinyurl.com/lx9ao
You don't get those kind of wounds from "sand."
Richard Cranium
<Lamont....@WKWELITHOM.com> wrote:
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? Eh, Lamont? tell us.
WangoTango
Lamont....@WKWELITHOM.com says...
Cuts down on lawsuits.
Alberto Gonzalez
I am all for letting grizzlies carry concealed weapons. However, I am
not sure exactly where they would conceal said weapons. Nor am I clear
on how they will fire said weapons. Will gun manufacturers be required
to make guns with larger trigger guards to accomodate grizzly-sized
fingers? That seems like an unnecessary intrusion of government into
private business.
Alberto Gonzalez
b0fb15...@3g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
I'll tell you one thing. There is one way Dick Cheney does compare to a
sand storm. They both blow.
Richard Cranium
<torture...@bush.com> wrote:
<<<<<Space Saving Snip>>>>>
>>
>I am all for letting grizzlies carry concealed weapons. However, I am
>not sure exactly where they would conceal said weapons. Nor am I clear
>on how they will fire said weapons. Will gun manufacturers be required
>to make guns with larger trigger guards to accomodate grizzly-sized
>fingers? That seems like an unnecessary intrusion of government into
>private business.
Well, then let's expound on your last sentence, which is quite
appropriate for the firearms manufacturers. Perhaps a few past bumper
stickers will help set the mood:
"Guns Don't Kill People; People Kill People"
"If Guns are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Guns"
"Gun Control = Hitting the Target"
"More People Died at Chappaquiddick than ... " Oops, sorry - that
nuclear power plant sticker got slipped in somehow.
Richard Cranium
Careful Alberto, he'll trump you with Slick Willie.
Alberto Gonzalez
@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
> On Thu, 21 May 2009 21:15:15 +0000 (UTC), Alberto Gonzalez
> <torture...@bush.com> wrote:
>
> <<<<<Space Saving Snip>>>>>
>>>
>>I am all for letting grizzlies carry concealed weapons. However, I am
>>not sure exactly where they would conceal said weapons. Nor am I clear
>>on how they will fire said weapons. Will gun manufacturers be required
>>to make guns with larger trigger guards to accomodate grizzly-sized
>>fingers? That seems like an unnecessary intrusion of government into
>>private business.
>
>
> Well, then let's expound on your last sentence, which is quite
> appropriate for the firearms manufacturers. Perhaps a few past bumper
> stickers will help set the mood:
>
> "Guns Don't Kill People; People Kill People"
>
I actually had this one on my old corvette.
> "If Guns are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Guns"
>
Personally, I would hate to see guns outlawed. But I do not consider
background checks and waiting periods to be "outlawing" guns.
> "Gun Control = Hitting the Target"
>
Love it! Too bad so many shooters I know apparently lack "gun control"
> "More People Died at Chappaquiddick than ... " Oops, sorry - that
> nuclear power plant sticker got slipped in somehow.
>
Well there's acute death and then there's chronic death. Personally, I'd
rather die quickly than wither away slowly.
Alberto Gonzalez
But he *got* blown. Quite different. And please, call me Al. All my
friends do.
SaPeIsMa
Not even in your league for that.
SaPeIsMa
>
> Just one counterexample. Then again, you did say "usually". However, I
> would contend that these results are far more likely to predict results
> in national parks, with sparse populations and little or no urban poor,
> than results from states have denser populations and more urban poor.
>
One example does NOT make the rule
Try John Lotts' "More Guns, Less Crime"
A little bit more in-depth
>>
>>> Seems like an non-issue to me. As for wild animals, why do you need a
>>> concealed handgun to deal with them? In fact, a pistol is probably
>>> the worst gun to have when faced with a rabid grizzly bear.
>>
>> 1) Depends on the pistol
>
> Fair enough
>
>> 2) It's better than no gun at all..
>>
> Debateable. Shooting the bear with a pistol might just make him angry.
LOL
You DO remember that you specified "rabid", did you not ?
Trust me, anger is NOT an issue, before or after it's shot..
But nice to see you try to move the goalposts.
SaPeIsMa
I have hunted with a 6" .44Mag
How often have you held or even shot one ?
SaPeIsMa
You're the one stupid enough to worry about angering a "rabid" bear
Your mom should have dropped you harder and more often
SaPeIsMa
Why don't you two get a room to smell each other's butts.
Wayne
> "Tony Wilson" <tw19...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:4a15ad44$0$11852$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
> dyn/content/article/2009/05/20/AR20090
>> 52003613.html
>>
>> Guns are needed in parks. If you've ever been out West in a park,
>> you'd know better. There are wild animals and criminals. When the
>> rangers can promise that NO one will ever get harmed and doesn't need
>> a gun, then I'll think about not carrying one. Until then, I have the
>> right to protect myself. And you DON"T have the right to take away my
>> right to do so.
>>
>
> Same source:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
> dyn/content/graphic/2008/02/28/GR2008022800363.html
>
> "Serious crime in national parks is relatively rare considering the
> number of visitors each year"
>
> concealed handgun to deal with them? In fact, a pistol is probably the
> worst gun to have when faced with a rabid grizzly bear.
Who sez wild animals are a problem? In the lower 48 the 2 legged critters
are the most dangerous.
And if guns are not needed in national parks, then why do rangers carry
them.
Edward
>
> "Christ'sCondom" <slipu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5e06be81-36eb-4488...@s21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>> I really, honestly, fervently hope those guns will allow you nuts to
>> defend your children against other gun-wielding nuts in Yellowstone
>> and the Great Smokies! Why, the Second Amendment demands gun
>> psychopaths to be allowed loaded guns in our scary and frightening
>> parks!
>>
>> Personally, I've never visited a national park where I wasn't
>> threatened, pistol-whipped, or shot at. These places are fuckin'
>> dangerous!
>>
>> Don't you think?
>>
> Are you happier where the only people having guns are the criminals?
> Ever
> been to Yosemite? A downright scary place as far as crime is concerned.
>
>
We need to amend the 2nd Amendment. The right to Bear Arms is too
dangerous, as if an animal that weighs over 500 pounds with claws and a
nasty bite needs a gun.
Dad
<mordacp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8c0dc7d2-4562-4a3f...@3g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
So have I and no you don't know how bad a sand storm can be and yes I
saw those horrible pictures, get real.
Richard Cranium
wrote:
Never hunted, but my 6.5" Model 29 makde me happy when I hit any part
of the paper. One shot always got the attention of every firing
station at the indoor range, so I much preferred outdoor.
SaPeIsMa
"Richard Cranium" <du...@bunghole.com> wrote in message
news:4a15da72....@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
Maybe your problem is that you're just happy hitting the paper..
Stormin Mormon
carry on public land seems unconstitutional to me. I'm glad
we are starting to go back to the Constitution.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
Richard Cranium
wrote:
That may be part of it. My getting the Model 29 was a bit of a fluke.
I went to pick up my Model 39 which had just come in and was primed by
my neighbor (a gendarme gun enthusiast who owned a Model 29) to at
least put down a refundable $10 deposit on the 29 as it was back
ordered and would take about a year to get. He was well known at the
gun shop so when I told them I wanted to place an order, I was offered
one that just came in but was no longer wanted by the original
purchaser. Nice 6.5" bbl in the wooden presentation case too. One
look at that magnificent bright blue fiininsh - it looked just like a
much larger version of a Model 19 that I al;ready had - and I was
hooked. This was in the early-to-mid-1970's, circa Dirty Harry time,
so the Model 29 had a reputation and was in demand. Action is much
smoother than the new ones I see in shops these days.
US Army Veteran
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but you're talking to a rightard from Bizarro World, where torture is only
frat hazing, and global warming is good for the planet.
SaPeIsMa
> On Thu, 21 May 2009 20:02:21 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com>
> >>
>>
> That may be part of it. My getting the Model 29 was a bit of a fluke.
> I went to pick up my Model 39 which had just come in and was primed by
> my neighbor (a gendarme gun enthusiast who owned a Model 29) to at
> least put down a refundable $10 deposit on the 29 as it was back
> ordered and would take about a year to get. He was well known at the
> gun shop so when I told them I wanted to place an order, I was offered
> one that just came in but was no longer wanted by the original
> purchaser. Nice 6.5" bbl in the wooden presentation case too. One
> look at that magnificent bright blue fiininsh - it looked just like a
> much larger version of a Model 19 that I al;ready had - and I was
> hooked. This was in the early-to-mid-1970's, circa Dirty Harry time,
> so the Model 29 had a reputation and was in demand. Action is much
> smoother than the new ones I see in shops these days.
My most recent 29 acquisition was a 29-3 in Nickel that I picked up for just
over $400.
It's one that was bought but rarely fired,
Too hefty for the owner
So he let it go to buy something else.
The action on it is so slick, I just have to think "pull trigger" and it
fires
I'm playing around with Keith SemiWadcutter bullets to find a good home
recipe for it.
Lamont Cranston
Richard Cranium
<Lamont....@WKWELITHOM.com> wrote:
>Richard Cranium wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 May 2009 14:01:02 -0700, "Lamont Cranston"
>> <Lamont....@WKWELITHOM.com> wrote:
>>
>> Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? Eh,
>> Lamont? tell us.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/3ymjc9
>
Now,now - the correct response is, "The Shadow Knows"
Alberto Gonzalez
news:NMmdndyIuNLuVojX...@posted.cpinternet:
Didn't claim it did. However, a single counterexample blows your
generalization out of the water.
> Try John Lotts' "More Guns, Less Crime"
> A little bit more in-depth
>
>
>>>
>>>> Seems like an non-issue to me. As for wild animals, why do you need
>>>> a concealed handgun to deal with them? In fact, a pistol is
>>>> probably the worst gun to have when faced with a rabid grizzly
>>>> bear.
>>>
>>> 1) Depends on the pistol
>>
>> Fair enough
>>
>>> 2) It's better than no gun at all..
>>>
>> Debateable. Shooting the bear with a pistol might just make him
>> angry.
>
> LOL
> You DO remember that you specified "rabid", did you not ?
> Trust me, anger is NOT an issue, before or after it's shot..
>
> But nice to see you try to move the goalposts.
>
The example was extreme to begin with. If you couldn't see that, you
don't see much.
Alberto Gonzalez
news:eeCdnTMv04wcV4jX...@posted.cpinternet:
Thank you for proving my point.
SaPeIsMa
You clearly have problems with both, basic English and basic logic.
Usually means a large number of times
One counter-example does NOT disprove that
You would need 50%+ to do so...
>> Try John Lotts' "More Guns, Less Crime"
>> A little bit more in-depth
>>
Interesting how you ignored the evidence that proves your claim wrong.
Why is that ?
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Seems like an non-issue to me. As for wild animals, why do you need
>>>>> a concealed handgun to deal with them? In fact, a pistol is
>>>>> probably the worst gun to have when faced with a rabid grizzly
>>>>> bear.
>>>>
>>>> 1) Depends on the pistol
>>>
>>> Fair enough
>>>
>>>> 2) It's better than no gun at all..
>>>>
>>> Debateable. Shooting the bear with a pistol might just make him
>>> angry.
>>
>> LOL
>> You DO remember that you specified "rabid", did you not ?
>> Trust me, anger is NOT an issue, before or after it's shot..
>>
>> But nice to see you try to move the goalposts.
>>
> The example was extreme to begin with. If you couldn't see that, you
> don't see much.
>
Extreme or not, they were YOUR parameters
I don't need to move the goalposts.
You do.
SaPeIsMa
That you're a prejudiced idiot
De nada.
It took absolutely NO EFFORT on my part
You did all the "heavy lifting"...
Alberto Gonzalez
news:paCdnfBsRpB8IovX...@posted.cpinternet:
God you are such a stereotype. First you assume that I am scared of guns
because I am what you perceive as a wimpy liberal (IOW you pre-judged
me) then you call me "a prejudiced idiot"? Keep posting - I haven't
laughed this hard in years.
Perverto
Any truth to this?
WangoTango
@g20g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, kin...@yahoo.com says...
> Some say the Second Amendment doesn't apply in U.S. National Parks.
>
> Any truth to this?
>
why would a park be any different.
You
du...@bunghole.com (Richard Cranium) wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2009 19:40:20 +0000 (UTC), Alberto Gonzalez
> <torture...@bush.com> wrote:
>
> >Seems like an non-issue to me. As for wild animals, why do you need a
> >concealed handgun to deal with them? In fact, a pistol is probably the
> >worst gun to have when faced with a rabid grizzly bear.
>
>
> What do you do when faced with that "rabid grizzly bear"? Ask your
> mom to lay down spread eagle to entice him while you run away? I
> guess you're always aware of the fact that you do not have to outrun
> the bear; you just have to outrun your mom.
I think Old Alberto, has never even seen a Grizz, let alone a Rabid
Grizz, and couldn't tell it from a Cinnamon Black Bear if it was
biting him on the ASS....
Wayne
"Alberto Gonzalez" <torture...@bush.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C129EADD48AAto...@85.214.105.209...
> "Christ'sCondom" <slipu...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>
>> I really, honestly, fervently hope those guns will allow you nuts to
>> defend your children against other gun-wielding nuts in Yellowstone
>> and the Great Smokies! Why, the Second Amendment demands gun
>> psychopaths to be allowed loaded guns in our scary and frightening
>> parks!
>>
>> Personally, I've never visited a national park where I wasn't
>> threatened, pistol-whipped, or shot at. These places are fuckin'
>> dangerous!
>>
>> Don't you think?
>>
> I think being able to carry-concealed in the Parks is great. Next time I'm
> doing a little snow shoeing and some fuckhead right-wing asshole on a
> snowmobile dusts me, I'll plug him a few rounds. Lovin' it!
LOL....with that attitude, you just proved that you DON'T have a CCW.
Your park experience will be the same as before, since the CCW holder you
run into may or may not be packing. The only difference is that you should
be careful about being an asshole with anybody.
You
Alberto Gonzalez <torture...@bush.com> wrote:
> I am all for letting grizzlies carry concealed weapons. However, I am
> not sure exactly where they would conceal said weapons. Nor am I clear
> on how they will fire said weapons. Will gun manufacturers be required
> to make guns with larger trigger guards to accomodate grizzly-sized
> fingers? That seems like an unnecessary intrusion of government into
> private business.
It is very apparent that Old Alberto, really doesn't understand the
anatomy of a Grizz... these bears DO CARRY "Concealed Weapons' and are
born with them.... They are called CLAWS, and are concealed in their
Paws, untill the need to rip and tear some food presents itself....
or they need sharpening, and a nearby tree presents itself....
Best you just stay in the barreo, Alberto, Last I hearn no Grizz have
found there way into that habitat, YET......
rigger
> I really, honestly, fervently hope those guns will allow you nuts to
> defend your children against other gun-wielding nuts in Yellowstone
> and the Great Smokies! Why, the Second Amendment demands gun
> psychopaths to be allowed loaded guns in our scary and frightening
> parks!
>
> Personally, I've never visited a national park where I wasn't
> threatened, pistol-whipped, or shot at. These places are fuckin'
> dangerous!
>
> Don't you think?
>
Actually, I do. In fact right now I'm thinking morons who post
might be better served by learning facts first.
Or perhaps you're a second amendment scoffer who has no
brain of his own but merely follows orders unthinkingly?
Either way you've made an ass of yourself and I hope you like
getting what you deserve.
dennis
in nca
Alberto Gonzalez
news:gv6pmn$h5n$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> "Alberto Gonzalez" <torture...@bush.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C129EADD48AAto...@85.214.105.209...
>> "Christ'sCondom" <slipu...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:5e06be81-36eb-4488-96ae-922e488b41e8
@s21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
>> :
>>
>>> I really, honestly, fervently hope those guns will allow you nuts to
>>> defend your children against other gun-wielding nuts in Yellowstone
>>> and the Great Smokies! Why, the Second Amendment demands gun
>>> psychopaths to be allowed loaded guns in our scary and frightening
>>> parks!
>>>
>>> Personally, I've never visited a national park where I wasn't
>>> threatened, pistol-whipped, or shot at. These places are fuckin'
>>> dangerous!
>>>
>>> Don't you think?
>>>
>> I think being able to carry-concealed in the Parks is great. Next
>> time I'm doing a little snow shoeing and some fuckhead right-wing
>> asshole on a snowmobile dusts me, I'll plug him a few rounds. Lovin'
>> it!
> -
> LOL....with that attitude, you just proved that you DON'T have a CCW.
>
> Your park experience will be the same as before, since the CCW holder
> you run into may or may not be packing. The only difference is that
> you should be careful about being an asshole with anybody.
>
Damn - sarcasm?
Alberto Gonzalez
news:you-28FE73.1...@unknown.usenetserver.com:
Tell you what. Why don't you go find an angry grizzly and see if you can
take him down with a hangun. Have someone videotape it and put it on
youtube.
You
"Tony Wilson" <tw19...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> A .44 magnum, a good .50 caliber, and a few others are decent pistols when
> you can't have your rifle with you every second. Six slugs of a .44 magnum
> in a bear's head will drop him fast.
The above, "assumes" that you are a World Class High Power Pistol
Shooter, and can do, said shooting, on "The spur of the Moment",
under pressure, AND actually Place all six slugs in the bears head
( a 1.5 foot cubed Target) from a minimum of 15 yards, and the farther
out the better, due to the fact that a charging Grizz will still munch
you, if you place those shots from inside that range.....
Not likely, Sonny...... The only reason these attacks are so rare, is
that humans aren't on the Grizz's Dinner List, and the two rarely
encounter each other in the wild, where the Grizz doesn't know the human
is there, from a long way off......
Alberto Gonzalez
news:you-B90797.1...@unknown.usenetserver.com:
> In article <Xns9C12AF859A5B2to...@85.214.105.209>,
> Alberto Gonzalez <torture...@bush.com> wrote:
>
>> I am all for letting grizzlies carry concealed weapons. However, I am
>> not sure exactly where they would conceal said weapons. Nor am I
>> clear on how they will fire said weapons. Will gun manufacturers be
>> required to make guns with larger trigger guards to accomodate
>> grizzly-sized fingers? That seems like an unnecessary intrusion of
>> government into private business.
>
> It is very apparent that Old Alberto, really doesn't understand the
> anatomy of a Grizz... these bears DO CARRY "Concealed Weapons' and are
Damn - you people really don't know sarcasm when you see it, do you?
> born with them.... They are called CLAWS, and are concealed in their
> Paws, untill the need to rip and tear some food presents itself....
> or they need sharpening, and a nearby tree presents itself....
>
> Best you just stay in the barreo, Alberto, Last I hearn no Grizz have
> found there way into that habitat, YET......
>
Ah El Barrio. Not only are you a racist, prejudiced right-wing freak,
but you cannot even spell.
Alberto Gonzalez
news:you-934D9A.1...@unknown.usenetserver.com:
Gee, when I said a handgun was a bad choice for taking down a grizzly
you told me to stay in the "barreo". So which is it? Or are you like
Dick Cheney, arguing both sides whenever it suits you to score cheap
points?
You
Alberto Gonzalez <torture...@bush.com> wrote:
> "Christ'sCondom" <slipu...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:5e06be81-36eb-4488...@s21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > I really, honestly, fervently hope those guns will allow you nuts to
> > defend your children against other gun-wielding nuts in Yellowstone
> > and the Great Smokies! Why, the Second Amendment demands gun
> > psychopaths to be allowed loaded guns in our scary and frightening
> > parks!
> >
> > Personally, I've never visited a national park where I wasn't
> > threatened, pistol-whipped, or shot at. These places are fuckin'
> > dangerous!
> >
> > Don't you think?
> >
> I think being able to carry-concealed in the Parks is great. Next time I'm
> doing a little snow shoeing and some fuckhead right-wing asshole on a
> snowmobile dusts me, I'll plug him a few rounds. Lovin' it!
and then you can spend some time in the Federal GrayBar Hotel with the
rest of your Hispanic buddies... for Assault and Battery, If you miss,
for Attempted Murder, is you get "lucky" and actually hit someone, but
don't kill them, OR should you actually Kill someone, for Second Degree
Murder on Federal Property..... couldn't happen to a nicer guy......
You
<3bf39dc9-88f5-472c...@g20g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
Perverto <kin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Some say the Second Amendment doesn't apply in U.S. National Parks.
>
> Any truth to this?
Some say the world is FLAT, too, that doesn't make it so.....
No, the US Constitution, applies to ALL US Territory, and to ALL
US Citizens..... Period....
SaPeIsMa
"Perverto" <kin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3bf39dc9-88f5-472c...@g20g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> Some say the Second Amendment doesn't apply in U.S. National Parks.
>
> Any truth to this?
In actual fact, if you work only on the premise that the 2nd Amendment has
not been incorporated as per the 14th Amendment, then it ONLY applies to
Federal jurisdictions
In which case it ABSOLUTELY applies to U.S. National Parks.
It also means that the Federal Government CANNOT apply State restrictions on
carry laws since, it's a Federal jurisdiction and such behavior would be a
deferred form of infringement
So yes the 2nd Applies to US National Parks.
If you accept the Nordyke decision that the 2nd is actually incorporated,
then it also is applicable in US National Park and state law can NOT be used
to limit carry locally to the state.
SaPeIsMa
Is that projection or admitting what you are ?
You see, you are still doing all the heavy lifting
I just have to pole you to start you spouting..
SaPeIsMa
You have your logic backwards
If you're facing an angry or raid Griz, you have NOTHING TO LOSE by putting
6 bullets into it
In fact, it INCREASES your chances of survival
But hey, don't let me piss on your parade of ignorance...
SaPeIsMa
> You <y...@shadow.orgs> wrote in
> news:you-B90797.1...@unknown.usenetserver.com:
>
>> In article <Xns9C12AF859A5B2to...@85.214.105.209>,
>> Alberto Gonzalez <torture...@bush.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I am all for letting grizzlies carry concealed weapons. However, I am
>>> not sure exactly where they would conceal said weapons. Nor am I
>>> clear on how they will fire said weapons. Will gun manufacturers be
>>> required to make guns with larger trigger guards to accomodate
>>> grizzly-sized fingers? That seems like an unnecessary intrusion of
>>> government into private business.
>>
>> It is very apparent that Old Alberto, really doesn't understand the
>> anatomy of a Grizz... these bears DO CARRY "Concealed Weapons' and are
>
> Damn - you people really don't know sarcasm when you see it, do you?
>
It's VERY DIFFICULT to convey sarcasm, irony, or any other form of message
that rely heavily on physical cues
That's why emoticons were invented...
>> born with them.... They are called CLAWS, and are concealed in their
>> Paws, untill the need to rip and tear some food presents itself....
>> or they need sharpening, and a nearby tree presents itself....
>>
>> Best you just stay in the barreo, Alberto, Last I hearn no Grizz have
>> found there way into that habitat, YET......
>>
> Ah El Barrio. Not only are you a racist, prejudiced right-wing freak,
> but you cannot even spell.
>
>
Considering the ignorant crap you've posted so far..
POT --> KETTLE --> BLACK..
SaPeIsMa
"You" <y...@shadow.orgs> wrote in message
news:you-934D9A.1...@unknown.usenetserver.com...
> In article <4a15b0d9$0$11816$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> "Tony Wilson" <tw19...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A .44 magnum, a good .50 caliber, and a few others are decent pistols
>> when
>> you can't have your rifle with you every second. Six slugs of a .44
>> magnum
>> in a bear's head will drop him fast.
>
> The above, "assumes" that you are a World Class High Power Pistol
> Shooter, and can do, said shooting, on "The spur of the Moment",
> under pressure, AND actually Place all six slugs in the bears head
> ( a 1.5 foot cubed Target) from a minimum of 15 yards, and the farther
> out the better, due to the fact that a charging Grizz will still munch
> you, if you place those shots from inside that range.....
>
Don't have to be a "World Class High Power Pistol Shooter"
Most people who shoot regularly can probably do it without much thought
Most people I know can rapid fire a .44 Mag into a 5"gong at distance out to
30 yards without much effort.
So a target that's 3 times larger won't be such a problemAnd if you're smart
you'll aim for the throat
You just have to know your gun and ammo, and practice regularly to do it
consistently
And most people I know, would practice before they wander off into the bush
> Not likely, Sonny...... The only reason these attacks are so rare, is
> that humans aren't on the Grizz's Dinner List, and the two rarely
> encounter each other in the wild, where the Grizz doesn't know the human
> is there, from a long way off......
Yup
With a bit of effort and care, you can pretty well eliminate most such
encounters
Having a good dog along as an Early Warning System makes it even less
probable.
DockScience
"Dad" <knoc...@fisher.net> wrote in message
news:lNqdndUSNM0bLYjX...@bright.net...> news:Xns9C129F6DE400Fto...@85.214.105.209...
> Snip
>> Seems like an non-issue to me. As for wild animals, why do you need a
>> concealed handgun to deal with them? In fact, a pistol is probably the
>> worst gun to have when faced with a rabid grizzly bear.
>
> which is not a bear species, just a gray haired brown bear. Also that ol
> bear is only in about 4 states. That's not the brown animal that you carry
> a gun to protect yourself from. Get real and show some human intelligence.
A large caliber pistol is ok for bears (though a rifle is better)
Bears are found throughout the eastern US mountain parks.
I myself have seen dozens along the Blue Ridge Parkway / Appalachian Trail
and in the national forests here.
They are found all over Virginia. At present, there is a small 150 lb bear
just south of Richmond in the suburbs not far from friends of ours.
Black bear can grow to be very very large. I have seen them 600 lbs or more.
Even my mother started carrying a gun when she saw the 600lb bear with her
cubs near the mountain house.
Not to mention mountain lions, who also attack humans.
SaPeIsMa
"DockScience" <DockS...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5YmdnYhiDfDQxYrX...@giganews.com...
And Mountain Lions like to attack from ambush from behind
The best defense is to wear a hat with a pattern of eyes on the back.
Makes it look like your looking behind you.
Gives the Mountain Lion reason to pause and reconsider attacking.
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"DockScience" <DockS...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5YmdnYhiDfDQxYrX...@giganews.com...
"Dad" <knoc...@fisher.net> wrote in message
You
Alberto Gonzalez <torture...@bush.com> wrote:
I really don't need to go far to find a Grizz, as they inhabit my
neighborhood. (Neighborhood = 100 Sq Miles) I coexist with them just
fine, so I really don't see a need to go out, and antagonize one,
just for your uTube viewing pleasure. I'm not the one who advocated
using a Handgun as 'BEAR PROTECTION"..It is a Stupid Idea, anyway.. Best
you go back and actually READ the thread and get your attributions
right.....
If I find a need to protect myself from a particular unruly Grizz,
should that ever happen, again, I will be packing, as I have in the
past, my Winchester 1300 Stainless Marine 12Ga. Pump-Action Shotgun,
with Extended Magazine, loaded with 00 Buck, and Slugs, alternating....
with Nine Shots, there isn't a Mammal living in North America, that can
stand up to that kind of firepower. I already have my Bearskins tacked
up on the cabin wall, so there just isn't any incentive to go kill
another bear, just because......
Fredric L. Rice
>I really, honestly, fervently hope those guns will allow you nuts to
>defend your children against other gun-wielding nuts in Yellowstone
>and the Great Smokies!
It would be great if gun not mother fucking rightarded whacks would
all shoot themselves and leave their intellectual and morally superiors
out of their sweaty homosexual fantasies.
---
First offense they should get mandatory gay marriages.
Second offense they get mandatory gay abortions.
Richard Cranium
Shut up fuckface; if I wanted to hear from an asshole, I would have
farted!
Fredric L. Rice
>On Mon, 25 May 2009 04:17:14 GMT, FR...@SkepticTank.Org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
>>"Christ'sCondom" <slipu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>I really, honestly, fervently hope those guns will allow you nuts to
>>>defend your children against other gun-wielding nuts in Yellowstone
>>>and the Great Smokies!
>>all shoot themselves and leave their intellectual and morally superiors
>>out of their sweaty homosexual fantasies.
With an IQ like that, you must be a Republican.
Christ'sCondom
death for no reason a family of six picnicking in Yosemite?
Jesus' Broken Rubber
If they're religious nuts ... no problemo!
peterch...@gmail.com
> "Christ'sCondom" <slipuva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I really, honestly, fervently hope thosegunswill allow you nuts to
> >defend your children against other gun-wielding nuts in Yellowstone
> >and the Great Smokies!
>
> It would be great if gun not mother fucking rightarded whacks would
> all shoot themselves and leave their intellectual and morally superiors
> out of their sweaty homosexual fantasies.
>
> ---
> First offense they should get mandatory gay marriages.
> Second offense they get mandatory gay abortions.
Douchebags like you make me laugh. I think it would be great if you
discovered that your youngest son is a homosexual who fell in love
with a person of another race. And let that happen shortly after you
catch your wife going down on the neighbors daughter. This shouldn't
be a surprise either as many of you bible-thumpers are so sexually
inadequate due to years of repression that the buildup of ejaculate in
your bodies exerts undue pressure on your brain causing early
dementia, incontinence and severe erectile dysfunction. There is also
a real possibility that you may develop an internal hardon and fuck
yourself to death. No loss there either.
peterch...@gmail.com
> >I really, honestly, fervently hope thosegunswill allow you nuts to
> >defend your children against other gun-wielding nuts in Yellowstone
> >and the Great Smokies!
>
> It would be great if gun not mother fucking rightarded whacks would
> all shoot themselves and leave their intellectual and morally superiors
> out of their sweaty homosexual fantasies.
>
> ---
> First offense they should get mandatory gay marriages.
> Second offense they get mandatory gay abortions.
" ... intellectually and morally superiors ..." What a joke. You
must be referring to the visions of yourself in your (wet) dreams.
When the towelheads come running up your driveway, you just step out
with your good book and start preaching at them. The last words
you'll hear as you head is detached from your neck will either be a
bunch of raggies breaking down your door to have at the rest of the
family, or some "gun nut" taking them out with a 12ga.
Jesus loves you; everyone else thinks you're an asshole.
peterch...@gmail.com
> du...@bunghole.com (Richard Cranium) wrote:
> >On Mon, 25 May 2009 04:17:14 GMT, FR...@SkepticTank.Org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
> >>>I really, honestly, fervently hope thosegunswill allow you nuts to
> >>>defend your children against other gun-wielding nuts in Yellowstone
> >>>and the Great Smokies!
> >>It would be great if gun nut mother fucking rightarded whacks would
> >>all shoot themselves and leave their intellectual and morally superiors
> >>out of their sweaty homosexual fantasies.
> >Shut up fuckface; if I wanted to hear from an asshole, I would have farted!
>
> With an IQ like that, you must be a Republican.
>
> ---
> First offense they should get mandatory gay marriages.
> Second offense they get mandatory gay abortions.
Actually, you are the moron here. Do you really believe that it's
primarily homosexuals committing these crimes? Look at serial
killers. Look at the role that a religious fervor plays in some
crimes. You religious nuts are just sheep who can be led around
anywhere, including to slaughter. Don't think for yourself; let
someone wearing fancy robes think for you. And if you do believe in a
God (and I have no problem with your beliefs as long as you don't try
to convert me), be sure to know that he (or she) is only available to
you in big, fancy, expensive buildings that you pay for. The
ceremonies you attend are not that far removed from older ones that
included sacrifices - animals and human.
Fredric L. Rice
> Who will mourn when an HIV+ same sex married couple on crack shoots
> to death for no reason a family of six picnicking in Yosemite?
Hey, it's every HIV+ gay crackhead's God Given American Right to
engage in his Second Amendment liberties where ever and how ever
she wants, and to protect that right, families of six some times
need to die. The tree of liberty is occasionally watered with the
blood of picknickers, after all, you know.
Fredric L. Rice
Hum, an HIV+ coke-addled homosexual... We're talking about George W.
Bush once again, I see.
Fredric L. Rice
>On May 25, 12:17=A0am, FR...@SkepticTank.Org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
>> "Christ'sCondom" <slipuva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I really, honestly, fervently hope thosegunswill allow you nuts to
>>> defend your children against other gun-wielding nuts in Yellowstone
>>> and the Great Smokies!
>> It would be great if gun not mother fucking rightarded whacks would
>> all shoot themselves and leave their intellectual and morally superiors
>> out of their sweaty homosexual fantasies.
Then why are you grinding your teeth, rightard gun nut? <smile>
> I think it would be great if you discovered that your youngest son
> is a homosexual who fell in love with a person of another race.
Oh noes! Anything but that! LOL!
> And let that happen shortly after you catch your wife going
> down on the neighbors daughter.
Oh man, I would love to video tape that and sell copies on eBay.
> This shouldn't be a surprise either as many of you bible-thumpers
> are so sexually inadequate due to years of repression that the
> buildup of ejaculate in your bodies exerts undue pressure on your
> brain causing early dementia, incontinence and severe erectile
> dysfunction.
Well what's the cure, man? Will Scientology help me with this?
> There is also a real possibility that you may develop an internal
> hardon and fuck yourself to death. No loss there either.
Next time when you type that, use both hands.
---
First offense they should get mandatory gay marriages.
Second offense they get mandatory gay abortions.
"And let that happen shortly after you catch your wife going
down on the neighbors daughter." -- PeterCh...@gmail.com
"I would love to video tape that and sell copies on eBay." -- FLR
Fredric L. Rice
>On May 25, 12:17=A0am, FR...@SkepticTank.Org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
>> "Christ'sCondom" <slipuva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I really, honestly, fervently hope thosegunswill allow you nuts to
>>> defend your children against other gun-wielding nuts in Yellowstone
>>> and the Great Smokies!
>> It would be great if gun not mother fucking rightarded whacks would
>> all shoot themselves and leave their intellectual and morally superiors
>> out of their sweaty homosexual fantasies.
Keep laughing, rightard, ya look like an idiot... Like your Fuhrere
Bush, in fact, come to think of it.
---
First offense they should get mandatory gay marriages.
Second offense they get mandatory gay abortions.
"And let that happen shortly after you catch your wife going
Fredric L. Rice
>On May 25, 1:04=A0am, FR...@SkepticTank.Org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
>> du...@bunghole.com (Richard Cranium) wrote:
>) wrote:
>> >>"Christ'sCondom" <slipuva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>>I really, honestly, fervently hope thosegunswill allow you nuts to
>> >>>defend your children against other gun-wielding nuts in Yellowstone
>> >>>and the Great Smokies!
>> >>It would be great if gun nut mother fucking rightarded whacks would
>> >>all shoot themselves and leave their intellectual and morally superiors
>> >>out of their sweaty homosexual fantasies.
>> >Shut up fuckface; if I wanted to hear from an asshole, I would have farted!
>> With an IQ like that, you must be a Republican.
Woops! The rightard just exhibited his IQ again. Next I expect this
rightard to spew "misunderestimate" and other Republidiot spponerisms.
(sic)
---
First offense they should get mandatory gay marriages.
Second offense they get mandatory gay abortions.
"And let that happen shortly after you catch your wife going
Jesus - the J sounds like an H
Families of six? That's mush too excessive. Probably Catholic, so no
great loss. Need to pare down the herd - and especially teach those
God-fearing, birth-control hating, Jesus freaks a real lesson in
punishment. Either use the condom or lose the kid; maybe lose the
spouse and/or self.
jaf
We have rights. Endowed by our creator.
Liberty is a right.
The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America does mention the right to keep and bear arms.
But we have rights with or without the amendments.
John
"Fredric L. Rice" <FR...@SkepticTank.Org> wrote in message news:3KKdnQTb9u4PXYfX...@posted.sonicnet...
orville...@personal.ro
> peterchowar...@gmail.com wrote:
> "I would love to video tape that and sell copies on eBay." -- FLR
Say Fredric. You may not see it this way, but it seems to me that you
lost this exchange.
orville...@personal.ro
> peterchowar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On May 25, 12:17=A0am, FR...@SkepticTank.Org (FredricL.Rice) wrote:
> >> "Christ'sCondom" <slipuva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> I really, honestly, fervently hope thosegunswill allow you nuts to
> >>> defend your children against other gun-wielding nuts in Yellowstone
> >>> and the Great Smokies!
> >> It would be great if gun not mother fucking rightarded whacks would
> >> all shoot themselves and leave their intellectual and morally superiors
> >> out of their sweaty homosexual fantasies.
> >" ... intellectually and morally superiors ..." What a joke.
>
> Keep laughing, rightard, ya look like an idiot... Like your Fuhrere
> Bush, in fact, come to think of it.
>
> ---
> First offense they should get mandatory gay marriages.
> Second offense they get mandatory gay abortions.
>
> "And let that happen shortly after you catch your wife going
> "I would love to video tape that and sell copies on eBay." -- FLR
Say Fredric. You may not see it this way, but it seems to me that you
lost this exchange.