Dear John:
Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick
I like how they can't kill the -baby- seals, just those that are 13 days
or older.
Practically off to college, eh?
EU rejects appeal for ban on Canadian seal products
Last Updated: Friday, January 26, 2007 | 8:20 AM ET
The Associated Press
The European Union's executive commission rejected appeals Friday for an
EU-wide ban on the import of seal fur products to force the closure of
Canada's annual seal hunt.
The EU head office in Brussels said a 1983 EU law that imposes limited bans
on the import of fur taken from young seal pups "provides adequate response"
to concerns presented by the European Parliament.
The EU assembly voted last year, demanding the European Commission introduce
a ban on seal products to protest what EU lawmakers called cruel and
inhumane hunting tactics used to kill seal pups for their skins, notably in
Canada.
In an official response sent to the legislators, the commission said reports
it had seen on inhumane hunting methods were "partly contradictory."
However, it said the EU would take "all necessary steps to ascertain the use
of humane hunting standards for seals, and if deemed appropriate, propose …
to take action," in wake of "the high level of public concerns" over the
issue.
Also seeking cat, dog fur ban
The commission said the population of seals in Canada's Arctic and Atlantic
regions "has grown significantly" in the last three decades, from just under
two million to around six million harp seals alone, adding the seals were
not listed as endangered species.
Legislators said, however, that the inaction by the EU was hypocritical as
it seeks to impose a separate ban on all imports of dog and cat fur into the
27-nation bloc.
"Commercial seal hunting is a brutal and cruel practice, targeting seal pups
only a few weeks old," said Carl Schlyter, a Swedish Green party member of
the EU parliament, who visited the annual seal hunt off Canada's eastern
coast last year.
He said Europe remains the largest market for seal fur, "so introducing an
EU ban on seal products would be a crucial step toward ending this barbaric
cull."
However, Canada says the biggest market for its seal products remains
Norway, which is not an EU member.
Schlyter said current rules were insufficient in preventing the import of
fur from seal pups.
Current EU rules impose a ban on seal products derived from newborn harp
seals less than 12 days old and young hooded seals less than one year old.
Environmental and animal rights groups argue the rules allow hunters to go
after the pups once they reach an age just over the ban limit.
Move angers Canada
The European Parliament's appeal and moves by several EU nations like
Belgium to introduce national bans caused widespread anger in Canada.
Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn told Belgian politicians last year to think
about Canadian soldiers who died in Europe during the first World War before
slamming the door on Canadian seal products.
<snicker>
Belgian legislators however, voted unanimously on Thursday to back a
national ban on the import of all seal products into the country, becoming
the first EU country to do so.
Germany, Italy and the Netherlands are also working on similar bans.
Canadian officials have defended the hunt saying it is vital to the survival
of aboriginal peoples in the Arctic and provided an economic lifeline for a
region desperate for jobs and growth.
The seal hunt also employs around 6,000 Atlantic Canadians per year.
--
Popeye
A skilled, armed man lives on a plane of security and contentment
different from that of others. The man who cannot cut it, envies, fears
and sometimes hates the man who can. -Cooper
www.finalprotectivefire.com
SeanMart...@gmail.com
On Jan 26, 11:35 am, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick"
<Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> I like how they can't kill the -baby- seals, just those that are 13 days
> or older.
>
> Practically off to college, eh?
Well the mother leaves them for long periods after just 2 days and at
12 days they get abandoned by the mother. So if they're old enough to
fend for themselves I guess they're old enough to be shot and turned
into a coat.... hopefully there will always be a market for the pelts
as long as the workers need the income. It isn't very sporting.... but
neither is a chicken farm and not many meat eaters have a problem with
that. At least sealers are harvesting them from the wild and put their
safety on the line out on the ice.
Although it does take up to five years for them to be able to breed so
in that regard not so much like college....poor bastards dying as
virgins.
>
> EU rejects appeal for ban on Canadian seal products
> Last Updated: Friday, January 26, 2007 | 8:20 AM ET
> The Associated Press
>
> The European Union's executive commission rejected appeals Friday for an
> EU-wide ban on the import of seal fur products to force the closure of
> Canada's annual seal hunt.
>
> The EU head office in Brussels said a 1983 EU law that imposes limited bans
> on the import of fur taken from young seal pups "provides adequate response"
> to concerns presented by the European Parliament.
>
> The EU assembly voted last year, demanding the European Commission introduce
> a ban on seal products to protest what EU lawmakers called cruel and
> inhumane hunting tactics used to kill seal pups for their skins, notably in
> Canada.
>
> In an official response sent to the legislators, the commission said reports
> it had seen on inhumane hunting methods were "partly contradictory."
>
> However, it said the EU would take "all necessary steps to ascertain the use
> of humane hunting standards for seals, and if deemed appropriate, propose ...
Scott
<SeanMart...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169824589....@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> Well the mother leaves them for long periods after just 2 days and at
> 12 days they get abandoned by the mother. So if they're old enough to
> fend for themselves I guess they're old enough to be shot and turned
> into a coat.... hopefully there will always be a market for the pelts
> as long as the workers need the income. It isn't very sporting.... but
> neither is a chicken farm and not many meat eaters have a problem with
> that. At least sealers are harvesting them from the wild and put their
> safety on the line out on the ice.
Yeah, we hear a lot about the seal clubbers mortality rate.
What a crock of shit.
Clubbing the seals doesnt provide food, only fur to feed vanities.
Greg Mossman
> <SeanMartinFarr...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1169824589....@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
Today synthetic and plant-based fabrics are as good as or superior to
animal skins and furs. The continued use of animal products in this
market is simply barbaric. When they can make tofu that really does
taste as good as actual chicken or beef, I'll be glad to make the
switch.
(I will admit to owning some leather shoes and leather seat covers, but
you gotta do something with the hamburger leftovers)
SeanMart...@gmail.com
On Jan 26, 2:02 pm, "Scott" <pugetsounddi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <SeanMartinFarr...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1169824589....@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Well the mother leaves them for long periods after just 2 days and at
> > 12 days they get abandoned by the mother. So if they're old enough to
> > fend for themselves I guess they're old enough to be shot and turned
> > into a coat.... hopefully there will always be a market for the pelts
> > as long as the workers need the income. It isn't very sporting.... but
> > neither is a chicken farm and not many meat eaters have a problem with
> > that. At least sealers are harvesting them from the wild and put their
> > safety on the line out on the ice.
Yeah, we hear a lot about thesealclubbers mortality rate.
Read Death on the Ice for a better appreciation of the hardship of
sealers. Anyone who works on the North Atlantic is risking their
safety.
>
> What a crock of shit.
>
> Clubbing the seals doesnt provide food, only fur to feed vanities.
Seal oil is used as filler in alot of products since it doesn't have
the odor of fish oils and has tons of omega-3.
Also Korea and Europe use seal meat for human consumption and for
animal feed.
And fur is not only for vanity, it is also cheaper and warmer (being
hollow) then synthetics for some countries such as Russia. Not to
mention that synthetics come from petrolleum and have high
environmental impacts. Tanning technology has progressed quite a bit so
seal hunting is competetive in a strictly environmental sense with
synthetic production. Isn't harvesting an organic source better than
dirty old oil? Sealing is Green!
And lastly, when hasn't vanity been a valid reason to spend resources?
Do you wear burlap sacks?
SeanMart...@gmail.com
Not true, seal is warmer than many synthetics for the same price and
can be more ecologically friendly. There are times when fur is better.
You're saying barbarism is fine so you get the taste you want but not
to get the look you want? I too would switch if there was a way to grow
a brainless cow or chicken breast without the rest of the chicken. I
don't like seal meat, but some people do. And as long as there is a
market I can't understand why sealers should be denied a source of
income.
I personally don't think sealing is more barbaric then beef production
or chicken production. I think it's actually more environmentally
friendly and has less cruelty. Sealers who don't follow the regs and
make sure they kill cleanly should be severely fined but the ones doing
it properly should be allowed to continue freely. It would be cruelty
to deny them income for no good reason.
>
> (I will admit to owning some leather shoes and leather seat covers, but
> you gotta do something with the hamburger leftovers)
If your leather was from beef cows which is not a given.
Scott
news:1169836422.4...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> Seal oil is used as filler in alot of products since it doesn't have
> the odor of fish oils and has tons of omega-3.
>
> Also Korea and Europe use seal meat for human consumption and for
> animal feed.
<mmbullshitcough>
The official Canadian site;
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/seal-phoque/myth_e.htm
**************************
http://www.hsus.org/marine_mammals/protect_seals/the_truth.html
"The commercial seal hunt is wasteful-seals are taken for their fur, and
their carcasses are almost always left to rot on the ice. The Canadian
government deliberately tries to blur the lines between the commercial seal
hunt, which is conducted by non-native people off Canada's east coast, and
subsistence hunting by Inuit people in Canada's arctic region. But animal
protection groups, including The HSUS, are not opposed to Inuit subsistence
hunting. Canada's commercial seal hunt is an industrial-scale slaughter
conducted by fishermen from Canada's east coast. The seals are killed for
their skins, which are sold in overseas fashion markets. The carcasses are
almost always left to rot on the ice because there are virtually no markets
for the meat.
Each year, video footage of the hunt shows stockpiles of carcasses left
across the ice floes and sealers dumping carcasses over the sides of their
boats. DFO inspectors have acknowledged the large number of carcasses left
to rot on the ice in internal documents.
****
Moreover, despite claims to the contrary by the Government of Canada,
Canadian international trade data clearly shows that Canada has not exported
even one dollar's worth of seal meat at any point in the last 5 years.
****
Claims that seal oil markets have grown substantially in recent years are
also untrue. Seal oil is a byproduct of the skin trade (blubber is attached
to the skins when they are removed from the seals). Canadian international
trade data shows that Canadian exports of marine mammal oil in 2004 were
valued at just about half of what they were in 2000 It is impossible to
characterize this as "substantial growth." Make no mistake, sealers kill
seals for their skins-there is no trade in seal meat and trade in seal oil
is brings in very little additional income."
**************************
> And fur is not only for vanity, it is also cheaper and warmer (being
> hollow) then synthetics for some countries such as Russia. Not to
> mention that synthetics come from petrolleum and have high
> environmental impacts. Tanning technology has progressed quite a bit so
> seal hunting is competetive in a strictly environmental sense with
> synthetic production. Isn't harvesting an organic source better than
> dirty old oil? Sealing is Green!
Actually, it is quite brutal and really just hideous.
> And lastly, when hasn't vanity been a valid reason to spend resources?
Nice way to veneer the brutal slaughter of baby seals.
> Do you wear burlap sacks?
Clothing made from cotton and synthetics mostly, and dead cow parts.
I have never worn an animal fur in my life, and never will.
Grumman-581
<8oCdne_Dce35zifY...@whidbeytel.com>, Scott wrote:
> I have never worn an animal fur in my life, and never will.
Awh, come on Scott... If the baby seals weren't so cute and innocent
looking, no one would really be complaining... Hell, if they looked like
'possums, armadillos, or any of the animals in the following links, I
suspect few would complain:
http://lh3.google.com/_LbccUVbSRd8/RbVQoYHc3EI/AAAAAAAAAN4/TZHoEIFus_c/s1600/skinny%2Bpig1_ChrissieDollar.JPG
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/761/1659/1600/uglydog_ueba_funny_27.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/761/1659/1600/NakedFatCat.0.jpg
http://www.strangezoo.com/images/content/106255.jpg
Greg Mossman
> Also Korea and Europe use seal meat for human consumption and for
> animal feed.
They eat dogs in South Korea too. How would the average Canadian feel
if I bought a cute Pomeranian at a pet store, then clubbed it to death
on the sidewalk and grilled it on my hibachi?
The South Koreans like to boil the dogs alive because they believe the
adrenalin improves their virility. I bet they think the same thing
about baby seal meat clubbed to death within days of leaving its
mother. Thank you for providing such a fitting example.
Thank heavens they keep you brutes away from the manatees when you
visit Florida. Y'all probably couldn't resist ramming rental boats
into them and slashing them with the outboards. Whoopie!
Scott
news:pan.2007.01.26...@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-gmail.com...
You may be right.
So now explain why Canadians feel the need to tell Americans what to do with
our guns.
Will Rogers once said "If God didn't have a sense of humor he wouldn't have
made monkeys and some people."
No one is slaughtering, in a particularly brutal and senseless manner, any
of those critters just for their fur.
Greg Mossman
> No one is slaughtering, in a particularly brutal and senseless manner, any
> of those critters just for their fur.
Ken Coleman of Shelton does with prairie dogs, and he does it for good
fun, not for fur or meat.
http://69.73.140.230/~jeaglevi/images/stories/PD_2005/wyoming_2005.pdf
Grumman-581
<ntWdneyxvJEN8ifY...@whidbeytel.com>, Scott wrote:
> No one is slaughtering, in a particularly brutal and senseless manner,
> any of those critters just for their fur.
That's because they're *ugly* and no one *wants* their hide...
SeanMart...@gmail.com
On Jan 26, 5:36 pm, "Greg Mossman" <moss...@qnet.com> wrote:
> On Jan 26, 10:33 am, SeanMartinFarr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Also Korea and Europe use seal meat for human consumption and for
> > animal feed.They eat dogs in South Korea too. How would the average Canadian feel
> if I bought a cute Pomeranian at a pet store, then clubbed it to death
> on the sidewalk and grilled it on my hibachi?
>
> The South Koreans like to boil the dogs alive because they believe the
> adrenalin improves their virility. I bet they think the same thing
> about baby seal meat clubbed to death within days of leaving its
> mother. Thank you for providing such a fitting example.
I don't think you'd get much meat from a Pom.... and the sidewalk
probably isn't appropriate for any animal slaughter. And the Korean's
eat seal penis for virility, young seal is just good eating.... I'm
pretty sure they don't reanimate the dead seals and boil them alive so
I don't really see where you're going with this... Who cares why they
want it if they'll pay and it doesn't put the seal population in
danger?
>
> Thank heavens they keep you brutes away from the manatees when you
> visit Florida. Y'all probably couldn't resist ramming rental boats
> into them and slashing them with the outboards. Whoopie!
Why would we do that? Some people take part in the seal trade to
supplement their income, renting a boat and ramming it into an
endangered animal would cost money. Please try and stay rational here.
SeanMart...@gmail.com
On Jan 26, 4:22 pm, "Scott" <pugetsounddi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <SeanMartinFarr...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1169836422.4...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Seal oil is used as filler in alot of products since it doesn't have
> > the odor of fish oils and has tons of omega-3.
>
> > Also Korea and Europe use seal meat for human consumption and for
> > animal feed.<mmbullshitcough>
>
> The official Canadian site;
>
> http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/seal-phoque/myth_e.htm
>
> **************************http://www.hsus.org/marine_mammals/protect_seals/the_truth.html
If this was a gun thread and I quoted an NGO which had a stated goal
of restricting gun ownership you'd dismiss it (rightly) out of hand.
There is definitely alot of waste in the seal industry but that is
partially because of antisealing efforts and there are many possible
uses for the carcasses. Until those markets catch up harvesting the
seals for fur is still a valid reason.
>
> "The commercial seal hunt is wasteful-seals are taken for their fur, and
> their carcasses are almost always left to rot on the ice. The Canadian
> government deliberately tries to blur the lines between the commercial seal
> hunt, which is conducted by non-native people off Canada's east coast, and
> subsistence hunting by Inuit people in Canada's arctic region. But animal
> protection groups, including The HSUS, are not opposed to Inuit subsistence
> hunting. Canada's commercial seal hunt is an industrial-scale slaughter
> conducted by fishermen from Canada's east coast. The seals are killed for
> their skins, which are sold in overseas fashion markets. The carcasses are
> almost always left to rot on the ice because there are virtually no markets
> for the meat.
I never linked the bulk of the industry to subsistence, it's done for
the income, plain and simple.
>
> Each year, video footage of the hunt shows stockpiles of carcasses left
> across the ice floes and sealers dumping carcasses over the sides of their
> boats. DFO inspectors have acknowledged the large number of carcasses left
> to rot on the ice in internal documents.
Each year 20 year old video is show too.
>
> ****
> Moreover, despite claims to the contrary by the Government of Canada,
> Canadian international trade data clearly shows that Canada has not exported
> even one dollar's worth of seal meat at any point in the last 5 years.
> ****
Says who? An NGO against the seal hunt. Heavens!
>
> Claims that seal oil markets have grown substantially in recent years are
> also untrue. Seal oil is a byproduct of the skin trade (blubber is attached
> to the skins when they are removed from the seals). Canadian international
> trade data shows that Canadian exports of marine mammal oil in 2004 were
> valued at just about half of what they were in 2000 It is impossible to
> characterize this as "substantial growth." Make no mistake, sealers kill
> seals for their skins-there is no trade in seal meat and trade in seal oil
> is brings in very little additional income."
>
> **************************
Says who? An NGO against the seal hunt. Heavens! and again killing
seals for the pelt is a valid reason for harvest.
>
> > And fur is not only for vanity, it is also cheaper and warmer (being
> > hollow) then synthetics for some countries such as Russia. Not to
> > mention that synthetics come from petrolleum and have high
> > environmental impacts. Tanning technology has progressed quite a bit so
> > seal hunting is competetive in a strictly environmental sense with
> > synthetic production. Isn't harvesting an organic source better than
> > dirty old oil? Sealing is Green!
>Actually, it is quite brutal and really just hideous.
Brutal yes, hideous yes, what other animal slaughter isn't?
>
> > And lastly, when hasn't vanity been a valid reason to spend resources?Nice way to veneer the brutal slaughter of baby seals.
>
> > Do you wear burlap sacks?Clothing made from cotton and synthetics mostly, and dead cow parts.
>
> I have never worn an animal fur in my life, and never will.
Fields for cotton displaces animals and I'm pretty sure the oil
industry (for your synthetics) have killed a furry creature every now
and then... including seals (real babies and otherwise). Every action
a living creature takes harms another living creature. That's life.
SeanMart...@gmail.com
Scott wrote:
> "Grumman-581" <grumm...@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.01.26...@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-gmail.com...
> > On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:22:04 -0800, in
> > <8oCdne_Dce35zifY...@whidbeytel.com>, Scott wrote:
> > > I have never worn an animal fur in my life, and never will.
> >
> > Awh, come on Scott... If the baby seals weren't so cute and innocent
> > looking, no one would really be complaining... Hell, if they looked like
> > 'possums, armadillos, or any of the animals in the following links, I
> > suspect few would complain:
> >
> >
> http://lh3.google.com/_LbccUVbSRd8/RbVQoYHc3EI/AAAAAAAAAN4/TZHoEIFus_c/s1600/skinny%2Bpig1_ChrissieDollar.JPG
> > http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/761/1659/1600/uglydog_ueba_funny_27.jpg
> > http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/761/1659/1600/NakedFatCat.0.jpg
> > http://www.strangezoo.com/images/content/106255.jpg
>
> You may be right.
>
> So now explain why Canadians feel the need to tell Americans what to do with
> our guns.
Because you discuss them in a global news group open to the public 8-)
We're all global citizens see and can all comment on global events and
issues donchaknow I think you're totally in your rights to criticize
what is primarily a Canadian instustry.. I just think you're wrong.
And for the record I'm one Canadian who thinks you should have the
freedom to arm yourselves if you're willing to accept the
responsibility. Every dollar spent on the gun registry was a waste
and is one of the reasons I voted against the Liberals last go
around.
>
> Will Rogers once said "If God didn't have a sense of humor he wouldn't have
> made monkeys and some people."
>
> No one is slaughtering, in a particularly brutal and senseless manner, any
> of those critters just for their fur.
Because they can't make money on it!
Scott
<SeanMart...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170076302.7...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> If this was a gun thread and I quoted an NGO which had a stated goal
> of restricting gun ownership you'd dismiss it (rightly) out of hand.
Since when is your government or ours any more or less truthful or accurate
than a non-governmental organization?
Fairy tale.
> There is definitely alot of waste in the seal industry but that is
> partially because of antisealing efforts and there are many possible
> uses for the carcasses. Until those markets catch up harvesting the
> seals for fur is still a valid reason.
In your eyes, and those of the seal clubbers.
> I never linked the bulk of the industry to subsistence, it's done for
> the income, plain and simple.
So is dope smuggling. Doesnt make it right.
> Brutal yes, hideous yes, what other animal slaughter isn't?
Plenty. All it takes is for the animal to be instantly killed, which your
seals are not.
SeanMart...@gmail.com
On Jan 29, 6:35 pm, "Scott" <pugetsounddi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <SeanMartinFarr...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1170076302.7...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
> > If this was a gun thread and I quoted an NGO which had a stated goal
> > of restricting gun ownership you'd dismiss it (rightly) out of hand.Since when is your government or ours any more or less truthful or accurate
> than a non-governmental organization?
>
> Fairy tale.
Ok true enough. It's bullshit from both sides 8-) still doesn't change
the fact that sealing is a viable industry.
> > There is definitely alot of waste in the seal industry but that is
> > partially because of antisealing efforts and there are many possible
> > uses for the carcasses. Until those markets catch up harvesting the
> > seals for fur is still a valid reason.In your eyes, and those of the seal clubbers.
>
> > I never linked the bulk of the industry to subsistence, it's done for
> > the income, plain and simple.
> So is dope smuggling. Doesnt make it right.
So is working at Burger King, doesn't make it wrong.
Dope smuggling hurts people and breaks the law. Sealing does neither.
>
> > Brutal yes, hideous yes, what other animal slaughter isn't?
>Plenty. All it takes is for the animal to be instantly killed, which your
> seals are not.
I agree that people violating the rules and not killing the animals
should be fined and not allowed to hunt. The seal hunt can and should
be nearly as humane as factory farming (which also has alot of non
instead kills) but without the cruelty of raising the livestock in
horrible conditions.
pugetso...@gmail.com
Since you are such a smart guy, and a lawyer, why dont you look into
seasons, bag limits, and why.
Maybe talk to a biologist or two.
Your *only* bitch is that they use guns.
Greg Mossman
> On Jan 26, 1:53 pm, "Greg Mossman" <moss...@qnet.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 26, 1:22 pm, "Scott" <pugetsounddi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > No one is slaughtering, in a particularly brutal and senseless manner, any
> > > of those critters just for their fur.
>
> > Ken Coleman of Shelton does with prairie dogs, and he does it for good
> > fun, not for fur or meat.
> Since you are such a smart guy, and a lawyer, why dont you look into
> seasons, bag limits, and why.
>
> Maybe talk to a biologist or two.
> Your *only* bitch is that they use guns.
No, my main bitch is that they do it solely for fun.
I can understand the farmers killing rodents if they undermine the
fields or eat the crops. I can understand hunters who eat the meat
they kill. I can understand sharpshooters licensed by the state to
kill starving or dangerous animals. But traveling at their own
expense just to shoot live animals for the sheer thrill of killing
living beings and watching their blood splatter is just plain sick.
That this guy is supposedly a veterinarian, someone who treats sick
and wounded animals, makes it surreal.
Am I right, is this your same "Doc Coleman", the guy who shot the kid?
Grumman-581
wrote:
> No, my main bitch is that they do it solely for fun.
>
> I can understand the farmers killing rodents if they undermine the
> fields or eat the crops. I can understand hunters who eat the meat
> they kill. I can understand sharpshooters licensed by the state to
> kill starving or dangerous animals. But traveling at their own
> expense just to shoot live animals for the sheer thrill of killing
> living beings and watching their blood splatter is just plain sick.
> That this guy is supposedly a veterinarian, someone who treats sick
> and wounded animals, makes it surreal.
So, if someone shoots rats and mice for fun, are they still sick in
your point of view? Come on Greg, so you practice "catch and release"
with any pests that are found around your house? Sounds a bit
sanctimonious, kind of like the type of vegetarians who say they don't
eat meat, but don't have problem eating eggs... "Yeah, it's ok to eat
the unborn embryo of an animal, but not the actual animal"...
Scott
> So, if someone shoots rats and mice for fun, are they still sick in
> your point of view? Come on Greg, so you practice "catch and release"
> with any pests that are found around your house? Sounds a bit
> sanctimonious, kind of like the type of vegetarians who say they don't
> eat meat, but don't have problem eating eggs... "Yeah, it's ok to eat
> the unborn embryo of an animal, but not the actual animal"...
He doesnt do shit about anything.
He hires illegal aliens to do his dirty work.
And, reading what you quoted he said, he didnt bother to educate himself on
the issue (and I wont waste the time).
As to seasons, bag limits, let alone talk to a biologist.
Just more of him projecting his LA bullshit and bigotry.
Greg Mossman
gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2007 16:49:28 -0800, "Greg Mossman" <moss...@qnet.com>
> wrote:
>
> > No, my main bitch is that they do it solely for fun.
>
> > I can understand the farmers killing rodents if they undermine the
> > fields or eat the crops. I can understand hunters who eat the meat
> > they kill. I can understand sharpshooters licensed by the state to
> > kill starving or dangerous animals. But traveling at their own
> > expense just to shoot live animals for the sheer thrill of killing
> > living beings and watching their blood splatter is just plain sick.
> > That this guy is supposedly a veterinarian, someone who treats sick
> > and wounded animals, makes it surreal.
>
> So, if someone shoots rats and mice for fun, are they still sick in
> your point of view?
Definitely. Anyone that kills living beings solely for the pleasure
of killing is sick.
> Come on Greg, so you practice "catch and release"
> with any pests that are found around your house? Sounds a bit
> sanctimonious, kind of like the type of vegetarians who say they don't
> eat meat, but don't have problem eating eggs... "Yeah, it's ok to eat
> the unborn embryo of an animal, but not the actual animal"...
However I deal with the pests at my house, it's my house. I don't go
over to the neighbors' houses to squash their spiders just because I
love squashing spiders. I don't go over the neighbors' houses to trap
and kill their rats just because I love trapping and killing rats.
Likewise, if my next-door neighbor owned a cow, I wouldn't offer to
slaughter it for him because I like killing cows. As I said, I can
understand farmers killing prairie dogs on their own property if
that's what needs to be done, and I can understand professional
prairie dog killers killing prairie dogs for hire if that's what needs
to be done. But people traveling to prairie dog country merely for
the pleasure of blasting away at prairie dogs is definitely
psychopathic.
Greg Mossman
> > So, if someone shoots rats and mice for fun, are they still sick in
> > your point of view? Come on Greg, so you practice "catch and release"
> > with any pests that are found around your house? Sounds a bit
> > sanctimonious, kind of like the type of vegetarians who say they don't
> > eat meat, but don't have problem eating eggs... "Yeah, it's ok to eat
> > the unborn embryo of an animal, but not the actual animal"...
>
> He doesnt do shit about anything.
More of your libel as usual.
> He hires illegal aliens to do his dirty work.
More of your libel as usual.
> And, reading what you quoted he said, he didnt bother to educate himself on
> the issue (and I wont waste the time).
More of your libel as usual. Of course I read the article. A couple
guys went to Wyoming to blast away at poor prairie dogs for the sheer
fun of it. One of the guys was your dear Doc Coleman, brave defender
of party drugs against teenagers, fearless killer of one of said
teenagers.
> As to seasons, bag limits, let alone talk to a biologist.
What's the bag limit on party-drug stealing kids?
> Just more of him projecting his LA bullshit and bigotry.
Yeah, I admit, we in L.A. don't like to go around blasting prairie
dogs to death for the sheer thrill of it. I guess that makes us
pussies.
Joe English
> On Jan 30, 8:53 pm, "Scott" <pugetsounddi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>So, if someone shoots rats and mice for fun, are they still sick in
>>>your point of view? Come on Greg, so you practice "catch and release"
>>>with any pests that are found around your house? Sounds a bit
>>>sanctimonious, kind of like the type of vegetarians who say they don't
>>>eat meat, but don't have problem eating eggs... "Yeah, it's ok to eat
>>>the unborn embryo of an animal, but not the actual animal"...
>>
>>He doesnt do shit about anything.
>
>
> More of your libel as usual.
>
>
>>He hires illegal aliens to do his dirty work.
>
>
> More of your libel as usual.
>
>
>>And, reading what you quoted he said, he didnt bother to educate himself on
>>the issue (and I wont waste the time).
>
>
> More of your libel as usual. Of course I read the article. A couple
> guys went to Wyoming to blast away at poor prairie dogs for the sheer
> fun of it. One of the guys was your dear Doc Coleman, brave defender
> of party drugs against teenagers, fearless killer of one of said
> teenagers.
>
>
>>As to seasons, bag limits, let alone talk to a biologist.
>
>
> What's the bag limit on party-drug stealing kids?
ZERO - evidentlly the the perp thought it was worth the death penalty,
bad choice. Drugs are probably one of the leading cause of ctime - one
single person did a lot to stop many more crimes
Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick
Last Updated: Sunday, February 4, 2007 | 10:11 PM ET
The Canadian Press
Two Canadians were injured when a gunman fired into the lobby of a hotel in
Acapulco, Mexico.
Mexican police confirmed the couple, from Ontario, suffered minor injuries
to their legs late Saturday and were treated in a local hospital.
Their names have not been released and no motive has been given.
Canadian news reports said the couple was shot at the Casa Inn Hotel in
Acapulco.
"We brought them in, tried to comfort them, stop the bleeding. But the
trouble is, you know, before they get the ambulance, it takes more than half
an hour," Guiseppe Alaimo, who witnessed the shooting, told a Toronto
television station from Acapulco on Sunday.
The incident comes only weeks after 19-year-old Adam DePrisco from
Woodbridge, Ont., was killed in Acapulco. A Mexican doctor blamed the
teenager's death on a hit-and-run driver, but his family and friends alleged
he was beaten to death.
Last month, a man from Chatham, Ont., was struck by a car and killed in
Guadalajara.
Domenic and Nancy Ianiero, also of Woodbridge, were found murdered in their
room at a resort in the Mayan Riviera nearly a year ago. Their deaths remain
unsolved.
The Canadian government has issued repeated warnings to citizens regarding
the dangers of travelling to Mexico recently.
--
Popeye
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff
that nature replaces it with." - Tennessee Williams
www.finalprotectivefire.com
JOF
<Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> Two Canadians wounded by gunfire in Acapulco
>
> Last Updated: Sunday, February 4, 2007 | 10:11 PM ET
>
> The Canadian Press
>
> Two Canadians were injured when a gunman fired into the lobby of a hotel in
> Acapulco, Mexico.
More details here.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/04/mexico-shootings.html
JF
Lee Bell
>> Two Canadians were injured when a gunman fired into the lobby of a hotel
>> in
>> Acapulco, Mexico. More details here.
>> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/04/mexico-shootings.html
> A drive-by gunman opened fire into a hotel lobby in Acapulco, Mexico,
> Saturday night, wounding two Canadians on vacation in
> the resort city. Saturday's shooting comes only weeks after 19-year-old
> Adam DePrisco from Woodbridge, Ont., was killed in
> Acapulco. A Mexican doctor blamed the teenager's death on a hit-and-run,
> but his family and friends alleged he was beaten to
> death. Last month, a man from Chatham, Ont., was struck by a car and
> killed in Guadalajara. Domenic and Nancy Ianiero, also
> of Woodbridge, were found murdered in their room at a resort in the Mayan
> Riviera nearly a year ago. Their deaths remain
> unsolved.
Lets see, here. Two people, not armed, wounded in a drive by shooting
believed to be related to drugs. One person beaten to death, another struck
and killed by a car, and two killed in their room nearly a year ago.
Apparently none of the crimes have been successfully investigated and
prosecuted.
Looks to me like Florida's not the only place tired for Canadians that don't
know how to drive.
Also looks to me like those subject to the violence in Mexico would probably
like to reconsider their decision to depend on the police or other
authorities to protect them and their choice not to back up their dependence
by ensuring that they could defend themselves.
Perhaps the Canadian Government is right. Perhaps they should stay at home,
where things are so much safer, where there's no murders or drug problems,
or illegal firearms, or criminals willing to prey on sheep.
Lee
JOF
So is your point that tourists should stop supporting the south
Florida economy? Or that tourists should all ignore the local laws and
go about armed? Or that only Canadian tourists fall victim to random
acts of violence in foreign countries? Or that Mexican law enforcement
is inept? Or that the Canadian government should be discouraging
Canucks from travelling abroad? Or that Canucks shouldn't rent cars in
Mexico?
All I really got from the latest incident in Acapulco was that it was
just further proof there are too many clowns carrying guns in this
world. Are you suggesting if that had a been a red-blooded gun-totin'
American gunwife she would have pulled her carry piece and blazed away
through the crowd hoping to hit whoever had fired the bullet that
accidentally hit her? Of course having been hit out of nowhere she'd
have had to do some pretty fast guessing as to which direction she
should shoot and wouldn't have had time to show any concern for
innocent bystanders getting hurt in her quest for jungle justice. So
what was yer point anyway?
JF
Matthias Voss
An assault rifle would cure that.
Matthias
Dennis (Icarus)
news:1170702931.4...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Given that the "clowns" were (likely?) involved in drug smuggling, do you
think that taking away Lee's, Popeye's, my, etc guns would have affected
these "clowns" potential for possessing firearms?
I mean, there are laws agaisnt possession, use, production etc of certain
substances, yet that doesn't stop 'em.
JOF
wrote:
> Given that the "clowns" were (likely?) involved in drug smuggling, do you
> think that taking away Lee's, Popeye's, my, etc guns would have affected
> these "clowns" potential for possessing firearms?
> I mean, there are laws agaisnt possession, use, production etc of certain
> substances, yet that doesn't stop 'em.
It probably doesn't matter at all to these clowns what y'all do with
your guns. They're going to continue to rely on guns as their means of
getting their way or as a means of retribution when they don't get
their way.
And speaking of role models, did you notice that Tank Johnson got some
high profile press exposure for gun owners last night?
JF
Lee Bell
>> Given that the "clowns" were (likely?) involved in drug smuggling, do you
>> think that taking away Lee's, Popeye's, my, etc guns would have affected
>> these "clowns" potential for possessing firearms?
>> I mean, there are laws agaisnt possession, use, production etc of certain
>> substances, yet that doesn't stop 'em.
> It probably doesn't matter at all to these clowns what y'all do with
> your guns. They're going to continue to rely on guns as their means of
> getting their way or as a means of retribution when they don't get
> their way.
Trust me, what I do with my guns matters a great deal to them. It's what
you can do without one that has no significant impact on their actions.
Lee
Lee Bell
> So is your point that tourists should stop supporting the south Florida
> economy?
Works for me.
>Or that tourists should all ignore the local laws and go about armed?
What local laws would those be, John? Have you bothered to look to see what
the laws are or you, once again, talking from a complete lack of knowledge?
> Or that only Canadian tourists fall victim to random acts of violence in
> foreign countries?
They're the only ones mentioned in the article you provided. Was that what
you were saying?
> Or that Mexican law enforcement is inept?
We've discussed this so many times, even the newbies know the answer to it.
John, no law enforcement, not in Mexico, not in the US and not in Canada,
can prevent acts of violence against its citizens. Only the citizens
themselves can even hope to so that. The best any police force can do, is
what they are paid to do, investigate, arrest and prosecute those who have
already comitted the crime.
> Or that the Canadian government should be discouraging Canucks from
> travelling abroad?
I believe that's what the article you provided said too. Do you disagree?
If so, why'd you post the link?
> Or that Canucks shouldn't rent cars in Mexico?
To the contrary, I think they should. Mexico is a much better place for
them to rent than here.
> All I really got from the latest incident in Acapulco was that it was
> just further proof there are too many clowns carrying guns in this
> world. Are you suggesting if that had a been a red-blooded gun-totin'
> American gunwife she would have pulled her carry piece and blazed away
> through the crowd hoping to hit whoever had fired the bullet that
> accidentally hit her? Of course having been hit out of nowhere she'd
> have had to do some pretty fast guessing as to which direction she
> should shoot and wouldn't have had time to show any concern for
> innocent bystanders getting hurt in her quest for jungle justice. So
> what was yer point anyway?
No, that's the kind of biased, meaningless, devoid of sense statement that
only a raving liberal would make.
Lee
PS: The first rule of gunfighting is to bring a gun.
Joe English
guns or shiny bang toys - what are the laws in Mexico, John about
carrying and using handguns? your further proof that it is just
'clowns' carrying guns furthers the lies. Why not punish - SEVERELY
I REPEAT - SEVERELY - those that break the law - I have no problem with
the death penalty for those that do.
I do not know the laws of Mexico - I am sure you don't you can't
describe what it is you want banned other than it is those automatic
things that holly wood chooses to show what it portrays in its movies
What I do not understand about or movie industry - is that they will
show graphic depictions of gruesome murders and killings(basically the
same) but the act of making love, the man or woman's body is taboo. I
guess it is usjust more liberal crap I just don't understand
I guess you know know who the first black man is that won the Super Bowl
( like it makes some difference) - who was the first black man to lose
the Super Bowl?
Joe English
> JOF wrote
>
> PS: The first rule of gunfighting is to bring a gun.
Lee, Lee, Lee
JOhn would bring his phone - he would call the police while his family
was assaulted - his words - not mine
Jeff Nakarru
LOL
JOF
> JOF wrote
>
> > So is your point that tourists should stop supporting the south Florida
> > economy?
>
> Works for me.
You have a government job. Perhaps we should ask the real workers who
depend on the tourists for the mortgage payment.
> >Or that tourists should all ignore the local laws and go about armed?
>
> What local laws would those be, John? Have you bothered to look to see what
> the laws are or you, once again, talking from a complete lack of knowledge?
You assume I really care what the local ordinances say vis a vis guns?
> > Or that only Canadian tourists fall victim to random acts of violence in
> > foreign countries?
>
> They're the only ones mentioned in the article you provided. Was that what
> you were saying?
Perhaps because someone chose a story about Canucks only.
> > Or that Mexican law enforcement is inept?
If the shoe fits ...
> We've discussed this so many times, even the newbies know the answer to it.
> John, no law enforcement, not in Mexico, not in the US and not in Canada,
> can prevent acts of violence against its citizens. Only the citizens
> themselves can even hope to so that. The best any police force can do, is
> what they are paid to do, investigate, arrest and prosecute those who have
> already comitted the crime.
But of course an armed man (or woman) will always be safe from harm?
> > Or that the Canadian government should be discouraging Canucks from
> > travelling abroad?
>
> I believe that's what the article you provided said too. Do you disagree?
> If so, why'd you post the link?
I disagree, but I posted the link because it contained more info than
the first one.
> > Or that Canucks shouldn't rent cars in Mexico?
>
> To the contrary, I think they should. Mexico is a much better place for
> them to rent than here.
That's been my experience over the last few years.
> > All I really got from the latest incident in Acapulco was that it was
> > just further proof there are too many clowns carrying guns in this
> > world. Are you suggesting if that had a been a red-blooded gun-totin'
> > American gunwife she would have pulled her carry piece and blazed away
> > through the crowd hoping to hit whoever had fired the bullet that
> > accidentally hit her? Of course having been hit out of nowhere she'd
> > have had to do some pretty fast guessing as to which direction she
> > should shoot and wouldn't have had time to show any concern for
> > innocent bystanders getting hurt in her quest for jungle justice. So
> > what was yer point anyway?
>
> No, that's the kind of biased, meaningless, devoid of sense statement that
> only a raving liberal would make.
Is there any other kind of liberal but raving? 8)
> PS: The first rule of gunfighting is to bring a gun.
Not exactly. The first rule for intelligent folks is to avoid
gunfights. The only thing dumber than avoiding a gunfight is going to
one without a gun. I guess the only choice is whether you want to go
to the gunfight or .....
JF
JOF
> I guess you know know who the first black man is that won the Super Bowl
> ( like it makes some difference) - who was the first black man to lose
> the Super Bowl?
As far as I know the Superbowl has always been a team effort.
JF
Dennis (Icarus)
> On Feb 5, 3:12 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > Given that the "clowns" were (likely?) involved in drug smuggling, do
you
> > think that taking away Lee's, Popeye's, my, etc guns would have affected
> > these "clowns" potential for possessing firearms?
> > I mean, there are laws agaisnt possession, use, production etc of
certain
> > substances, yet that doesn't stop 'em.
>
>
> It probably doesn't matter at all to these clowns what y'all do with
> your guns. They're going to continue to rely on guns as their means of
Actually, it will.
> getting their way or as a means of retribution when they don't get
> their way.
Glad to see you realize this. In other words, confiscation will NOT affect
the very folks whom you think should NOT have guns. :-)
>
> And speaking of role models, did you notice that Tank Johnson got some
> high profile press exposure for gun owners last night?
TAnd that would be.....? :-)
Dennis
Scott
news:42029$45c7ea6e$1860878d$13...@KNOLOGY.NET...
<chop all of Francis' bullshit and projection>
> And that would be.....? :-)
One of the Chicago Bears.
He got busted on a some kind of weapons beef (no liberal fagot required
state gun owners card), after one of his bodyguard/buds was murdered at a
nightclub. Gee, seems like he might have a good reason to have guns on his
home.
Not that you'll ever get Francis or any of the other milksops to agree.
The Judge let him travel and play in the game. He is guilty of no missuse of
a firearm, only of not letting lickspittles like Francis tell him how to
live.
Sound like he needs to find a better crowd to hang with, and a new state to
live in. My bet his lawyer will gut the case.
Nothing more or less than a typical Francis spineless slime attack.
It is what John does best.
No facts, no reality, only another cheap shot from the cheap seats.
BTW, John, since I know you read my every word, *you* made the changes, not
me.
I know you like to use Blacks death as a podium for your disrespect and
bullshit, but you and I both know that dog wont hunt.
But do go on.
It all looks good on you.
And tell Mighty Mouth any time his balls drop, he is free to run his suck to
either Spike or Chester.
(tick-tock)
dazed and confuzzed
> "Dennis (Icarus)" <nojun...@ever.invalid> wrote in message
> news:42029$45c7ea6e$1860878d$13...@KNOLOGY.NET...
>
> <chop all of Francis' bullshit and projection>
>
>>And that would be.....? :-)
>
>
> One of the Chicago Bears.
>
> He got busted on a some kind of weapons beef (no liberal fagot required
> state gun owners card), after one of his bodyguard/buds was murdered at a
> nightclub. Gee, seems like he might have a good reason to have guns on his
> home.
He got busted firing his weapons "scary assault type" in a jurisdiction
where they aren't allowed, without having a proper "Firearms Owners I.D"
card.
Later, in a seemingly unrelated incident, his good friend and
"bodyguard" was killed in a bar by a third party.
Tank was a bad boy, and apparently not a very good neighbor.
>
> Not that you'll ever get Francis or any of the other milksops to agree.
>
> The Judge let him travel and play in the game. He is guilty of no missuse of
> a firearm, only of not letting lickspittles like Francis tell him how to
> live.
>
> Sound like he needs to find a better crowd to hang with, and a new state to
> live in. My bet his lawyer will gut the case.
>
> Nothing more or less than a typical Francis spineless slime attack.
>
> It is what John does best.
>
> No facts, no reality, only another cheap shot from the cheap seats.
>
> BTW, John, since I know you read my every word, *you* made the changes, not
> me.
>
> I know you like to use Blacks death as a podium for your disrespect and
> bullshit, but you and I both know that dog wont hunt.
>
> But do go on.
>
> It all looks good on you.
>
> And tell Mighty Mouth any time his balls drop, he is free to run his suck to
> either Spike or Chester.
>
> (tick-tock)
>
>
>
--
“TAANSTAFL”
____________________________________________________________________________
Something to think about, from a wise man now long dead….:
“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes
here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he
shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an
outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or
birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming
in every facet an American, and nothing but an American.
“There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an
American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all.
“We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but
one language here, and that is the English language and we have room for
but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
--Theodore Roosevelt...1907
____________________________________________________________________________
"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3
____________________________________________________________________________
Scotty Boy
okay my question,
who was the first Black man Greg Mossman suck his cock?
LOL LOL
Dennis (Icarus)
news:IM2dnR9jFPeeclrY...@whidbeytel.com...
> "Dennis (Icarus)" <nojun...@ever.invalid> wrote in message
> news:42029$45c7ea6e$1860878d$13...@KNOLOGY.NET...
>
> <chop all of Francis' bullshit and projection>
>
> > And that would be.....? :-)
>
> One of the Chicago Bears.
Oh yeanh, I knew that. However he said he got some good publicity for
gunowners, which is why I wa curious.
I wanted that ast third of the Superbowl, but mustve missed the bit about
the guns.
>
> He got busted on a some kind of weapons beef (no liberal fagot required
> state gun owners card), after one of his bodyguard/buds was murdered at a
> nightclub. Gee, seems like he might have a good reason to have guns on his
> home.
Was the gun used to shoot the bobyguard properly registered?
if a muderer uses an unregistered firearm to kill, is that worse than if the
firearm is registered?
>
> Not that you'll ever get Francis or any of the other milksops to agree.
Course not.
>
> The Judge let him travel and play in the game. He is guilty of no missuse
of
> a firearm, only of not letting lickspittles like Francis tell him how to
> live.
Ahh...couldn;t have been that bad an offense then.
The cannabis charge looked to be far more significant.
>
> Sound like he needs to find a better crowd to hang with, and a new state
to
> live in. My bet his lawyer will gut the case.
>
<snip>
Dennis
Scott
> Ahh...couldn;t have been that bad an offense then.
> The cannabis charge looked to be far more significant.
Yeah man, do all that booze and tobacco you can, jess don't be gettin
wrapped up with the man over no ganja.
> > Sound like he needs to find a better crowd to hang with, and a new state
> to
> > live in. My bet his lawyer will gut the case.
> >
> <snip>
Not like Francis needs anything significant to make his "point". Any little
old insignificant bullshit will suffice. You know, lost in a stormy sea, any
flotsam will be welcome.
After all, look at the crowd he is playing for.
While he ignores the mass murders perpetrated right under his nose by his
fellow Canadians.
Dennis (Icarus)
> "Dennis (Icarus)" <nojun...@ever.invalid> wrote in message
> news:559d3$45c80815$1860878d$24...@KNOLOGY.NET...
>
> > Ahh...couldn;t have been that bad an offense then.
> > The cannabis charge looked to be far more significant.
>
> Yeah man, do all that booze and tobacco you can, jess don't be gettin
> wrapped up with the man over no ganja.
Of course. I mean, who's a bigger danger to society:
a) someone sitting at hime, stoned, watching cartoons with "the munchies"
or
b) the businessman who, after having the requisite 4 martinis at "cocktail
hour" drives home?
Clearly, its a) the stoner, as he's a drain on society. The businessman is
Doing Something.
Dennis
Scott
Building the web so the Crack Spider can have his bitch.
Joe English
To me it makes no difference what race the coach is
Chris Guynn
"Matthias Voss" <spamma...@gmx.de> wrote in message news:eq823o$9gv$03$2...@news.t-online.com...
Assuming, of course, we could ever figure out what one was.
Chris Guynn
"Joe English" <joeen...@wisperhome.com> wrote in message
news:45c7d812$0$9716$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
First black head coach to win a superbowl = Tony Dungy
First black head coach to lose a superbowl = Lovie Smith
First Superbowl team to have a black head coach = Indianapolis/Chicago - Superbowl XLI
JOF
wrote:
> "Scott" <pugetsounddi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:GLadnUQ1MJITl1XY...@whidbeytel.com...
>
> > "Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:559d3$45c80815$1860878d$24...@KNOLOGY.NET...
>
> > > Ahh...couldn;t have been that bad an offense then.
> > > The cannabis charge looked to be far more significant.
>
> > Yeah man, do all that booze and tobacco you can, jess don't be gettin
> > wrapped up with the man over no ganja.
>
> Of course. I mean, who's a bigger danger to society:
> a) someone sitting at hime, stoned, watching cartoons with "the munchies"
> or
> b) the businessman who, after having the requisite 4 martinis at "cocktail
> hour" drives home?
>
> Clearly, its a) the stoner, as he's a drain on society. The businessman is
> Doing Something.
Is this another "sin" which will be attributed to me later, with cites
to prove that I probably thought these thoughts? I think it's about
time that the police started testing for dope in drivers as well as
alcohol. I have no less sympathy for alcohol impaired drivers. I've
been down that road and can now speak with the self-righteousness of
the "been there, done that" crowd, on both counts. You may now call me
out as a hypocritical left-leaning antigun socialist bleeding heart.
JF
JOF
Well, duh! Would there even be pro football and basketball if it
weren't for black athletes. Why shouldn't they coach as well?
JF
JOF
> "Joe English" <joeengli...@wisperhome.com> wrote in message
It should only be a surprise that it's taken so long.
JF
Joe English
Joe English
Why would it make any difference to the color of the coach?
Lee Bell
> I think it's about time that the police started testing for dope in
> drivers as well as alcohol. I have no less sympathy for alcohol
> impaired drivers. I've been down that road and can now speak with the
> self-righteousness of the "been there, done that" crowd,
> on both counts. You may now call me out as a hypocritical left-leaning
> antigun socialist bleeding heart.
As nearly as I can tell, you support testing for dope and alcohol. I
presume that you also support some kind of punishment for either offense,
although your comment about having "no less sympathy" makes me wonder if I
have concluded correctly. Do you, in fact, have sympathy for either?
If not, you'll have to settle for being a hypocritical far left, anti-gun
socialist sheep, but not a bleeding heart.
If you have sympathy for those that drink, or take drugs, to the point that
they can no longer drive safely, and than drive anyway, you're not a
bleeding heart, you're a gullible fool.
Lee
JOF
That's my point. It's what's in the head and heart, not what colour
the skin is that holds it all in place. Your own military figured it
out years ago.
JF
Lee Bell
> Well, duh! Would there even be pro football and basketball if it
> weren't for black athletes.
There was before, there could be again.
> Why shouldn't they coach as well?
Depends on whether they coach as well, if you know what I mean.
Lee
JOF
> JOF wrote
>
> > I think it's about time that the police started testing for dope in
> > drivers as well as alcohol. I have no less sympathy for alcohol
> > impaired drivers. I've been down that road and can now speak with the
> > self-righteousness of the "been there, done that" crowd,
> > on both counts. You may now call me out as a hypocritical left-leaning
> > antigun socialist bleeding heart.
>
> As nearly as I can tell, you support testing for dope and alcohol. I
> presume that you also support some kind of punishment for either offense,
> although your comment about having "no less sympathy" makes me wonder if I
> have concluded correctly. Do you, in fact, have sympathy for either?
No.
> If not, you'll have to settle for being a hypocritical far left, anti-gun
> socialist sheep, but not a bleeding heart.
>
> If you have sympathy for those that drink, or take drugs, to the point that
> they can no longer drive safely, and than drive anyway, you're not a
> bleeding heart, you're a gullible fool.
No.
JF
JOF
If reaching the Super Bowl is any indication, they seem to have
figgered it out.
JF
Chris Guynn
> > First black head coach to win a superbowl = Tony Dungy
> > First black head coach to lose a superbowl = Lovie Smith
> > First Superbowl team to have a black head coach = Indianapolis/Chicago - Superbowl XLI-
>
> It should only be a surprise that it's taken so long.
>
> JF
Whichever team won their conference championship first (I believe Indy won it earlier in the day),
the head coach was being interviewed after the game. One of hte interviewers asked how it felt to
be the first black head coach in teh superbowl. He just looked at the interviewer like "What kind
of question is that?" IIRC, his answer was something like "I'm very proud and excited to be able to
coach in the superbowl."
If I had been him, I'd have asked "So, how does it feel to be the first white reported to ask the
first black coach to coach in teh superbowl how it feels to be the first black coach to coach in the
superbowl?".
The question is stupid at best.
Scott
news:2k6yh.16693$ji1....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
> Whichever team won their conference championship first (I believe Indy won
it earlier in the day),
> the head coach was being interviewed after the game. One of the
interviewers asked how it felt to
> be the first black head coach in teh superbowl. He just looked at the
interviewer like "What kind
> of question is that?" IIRC, his answer was something like "I'm very proud
and excited to be able to
> coach in the superbowl."
> If I had been him, I'd have asked "So, how does it feel to be the first
white reported to ask the
> first black coach to coach in teh superbowl how it feels to be the first
black coach to coach in the
> superbowl?".
> The question is stupid at best.
Surely (I have no doubt, a blind man could see it through his boots) you
have to recognize the bigotry that lead John to utter more of his typical
bullshit.
His kind of thinking (although he is a bigot of epic proportion) is that if
he makes a statement with the underlying proposition that he, and he alone,
recgonizes the prejudice in all things American, he gets a few extra points
with the Canadian Lickspittle Socialists Coffee and Slacks Club.
dazed and confuzzed
You may now call me
> out as a hypocritical left-leaning antigun socialist bleeding heart.
>
> JF
>
Lee Bell
> Do you, in fact, have sympathy for either?
> No.
See, nobody's wrong all the time.
Lee
Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick
> All I really got from the latest incident in Acapulco was that it was
> just further proof there are too many clowns carrying guns in this
> world. Are you suggesting if that had a been a red-blooded gun-totin'
> American gunwife she would have pulled her carry piece and blazed away
> through the crowd hoping to hit whoever had fired the bullet that
> accidentally hit her? Of course having been hit out of nowhere she'd
> have had to do some pretty fast guessing as to which direction she
> should shoot and wouldn't have had time to show any concern for
> innocent bystanders getting hurt in her quest for jungle justice. So
> what was yer point anyway?
We never made any of those points.
As usual.
You, however, and other Canadians, IMA, have stated several times as to
how safe you feel in foreign countries.
Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick
> On Feb 5, 3:12 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Given that the "clowns" were (likely?) involved in drug smuggling, do you
>> think that taking away Lee's, Popeye's, my, etc guns would have affected
>> these "clowns" potential for possessing firearms?
>> I mean, there are laws against possession, use, production etc of certain
>> substances, yet that doesn't stop 'em.
>
>
> It probably doesn't matter at all to these clowns what y'all do with
> your guns. They're going to continue to rely on guns as their means of
> getting their way or as a means of retribution when they don't get
> their way.
That's directly contrary to your previous postings.
> And speaking of role models, did you notice that Tank Johnson got some
> high profile press exposure for gun owners last night?
Never heard of him.
Jeff Nakarru
lang...asshole
Jeff Nakarru
WELL, ATLEASD ALL YOU FUCKERS UNDERSTAND WHAT I MEAN......WHY YOU REPLY
IF YOU DOT' KNOW WHAT I MEAN...LOL
DIP GAY NUT SHIT....I KNOW YO DO UNDERSTAND ME, SO I AIN'T FOOL LIKE YOU
DONT' KNOW ANY OTHER LANG.
Jeff Nakarru
SEE YOU COME AND FIGHT. I GIVE YOU MY HOME ADDRESS.
YOUR LUCKY UR NOT IN MY AREA, CUZ YOU GET YOURS PUNK LIKE YOU ARE A PUNK
ALL YOU FUCKERS THAT AGAINS THE ISLANDER
JOF
<Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Exactly. And what have I said in this thread to suggest my thinking
has changed? As a matter of fact I'm pretty sure I heard something on
the car radio today that the woman who was wounded is looking forward
to her next holiday in Mexico. I was driving so didn't have a chance
to make notes. Sorry.
It would come as a surprise to me if Mexico doesn't have it's share of
gun-totin' yahoos so why wouldn't there be the occasional shooting?
But y'all keep up the good work spreading the gospel of Glock and
we'll be hearing about more and more accidental shootings, all of
course in the name of self-defense. 8)
JF
JOF
<Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1170707965.9...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 5, 3:12 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Given that the "clowns" were (likely?) involved in drug smuggling, do you
> >> think that taking away Lee's, Popeye's, my, etc guns would have affected
> >> these "clowns" potential for possessing firearms?
> >> I mean, there are laws against possession, use, production etc of certain
> >> substances, yet that doesn't stop 'em.
>
> > It probably doesn't matter at all to these clowns what y'all do with
> > your guns. They're going to continue to rely on guns as their means of
> > getting their way or as a means of retribution when they don't get
> > their way.
>
> That's directly contrary to your previous postings.
Check your cab. You might be inhaling diesel fumes.
> > And speaking of role models, did you notice that Tank Johnson got some
> > high profile press exposure for gun owners last night?
>
> Never heard of him.
He's the new poster boy for responsible gun owners.
JF
Dennis (Icarus)
Just to clarify, John, you;d be a hypocrite if you were to speak
self-righteously against driving while drunk or stoed, and yt you would
still drive while intoxicated or stoned.
Otherwise, one could never learn from oens mistakes, and try to help others
not make those mistakes.
Is there a quick roadside check for marijuana or other intoxicants?
Dennis
Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick
> On Feb 6, 7:18 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick"
>> We never made any of those points.
>>
>> As usual.
>>
>> You, however, and other Canadians, IMA, have stated several times as to
>> how safe you feel in foreign countries.
>
> Exactly. And what have I said in this thread to suggest my thinking
> has changed?
I didn't say you did.
You're just flailing about now, and it's fun to watch.
> As a matter of fact I'm pretty sure I heard something on
> the car radio today that the woman who was wounded is looking forward
> to her next holiday in Mexico. I was driving so didn't have a chance
> to make notes. Sorry.
>
> It would come as a surprise to me if Mexico doesn't have it's share of
> gun-totin' yahoos so why wouldn't there be the occasional shooting?
> But y'all keep up the good work spreading the gospel of Glock and
> we'll be hearing about more and more accidental shootings, all of
> course in the name of self-defense. 8)
Who knows what you hear.
We don't "spread the gospel of the Glock" and you haven't heard of any
increase in accidental shootings.
Just your usual delusional innuendo.
Dennis (Icarus)
> >
> > Why would it make any difference to the color of the coach?-
>
> That's my point. It's what's in the head and heart, not what colour
> the skin is that holds it all in place. Your own military figured it
> out years ago.
And the NFL figured it out years ago also. Or are you claiming there's
"racism" holding 'em back?
Unfortunately many schools are still discriminating based on skin color as a
matter of declared policy.
Hopefully they'll end these policies soon.
Dennis
Dennis (Icarus)
They are.
Dennis
Joe English
JOF
<Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1170816443.2...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 6, 7:18 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick"
> >> We never made any of those points.
>
> >> As usual.
>
> >> You, however, and other Canadians, IMA, have stated several times as to
> >> how safe you feel in foreign countries.
>
> > Exactly. And what have I said in this thread to suggest my thinking
> > has changed?
>
> I didn't say you did.
You implied there had been. That's a sneaky way of lying.
> You're just flailing about now, and it's fun to watch.
Flailing? Hardly. Fun? That's what rec.scuba's about, isn't it?
> > As a matter of fact I'm pretty sure I heard something on
> > the car radio today that the woman who was wounded is looking forward
> > to her next holiday in Mexico. I was driving so didn't have a chance
> > to make notes. Sorry.
>
> > It would come as a surprise to me if Mexico doesn't have it's share of
> > gun-totin' yahoos so why wouldn't there be the occasional shooting?
> > But y'all keep up the good work spreading the gospel of Glock and
> > we'll be hearing about more and more accidental shootings, all of
> > course in the name of self-defense. 8)
>
> Who knows what you hear.
Me.
> We don't "spread the gospel of the Glock" and you haven't heard of any
> increase in accidental shootings.
Of course you do. Perhaps not always Glock. It may be Colt or one of
the others, but there sure is some pressure from the progun element
here for the rest of us to get onside with the gun ownership thing, or
did I dream that? If that's not preaching the gospel, what is?
JF
Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick
> On Feb 6, 10:35 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick"
> <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
>> "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1170816443.2...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Feb 6, 7:18 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick"
>> >> We never made any of those points.
>>
>> >> As usual.
>>
>> >> You, however, and other Canadians, IMA, have stated several times as
>> >> to
>> >> how safe you feel in foreign countries.
>>
>> > Exactly. And what have I said in this thread to suggest my thinking
>> > has changed?
>>
>> I didn't say you did.
>
> You implied there had been. That's a sneaky way of lying.
Please cite the implication, clearly. (as if)
>> You're just flailing about now, and it's fun to watch.
>
> Flailing? Hardly.
Or hard, as the case may be.
I love watching everyone piledrive you.
Your act is pathetic.
> Fun? That's what rec.scuba's about, isn't it?
Absolutely.
I have a great time making you look stupid.
>> > As a matter of fact I'm pretty sure I heard something on
>> > the car radio today that the woman who was wounded is looking forward
>> > to her next holiday in Mexico. I was driving so didn't have a chance
>> > to make notes. Sorry.
>>
>> > It would come as a surprise to me if Mexico doesn't have it's share of
>> > gun-totin' yahoos so why wouldn't there be the occasional shooting?
>> > But y'all keep up the good work spreading the gospel of Glock and
>> > we'll be hearing about more and more accidental shootings, all of
>> > course in the name of self-defense. 8)
>>
>> Who knows what you hear.
>
> Me.
Hardly.
Neither can you remember it from day to day.
>> We don't "spread the gospel of the Glock" and you haven't heard of any
>> increase in accidental shootings.
>
> Of course you do.
No, we told you not to get one, several times.
I'd have to add Kari to the list at this point, as well.
> Perhaps not always Glock. It may be Colt or one of
> the others, but there sure is some pressure from the progun element
> here for the rest of us to get onside with the gun ownership thing, or
> did I dream that? If that's not preaching the gospel, what is?
No comment on your imaginary "increase in shootings" implication, of
course.
Not -that- was a cite of an implication.
> JF
>
>
>
>
Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick
He -is- actually, but unfortunately, it's to invalidate your side of the
argument.
As I read it, he was charged and given probation in 2005 for -another- gun
offense, released from assaulting an officer in the meantime, and then
arrested for a second firearms violation last Dec.
Because you're so fuckin stupid, you can't begin to see what any of this
implies, can you?
Give us your quick overview of the crimes committed, why his probation
wasn't violated, why he's on the street to commit the second gun crime, how
he got the guns while on probation, the relevance of drugs to the overall
situation,
And then tell us how it's the guns' fault again.
See, in your delusional ignorance, all you can do is flail about compare
him to "responsible gun owners".
"He's the new poster boy for responsible gun owners"
Flash that shiny bangtoy, yeah!
It's why your type will never win.
Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick
"Joe English" <joeen...@wisperhome.com> wrote in message
news:45c9ccda$0$32254$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
> JOF wrote:
>>>>And speaking of role models, did you notice that Tank Johnson got some
>>>>high profile press exposure for gun owners last night?
>>>
>>> Never heard of him.
>>
>> He's the new poster boy for responsible gun owners.
>>
>> JF
>>
> Not hardly, Tank should be in jail
Joe gets it.
JOF gets whooooooshed.
JOF
???
> As I read it, he was charged and given probation in 2005 for -another- gun
> offense, released from assaulting an officer in the meantime, and then
> arrested for a second firearms violation last Dec.
>
> Because you're so fuckin stupid, you can't begin to see what any of this
> implies, can you?
That he's just another idiot with a gun?
> Give us your quick overview of the crimes committed, why his probation
> wasn't violated, why he's on the street to commit the second gun crime, how
> he got the guns while on probation, the relevance of drugs to the overall
> situation,
You have me confused with somebody who gives a sit about another punk
with a gun. I just assumed you gun guys might be alarmed that he was
dragging down your good names.
> And then tell us how it's the guns' fault again.
Did I say it was the gun's fault? You haven't found that diesel
exhaust leak yet, have you?
> See, in your delusional ignorance, all you can do is flail about compare
> him to "responsible gun owners".
I would hope that you resent any hint of similarity.
> "He's the new poster boy for responsible gun owners"
One can only hope that causes you some concern.
> Flash that shiny bangtoy, yeah!
Whatever floats yer boat, but it seems counter-productive to me.
> It's why your type will never win.
Because my type doesn't need guns? That's classic delusion on your
part. Your type doesn't even realize that those folks nipping at your
heels aren't chasing you, they're actually about to lap you.
JF
Grumman-581
> You have me confused with somebody who gives a sit about another punk
> with a gun. I just assumed you gun guys might be alarmed that he was
> dragging down your good names.
He's charged with violating a "law" that is unconstitutional anyway...
Didn't have a "license" to own a firearm... Duhhh... He doesn't *need* a
license, but it's not like those fuckin' liberal ass Yankees can
understand the concept that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means *exactly* that...
Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick
>> >> > And speaking of role models, did you notice that Tank Johnson got
>> >> > some
>> >> > high profile press exposure for gun owners last night?
>>
>> >> Never heard of him.
>>
>> > He's the new poster boy for responsible gun owners.
>>
>> He -is- actually, but unfortunately, it's to invalidate your side of
>> the
>> argument.
>
> ???
No doubt.
>> As I read it, he was charged and given probation in 2005 for -another-
>> gun
>> offense, released from assaulting an officer in the meantime, and then
>> arrested for a second firearms violation last Dec.
>>
>> Because you're so fuckin stupid, you can't begin to see what any of
>> this
>> implies, can you?
>
> That he's just another idiot with a gun?
That's about the depth that we expect for you.
>> Give us your quick overview of the crimes committed, why his probation
>> wasn't violated, why he's on the street to commit the second gun crime,
>> how
>> he got the guns while on probation, the relevance of drugs to the overall
>> situation,
>
> You have me confused with somebody who gives a sit about another punk
> with a gun. I just assumed you gun guys might be alarmed that he was
> dragging down your good names.
He's not, to any rational individual.
It's your type that has the clarity issues.
>> And then tell us how it's the guns' fault again.
>
> Did I say it was the gun's fault?
More times than I can count.
> You haven't found that diesel
> exhaust leak yet, have you?
>
>> See, in your delusional ignorance, all you can do is flail about
>> compare
>> him to "responsible gun owners".
>
> I would hope that you resent any hint of similarity.
I don't worry about it in the slightest.
It's only your type that could -possibly- see -any- hint of "similarity".
>> "He's the new poster boy for responsible gun owners"
>
> One can only hope that causes you some concern.
Why?
As expected, the point here has -utterly-, -completely- escaped you.
>> Flash that shiny bangtoy, yeah!
>
> Whatever floats yer boat, but it seems counter-productive to me.
You're the expert on counter-productive.
Perhaps you could explain how the many concessions that law-abiding gun
owners have made to their constitutional rights have impacted the situation
that -you- brought to everybody's attention.
Let me save a post- Of course you won't.
"You especially avoid me in any meaningful gun debate." -Popeye
"Priceless" -JOF
>> It's why your type will never win.
>
> Because my type doesn't need guns? That's classic delusion on your
> part. Your type doesn't even realize that those folks nipping at your
> heels aren't chasing you, they're actually about to lap you.
There's not even a race.
We've asked you to quantify it time and again, with (the usual) zero
result.
Scott
message news:12sjumi...@news.supernews.com...
> There's not even a race.
> We've asked you to quantify it time and again, with (the usual) zero
> result.
You are asking rec.scuba's premier bigot to justify his bigotry and
ignorance, which he cant and never will do. It's a shining example of that
mental disorder known as far left liberal socialist. To his credit, he
manages to fold in a good portion of cowardice as well.
Here is a good example of the headway the hoplophobes are making;
Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick
news:r92dnfDNMbmBnVfY...@whidbeytel.com...
Now -there's- a sensible gun for sensible people.
That's heel-nipping if I've ever seen it, alright.
Careful with that caliber, though, just those numbers tend to give John
night-terrors.
Scott
> > http://tinyurl.com/32r6q8
>
> Now -there's- a sensible gun for sensible people.
>
> That's heel-nipping if I've ever seen it, alright.
No, no.
We are about to be "lapped" is what he said.
Although in his context, I take that to mean he is going to lick our
butt-cracks, 'cause he damned sure is never going to attenuate the rights
and freedom we enjoy, those very freedoms that drive his palpable jealousy
and frothing bigotry.
> Careful with that caliber, though, just those numbers tend to give John
> night-terrors.
Yes siree.
A .50 caliber revolver with a 4" barrel. And it's even shiny to boot.
Contraindicated for limp-wristed Canadian Socialists; the recoil alone would
shatter their cappuccino cup hand.
Good thing it wont be available in Canada, except to criminals.
Easily concealed, expensive, and with proper handloads, that sucker would
stop even a speeding Canadian Beemer.
I might just have to buy one of those on National Buy A Gun Day.
But, so as not to make him out any more a liar than he effortlessly makes
himself, I will glass bead it with AC grade glass to give it a nice matte
finish.
Joe English
them - you do what you want
Joe English
No he amy be an idiot - but he should be in jail for the gun offense -
but because of our liberal judges and the failure to incarcerate the
offenders for a good period - he is still on the street and was given
permission to travel out of the state. Seems to me that maybe all the
liberal crap, and the changes brought on by the liberals probably has
more to do with 9/11 (including Clinton's blowjob) than any other reason
- it infuriates the radical muslims.
Personally I have no problem with revoking his probation and let him sit
in a prison for 20 years. Problem is we don't have enough judges with
any balls to take care of those that choose not to obey laws.
Prisons ought to be like they were centuries ago, and our retired
citizens - those that worked their entire lives should be on easy street
- free medical - three meals - air conditioning - heat - televisions -
without worry about paying for it.
>
>
>> Give us your quick overview of the crimes committed, why his probation
>>wasn't violated, why he's on the street to commit the second gun crime, how
>>he got the guns while on probation, the relevance of drugs to the overall
>>situation,
>
>
> You have me confused with somebody who gives a sit about another punk
> with a gun. I just assumed you gun guys might be alarmed that he was
> dragging down your good names.
He didn't drag me down - maybe he is what the NFL and the NBA have become
>
>
>> And then tell us how it's the guns' fault again.
>
>
> Did I say it was the gun's fault? You haven't found that diesel
> exhaust leak yet, have you?
>
>
>> See, in your delusional ignorance, all you can do is flail about compare
>>him to "responsible gun owners".
>
>
> I would hope that you resent any hint of similarity.
>
>
>> "He's the new poster boy for responsible gun owners"
>
>
> One can only hope that causes you some concern.
HE is not a poster boy - he is a criminal on probation illegally in
possession of a gun - incarcerate him
>
>
>> Flash that shiny bangtoy, yeah!
>
>
> Whatever floats yer boat, but it seems counter-productive to me.
>
>
>> It's why your type will never win.
>
>
> Because my type doesn't need guns? That's classic delusion on your
> part. Your type doesn't even realize that those folks nipping at your
> heels aren't chasing you, they're actually about to lap you.
Time well tell - if you don't need/want a gun, don't - but don't tell I
can't or don't - you just fail to see that. Stick with your golf clubs
>
> JF
>
Grumman-581
> A .50 caliber revolver with a 4" barrel. And it's even shiny to boot.
>
> Contraindicated for limp-wristed Canadian Socialists; the recoil alone would
> shatter their cappuccino cup hand.
>
> Good thing it wont be available in Canada, except to criminals.
>
> Easily concealed, expensive, and with proper handloads, that sucker would
> stop even a speeding Canadian Beemer.
Since Canada has a limit of 105 mm (approx 4.1 inches), that particular
one would not be allow, but they also make one with an 8-3/8" barrel, so
that would probably be able to be imported if there was a market for
it... As far as it being concealable, well, just about *anything* is
concealable when you have to wear clothing for extremely cold weather...
Concealing it in Houston or south Florida during the summer might be a
bit more challenging (without going into heatstoke)... <grin>
Lee Bell
Wow, 340 grain, half inch diameter bullet at about 1,500 fps. That's a hell
of a handgun.
You guys enjoy yourselves. This one is more than even want to think about,
let alone shoot.
Lee
JOF
<Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> >> > He's the new poster boy for responsible gun owners.
>
> >> He -is- actually, but unfortunately, it's to invalidate your side of
> >> the
> >> argument.
>
> > ???
>
> No doubt.
No doubt here.
> >> As I read it, he was charged and given probation in 2005 for -another-
> >> gun
> >> offense, released from assaulting an officer in the meantime, and then
> >> arrested for a second firearms violation last Dec.
>
> >> Because you're so fuckin stupid, you can't begin to see what any of
> >> this
> >> implies, can you?
>
> > That he's just another idiot with a gun?
>
> That's about the depth that we expect for you.
It don't take no rocket scientist to see this guy's a idiot.
> >> Give us your quick overview of the crimes committed, why his probation
> >> wasn't violated, why he's on the street to commit the second gun crime,
> >> how
> >> he got the guns while on probation, the relevance of drugs to the overall
> >> situation,
>
> > You have me confused with somebody who gives a sit about another punk
> > with a gun. I just assumed you gun guys might be alarmed that he was
> > dragging down your good names.
>
> He's not, to any rational individual.
If you're not worried, then I sure don't need to be.
> > Did I say it was the gun's fault?
>
> More times than I can count.
Even you can surely count to zero.
> > You haven't found that diesel
> > exhaust leak yet, have you?
>
> >> See, in your delusional ignorance, all you can do is flail about
> >> compare
> >> him to "responsible gun owners".
>
> > I would hope that you resent any hint of similarity.
>
> I don't worry about it in the slightest.
>
> It's only your type that could -possibly- see -any- hint of "similarity".
Is "your type" the buzzword of the day?
> >> "He's the new poster boy for responsible gun owners"
>
> > One can only hope that causes you some concern.
>
> Why?
If you don't get it, it's too late to help.
> As expected, the point here has -utterly-, -completely- escaped you.
Only the one you're trying to create. The real point is clear to
rational folks though.
> >> Flash that shiny bangtoy, yeah!
>
> > Whatever floats yer boat, but it seems counter-productive to me.
>
> You're the expert on counter-productive.
I'm learning more about it all the time here.
> Perhaps you could explain how the many concessions that law-abiding gun
> owners have made to their constitutional rights have impacted the situation
> that -you- brought to everybody's attention.
In one syllable words and one word sentences?
> Let me save a post- Of course you won't.
You'd be disappointed if I did.
> "You especially avoid me in any meaningful gun debate." -Popeye
>
> "Priceless" -JOF
Well, it is priceless. Perhaps there's no such thing as a meaningful
gun debate?
> >> It's why your type will never win.
>
> > Because my type doesn't need guns? That's classic delusion on your
> > part. Your type doesn't even realize that those folks nipping at your
> > heels aren't chasing you, they're actually about to lap you.
>
> There's not even a race.
We know that. Apparently you admit it now too. That's a step forward.
Admitting your problem is always the first step to a solution.
> We've asked you to quantify it time and again, with (the usual) zero
> result.
Quantify the race you just said doesn't exist????? You babble at the
best of times but your coherency level totally goes south when you
start playing to the audience. Shape up, son. Breathe some fresh air.
I know you're brighter than you sound.
JF
Matthias Voss
> Scott wrote:
>
>> A .50 caliber revolver with a 4" barrel. And it's even shiny to boot.
>>
>> Contraindicated for limp-wristed Canadian Socialists; the recoil alone
>> would
>> shatter their cappuccino cup hand.
>>
>> Good thing it wont be available in Canada, except to criminals.
>>
>> Easily concealed, expensive, and with proper handloads, that sucker would
>> stop even a speeding Canadian Beemer.
>
>
> Since Canada has a limit of 105 mm (approx 4.1 inches),
Huh, they have howitzers?
Frightening ;-)
Matthias
Scott
news:mwqyh.330$tn3.37@bigfe9...
> http://tinyurl.com/32r6q8
>
> Wow, 340 grain, half inch diameter bullet at about 1,500 fps. That's a
hell
> of a handgun.
Hell of a bang, eh?
> You guys enjoy yourselves. This one is more than even want to think
about,
> let alone shoot.
It's ported...
Not that the porting would help a brittle old cheesehead with wrists like
tootpicks.
Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick
>> Perhaps you could explain how the many concessions that law-abiding gun
>> owners have made to their constitutional rights have impacted the
>> situation
>> that -you- brought to everybody's attention.
>
> In one syllable words and one word sentences?
>
>> Let me save a post- Of course you won't.
>
> You'd be disappointed if I did.
You misspelled "flabbergasted".
>> "You especially avoid me in any meaningful gun debate." -Popeye
>>
>> "Priceless" -JOF
>
> Well, it is priceless. Perhaps there's no such thing as a meaningful
> gun debate?
>
> JF
Grumman-581
> No he amy be an idiot - but he should be in jail for the gun offense -
I'm afraid that I don't agree with that... From what I've gathered, he
was refusing to abide by a "law" that is obviously unconstitutional...
Free men do not ask permission from other whether they can own a gun...
The leftists Yankees up there created a "law" that is one step from
allowing them to attempt to revoke our 2nd Amendment rights... The fact
that he apparently decided to know acknowledge their authority in
creating such a "law", I do not have a problem with it...
> HE is not a poster boy - he is a criminal on probation illegally in
> possession of a gun - incarcerate him
But if he is on probation for violating yet another leftist Yankee law
that is an unconstitutional infringement upon his 2nd Amendment
rights... A car valet had reported seeing him with a handgun in his
SUV... He had a right to own that gun and a right to have it in his
SUV... I have no problem with him refusing to acknowledge the supposed
rules that the leftist try to enact...
Scott
"Grumman-581" <grumman581-DI...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:45ca46cc$0$24790$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
OK, but he was criminally stupid.
If your going to pack, better make sure no one knows it.
Greg Mossman
> Prisons ought to be like they were centuries ago,
Centuries ago, they shipped them off to Australia. Why should our
prisoners get a free trip to Australia? I'd love a free trip to
Australia, except for the fact that there's too many Australians
there.
> and our retired
> citizens - those that worked their entire lives should be on easy street
> - free medical - three meals - air conditioning - heat - televisions -
> without worry about paying for it.
Now you're really sounding like a socialist. Why give all this nice
stuff to people who didn't work hard enough to put anything away for
their old age, when there are children born into poverty that have
absolutely no choice in the matter? It's the kids that are
malnourished, lack preventative medical care, and forget about A/C or
heat, and they have their whole lives ahead of them to suffer. The
old folks aren't going to be contributing anything anymore, just
wasting resources until they die, so why not grind them up to feed the
children?
dazed and confuzzed
Use your brain for more than a hatrack.
>
>
>> As I read it, he was charged and given probation in 2005 for -another- gun
>>offense, released from assaulting an officer in the meantime, and then
>>arrested for a second firearms violation last Dec.
>>
>> Because you're so fuckin stupid, you can't begin to see what any of this
>>implies, can you?
>
>
> That he's just another idiot with a gun?
And those guns could not have been purchased legally by him.
>
>
>> Give us your quick overview of the crimes committed, why his probation
>>wasn't violated, why he's on the street to commit the second gun crime, how
>>he got the guns while on probation, the relevance of drugs to the overall
>>situation,
>
>
> You have me confused with somebody who gives a sit about another punk
> with a gun. I just assumed you gun guys might be alarmed that he was
> dragging down your good names.
Our good names are safe. it's only you and your ilk that lumps all gun
owners into the same bin.
I find it interesting that you cannot differentiate between lawful and
unlawful owners.
>
>
>> And then tell us how it's the guns' fault again.
>
>
> Did I say it was the gun's fault? You haven't found that diesel
> exhaust leak yet, have you?
>
>
>> See, in your delusional ignorance, all you can do is flail about compare
>>him to "responsible gun owners".
>
>
> I would hope that you resent any hint of similarity.
Your implication is that we are all criminals in waiting. Isn't it...
>
>
>> "He's the new poster boy for responsible gun owners"
>
>
> One can only hope that causes you some concern.
>
>
>> Flash that shiny bangtoy, yeah!
>
>
> Whatever floats yer boat, but it seems counter-productive to me.
>
>
>> It's why your type will never win.
>
>
> Because my type doesn't need guns? That's classic delusion on your
> part. Your type doesn't even realize that those folks nipping at your
> heels aren't chasing you, they're actually about to lap you.
Only in your mind. It must be tiring trying to keep yourself inflated...
>
> JF
>
--
“TAANSTAFL”
____________________________________________________________________________
Something to think about, from a wise man now long dead….:
“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes
here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he
shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an
outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or
birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming
in every facet an American, and nothing but an American.
“There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an
American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all.
“We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but
one language here, and that is the English language and we have room for
but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
--Theodore Roosevelt...1907
____________________________________________________________________________
"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3
____________________________________________________________________________