Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Gun shooting situation
75 views
Skip to first unread message
Michael
Sep 28, 2012, 10:16:12 AM9/28/12
to
If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a shoot-to-kill situation? It just seems to me you shoot in the air and scare the guy away or something. It's not worth the man's life. What say ye?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/28/connecticut-father-kills-masked-intruder-learns-it-his-son/?test=latestnews
Mike
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/28/connecticut-father-kills-masked-intruder-learns-it-his-son/?test=latestnews
Mike
michael anderson
Sep 28, 2012, 10:28:41 AM9/28/12
to
On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:16:13 AM UTC-5, Michael wrote:
> If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a shoot-to-kill situation?
absolutely....it's a ridiculous question.
> If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a shoot-to-kill situation?
WrongWayWade
Sep 28, 2012, 11:22:09 AM9/28/12
to
situation. Do you REALLY know that this 'intruder' is an intruder about to
do evil? Scare him away, sure, but shoot to kill? Not enough information.
xyzzy
Sep 28, 2012, 12:03:33 PM9/28/12
to
On Sep 28, 10:28 am, michael anderson <mianderso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:16:13 AM UTC-5, Michael wrote:
> > If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a shoot-to-kill situation?
>
> absolutely....it's a ridiculous question.
Did you read the article?
> On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:16:13 AM UTC-5, Michael wrote:
> > If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a shoot-to-kill situation?
>
> absolutely....it's a ridiculous question.
I say shoot him if he is threatening you or the neighbor. If he's
fleeing, then no.
We had a case in Durham almost 20 years ago in which a homeowner shot
a boy who was stealing from his garage. In the back. I still can't
believe he got off.
Tom Enright
Sep 28, 2012, 12:16:55 PM9/28/12
to
On Sep 28, 10:16 am, Michael <michaeldwils...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a shoot-to-kill situation? It just seems to me you shoot in the air and scare the guy away or something. It's not worth the man's life. What say ye?
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/28/connecticut-father-kills-masked-...
> If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a shoot-to-kill situation? It just seems to me you shoot in the air and scare the guy away or something. It's not worth the man's life. What say ye?
>
Let him know you mean business. Shoot your neighbor.
-Tom Enright
> Mike
michael anderson
Sep 28, 2012, 12:17:03 PM9/28/12
to
On Friday, September 28, 2012 11:03:33 AM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
> On Sep 28, 10:28 am, michael anderson <mianderso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:16:13 AM UTC-5, Michael wrote:
>
> > > If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a shoot-to-kill situation?
>
> >
>
> > absolutely....it's a ridiculous question.
>
>
>
> Did you read the article?
>
>
>
> I say shoot him if he is threatening you or the neighbor.
If he's
>
> fleeing, then no.
ummm, well for starters, I don't know what he is fleeing with. Second, he's just robbed a house(mine or my neighbors). If I don't put him down right there, who is to say he won't come and rob my house again? I certainly am not going to put my faith in local law enforcement to do the job of catching him.....a large % of home invasions never get solved.
> On Sep 28, 10:28 am, michael anderson <mianderso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:16:13 AM UTC-5, Michael wrote:
>
> > > If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a shoot-to-kill situation?
>
> >
>
> > absolutely....it's a ridiculous question.
>
>
>
> Did you read the article?
>
>
>
> I say shoot him if he is threatening you or the neighbor.
If he's
>
> fleeing, then no.
now if the criminal wants to surrender right there while I call the cops by laying face down on the ground, that's cool too. No need to take him down with force. But somehow I doubt he is going to do that....you know, being a dangerous criminal and all.
you liberals crack me up sometimes.
>
>
>
> We had a case in Durham almost 20 years ago in which a homeowner shot
>
> a boy who was stealing from his garage. In the back. I still can't
>
> believe he got off.
xyzzy
Sep 28, 2012, 12:48:46 PM9/28/12
to
xyzzy
Sep 28, 2012, 12:49:57 PM9/28/12
to
On Sep 28, 12:17 pm, michael anderson <mianderso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, September 28, 2012 11:03:33 AM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
> > On Sep 28, 10:28 am, michael anderson <mianderso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:16:13 AM UTC-5, Michael wrote:
>
> > > > If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a shoot-to-kill situation?
>
> > > absolutely....it's a ridiculous question.
>
> > Did you read the article?
>
> > I say shoot him if he is threatening you or the neighbor.
> If he's
>
> > fleeing, then no.
>
> ummm, well for starters, I don't know what he is fleeing with. Second, he's just robbed a house(mine or my neighbors). If I don't put him down right there, who is to say he won't come and rob my house again? I certainly am not going to put my faith in local law enforcement to do the job of catching him.....a large % of home invasions never get solved.
>
> now if the criminal wants to surrender right there while I call the cops by laying face down on the ground, that's cool too. No need to take him down with force. But somehow I doubt he is going to do that....you know, being a dangerous criminal and all.
Never knew you were such a tough guy.
> On Friday, September 28, 2012 11:03:33 AM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
> > On Sep 28, 10:28 am, michael anderson <mianderso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:16:13 AM UTC-5, Michael wrote:
>
> > > > If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a shoot-to-kill situation?
>
> > > absolutely....it's a ridiculous question.
>
> > Did you read the article?
>
> > I say shoot him if he is threatening you or the neighbor.
> If he's
>
> > fleeing, then no.
>
> ummm, well for starters, I don't know what he is fleeing with. Second, he's just robbed a house(mine or my neighbors). If I don't put him down right there, who is to say he won't come and rob my house again? I certainly am not going to put my faith in local law enforcement to do the job of catching him.....a large % of home invasions never get solved.
>
> now if the criminal wants to surrender right there while I call the cops by laying face down on the ground, that's cool too. No need to take him down with force. But somehow I doubt he is going to do that....you know, being a dangerous criminal and all.
"put him down", "take him down with force"
You're a real John Wayne.
michael anderson
Sep 28, 2012, 1:00:12 PM9/28/12
to
Futbol Phan
Sep 28, 2012, 1:49:44 PM9/28/12
to
On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:16:13 AM UTC-5, Michael wrote:
xyzzy
Sep 28, 2012, 1:56:26 PM9/28/12
to
!. the penalty for burglary is not death
2. even if it was, it's not your place to administer it.
Antonio Veranos
Sep 28, 2012, 2:03:28 PM9/28/12
to
[xyzzy, xyzzy...@gmail.com]
[Fri, 28 Sep 2012 09:49:57 -0700 (PDT)]
: Never knew you were such a tough guy.
if he was confronted with an actual criminal. Congrats on the catch.
[Fri, 28 Sep 2012 09:49:57 -0700 (PDT)]
: Never knew you were such a tough guy.
:
: "put him down", "take him down with force"
:
: You're a real John Wayne.
He's a laughable little fool who would probably piss his pants in fear
: "put him down", "take him down with force"
:
: You're a real John Wayne.
if he was confronted with an actual criminal. Congrats on the catch.
Antonio Veranos
Sep 28, 2012, 2:09:39 PM9/28/12
to
[xyzzy, xyzzy...@gmail.com]
[Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:56:26 -0700 (PDT)]
: Well, two points:
our national security, and they must be stripped away, period, end of.
[Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:56:26 -0700 (PDT)]
: Well, two points:
:
: !. the penalty for burglary is not death
: 2. even if it was, it's not your place to administer it.
Handguns should be outlawed in the United States. They're a threat to
: !. the penalty for burglary is not death
: 2. even if it was, it's not your place to administer it.
our national security, and they must be stripped away, period, end of.
Jim Brown
Sep 28, 2012, 2:16:20 PM9/28/12
to
On Sep 28, 1:09 pm, Antonio Veranos <summerstorm0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [xyzzy, xyzzy.d...@gmail.com]
Mia's idiocy aside...umm...no. And its not your place or anyone
else's to infringe on our constitutional rights.
> [xyzzy, xyzzy.d...@gmail.com]
else's to infringe on our constitutional rights.
timv
Sep 28, 2012, 2:16:25 PM9/28/12
to
On Friday, September 28, 2012 1:09:42 PM UTC-5, Antonio Veranos wrote:
>
> Handguns should be outlawed in the United States. They're a threat to
> our national security, and they must be stripped away, period, end of.
Hand guns are not a threat to national security. That's absurd.
>
> Handguns should be outlawed in the United States. They're a threat to
> our national security, and they must be stripped away, period, end of.
T
The Undead Edward M. Kennedy
Sep 28, 2012, 2:17:45 PM9/28/12
to
"xyzzy" <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote
> > If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a
> > shoot-to-kill situation?
>
> absolutely....it's a ridiculous question.
Did you read the article?
I say shoot him if he is threatening you or the neighbor. If he's
fleeing, then no.
We had a case in Durham almost 20 years ago in which a homeowner shot
a boy who was stealing from his garage. In the back. I still can't
believe he got off.
-----
Jury nullificaton, though of course the jury couldn't call it that.
I was mixed over whether or not he should have been convicted,
though letter of the law says he should have been. But in the
heat of the moment -- he opened the door and there was a
bunch of kids stealing his stuff -- who's to say what would
they would do if they had a gun in that situation?
Plus I disagree with the law. I *should* be able to shoot some
punk absconding with my property. If criminals don't like it
they can stop stealing.
--Tedward
> > If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a
> > shoot-to-kill situation?
>
> absolutely....it's a ridiculous question.
Did you read the article?
I say shoot him if he is threatening you or the neighbor. If he's
fleeing, then no.
We had a case in Durham almost 20 years ago in which a homeowner shot
a boy who was stealing from his garage. In the back. I still can't
believe he got off.
Jury nullificaton, though of course the jury couldn't call it that.
I was mixed over whether or not he should have been convicted,
though letter of the law says he should have been. But in the
heat of the moment -- he opened the door and there was a
bunch of kids stealing his stuff -- who's to say what would
they would do if they had a gun in that situation?
Plus I disagree with the law. I *should* be able to shoot some
punk absconding with my property. If criminals don't like it
they can stop stealing.
--Tedward
Antonio Veranos
Sep 28, 2012, 2:32:43 PM9/28/12
to
[Jim Brown, jimbr...@yahoo.com]
[Fri, 28 Sep 2012 11:16:20 -0700 (PDT)]
Until I'm given the power to enforce my opinions against your will or
outside of the legislative process, etc... the "place" whine is silly.
[Fri, 28 Sep 2012 11:16:20 -0700 (PDT)]
outside of the legislative process, etc... the "place" whine is silly.
Futbol Phan
Sep 28, 2012, 2:36:50 PM9/28/12
to
timv
Sep 28, 2012, 2:41:32 PM9/28/12
to
T
xyzzy
Sep 28, 2012, 2:42:20 PM9/28/12
to
On Sep 28, 2:17 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote:
> "xyzzy" <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote
Like I said to Mia:
1. The penalty for burglary is not death
2. Even if it was, it's not your place to administer it.
> "xyzzy" <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote
1. The penalty for burglary is not death
2. Even if it was, it's not your place to administer it.
Futbol Phan
Sep 28, 2012, 2:47:02 PM9/28/12
to
Jim Brown
Sep 28, 2012, 2:47:16 PM9/28/12
to
each year?
michael anderson
Sep 28, 2012, 2:48:30 PM9/28/12
to
protecting my property(which he is likely running off with) now and in
the future(since why the heck wouldnt he rob my house again if Im just
going to stand there and call the police after he is gone?)
xyzzy
Sep 28, 2012, 2:49:39 PM9/28/12
to
do.
xyzzy
Sep 28, 2012, 2:50:14 PM9/28/12
to
One of these times, maybe you'll break down and read the article.
timv
Sep 28, 2012, 2:58:00 PM9/28/12
to
A natural disaster can actually be a national security threat though as that can in fact damage our capacity to maintain the state. Other internal threats can of course damage our national security. But handgun violence would have to be orders of magnitude worse than it is now to even reasonably be considered a national security threat to any reasonable person without an underlying agenda.
T
michael anderson
Sep 28, 2012, 3:00:08 PM9/28/12
to
Antonio Veranos
Sep 28, 2012, 3:04:16 PM9/28/12
to
[timv, timv...@gmail.com]
[Fri, 28 Sep 2012 11:58:00 -0700 (PDT)]
: A natural disaster can actually be a national security threat though as that can in fact damage our capacity to maintain the state. Other internal threats can of course damage our national security. But handgun violence would have to be orders of magnitude worse than it is now to even reasonably be considered a national security threat to any reasonable person
without an underlying agenda.
You have an extremely logorrheic and aggressive way of writing, "I
disagree."
[Fri, 28 Sep 2012 11:58:00 -0700 (PDT)]
: A natural disaster can actually be a national security threat though as that can in fact damage our capacity to maintain the state. Other internal threats can of course damage our national security. But handgun violence would have to be orders of magnitude worse than it is now to even reasonably be considered a national security threat to any reasonable person
without an underlying agenda.
You have an extremely logorrheic and aggressive way of writing, "I
disagree."
Antonio Veranos
Sep 28, 2012, 3:04:46 PM9/28/12
to
[michael anderson, miande...@gmail.com]
[Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:00:08 -0700 (PDT)]
: > He didn't rob the guy's house, he robbed the guy's neighbor's house.
[Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:00:08 -0700 (PDT)]
: > He didn't rob the guy's house, he robbed the guy's neighbor's house.
:
: which means he is likely coming after mine next......
Drop the pretense, boy. You're not shooting anyone.
: which means he is likely coming after mine next......
timv
Sep 28, 2012, 3:24:02 PM9/28/12
to
Now if you want to argue that handguns are a threat to the national wellbeing or individual security, you're not getting an argument from me. But a threat to national security they most certainly ain't.
T
The Undead Edward M. Kennedy
Sep 28, 2012, 3:26:46 PM9/28/12
to
"xyzzy" <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:9d78854e-8432-4975...@r7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
by death, but you are morally (and in general legally) allowed to
use force as self defense in such situations.
So burglary isn't force, but are you not justified in chasing after
the burglar? And what happens when you catch him? Unless he
surrenders, it is force time.
Just shoot the bastard and save yourself the chase.
<2. Even if it was, it's not your place to administer it.
Once he gets away, he's the problem of some LEA.
--Tedward
Antonio Veranos
Sep 28, 2012, 3:45:00 PM9/28/12
to
[timv, timv...@gmail.com]
[Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:24:02 -0700 (PDT)]
: > : A natural disaster can actually be a national security threat though as that can in fact damage our capacity to maintain the state. Other internal threats can of course damage our national security. But handgun violence would have to be orders of magnitude worse than it is now to even reasonably be considered a national security threat to any reasonable person
: >
: > without an underlying agenda.
: >
: > You have an extremely logorrheic and aggressive way of writing, "I
: > disagree."
:
: I wouldn't be very good at my job if my tendency was not to educate but to merely state that I disagreed with something and then walked away. And while you might think this is a matter of opinion, it is still absurd.
If you think you're participating on RSFC in the role of educator, I
would suggest to you that you should climb on down from that horse, sir.
: Now if you want to argue that handguns are a threat to the national wellbeing or individual security, you're not getting an argument from me. But a threat to national security they most certainly ain't.
There's much debate on the term, but I was referring to the overall
well-being of the state/people/society, as I think was very obvious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security
Handguns are a serious threat, and the situation requires a serious
response from the government. The "I'm-a-GETMINE!" portion of our
culture is never going to allow a mature response from our society.
[Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:24:02 -0700 (PDT)]
: > : A natural disaster can actually be a national security threat though as that can in fact damage our capacity to maintain the state. Other internal threats can of course damage our national security. But handgun violence would have to be orders of magnitude worse than it is now to even reasonably be considered a national security threat to any reasonable person
: >
: > without an underlying agenda.
: >
: > You have an extremely logorrheic and aggressive way of writing, "I
: > disagree."
:
: I wouldn't be very good at my job if my tendency was not to educate but to merely state that I disagreed with something and then walked away. And while you might think this is a matter of opinion, it is still absurd.
would suggest to you that you should climb on down from that horse, sir.
: Now if you want to argue that handguns are a threat to the national wellbeing or individual security, you're not getting an argument from me. But a threat to national security they most certainly ain't.
There's much debate on the term, but I was referring to the overall
well-being of the state/people/society, as I think was very obvious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security
Handguns are a serious threat, and the situation requires a serious
response from the government. The "I'm-a-GETMINE!" portion of our
culture is never going to allow a mature response from our society.
NapalmHeart
Sep 28, 2012, 3:49:44 PM9/28/12
to
"Michael" <michael...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e3368013-2d27-45be...@googlegroups.com...
If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go outside with
your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a shoot-to-kill situation? It just
seems to me you shoot in the air and scare the guy away or something. It's
not worth the man's life. What say ye?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/28/connecticut-father-kills-masked-intruder-learns-it-his-son/?test=latestnews
Mike
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
seems to me you shoot in the air and scare the guy away or something. It's
not worth the man's life. What say ye?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/28/connecticut-father-kills-masked-intruder-learns-it-his-son/?test=latestnews
Mike
It depends on the law in the particular state.
Ken
meda...@gmail.com
Sep 28, 2012, 3:56:18 PM9/28/12
to
J. Hugh Sullivan
Sep 28, 2012, 4:02:53 PM9/28/12
to
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 07:16:12 -0700 (PDT), Michael
<michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
>If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go outside wit=
>h your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a shoot-to-kill situation? It j=
>ust seems to me you shoot in the air and scare the guy away or something. I=
>er-learns-it-his-son/?test=3Dlatestnews
>
>Mike
Forty years ago you might have fired into the ground - never into the
air. Or as I did just tell them I have a gun - come out where I can
see you.
Nowadays with drugs so prevalent I would shoot the guy and then learn
his purpose. If he is wearing a mask I would shoot to kill. And he
would be found with a gun in his hand.
Hugh
<michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
>If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go outside wit=
>h your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a shoot-to-kill situation? It j=
>ust seems to me you shoot in the air and scare the guy away or something. I=
>t's not worth the man's life. What say ye?
>
>http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/28/connecticut-father-kills-masked-intrud=
>
>er-learns-it-his-son/?test=3Dlatestnews
>
>Mike
Forty years ago you might have fired into the ground - never into the
air. Or as I did just tell them I have a gun - come out where I can
see you.
Nowadays with drugs so prevalent I would shoot the guy and then learn
his purpose. If he is wearing a mask I would shoot to kill. And he
would be found with a gun in his hand.
Hugh
WrongWayWade
Sep 28, 2012, 4:08:26 PM9/28/12
to
Factoid: "Approximately 6,500 homicides were committed using handguns in
1999; since there were roughly 70 million handguns, the chance of any
particular gun being used in a homicide is very low.""
Any attempt to ameliorate homicide by rounding up guns is doomed to failure.
If the above were strictly proportional and there was some sort of cause and
effect between the EXISTENCE of guns and homicide, you'd have to sieze
11,000 guns to prevent one murder. And it would be far more pointless than
that, as those with a penchant for homicide would be the last ones to turn
in their guns.
The notion of handguns owned by private citizens having anything to do with
'national security' is also pretty dumb. I mean it's basically just the
opposite. Haven't you seen 'Red Dawn'??
Futbol Phan
Sep 28, 2012, 4:09:34 PM9/28/12
to
I don't know how that wouldn't be considered a threat to our security.
I feel a hell of a lot more threatened by this than I ever did by Sadaam Hussein.
J. Hugh Sullivan
Sep 28, 2012, 7:22:54 PM9/28/12
to
level for years. That reminds me - I need to buy a box of AK-47 ammo.
And it wouldn't work anyhow - too many places to hide them.
Hugh
meda...@gmail.com
Sep 28, 2012, 7:48:38 PM9/28/12
to
Jim Brown
Sep 28, 2012, 10:04:15 PM9/28/12
to
folks each year.
Antonio Veranos
Sep 28, 2012, 10:48:28 PM9/28/12
to
[Jim Brown, jimbr...@yahoo.com]
[Fri, 28 Sep 2012 19:04:15 -0700 (PDT)]
: > No, but we should license them and regulate their use. Oh wait, we
There is no legitimate need for a civilian to own a handgun.
[Fri, 28 Sep 2012 19:04:15 -0700 (PDT)]
: > No, but we should license them and regulate their use. Oh wait, we
: > do.
: As we do with guns. I guess its all good then...'cept for those 48000
: folks each year.
The comparison isn't quite that direct.
: As we do with guns. I guess its all good then...'cept for those 48000
: folks each year.
There is no legitimate need for a civilian to own a handgun.
Jim Brown
Sep 28, 2012, 11:18:27 PM9/28/12
to
On Sep 28, 9:48 pm, Antonio Veranos <summerstorm0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [Jim Brown, jimbrown...@yahoo.com]
Self defense is a legitimate need. As is peace of mind. As is
enjoyment of ownership and use. And, oh yeah...that pesky 2nd
amendment.
> [Jim Brown, jimbrown...@yahoo.com]
enjoyment of ownership and use. And, oh yeah...that pesky 2nd
amendment.
Eric Ramon
Sep 28, 2012, 11:49:21 PM9/28/12
to
On Sep 28, 4:48 pm, medav...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 28, 2012 7:22:12 PM UTC-4, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 19:09:39 +0100, Antonio Veranos
>
> > <summerstorm0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Friday, September 28, 2012 7:22:12 PM UTC-4, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 19:09:39 +0100, Antonio Veranos
>
>
> > >[xyzzy, xyzzy.d...@gmail.com]
>
> > >[Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:56:26 -0700 (PDT)]
>
> > >: Well, two points:
>
> > >:
>
> > >: !. the penalty for burglary is not death
>
> > >: 2. even if it was, it's not your place to administer it.
>
> > >Handguns should be outlawed in the United States. They're a threat to
>
> > >our national security, and they must be stripped away, period, end of.
>
> > That would result in enough people being killed to increase the 8,000
>
> > level for years. That reminds me - I need to buy a box of AK-47 ammo.
>
> > And it wouldn't work anyhow - too many places to hide them.
>
> > Hugh
>
> I don't know what the solution is, but it needs to preclude racist mid-80s fucks from having AK-47s. Not that you do. Your dreamworld in which you are a WW2 vet, successful businessman is fascinating. Tell us more about your days as an eagle scout. I've never actually met anyone who peaked in the mid 40s. That you are allowed to even have a conversation with a real combat veteran like Slick demonstrates the democracy of the internet. You're slime.
that's what I've been trying to say but you said it much better.
> > >[Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:56:26 -0700 (PDT)]
>
> > >: Well, two points:
>
> > >:
>
> > >: !. the penalty for burglary is not death
>
> > >: 2. even if it was, it's not your place to administer it.
>
> > >Handguns should be outlawed in the United States. They're a threat to
>
> > >our national security, and they must be stripped away, period, end of.
>
> > That would result in enough people being killed to increase the 8,000
>
> > level for years. That reminds me - I need to buy a box of AK-47 ammo.
>
> > And it wouldn't work anyhow - too many places to hide them.
>
> > Hugh
>
> I don't know what the solution is, but it needs to preclude racist mid-80s fucks from having AK-47s. Not that you do. Your dreamworld in which you are a WW2 vet, successful businessman is fascinating. Tell us more about your days as an eagle scout. I've never actually met anyone who peaked in the mid 40s. That you are allowed to even have a conversation with a real combat veteran like Slick demonstrates the democracy of the internet. You're slime.
Antonio Veranos
Sep 29, 2012, 12:01:44 AM9/29/12
to
[Jim Brown, jimbr...@yahoo.com]
[Fri, 28 Sep 2012 20:18:27 -0700 (PDT)]
Drop the snark. The 2nd Amendment isn't a need, nor is the enjoyment of
ownership and use. Self-defense can be accomplished by other means.
[Fri, 28 Sep 2012 20:18:27 -0700 (PDT)]
ownership and use. Self-defense can be accomplished by other means.
Wolfie
Sep 29, 2012, 12:27:04 AM9/29/12
to
"Jim Brown" wrote in message
news:923d380d-4291-459f...@l32g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 28, 9:48 pm, Antonio Veranos wrote:
>> There is no legitimate need for a civilian to own a handgun.
> Self defense is a legitimate need. As is peace of mind. As is
> enjoyment of ownership and use. And, oh yeah...that pesky 2nd
> amendment.
The 2nd doesn't mention "handguns." It's
also highly doubtful the founders would have
been thinking of handguns; they would
have been thinking of long guns. That whole
"militia" part, you know.
news:923d380d-4291-459f...@l32g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 28, 9:48 pm, Antonio Veranos wrote:
>> There is no legitimate need for a civilian to own a handgun.
> Self defense is a legitimate need. As is peace of mind. As is
> enjoyment of ownership and use. And, oh yeah...that pesky 2nd
> amendment.
also highly doubtful the founders would have
been thinking of handguns; they would
have been thinking of long guns. That whole
"militia" part, you know.
Jim Brown
Sep 29, 2012, 12:51:46 AM9/29/12
to
ends. Of course Alexander Hamilton might agree with you posthumously,
though he didn't appear to in life.
Jim Brown
Sep 29, 2012, 12:52:46 AM9/29/12
to
On Sep 28, 11:01 pm, Antonio Veranos <summerstorm0...@yahoo.com>
willing to give yours up...
wrote:
> [Jim Brown, jimbrown...@yahoo.com]
> [Fri, 28 Sep 2012 20:18:27 -0700 (PDT)]
>
> : On Sep 28, 9:48 pm, Antonio Veranos <summerstorm0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : > [Jim Brown, jimbrown...@yahoo.com]
> : > [Fri, 28 Sep 2012 19:04:15 -0700 (PDT)]
> : >
> : > : > No, but we should license them and regulate their use. Oh wait, we
> : > : > do.
> : >
> : > : As we do with guns. I guess its all good then...'cept for those 48000
> : > : folks each year.
> : >
> : > The comparison isn't quite that direct.
> : >
> : > There is no legitimate need for a civilian to own a handgun.
>
> : Self defense is a legitimate need. As is peace of mind. As is
> : enjoyment of ownership and use. And, oh yeah...that pesky 2nd
> : amendment.
>
> Drop the snark. The 2nd Amendment isn't a need, nor is the enjoyment of
> ownership and use. Self-defense can be accomplished by other means.
Retaining our full rights IS a need AFAIC. I'm sorry you are so
> [Jim Brown, jimbrown...@yahoo.com]
> [Fri, 28 Sep 2012 20:18:27 -0700 (PDT)]
>
> : On Sep 28, 9:48 pm, Antonio Veranos <summerstorm0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : > [Jim Brown, jimbrown...@yahoo.com]
> : > [Fri, 28 Sep 2012 19:04:15 -0700 (PDT)]
> : >
> : > : > No, but we should license them and regulate their use. Oh wait, we
> : > : > do.
> : >
> : > : As we do with guns. I guess its all good then...'cept for those 48000
> : > : folks each year.
> : >
> : > The comparison isn't quite that direct.
> : >
> : > There is no legitimate need for a civilian to own a handgun.
>
> : Self defense is a legitimate need. As is peace of mind. As is
> : enjoyment of ownership and use. And, oh yeah...that pesky 2nd
> : amendment.
>
> Drop the snark. The 2nd Amendment isn't a need, nor is the enjoyment of
> ownership and use. Self-defense can be accomplished by other means.
willing to give yours up...
Antonio Veranos
Sep 29, 2012, 7:39:31 AM9/29/12
to
[Jim Brown, jimbr...@yahoo.com]
[Fri, 28 Sep 2012 21:52:46 -0700 (PDT)]
: > : Self defense is a legitimate need. As is peace of mind. As is
Until then...
[Fri, 28 Sep 2012 21:52:46 -0700 (PDT)]
: > : Self defense is a legitimate need. As is peace of mind. As is
: > : enjoyment of ownership and use. And, oh yeah...that pesky 2nd
: > : amendment.
: >
: > Drop the snark. The 2nd Amendment isn't a need, nor is the enjoyment of
: > ownership and use. Self-defense can be accomplished by other means.
:
:
:
:
: Retaining our full rights IS a need AFAIC. I'm sorry you are so
: willing to give yours up...
Let me know when you're interested in discussing like an adult.
: > : amendment.
: >
: > Drop the snark. The 2nd Amendment isn't a need, nor is the enjoyment of
: > ownership and use. Self-defense can be accomplished by other means.
:
:
:
:
: Retaining our full rights IS a need AFAIC. I'm sorry you are so
: willing to give yours up...
Until then...
Your smrat ®
Sep 29, 2012, 9:33:58 AM9/29/12
to
On Sep 28, 10:48 pm, Antonio Veranos <summerstorm0...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> There is no legitimate need for a civilian to own a handgun.
What you really mean of course is that you personally don't like guns,
therefore no one should have one. Because there's no "legitimate need"
for lots of things - ottomans, Wi-Fi, motorcycles, rutabagas, X boxes,
treadmills, cigarettes, whiskey, midget pRon - many of which are more
dangerous and insidious than handguns, and you don't want to deprive
other people of the right to enjoy those. There's a legitimate need
for shelter, food, and water; everything else is a luxury and a
preference. Insufferable narcissists such as yourself like to pretend
that the things that they enjoy are somehow necessary and legitimate
and the things of which they disapprove are evil and dangerous – oh my
god look out there’s a 64 ounce soda behind you! - but that's just the
usual libtard MO: people who disagree with me are dumb and evil,
therefore I are smrat and virtuous. It absolves you of having to
reason, which is why you find inane platitudes like "there is no
legitimate need for X " compelling.
wrote:
> There is no legitimate need for a civilian to own a handgun.
therefore no one should have one. Because there's no "legitimate need"
for lots of things - ottomans, Wi-Fi, motorcycles, rutabagas, X boxes,
treadmills, cigarettes, whiskey, midget pRon - many of which are more
dangerous and insidious than handguns, and you don't want to deprive
other people of the right to enjoy those. There's a legitimate need
for shelter, food, and water; everything else is a luxury and a
preference. Insufferable narcissists such as yourself like to pretend
that the things that they enjoy are somehow necessary and legitimate
and the things of which they disapprove are evil and dangerous – oh my
god look out there’s a 64 ounce soda behind you! - but that's just the
usual libtard MO: people who disagree with me are dumb and evil,
therefore I are smrat and virtuous. It absolves you of having to
reason, which is why you find inane platitudes like "there is no
legitimate need for X " compelling.
Antonio Veranos
Sep 29, 2012, 9:45:53 AM9/29/12
to
[Your smrat ®, your...@gmail.com]
[Sat, 29 Sep 2012 06:33:58 -0700 (PDT)]
: > There is no legitimate need for a civilian to own a handgun.
:
: What you really mean of course is that you personally don't like guns,
: therefore no one should have one.
No, I wrote what I really mean. As it happens, I'm quite fond of guns
personally and am an expert shot with most that I've ever held.
The immediate dispensation of murder with such portability is a huge
problem, and will remain a huge problem until we mature as a species.
[Sat, 29 Sep 2012 06:33:58 -0700 (PDT)]
: > There is no legitimate need for a civilian to own a handgun.
:
: What you really mean of course is that you personally don't like guns,
: therefore no one should have one.
personally and am an expert shot with most that I've ever held.
The immediate dispensation of murder with such portability is a huge
problem, and will remain a huge problem until we mature as a species.
Jim Brown
Sep 29, 2012, 9:49:22 AM9/29/12
to
On Sep 29, 6:39 am, Antonio Veranos <summerstorm0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [Jim Brown, jimbrown...@yahoo.com]
> [Jim Brown, jimbrown...@yahoo.com]
Kyle T. Jones
Sep 29, 2012, 10:22:34 AM9/29/12
to
On 9/28/12 9:16 AM, Michael wrote:
> If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a shoot-to-kill situation? It just seems to me you shoot in the air and scare the guy away or something. It's not worth the man's life. What say ye?
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/28/connecticut-father-kills-masked-intruder-learns-it-his-son/?test=latestnews
>
> Mike
Had mixed feelings about this - on the one hand, totally empathetic and
feel just awful for the Dad here.
OTOH, without knowing many details, it seems likely that his trigger
finger was pretty itchy in that he apparently didn't even give the
masked man a chance to identify himself as his son before shooting him.
Cheers.
--
Too bad. Read the manual. If this stuff were easy
we would not get the big bucks. -- Michael Press, June 1st 2012
> If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a shoot-to-kill situation? It just seems to me you shoot in the air and scare the guy away or something. It's not worth the man's life. What say ye?
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/28/connecticut-father-kills-masked-intruder-learns-it-his-son/?test=latestnews
>
> Mike
Had mixed feelings about this - on the one hand, totally empathetic and
feel just awful for the Dad here.
OTOH, without knowing many details, it seems likely that his trigger
finger was pretty itchy in that he apparently didn't even give the
masked man a chance to identify himself as his son before shooting him.
Cheers.
--
Too bad. Read the manual. If this stuff were easy
we would not get the big bucks. -- Michael Press, June 1st 2012
xyzzy
Sep 29, 2012, 10:23:38 AM9/29/12
to
On Sep 29, 10:22 am, "Kyle T. Jones"
<onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
> On 9/28/12 9:16 AM, Michael wrote:
>
> > If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a shoot-to-kill situation? It just seems to me you shoot in the air and scare the guy away or something. It's not worth the man's life. What say ye?
>
> >http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/28/connecticut-father-kills-masked-...
> On 9/28/12 9:16 AM, Michael wrote:
>
> > If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a shoot-to-kill situation? It just seems to me you shoot in the air and scare the guy away or something. It's not worth the man's life. What say ye?
>
>
> > Mike
>
> Had mixed feelings about this - on the one hand, totally empathetic and
> feel just awful for the Dad here.
>
> OTOH, without knowing many details, it seems likely that his trigger
> finger was pretty itchy in that he apparently didn't even give the
> masked man a chance to identify himself as his son before shooting him.
A wannabe George Zimmerman.
> > Mike
>
> Had mixed feelings about this - on the one hand, totally empathetic and
> feel just awful for the Dad here.
>
> OTOH, without knowing many details, it seems likely that his trigger
> finger was pretty itchy in that he apparently didn't even give the
> masked man a chance to identify himself as his son before shooting him.
Kyle T. Jones
Sep 29, 2012, 10:25:52 AM9/29/12
to
On 9/28/12 1:47 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2012/09/25/california-legalizes-self-driving-cars/
> On Sep 28, 1:36 pm, Futbol Phan<sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, September 28, 2012 1:16:25 PM UTC-5, timv wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 28, 2012 1:09:42 PM UTC-5, Antonio Veranos wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, September 28, 2012 1:16:25 PM UTC-5, timv wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 28, 2012 1:09:42 PM UTC-5, Antonio Veranos wrote:
>>
>>>> Handguns should be outlawed in the United States. They're a threat to
>>
>>>> our national security, and they must be stripped away, period, end of.
>>
>>
>>>> our national security, and they must be stripped away, period, end of.
>>
>>> Hand guns are not a threat to national security. That's absurd.
>>
>> The 8000 or so people who die in handgun homicides each year in the US would probably disagree with you, but they're dead so we'll never know.
>
>
>
> Should we outlaw cars because of the 40,000 or so who die in accidents
> each year?
No, we should just make them self-driving:
>>
>> The 8000 or so people who die in handgun homicides each year in the US would probably disagree with you, but they're dead so we'll never know.
>
>
>
> Should we outlaw cars because of the 40,000 or so who die in accidents
> each year?
http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2012/09/25/california-legalizes-self-driving-cars/
xyzzy
Sep 29, 2012, 10:34:43 AM9/29/12
to
On Sep 29, 10:25 am, "Kyle T. Jones"
>
> Cheers.
They'll pull my stick shift out of my cold, dead hands.
<onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
> On 9/28/12 1:47 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 28, 1:36 pm, Futbol Phan<sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Friday, September 28, 2012 1:16:25 PM UTC-5, timv wrote:
> >>> On Friday, September 28, 2012 1:09:42 PM UTC-5, Antonio Veranos wrote:
>
> >>>> Handguns should be outlawed in the United States. They're a threat to
>
> >>>> our national security, and they must be stripped away, period, end of.
>
> >>> Hand guns are not a threat to national security. That's absurd.
>
> >> The 8000 or so people who die in handgun homicides each year in the US would probably disagree with you, but they're dead so we'll never know.
>
> > Should we outlaw cars because of the 40,000 or so who die in accidents
> > each year?
>
> No, we should just make them self-driving:
>
> http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2012/09/25/california-legalizes-sel...
> On 9/28/12 1:47 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 28, 1:36 pm, Futbol Phan<sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Friday, September 28, 2012 1:16:25 PM UTC-5, timv wrote:
> >>> On Friday, September 28, 2012 1:09:42 PM UTC-5, Antonio Veranos wrote:
>
> >>>> Handguns should be outlawed in the United States. They're a threat to
>
> >>>> our national security, and they must be stripped away, period, end of.
>
> >>> Hand guns are not a threat to national security. That's absurd.
>
> >> The 8000 or so people who die in handgun homicides each year in the US would probably disagree with you, but they're dead so we'll never know.
>
> > Should we outlaw cars because of the 40,000 or so who die in accidents
> > each year?
>
> No, we should just make them self-driving:
>
>
> Cheers.
They'll pull my stick shift out of my cold, dead hands.
Kyle T. Jones
Sep 29, 2012, 10:34:48 AM9/29/12
to
On 9/28/12 1:17 PM, The Undead Edward M. Kennedy wrote:
> "xyzzy"<xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>
This is why the Taliban makes with the cutting off of the hand ($1 to
Teh Office).
I think we should hang folks on their first drunk driving offense,
personally - those guys are much more likely to kill my wife/son, which
is the only meaningful part of my life that's irreplaceable.
If drunks don't like it, they can stop drinking.
> "xyzzy"<xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>> If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a
>>> shoot-to-kill situation?
>>
>>> If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a
>>> shoot-to-kill situation?
>>
>> absolutely....it's a ridiculous question.
>
> Did you read the article?
>
> I say shoot him if he is threatening you or the neighbor. If he's
> fleeing, then no.
>
>
> Did you read the article?
>
> I say shoot him if he is threatening you or the neighbor. If he's
> fleeing, then no.
>
> We had a case in Durham almost 20 years ago in which a homeowner shot
> a boy who was stealing from his garage. In the back. I still can't
> believe he got off.
>
> -----
>
> Jury nullificaton, though of course the jury couldn't call it that.
> I was mixed over whether or not he should have been convicted,
> though letter of the law says he should have been. But in the
> heat of the moment -- he opened the door and there was a
> bunch of kids stealing his stuff -- who's to say what would
> they would do if they had a gun in that situation?
>
> Plus I disagree with the law. I *should* be able to shoot some
> punk absconding with my property. If criminals don't like it
> they can stop stealing.
>
> --Tedward
> a boy who was stealing from his garage. In the back. I still can't
> believe he got off.
>
> -----
>
> Jury nullificaton, though of course the jury couldn't call it that.
> I was mixed over whether or not he should have been convicted,
> though letter of the law says he should have been. But in the
> heat of the moment -- he opened the door and there was a
> bunch of kids stealing his stuff -- who's to say what would
> they would do if they had a gun in that situation?
>
> Plus I disagree with the law. I *should* be able to shoot some
> punk absconding with my property. If criminals don't like it
> they can stop stealing.
>
>
>
This is why the Taliban makes with the cutting off of the hand ($1 to
Teh Office).
I think we should hang folks on their first drunk driving offense,
personally - those guys are much more likely to kill my wife/son, which
is the only meaningful part of my life that's irreplaceable.
If drunks don't like it, they can stop drinking.
Kyle T. Jones
Sep 29, 2012, 10:36:37 AM9/29/12
to
Kyle T. Jones
Sep 29, 2012, 10:39:06 AM9/29/12
to
ground law and how that encourages vigilantism.
Antonio Veranos
Sep 29, 2012, 10:40:24 AM9/29/12
to
[xyzzy, xyzzy...@gmail.com]
[Sat, 29 Sep 2012 07:34:43 -0700 (PDT)]
: They'll pull my stick shift out of my cold, dead hands.
Eventually, companies will simply stop making them.
[Sat, 29 Sep 2012 07:34:43 -0700 (PDT)]
: They'll pull my stick shift out of my cold, dead hands.
Eventually, companies will simply stop making them.
Kyle T. Jones
Sep 29, 2012, 11:26:08 AM9/29/12
to
becomes a *lot* easier if you disallow manual driving). I liked the
idea of being dropped off at the front door when you go to work and
having the car drive itself either to park somewhere or back home.
Could actually become a one-car family.
J. Hugh Sullivan
Sep 29, 2012, 11:32:25 AM9/29/12
to
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 16:48:38 -0700 (PDT), meda...@gmail.com wrote:
>I don't know what the solution is, but it needs to preclude racist mid-80s =
have absolutely no other reason for owning one.
>Your dreamworld in which you are=
> a WW2 vet, successful businessman is fascinating. Tell us more about your =
>days as an eagle scout. I've never actually met anyone who peaked in the mi=
>d 40s.
Some people are just unlucky - your parents come to mind.
>That you are allowed to even have a conversation with a real combat =
>veteran like Slick demonstrates the democracy of the internet. You're slime=
Please reply on Tuesday nights so I can take you out with the rest of
the trash on Wednesday morning.
Hugh
>I don't know what the solution is, but it needs to preclude racist mid-80s =
>fucks from having AK-47s. Not that you do.
I do - solely because they were about to say I couldn't own one. I
have absolutely no other reason for owning one.
>Your dreamworld in which you are=
> a WW2 vet, successful businessman is fascinating. Tell us more about your =
>days as an eagle scout. I've never actually met anyone who peaked in the mi=
>d 40s.
Some people are just unlucky - your parents come to mind.
>That you are allowed to even have a conversation with a real combat =
>veteran like Slick demonstrates the democracy of the internet. You're slime=
Please reply on Tuesday nights so I can take you out with the rest of
the trash on Wednesday morning.
Hugh
NapalmHeart
Sep 29, 2012, 9:54:34 PM9/29/12
to
"Antonio Veranos" <summers...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2acff841a...@news-europe.giganews.com...
> [xyzzy, xyzzy...@gmail.com]
> [Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:56:26 -0700 (PDT)]
>
> : Well, two points:
> :
> : !. the penalty for burglary is not death
> : 2. even if it was, it's not your place to administer it.
>
>
> : Well, two points:
> :
> : !. the penalty for burglary is not death
> : 2. even if it was, it's not your place to administer it.
>
> Handguns should be outlawed in the United States. They're a threat to
> our national security, and they must be stripped away, period, end of.
If there are ever such laws passed in my state I know a lot of people that
> our national security, and they must be stripped away, period, end of.
will suddenly become outlaws.
NapalmHeart
Sep 29, 2012, 9:58:25 PM9/29/12
to
"timv" <timv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aac48b89-34cd-4352...@googlegroups.com...
> On Friday, September 28, 2012 1:09:42 PM UTC-5, Antonio Veranos wrote:
>>
>>
>> Handguns should be outlawed in the United States. They're a threat to
>> our national security, and they must be stripped away, period, end of.
>
>> our national security, and they must be stripped away, period, end of.
>
> Hand guns are not a threat to national security. That's absurd.
>
> T
I know that none of mine are a threat to anyone that isn't threatening me or
>
> T
my family.
NapalmHeart
Sep 29, 2012, 10:01:56 PM9/29/12
to
news:MPG.2ad00e8fc...@news-europe.giganews.com...
> [timv, timv...@gmail.com]
> [Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:24:02 -0700 (PDT)]
>
> : > : A natural disaster can actually be a national security threat though
> as that can in fact damage our capacity to maintain the state. Other
> internal threats can of course damage our national security. But handgun
> violence would have to be orders of magnitude worse than it is now to even
> reasonably be considered a national security threat to any reasonable
> person
> : >
> : > without an underlying agenda.
> : >
> : > You have an extremely logorrheic and aggressive way of writing, "I
> : > disagree."
> :
> : I wouldn't be very good at my job if my tendency was not to educate but
> to merely state that I disagreed with something and then walked away. And
> while you might think this is a matter of opinion, it is still absurd.
>
> If you think you're participating on RSFC in the role of educator, I
> would suggest to you that you should climb on down from that horse, sir.
>
> : Now if you want to argue that handguns are a threat to the national
> wellbeing or individual security, you're not getting an argument from me.
> But a threat to national security they most certainly ain't.
>
> There's much debate on the term, but I was referring to the overall
> well-being of the state/people/society, as I think was very obvious.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security
>
> Handguns are a serious threat, and the situation requires a serious
> response from the government. The "I'm-a-GETMINE!" portion of our
> culture is never going to allow a mature response from our society.
>
>
I've met thousands of criminals over the last 25 years that have said they
wish there were more gun control laws. They don't like armed victims.
> [timv, timv...@gmail.com]
> [Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:24:02 -0700 (PDT)]
>
> : > : A natural disaster can actually be a national security threat though
> as that can in fact damage our capacity to maintain the state. Other
> internal threats can of course damage our national security. But handgun
> violence would have to be orders of magnitude worse than it is now to even
> reasonably be considered a national security threat to any reasonable
> person
> : >
> : > without an underlying agenda.
> : >
> : > You have an extremely logorrheic and aggressive way of writing, "I
> : > disagree."
> :
> : I wouldn't be very good at my job if my tendency was not to educate but
> to merely state that I disagreed with something and then walked away. And
> while you might think this is a matter of opinion, it is still absurd.
>
> If you think you're participating on RSFC in the role of educator, I
> would suggest to you that you should climb on down from that horse, sir.
>
> : Now if you want to argue that handguns are a threat to the national
> wellbeing or individual security, you're not getting an argument from me.
> But a threat to national security they most certainly ain't.
>
> There's much debate on the term, but I was referring to the overall
> well-being of the state/people/society, as I think was very obvious.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security
>
> Handguns are a serious threat, and the situation requires a serious
> response from the government. The "I'm-a-GETMINE!" portion of our
> culture is never going to allow a mature response from our society.
>
>
I've met thousands of criminals over the last 25 years that have said they
wish there were more gun control laws. They don't like armed victims.
NapalmHeart
Sep 29, 2012, 10:07:35 PM9/29/12
to
"Jim Brown" <jimbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5d1fb77a-499c-48ec...@h4g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Those who would disarm us will never be convinced their position is
incorrect. There are far more people alive in the USA because they had
ready access to a firearm than are killed by firearms. Criminals by
definition don't care about the law. It's already against the law in the
USA for people that have been convicted of violent felonies (AFAIK) to
possess firearms. That doesn't stop many of them from doing so.
NapalmHeart
Sep 29, 2012, 10:13:11 PM9/29/12
to
news:MPG.2ad10bed3...@news-europe.giganews.com...
> [Your smrat Ž, your...@gmail.com]
Until then, people need to be able to defend themselves with a reasonable
amount of force as compared to the amount of force that might be used
against them.
> [Your smrat Ž, your...@gmail.com]
amount of force as compared to the amount of force that might be used
against them.
NapalmHeart
Sep 29, 2012, 10:16:09 PM9/29/12
to
news:MPG.2ad118b72...@news-europe.giganews.com...
There are plenty of companies that make manual transmissions for the
aftermarket.
aftermarket.
NapalmHeart
Sep 29, 2012, 10:21:25 PM9/29/12
to
"michael anderson" <miande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b43c1d02-ef57-4e28...@w3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 28, 12:56 pm, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 1:00 pm, michael anderson <mianderso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Friday, September 28, 2012 11:49:57 AM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
> > > On Sep 28, 12:17 pm, michael anderson <mianderso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Friday, September 28, 2012 11:03:33 AM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 28, 10:28 am, michael anderson <mianderso...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:16:13 AM UTC-5, Michael wrote:
>
> > > > > > > If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you
> > > > > > > go outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a
> > > > > > > shoot-to-kill situation?
>
> > > > > > On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:16:13 AM UTC-5, Michael wrote:
>
> > > > > > > If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you
> > > > > > > go outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a
> > > > > > > shoot-to-kill situation?
>
> > > > > > absolutely....it's a ridiculous question.
>
> > > > > Did you read the article?
>
> > > > > I say shoot him if he is threatening you or the neighbor.
>
> > > > If he's
>
> > > > > fleeing, then no.
>
> > > > ummm, well for starters, I don't know what he is fleeing with.
>
> > > > > Did you read the article?
>
> > > > > I say shoot him if he is threatening you or the neighbor.
>
> > > > If he's
>
> > > > > fleeing, then no.
>
> > > > Second, he's just robbed a house(mine or my neighbors). If I don't
> > > > put him down right there, who is to say he won't come and rob my
> > > > house again? I certainly am not going to put my faith in local law
> > > > enforcement to do the job of catching him.....a large % of home
> > > > invasions never get solved.
>
> > > > now if the criminal wants to surrender right there while I call the
> > > > cops by laying face down on the ground, that's cool too. No need to
> > > > take him down with force. But somehow I doubt he is going to do
> > > > that....you know, being a dangerous criminal and all.
>
> > > Never knew you were such a tough guy.
>
> > > "put him down", "take him down with force"
>
> > > You're a real John Wayne.
>
> > lmfao....hardly. I don't think it requires John Wayne to do something,
> > however, when you see a neighbor fleeing after ransacking your house. I
> > would order him to stop and surrender. If he chooses to not do that, I
> > don't think think there is any other choice that is logical....
>
> Well, two points:
>
> !. the penalty for burglary is not death
it's not a "penalty" I'm administering....Im doing two things-
> Well, two points:
>
> !. the penalty for burglary is not death
protecting my property(which he is likely running off with) now and in
the future(since why the heck wouldnt he rob my house again if Im just
going to stand there and call the police after he is gone?)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In many states, if someone is running away from you shooting them can get
you in deep shit. Make sure you know the laws of the locality you're in at
any given time.
NapalmHeart
Sep 29, 2012, 10:24:34 PM9/29/12
to
"The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote in message
news:k44tln$7ra$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> "xyzzy" <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9d78854e-8432-4975...@r7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 28, 2:17 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote:
>> "xyzzy" <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>> > > If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go
>> > > outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a
>> > > shoot-to-kill situation?
>>
>> > absolutely....it's a ridiculous question.
>>
>> Did you read the article?
>>
>> I say shoot him if he is threatening you or the neighbor. If he's
>> fleeing, then no.
>>
>> > > If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go
>> > > outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a
>> > > shoot-to-kill situation?
>>
>> > absolutely....it's a ridiculous question.
>>
>> Did you read the article?
>>
>> I say shoot him if he is threatening you or the neighbor. If he's
>> fleeing, then no.
>>
>> We had a case in Durham almost 20 years ago in which a homeowner shot
>> a boy who was stealing from his garage. In the back. I still can't
>> believe he got off.
>>
>> -----
>>
>> Jury nullificaton, though of course the jury couldn't call it that.
>> I was mixed over whether or not he should have been convicted,
>> though letter of the law says he should have been. But in the
>> heat of the moment -- he opened the door and there was a
>> bunch of kids stealing his stuff -- who's to say what would
>> they would do if they had a gun in that situation?
>>
>> Plus I disagree with the law. I *should* be able to shoot some
>> punk absconding with my property. If criminals don't like it
>> they can stop stealing.
> <
> <Like I said to Mia:
>> a boy who was stealing from his garage. In the back. I still can't
>> believe he got off.
>>
>> -----
>>
>> Jury nullificaton, though of course the jury couldn't call it that.
>> I was mixed over whether or not he should have been convicted,
>> though letter of the law says he should have been. But in the
>> heat of the moment -- he opened the door and there was a
>> bunch of kids stealing his stuff -- who's to say what would
>> they would do if they had a gun in that situation?
>>
>> Plus I disagree with the law. I *should* be able to shoot some
>> punk absconding with my property. If criminals don't like it
>> they can stop stealing.
> <
> <
> <1. The penalty for burglary is not death
>
> Same for rape. In fact most violent crimes are are not pusihable
> by death, but you are morally (and in general legally) allowed to
> use force as self defense in such situations.
>
> So burglary isn't force, but are you not justified in chasing after
> the burglar? And what happens when you catch him? Unless he
> surrenders, it is force time.
>
> Just shoot the bastard and save yourself the chase.
>
> <2. Even if it was, it's not your place to administer it.
>
> It's my place to shoot someone actively stealing my property.
> Once he gets away, he's the problem of some LEA.
>
> --Tedward
>
Welcome to the jungle, baby! ;*)
Antonio Veranos
Sep 29, 2012, 10:26:34 PM9/29/12
to
[NapalmHeart, kol...@freedomnet.org]
[Sat, 29 Sep 2012 22:01:56 -0400]
: I've met thousands of criminals over the last 25 years that have said they
[Sat, 29 Sep 2012 22:01:56 -0400]
: I've met thousands of criminals over the last 25 years that have said they
: wish there were more gun control laws. They don't like armed victims.
Sorry, but I'm not interested in any herring tonight, Ken.
Antonio Veranos
Sep 29, 2012, 10:28:05 PM9/29/12
to
[NapalmHeart, kol...@freedomnet.org]
[Sat, 29 Sep 2012 22:07:35 -0400]
: Those who would disarm us will never be convinced their position is
bit simply do not get it. All handguns were sold legitimately at one
point... what is so hard to grasp about that? If they're outlawed, then
eventually the supply will dry up. It won't happen overnight.
[Sat, 29 Sep 2012 22:07:35 -0400]
: Those who would disarm us will never be convinced their position is
: incorrect. There are far more people alive in the USA because they had
: ready access to a firearm than are killed by firearms. Criminals by
: definition don't care about the law. It's already against the law in the
: USA for people that have been convicted of violent felonies (AFAIK) to
: possess firearms. That doesn't stop many of them from doing so.
People who keep touting the "...then only outlaws will have handguns"
: ready access to a firearm than are killed by firearms. Criminals by
: definition don't care about the law. It's already against the law in the
: USA for people that have been convicted of violent felonies (AFAIK) to
: possess firearms. That doesn't stop many of them from doing so.
bit simply do not get it. All handguns were sold legitimately at one
point... what is so hard to grasp about that? If they're outlawed, then
eventually the supply will dry up. It won't happen overnight.
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Sep 29, 2012, 10:32:43 PM9/29/12
to
Disculpa Senora Antonio Veranos, pero did you really mime the following
on 9/29/2012 10:28 PM???
Neither here nor there, but coincidentally, I just sent in a $40
donation to the Brady Center.
And it made me happy.
--
Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.
-- Not Benjamin Franklin
on 9/29/2012 10:28 PM???
donation to the Brady Center.
And it made me happy.
--
Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.
-- Not Benjamin Franklin
Antonio Veranos
Sep 29, 2012, 10:42:58 PM9/29/12
to
[Zaphod Beeblebrox, victor...@verizon.net]
[Sat, 29 Sep 2012 22:32:43 -0400]
: Neither here nor there, but coincidentally, I just sent in a $40
URL for any interested: http://www.bradycenter.org/donate/
[Sat, 29 Sep 2012 22:32:43 -0400]
: Neither here nor there, but coincidentally, I just sent in a $40
: donation to the Brady Center.
:
: And it made me happy.
Well done... matched... thanks for the idea.
:
: And it made me happy.
URL for any interested: http://www.bradycenter.org/donate/
NapalmHeart
Sep 29, 2012, 10:46:33 PM9/29/12
to
"WrongWayWade" <rl31...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:k44fb1$8ek$1...@dont-email.me...
> Michael wrote:
>> If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go
>> outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a
>> If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go
>> outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a
>> shoot-to-kill situation? It just seems to me you shoot in the air and
>> scare the guy away or something. It's not worth the man's life. What
>> say ye?
>>
>> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/28/connecticut-father-kills-masked-intruder-learns-it-his-son/?test=latestnews
>> scare the guy away or something. It's not worth the man's life. What
>> say ye?
>>
>>
>
> It sounds like the actual story mimics my fear of using deadly force in
> this situation. Do you REALLY know that this 'intruder' is an intruder
> about to do evil? Scare him away, sure, but shoot to kill? Not enough
> information.
>
>
>
If you aren't sure of your target, you shouldn't be shooting.
NapalmHeart
Sep 29, 2012, 10:51:02 PM9/29/12
to
"Kyle T. Jones" <onexpa...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote in message
news:k47166$u9k$3...@dont-email.me...
Eric Ramon
Sep 29, 2012, 10:51:27 PM9/29/12
to
On Sep 29, 7:46 pm, "NapalmHeart" <kol...@freedomnet.org> wrote:
> "WrongWayWade" <rl3166...@excite.com> wrote in message
stealing anymore!
> "WrongWayWade" <rl3166...@excite.com> wrote in message
>
> news:k44fb1$8ek$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Michael wrote:
> >> If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go
> >> outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a
> >> shoot-to-kill situation? It just seems to me you shoot in the air and
> >> scare the guy away or something. It's not worth the man's life. What
> >> say ye?
>
> >>http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/28/connecticut-father-kills-masked-...
> news:k44fb1$8ek$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Michael wrote:
> >> If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go
> >> outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a
> >> shoot-to-kill situation? It just seems to me you shoot in the air and
> >> scare the guy away or something. It's not worth the man's life. What
> >> say ye?
>
>
> > It sounds like the actual story mimics my fear of using deadly force in
> > this situation. Do you REALLY know that this 'intruder' is an intruder
> > about to do evil? Scare him away, sure, but shoot to kill? Not enough
> > information.
>
> If you aren't sure of your target, you shouldn't be shooting.
well at least this story had a happy ending in that the kid won't be
> > It sounds like the actual story mimics my fear of using deadly force in
> > this situation. Do you REALLY know that this 'intruder' is an intruder
> > about to do evil? Scare him away, sure, but shoot to kill? Not enough
> > information.
>
> If you aren't sure of your target, you shouldn't be shooting.
stealing anymore!
NapalmHeart
Sep 30, 2012, 1:18:26 AM9/30/12
to
news:MPG.2ad1be376...@news-europe.giganews.com...
Not intending to play any games. Just what I've had them tell me time and
again over the years.
again over the years.
NapalmHeart
Sep 30, 2012, 1:27:12 AM9/30/12
to
"Zaphod Beeblebrox" <victor...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:k48b0p$kvj$1...@dont-email.me...
to do so. I also donate to the Wounded Warriors project. Maybe we can find
some common ground there?
--
The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against
arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny, which though now
appears remote in America, history has proven to be always possible." --
Senator Hubert H. Humphrey
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Sep 30, 2012, 1:54:26 AM9/30/12
to
Disculpa Senora NapalmHeart, pero did you really mime the following on
9/30/2012 1:27 AM???
Oh, absolutely.
But I see NO connection between one organization that supports those who
bear arms in support of our country and its principles, and one that
opposes any - and I mean ANY - measure to prevent those who would hurt
our country's principles from bearing arms.
9/30/2012 1:27 AM???
But I see NO connection between one organization that supports those who
bear arms in support of our country and its principles, and one that
opposes any - and I mean ANY - measure to prevent those who would hurt
our country's principles from bearing arms.
NapalmHeart
Sep 30, 2012, 3:41:55 AM9/30/12
to
news:k48mr2$92g$1...@dont-email.me...
Not even trying to make that connection.
Your smrat ®
Sep 30, 2012, 8:11:40 AM9/30/12
to
On Sep 29, 10:28 pm, Antonio Veranos <summerstorm0...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> People who keep touting the "...then only outlaws will have handguns"
> bit simply do not get it. All handguns were sold legitimately at one
> point... what is so hard to grasp about that? If they're outlawed, then
> eventually the supply will dry up. It won't happen overnight.
Exactly. That's why it's so hard to get cocaine, because the US
outlawed it and when the US outlaws something everyone else in the
world stops making it and the supply dries up. You're a fucking
genyious.
wrote:
> People who keep touting the "...then only outlaws will have handguns"
> bit simply do not get it. All handguns were sold legitimately at one
> point... what is so hard to grasp about that? If they're outlawed, then
> eventually the supply will dry up. It won't happen overnight.
outlawed it and when the US outlaws something everyone else in the
world stops making it and the supply dries up. You're a fucking
genyious.
addre...@invalid.invalid
Sep 30, 2012, 8:45:40 AM9/30/12
to
But, as you suggest, it would be easier to import them disguised as routine
shipments of cocaine.
Oh, and don't forget recent advancements in 3-D printing ...
--
GS Rider
Antonio Veranos
Sep 30, 2012, 9:33:03 AM9/30/12
to
[Your smrat ®, your...@gmail.com]
[Sun, 30 Sep 2012 05:11:40 -0700 (PDT)]
: > People who keep touting the "...then only outlaws will have handguns"
: > bit simply do not get it. All handguns were sold legitimately at one
: > point... what is so hard to grasp about that? If they're outlawed, then
: > eventually the supply will dry up. It won't happen overnight.
:
: Exactly. That's why it's so hard to get cocaine, because the US
: outlawed it and when the US outlaws something everyone else in the
: world stops making it and the supply dries up. You're a fucking
: genyious.
You must be a hoot at games with that defeatist attitude of yours.
[Sun, 30 Sep 2012 05:11:40 -0700 (PDT)]
: > People who keep touting the "...then only outlaws will have handguns"
: > bit simply do not get it. All handguns were sold legitimately at one
: > point... what is so hard to grasp about that? If they're outlawed, then
: > eventually the supply will dry up. It won't happen overnight.
:
: Exactly. That's why it's so hard to get cocaine, because the US
: outlawed it and when the US outlaws something everyone else in the
: world stops making it and the supply dries up. You're a fucking
: genyious.
Scott Hendryx
Sep 30, 2012, 10:39:38 AM9/30/12
to
"NapalmHeart" wrote in message news:k48kmp$jv$1...@dont-email.me...
-------------------------------
Slick tends to forget that real life experience trumps an egghead education
and that real life experience require the use of common sense and egghead
educations requires the lack of common sense.
Then again, Slick has always has a selective memory, kinda like that stupid
foam they put on beds.
---Scott From Hawkins Texas---
--East Texas Patriot Guard Rider--
If Government Is Big Enough To Give You Everything You Want,
Then It Is Big Enough To Take Everything You Have!!
Slick tends to forget that real life experience trumps an egghead education
and that real life experience require the use of common sense and egghead
educations requires the lack of common sense.
Then again, Slick has always has a selective memory, kinda like that stupid
foam they put on beds.
---Scott From Hawkins Texas---
--East Texas Patriot Guard Rider--
If Government Is Big Enough To Give You Everything You Want,
Then It Is Big Enough To Take Everything You Have!!
J. Hugh Sullivan
Sep 30, 2012, 10:53:17 AM9/30/12
to
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 05:01:44 +0100, Antonio Veranos
<summers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Drop the snark. The 2nd Amendment isn't a need, nor is the enjoyment of
>ownership and use. Self-defense can be accomplished by other means.
Your PTSD is getting much worse.
<summers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Drop the snark. The 2nd Amendment isn't a need, nor is the enjoyment of
>ownership and use. Self-defense can be accomplished by other means.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
Sep 30, 2012, 10:57:49 AM9/30/12
to
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 12:45:40 +0000 (UTC), <addre...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>Many hobby machinists have made 1911s and the key parts to AR-15s at home.
I knew one who could and know one who can.
And almost anyone can make a Saturday Night Special or an explosive
device.
Hugh
wrote:
>Many hobby machinists have made 1911s and the key parts to AR-15s at home.
And almost anyone can make a Saturday Night Special or an explosive
device.
Hugh
The Undead Edward M. Kennedy
Oct 1, 2012, 10:58:06 AM10/1/12
to
"Kyle T. Jones" <onexpa...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote
>>>> If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a
>>>> shoot-to-kill situation?
>>>
>>
>>
>
> This is why the Taliban makes with the cutting off of the hand ($1 to Teh Office).
I explained why using deadly force is necessary during the *COMMISSION*
of a crime. Equating that to adminsitered justice is *STUPID*.
> I think we should hang folks on their first drunk driving offense, personally - those guys are much more likely to kill my
> wife/son, which is the only meaningful part of my life that's irreplaceable.
>
> If drunks don't like it, they can stop drinking.
And driving. You aren't normally this stupid.
--Tedward
>>>> If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a
>>>> shoot-to-kill situation?
>>>
>>> absolutely....it's a ridiculous question.
>>
>> Did you read the article?
>>
>> I say shoot him if he is threatening you or the neighbor. If he's
>> fleeing, then no.
>>
>> We had a case in Durham almost 20 years ago in which a homeowner shot
>> a boy who was stealing from his garage. In the back. I still can't
>> believe he got off.
>>
>> -----
>>
>> Jury nullificaton, though of course the jury couldn't call it that.
>> I was mixed over whether or not he should have been convicted,
>> though letter of the law says he should have been. But in the
>> heat of the moment -- he opened the door and there was a
>> bunch of kids stealing his stuff -- who's to say what would
>> they would do if they had a gun in that situation?
>>
>> Plus I disagree with the law. I *should* be able to shoot some
>> punk absconding with my property. If criminals don't like it
>> they can stop stealing.
>>
>> --Tedward
>>
>> Did you read the article?
>>
>> I say shoot him if he is threatening you or the neighbor. If he's
>> fleeing, then no.
>>
>> We had a case in Durham almost 20 years ago in which a homeowner shot
>> a boy who was stealing from his garage. In the back. I still can't
>> believe he got off.
>>
>> -----
>>
>> Jury nullificaton, though of course the jury couldn't call it that.
>> I was mixed over whether or not he should have been convicted,
>> though letter of the law says he should have been. But in the
>> heat of the moment -- he opened the door and there was a
>> bunch of kids stealing his stuff -- who's to say what would
>> they would do if they had a gun in that situation?
>>
>> Plus I disagree with the law. I *should* be able to shoot some
>> punk absconding with my property. If criminals don't like it
>> they can stop stealing.
>>
>>
>>
>
> This is why the Taliban makes with the cutting off of the hand ($1 to Teh Office).
I explained why using deadly force is necessary during the *COMMISSION*
of a crime. Equating that to adminsitered justice is *STUPID*.
> I think we should hang folks on their first drunk driving offense, personally - those guys are much more likely to kill my
> wife/son, which is the only meaningful part of my life that's irreplaceable.
>
> If drunks don't like it, they can stop drinking.
And driving. You aren't normally this stupid.
--Tedward
The Undead Edward M. Kennedy
Oct 1, 2012, 11:04:17 AM10/1/12
to
"Your smrat Ž" <your...@gmail.com> wrote
> People who keep touting the "...then only outlaws will have handguns"
> bit simply do not get it. All handguns were sold legitimately at one
> point... what is so hard to grasp about that? If they're outlawed, then
> eventually the supply will dry up. It won't happen overnight.
Exactly. That's why it's so hard to get cocaine, because the US
outlawed it and when the US outlaws something everyone else in the
world stops making it and the supply dries up. You're a fucking
genyious.
-----
Fortunately this outlawing thang does not result in criminal gangs
enriching themselves off the illicit trade. It didn't happen with the
prohibition of alcohol either. In fact, drugs are so dangerous that
the world is a much safer place with the bans in effect. I think I
will go vacation in Tijuana next weekend.
--Tedward
> People who keep touting the "...then only outlaws will have handguns"
> bit simply do not get it. All handguns were sold legitimately at one
> point... what is so hard to grasp about that? If they're outlawed, then
> eventually the supply will dry up. It won't happen overnight.
Exactly. That's why it's so hard to get cocaine, because the US
outlawed it and when the US outlaws something everyone else in the
world stops making it and the supply dries up. You're a fucking
genyious.
Fortunately this outlawing thang does not result in criminal gangs
enriching themselves off the illicit trade. It didn't happen with the
prohibition of alcohol either. In fact, drugs are so dangerous that
the world is a much safer place with the bans in effect. I think I
will go vacation in Tijuana next weekend.
--Tedward
Jim G.
Oct 1, 2012, 3:52:58 PM10/1/12
to
Futbol Phan sent the following on Fri, 28 Sep 2012 11:36:50 -0700 (PDT):
> On Friday, September 28, 2012 1:16:25 PM UTC-5, timv wrote:
> > On Friday, September 28, 2012 1:09:42 PM UTC-5, Antonio Veranos wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Handguns should be outlawed in the United States. They're a threat to
> >
> > > our national security, and they must be stripped away, period, end of.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hand guns are not a threat to national security. That's absurd.
>
> The 8000 or so people who die in handgun homicides each year in the US would probably disagree with you, but they're dead so we'll never know.
So that must mean that cars are a threat to national security, too. Big
Macs, as well. And many other things.
--
Jim G. | A fan of college sports and pro baseball
"One man practicing sportsmanship is far better than 50 preaching it." -- Knute Rockne
> On Friday, September 28, 2012 1:16:25 PM UTC-5, timv wrote:
> > On Friday, September 28, 2012 1:09:42 PM UTC-5, Antonio Veranos wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Handguns should be outlawed in the United States. They're a threat to
> >
> > > our national security, and they must be stripped away, period, end of.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hand guns are not a threat to national security. That's absurd.
>
> The 8000 or so people who die in handgun homicides each year in the US would probably disagree with you, but they're dead so we'll never know.
So that must mean that cars are a threat to national security, too. Big
Macs, as well. And many other things.
--
Jim G. | A fan of college sports and pro baseball
"One man practicing sportsmanship is far better than 50 preaching it." -- Knute Rockne
Jim G.
Oct 1, 2012, 3:52:58 PM10/1/12
to
NapalmHeart sent the following on Sat, 29 Sep 2012 22:01:56 -0400:
> news:MPG.2ad00e8fc...@news-europe.giganews.com...
> > [timv, timv...@gmail.com]
> > [Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:24:02 -0700 (PDT)]
> >
> > : > : A natural disaster can actually be a national security threat though
> > as that can in fact damage our capacity to maintain the state. Other
> > internal threats can of course damage our national security. But handgun
> > violence would have to be orders of magnitude worse than it is now to even
> > reasonably be considered a national security threat to any reasonable
> > person
> > : >
> > : > without an underlying agenda.
> > : >
> > : > You have an extremely logorrheic and aggressive way of writing, "I
> > : > disagree."
> > :
> > : I wouldn't be very good at my job if my tendency was not to educate but
> > to merely state that I disagreed with something and then walked away. And
> > while you might think this is a matter of opinion, it is still absurd.
> >
> > If you think you're participating on RSFC in the role of educator, I
> > would suggest to you that you should climb on down from that horse, sir.
> >
> > : Now if you want to argue that handguns are a threat to the national
> > wellbeing or individual security, you're not getting an argument from me.
> > But a threat to national security they most certainly ain't.
> >
> > There's much debate on the term, but I was referring to the overall
> > well-being of the state/people/society, as I think was very obvious.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security
> >
> > Handguns are a serious threat, and the situation requires a serious
> > response from the government. The "I'm-a-GETMINE!" portion of our
> > culture is never going to allow a mature response from our society.
including criminals, right? What could possibly go wrong with that
approach?
> news:MPG.2ad00e8fc...@news-europe.giganews.com...
> > [timv, timv...@gmail.com]
> > [Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:24:02 -0700 (PDT)]
> >
> > : > : A natural disaster can actually be a national security threat though
> > as that can in fact damage our capacity to maintain the state. Other
> > internal threats can of course damage our national security. But handgun
> > violence would have to be orders of magnitude worse than it is now to even
> > reasonably be considered a national security threat to any reasonable
> > person
> > : >
> > : > without an underlying agenda.
> > : >
> > : > You have an extremely logorrheic and aggressive way of writing, "I
> > : > disagree."
> > :
> > : I wouldn't be very good at my job if my tendency was not to educate but
> > to merely state that I disagreed with something and then walked away. And
> > while you might think this is a matter of opinion, it is still absurd.
> >
> > If you think you're participating on RSFC in the role of educator, I
> > would suggest to you that you should climb on down from that horse, sir.
> >
> > : Now if you want to argue that handguns are a threat to the national
> > wellbeing or individual security, you're not getting an argument from me.
> > But a threat to national security they most certainly ain't.
> >
> > There's much debate on the term, but I was referring to the overall
> > well-being of the state/people/society, as I think was very obvious.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security
> >
> > Handguns are a serious threat, and the situation requires a serious
> > response from the government. The "I'm-a-GETMINE!" portion of our
> > culture is never going to allow a mature response from our society.
> >
> I've met thousands of criminals over the last 25 years that have said they
> wish there were more gun control laws. They don't like armed victims.
Heh. But I don't understand. If they're illegal, no one will have them,
> I've met thousands of criminals over the last 25 years that have said they
> wish there were more gun control laws. They don't like armed victims.
including criminals, right? What could possibly go wrong with that
approach?
Jim G.
Oct 1, 2012, 3:52:58 PM10/1/12
to
Antonio Veranos sent the following on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 03:26:34 +0100:
For values of "herring" equal to "points that annihilate my argument,"
at least.
at least.
Jim G.
Oct 1, 2012, 3:52:58 PM10/1/12
to
Antonio Veranos sent the following on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 03:28:05 +0100:
So other countries will stop making handguns because the U.S. applies a
ban? Really? Tell me how that would work, exactly.
ban? Really? Tell me how that would work, exactly.
Jim G.
Oct 1, 2012, 3:52:58 PM10/1/12
to
Your smrat Ž sent the following on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 05:11:40 -0700
(PDT):
Heh. I was gonna take the snark route in addressing this amazingly
stupid argument, but didn't. I'm glad that you picked up the slack!
(PDT):
stupid argument, but didn't. I'm glad that you picked up the slack!
J. Hugh Sullivan
Oct 1, 2012, 4:03:00 PM10/1/12
to
On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 14:52:58 -0500, Jim G.
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Heh. But I don't understand. If they're illegal, no one will have them,
>including criminals, right?
Wrong - even if it is criminal to have them.
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Heh. But I don't understand. If they're illegal, no one will have them,
>including criminals, right?
Or, were you mocking?
Hugh
Antonio Veranos
Oct 1, 2012, 4:17:28 PM10/1/12
to
[Jim G., jimg...@geemail.com.invalid]
[Mon, 01 Oct 2012 14:52:58 -0500]
: > : Those who would disarm us will never be convinced their position is
"incredibly stupid argument[s]" aside.
[Mon, 01 Oct 2012 14:52:58 -0500]
: > : Those who would disarm us will never be convinced their position is
: > : incorrect. There are far more people alive in the USA because they had
: > : ready access to a firearm than are killed by firearms. Criminals by
: > : definition don't care about the law. It's already against the law in the
: > : USA for people that have been convicted of violent felonies (AFAIK) to
: > : possess firearms. That doesn't stop many of them from doing so.
: >
: > People who keep touting the "...then only outlaws will have handguns"
: > bit simply do not get it. All handguns were sold legitimately at one
: > point... what is so hard to grasp about that? If they're outlawed, then
: > eventually the supply will dry up. It won't happen overnight.
:
: So other countries will stop making handguns because the U.S. applies a
: ban? Really? Tell me how that would work, exactly.
It seems to work quite well here in the UK, your childish snark about
: > : ready access to a firearm than are killed by firearms. Criminals by
: > : definition don't care about the law. It's already against the law in the
: > : USA for people that have been convicted of violent felonies (AFAIK) to
: > : possess firearms. That doesn't stop many of them from doing so.
: >
: > People who keep touting the "...then only outlaws will have handguns"
: > bit simply do not get it. All handguns were sold legitimately at one
: > point... what is so hard to grasp about that? If they're outlawed, then
: > eventually the supply will dry up. It won't happen overnight.
:
: So other countries will stop making handguns because the U.S. applies a
: ban? Really? Tell me how that would work, exactly.
"incredibly stupid argument[s]" aside.
michael anderson
Oct 1, 2012, 4:34:27 PM10/1/12
to
On Monday, October 1, 2012 3:18:34 PM UTC-5, Antonio Veranos wrote:
>
> It seems to work quite well here in the UK, your childish snark about
>
> "incredibly stupid argument[s]" aside.
I think you would do better in this gun argument if you would argue for what moderates would consider reasonable restrictions. Like waiting periods, background checks, gun show exemptions,etc.....coming out and saying "handguns should be banned in the US" is so unlikely(even apart from the obvious constitutional issues) that you may as well be arguing that water be banned.
>
> It seems to work quite well here in the UK, your childish snark about
>
> "incredibly stupid argument[s]" aside.
J. Hugh Sullivan
Oct 1, 2012, 5:59:20 PM10/1/12
to
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 13:34:27 -0700 (PDT), michael anderson
<miande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 1, 2012 3:18:34 PM UTC-5, Antonio Veranos wrote:
>>=20
<miande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 1, 2012 3:18:34 PM UTC-5, Antonio Veranos wrote:
>> It seems to work quite well here in the UK, your childish snark about=20
>>=20
>> "incredibly stupid argument[s]" aside.
>
>I think you would do better in this gun argument if you would argue for wha=
>
>t moderates would consider reasonable restrictions. Like waiting periods, =
>background checks, gun show exemptions,etc.....
Aren't those restrictions already in place? I certainly have no
problem with them.
Most gun owners have a slew of unregistered guns. I have not purchased
but two since registration was required. And, if the un reg were
required to be reg I doubt that many would - and certainly not all of
them.
Being defeated in an election is not the worst thing that could happen
to those who seek to ban guns.
Hugh
Kyle T. Jones
Oct 1, 2012, 7:08:33 PM10/1/12
to
stealing" (authorizing the use of deadly force during <COMMISSION> of a
crime).
Same reason they used to cut off hands - I'm not equating <COMMISSION>
to <ADMINISTERED> in any sense other than they're both examples of
attempting to deter crime because of potential outcomes.
But, please go on - why is the difference between being able to shot a
fleeing "punk" who is "absconding with your property" and catching the
punk later and cutting off his hand so distinct to you?
Cheers.
>> I think we should hang folks on their first drunk driving offense, personally - those guys are much more likely to kill my
>> wife/son, which is the only meaningful part of my life that's irreplaceable.
>>
>> If drunks don't like it, they can stop drinking.
>
> And driving. You aren't normally this stupid.
>
> --Tedward
>
>
The Undead Edward M. Kennedy
Oct 2, 2012, 11:41:28 AM10/2/12
to
force is used against them while they commit a crime.
> Same reason they used to cut off hands - I'm not equating <COMMISSION> to <ADMINISTERED> in any sense other than they're both
> examples of attempting to deter crime because of potential outcomes.
>
> But, please go on - why is the difference between being able to shot a fleeing "punk" who is "absconding with your property" and
> catching the punk later and cutting off his hand so distinct to you?
force. Otherwise, you should. I'm sorry this so hard to understand.
--Tedward
Michael
Oct 2, 2012, 12:02:54 PM10/2/12
to
On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:16:13 AM UTC-5, Michael wrote:
> If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a shoot-to-kill situation? It just seems to me you shoot in the air and scare the guy away or something. It's not worth the man's life. What say ye?
>
>
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/28/connecticut-father-kills-masked-intruder-learns-it-his-son/?test=latestnews
> If a neighbor who lives alone calls you about a burglar, you go outside with your gun, you see the intruder -- is that a shoot-to-kill situation? It just seems to me you shoot in the air and scare the guy away or something. It's not worth the man's life. What say ye?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike
The reason I ask is that I wonder what actual responsible gun owners think. Here, for example, are a couple of rules:
If you have a gun in your hand, you must be prepared to use it.
Always know what you are shooting at.
Is there an option in the responsible gun ownership to shoot to maim rather than shoot to kill, in a given situation?
Thanks,
Mike
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages