Hammers should be banned...

[Jim Thompson]

Hammers should be banned...

http://tinyurl.com/aohq9p4

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

[tuinkabouter]

On 1/7/2013 5:52 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
> Hammers should be banned...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/aohq9p4

But killing 20 children and six adults in one go is nearly impossible
with a hammer.

That is the problem with semi automatic fire arms.

Besides that, there are many accidents with guns.

[Tim Wescott]

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 09:52:15 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

> Hammers should be banned...

Interesting, if quite slanted. If you read down further, though, and
were self-consistent, you'd say that _handguns_ should be banned.

That Piazza guy needs to study his history: folks have been going on
rampages and killing other folks with whatever weapons are handy ever
since our ancestors were motile. Returning to "the days when these type
of horrific, murderous rampages never happened" will require some serious
devolution on our parts, into an ecological niche already filled quite
successfully by the fungi.

Given that he apparently makes a point of talking about things that he's
not qualified to utter a sound on, one wonders (a) why we should believe
anything he says, and (b), why the reporter had such poor judgment as to
include his quote.

--
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?

Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software
http://www.wescottdesign.com

[Mike Perkins]

On 07/01/2013 16:52, Jim Thompson wrote:
> Hammers should be banned...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/aohq9p4
>
> ...Jim Thompson
>

Hammers serve a useful purpose. The article did not say how many were
actually killed with a hammer.

In fact its a bit like saying trailers and cars killed 5,000 people last
year, so lets blame and ban trailers?

--
Mike Perkins
Video Solutions Ltd
www.videosolutions.ltd.uk

[amdx]

On 1/7/2013 10:52 AM, Jim Thompson wrote:
> Hammers should be banned...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/aohq9p4
>
> ...Jim Thompson

I have known one person hit with a hammer and one person shot with a
gun. The person shot, sued, the person hit with the hammer died.

The moral of the story, I don't know, make up your own.
Mikek

[Michael A. Terrell]

Don't get into a gunfight with a hammer.

[amdx]

On 1/7/2013 10:52 AM, Jim Thompson wrote:

> Hammers should be banned...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/aohq9p4
>
> ...Jim Thompson
>

Jim, you'll like this protection of the innocent.
http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/2013/01/07/you-think-shes-glad-she-kept-her-gun/?subscriber=1

Mikek

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Jan 7, 1:19 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

Don't bring a gun to a hammerfight?


Mark L. Fergerson

[Jim Thompson]

Arithmetic is not the best suite of leftists. MORE people were killed
with hammers than with rifles. Sigh....

[Jim Thompson]

Yep. I already knew of that one.

[bloggs.fred...@gmail.com]

On Monday, January 7, 2013 12:47:02 PM UTC-5, Tim Wescott wrote:
> were self-consistent, you'd say that _handguns_ should be banned.
>
>
>
> That Piazza guy needs to study his history: folks have been going on
>
> rampages and killing other folks with whatever weapons are handy ever
>
> since our ancestors were motile. Returning to "the days when these type
>
> of horrific, murderous rampages never happened" will require some serious
>
> devolution on our parts, into an ecological niche already filled quite
>
> successfully by the fungi.
>
>
>
> Given that he apparently makes a point of talking about things that he's
>
> not qualified to utter a sound on, one wonders (a) why we should believe
>
> anything he says, and (b), why the reporter had such poor judgment as to
>
> include his quote.
>

Ummm- sounds like you're the one who needs to do some research. Piazza is a pro and half:
http://www.frontsight.com/Ignatius-Piazza/ignatius-piazza.asp

And his point is well-made, the easy availability of mind altering psychoactive drugs correlates perfectly well with the mass shooting sprees. The Holmes character in Aurora is a perfect case in point.
If the state is a failure at keeping lethal firearms out of the hands of well documented lunatics then they lose all credibility as to the wisdom of their ideas about semi-automatic rifle ownership control.

[tm]

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:p1kme8t28ehvsrhi1...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:38:47 -0600, amdx <am...@knology.net> wrote:
>
>>On 1/7/2013 10:52 AM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>> Hammers should be banned...
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/aohq9p4
>>>
>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>>
>>
>> Jim, you'll like this protection of the innocent.
>>http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/2013/01/07/you-think-shes-glad-she-kept-her-gun/?subscriber=1
>>
>> Mikek
>
> Yep. I already knew of that one.
>
> ...Jim Thompson

Yep, another libtard almost taken out. Someone buy that woman some hollow
point +p loads.

[bloggs.fred...@gmail.com]

On Monday, January 7, 2013 12:47:02 PM UTC-5, Tim Wescott wrote:

Hooooweeee, this is some shootin':

http://www.chucktayloramericansmallarmsacademy.com/combatmaster.html

[k...@attt.bizz]

Don't bring a gun to get hammered?

[k...@attt.bizz]

So is this:
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/mother-of-two-surprises-burglar-with-five-gunshots/nTnGR/

[bloggs.fred...@gmail.com]

Ummm- five shots to the face and neck at close range with a .38 and he survives??? Something is not right there, like maybe she fired through the door to the crawlspace significantly slowing the velocity of the bullet is my guess.

[miso]

Gun nuts often try to change the subject. I tell these fucking assholes
"I believe we were talking about guns, not xxx".
> http://sparkiearbuckle.sayanythingblog.com/files/2012/05/1236337872_fat_guy_shooting_his_gun.gif

We will get the guns now and work on the hammers latter. ;-)

[miso]

On 1/7/2013 2:02 PM, flipper wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 19:49:38 +0000, Mike Perkins <sp...@spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 07/01/2013 16:52, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>> Hammers should be banned...
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/aohq9p4
>>>
>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>>
>>
>> Hammers serve a useful purpose.
>

> So do guns.

>
>> The article did not say how many were
>> actually killed with a hammer.
>

> Just exactly what do you think a "murder" is?

>
>> In fact its a bit like saying trailers and cars killed 5,000 people last
>> year, so lets blame and ban trailers?
>

> That's the point alright.
>

Let me ask Nancy Lanza, self professed gun nut, if guns serve a useful
purpose. Oh wait, her brains are all splatted over her house, thanks to
Adamn Lanza plugging the shit head at point blank.

Well I suppose guns are useful for killing their owners.
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/conn-gunman-learned-shoot-mom-article-1.1220893

[TheGlimmerMan]

Do not walk under a latter.

[miso]

---------------
The Loganville mother of two assumed the knocks on her front door Friday
afternoon were from a solicitor.

�Don�t answer,� she yelled to her 9-year-old twins playing downstairs.

When the visitor began repeatedly ringing the doorbell, she called her
husband at work.

�Get the kids and hide,� he told his wife.

-----------------
The shit for brains woman should have called the cops first. Nothing in
the story says how long it took the husband to call the cops. That is
time wasted. Further, she bypassed the location service provided by
calling 911. To add to the confusion, the 911 service saw the address of
her husband, which is not the incident address. So then dispatch has to
get the proper address over the phone, then find the right district to
respond to the call.

Fucking idiot. Yet the state trusts somebody that fucking stupid with
lethal force. Well in her case, 5 shots at point blank and not so lethal.

[Michael A. Terrell]

miso wrote:
>
> Gun nuts often try to change the subject. I tell these fucking assholes
> "I believe we were talking about guns, not xxx".
> > http://sparkiearbuckle.sayanythingblog.com/files/2012/05/1236337872_fat_guy_shooting_his_gun.gif
>
> We will get the guns

One bullet at a time... Who in their right mind would surrender
their arms to a jackass like you?

[Michael A. Terrell]

miso wrote:
>
> Let me ask Nancy Lanza



Yawn. you always have to show just how low you can go.

[SoothSayer]

As bad or worse than those Stubenville high school jock idiots.

[tuinkabouter]

On 1/7/2013 11:44 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 18:20:46 +0100, tuinkabouter
> <dachth...@net.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 1/7/2013 5:52 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>> Hammers should be banned...
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/aohq9p4
>>
>> But killing 20 children and six adults in one go is nearly impossible
>> with a hammer.
>>
>> That is the problem with semi automatic fire arms.
>>
>> Besides that, there are many accidents with guns.
>
> Arithmetic is not the best suite of leftists. MORE people were killed
> with hammers than with rifles. Sigh....

You did not get my point.
Let me rephrase it.

Wat do you prefer, An idiot with a hammer in the school of your
grandchildren or an idiot with an AR 15 in the school.

[default]

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 18:20:46 +0100, tuinkabouter
<dachth...@net.invalid> wrote:

Not that hard really. A small amount of explosive and some hammers...

"Improvised" explosives are easy enough to make, if you get past the
learning curve. The government printing office sells the instructions
no less.

[k...@attt.bizz]

+1

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 17:56:29 -0800 (PST),

bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Monday, January 7, 2013 8:31:57 PM UTC-5, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 16:33:09 -0800 (PST),
>>
>> bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Monday, January 7, 2013 12:47:02 PM UTC-5, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Hooooweeee, this is some shootin':
>>
>> >
>>
>> >http://www.chucktayloramericansmallarmsacademy.com/combatmaster.html
>>
>>
>>
>> So is this:
>>
>> http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/mother-of-two-surprises-burglar-with-five-gunshots/nTnGR/
>
>Ummm- five shots to the face and neck at close range with a .38 and he survives??? Something is not right there, like maybe she fired through the door to the crawlspace significantly slowing the velocity of the bullet is my guess.

Irrelevance noted.

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 22:59:13 -0800, miso <mi...@sushi.com> wrote:

>
>---------------
>The Loganville mother of two assumed the knocks on her front door Friday
>afternoon were from a solicitor.
>

>�Don�t answer,� she yelled to her 9-year-old twins playing downstairs.

>
>When the visitor began repeatedly ringing the doorbell, she called her
>husband at work.
>

>�Get the kids and hide,� he told his wife.

>
>-----------------
>The shit for brains woman should have called the cops first. Nothing in
>the story says how long it took the husband to call the cops. That is
>time wasted. Further, she bypassed the location service provided by
>calling 911. To add to the confusion, the 911 service saw the address of
>her husband, which is not the incident address. So then dispatch has to
>get the proper address over the phone, then find the right district to
>respond to the call.
>
>Fucking idiot. Yet the state trusts somebody that fucking stupid with
>lethal force. Well in her case, 5 shots at point blank and not so lethal.
>
>

Speaking of shit-for-brains, you're the poster boy, Miso.

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 13:28:56 +0100, tuinkabouter

Most children are killed by abductors/molesters, rarely via gun.

[tm]

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote in

message news:t9ioe8tk80c2gdb27...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 13:28:56 +0100, tuinkabouter
> <dachth...@net.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 1/7/2013 11:44 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 18:20:46 +0100, tuinkabouter
>>> <dachth...@net.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/7/2013 5:52 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>>> Hammers should be banned...
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/aohq9p4
>>>>
>>>> But killing 20 children and six adults in one go is nearly impossible
>>>> with a hammer.
>>>>
>>>> That is the problem with semi automatic fire arms.
>>>>
>>>> Besides that, there are many accidents with guns.
>>>
>>> Arithmetic is not the best suite of leftists. MORE people were killed
>>> with hammers than with rifles. Sigh....
>>
>>You did not get my point.
>>Let me rephrase it.
>>
>>Wat do you prefer, An idiot with a hammer in the school of your
>>grandchildren or an idiot with an AR 15 in the school.
>
> Most children are killed by abductors/molesters, rarely via gun.
>
> ...Jim Thompson
> --

Right. Again, a mental health problem, not a gun problem. It's the libtards,
not the guns.

[Michael A. Terrell]

tuinkabouter wrote:
>
> On 1/7/2013 11:44 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 18:20:46 +0100, tuinkabouter
> > <dachth...@net.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/7/2013 5:52 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
> >>> Hammers should be banned...
> >>>
> >>> http://tinyurl.com/aohq9p4
> >>
> >> But killing 20 children and six adults in one go is nearly impossible
> >> with a hammer.
> >>
> >> That is the problem with semi automatic fire arms.
> >>
> >> Besides that, there are many accidents with guns.

> ?
> ? Arithmetic is not the best suite of leftists. MORE people were killed
> ? with hammers than with rifles. Sigh....

>
> You did not get my point.
> Let me rephrase it.
>
> Wat do you prefer, An idiot with a hammer in the school of your
> grandchildren or an idiot with an AR 15 in the school.

There is a huge difference between an idiot, and a homicidal maniac.
The problem isn't the weapon, it's that these freaks are allowed to roam
freely. Since a hammer makes no noise, he could have possibly killed
even more by picking them off, one by one. It looks like you need to be
removed from society, and locked up for everyone's safety because of you
high power rifle fetish.

[brent]

On Jan 8, 1:59 am, miso <m...@sushi.com> wrote:
> ---------------
> The Loganville mother of two assumed the knocks on her front door Friday
> afternoon were from a solicitor.
>

> “Don’t answer,” she yelled to her 9-year-old twins playing downstairs.

>
> When the visitor began repeatedly ringing the doorbell, she called her
> husband at work.
>

> “Get the kids and hide,” he told his wife.

>
> -----------------
> The shit for brains woman should have called the cops first. Nothing in
> the story says how long it took the husband to call the cops. That is
> time wasted. Further, she bypassed the location service provided by
> calling 911. To add to the confusion, the 911 service saw the address of
> her husband, which is not the incident address. So then dispatch has to
> get the proper address over the phone, then find the right district to
> respond to the call.
>
> Fucking idiot. Yet the state trusts somebody that fucking stupid with
> lethal force. Well in her case, 5 shots at point blank and not so lethal.

The "idiotic" woman is alive... something that seems to escape your
thought process as you construct your "brilliant" argument.

[Michael A. Terrell]

tm wrote:
>
> Right. Again, a mental health problem, not a gun problem. It's the libtards,
> not the guns.

Solyent Green is Libtards!

[tm]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:XMSdnYOjcZiNznHN...@earthlink.com...

No, the meat is too tough.

[Michael A. Terrell]

tm wrote:
>
> "Michael A. Terrell" ?mike.t...@earthlink.net? wrote in message
> news:XMSdnYOjcZiNznHN...@earthlink.com...
> ?
> ? tm wrote:
> ??
> ?? Right. Again, a mental health problem, not a gun problem. It's the
> ?? libtards,
> ?? not the guns.
> ?
> ?
> ? Solyent Green is Libtards!

>
> No, the meat is too tough.

That's where the 'Solyent' part comes in. Industrial grade
tenderizer, that will turn kidney stones into marshmallows. ;-)

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Jan 7, 10:41 pm, miso <m...@sushi.com> wrote:
> Gun nuts often try to change the subject. I tell these fucking assholes
> "I believe we were talking about guns, not xxx".
>

> >http://sparkiearbuckle.sayanythingblog.com/files/2012/05/1236337872_f...

Found in another group, from "pyotr filipivich":

Question for the gun Control advocates, "Do you agree with
this statement?"

"I would rather have a society without guns, even if it
means that people cannot defend themselves against murder
(with other weapons), rape, robbery, and assault. I would
rather make everyone defenseless than have to endure the
mass shootings that occasionally occur. If that means that
many more people, (particularly the old, the weak, and the
infirm) are subjected to these violent crimes, then so be
it. They'll just have to suffer more. I do claim the power
to dictate whether or not others are able to defend themselves."



Mark L. Fergerson

[Michael A. Terrell]

"nu...@bid.nes" wrote:
>
> On Jan 7, 10:41 pm, miso ?m...@sushi.com? wrote:
> ? Gun nuts often try to change the subject. I tell these fucking assholes
> ? "I believe we were talking about guns, not xxx".
> ?
> ? ?http://sparkiearbuckle.sayanythingblog.com/files/2012/05/1236337872_f...

>
> Found in another group, from "pyotr filipivich":
>
> Question for the gun Control advocates, "Do you agree with
> this statement?"
>
> "I would rather have a society without guns, even if it
> means that people cannot defend themselves against murder
> (with other weapons), rape, robbery, and assault. I would
> rather make everyone defenseless than have to endure the
> mass shootings that occasionally occur. If that means that
> many more people, (particularly the old, the weak, and the
> infirm) are subjected to these violent crimes, then so be
> it. They'll just have to suffer more. I do claim the power
> to dictate whether or not others are able to defend themselves."

Some of his better sarcasm. He is a regular on
news:rec.crafts.metalworking

[k...@attt.bizz]

It pretty well sums up the leftist's insanity, though.

[miso]

On 1/8/2013 9:10 AM, brent wrote:
> On Jan 8, 1:59 am, miso <m...@sushi.com> wrote:
>> ---------------
>> The Loganville mother of two assumed the knocks on her front door Friday
>> afternoon were from a solicitor.
>>

>> �Don�t answer,� she yelled to her 9-year-old twins playing downstairs.

>>
>> When the visitor began repeatedly ringing the doorbell, she called her
>> husband at work.
>>

>> �Get the kids and hide,� he told his wife.

>>
>> -----------------
>> The shit for brains woman should have called the cops first. Nothing in
>> the story says how long it took the husband to call the cops. That is
>> time wasted. Further, she bypassed the location service provided by
>> calling 911. To add to the confusion, the 911 service saw the address of
>> her husband, which is not the incident address. So then dispatch has to
>> get the proper address over the phone, then find the right district to
>> respond to the call.
>>
>> Fucking idiot. Yet the state trusts somebody that fucking stupid with
>> lethal force. Well in her case, 5 shots at point blank and not so lethal.
>
> The "idiotic" woman is alive... something that seems to escape your
> thought process as you construct your "brilliant" argument.
>
>

If shit for brains woman called the cops, the guy probably wouldn't have
got through the door. But the fucking bitch had to endanger everyone
with her stupidity. Too bad she didn't off herself and do everyone a favor.

[miso]

The truth hurts, does it.

[brent]

On Jan 8, 6:47 pm, miso <m...@sushi.com> wrote:
> On 1/8/2013 9:10 AM, brent wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 1:59 am, miso <m...@sushi.com> wrote:
> >> ---------------
> >> The Loganville mother of two assumed the knocks on her front door Friday
> >> afternoon were from a solicitor.
>

> >> Don t answer, she yelled to her 9-year-old twins playing downstairs.

>
> >> When the visitor began repeatedly ringing the doorbell, she called her
> >> husband at work.
>

> >> Get the kids and hide, he told his wife.

>
> >> -----------------
> >> The shit for brains woman should have called the cops first. Nothing in
> >> the story says how long it took the husband to call the cops. That is
> >> time wasted. Further, she bypassed the location service provided by
> >> calling 911. To add to the confusion, the 911 service saw the address of
> >> her husband, which is not the incident address. So then dispatch has to
> >> get the proper address over the phone, then find the right district to
> >> respond to the call.
>
> >> Fucking idiot. Yet the state trusts somebody that fucking stupid with
> >> lethal force. Well in her case, 5 shots at point blank and not so lethal.
>
> > The "idiotic" woman is alive... something that seems to escape your
> > thought process as you construct your "brilliant" argument.
>
> If shit for brains woman called the cops, the guy probably wouldn't have
> got through the door. But the fucking bitch had to endanger everyone
> with her stupidity. Too bad she didn't off herself and do everyone a favor.

I will take her odds of being alive over your odds of the police
"probably" stopping the crime.

Have you seen this article ?

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/08/14294269-visit-detroit-at-your-own-risk-police-union-warns?lite

In Detroit they are telling folks to not rely on the "probably" that
you seem so eager to impose on some woman who is getting victimized
and could easily lose her life.

In Detroit they are being honest about the "probability" of police
being there to help you. Truth is, Detroit is not an outlier.

Remember: When seconds count the police are minutes away.

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:47:39 -0800, miso <mi...@sushi.com> wrote:

>On 1/8/2013 9:10 AM, brent wrote:
>> On Jan 8, 1:59 am, miso <m...@sushi.com> wrote:
>>> ---------------
>>> The Loganville mother of two assumed the knocks on her front door Friday
>>> afternoon were from a solicitor.
>>>

>>> �Don�t answer,� she yelled to her 9-year-old twins playing downstairs.

>>>
>>> When the visitor began repeatedly ringing the doorbell, she called her
>>> husband at work.
>>>

>>> �Get the kids and hide,� he told his wife.

>>>
>>> -----------------
>>> The shit for brains woman should have called the cops first. Nothing in
>>> the story says how long it took the husband to call the cops. That is
>>> time wasted. Further, she bypassed the location service provided by
>>> calling 911. To add to the confusion, the 911 service saw the address of
>>> her husband, which is not the incident address. So then dispatch has to
>>> get the proper address over the phone, then find the right district to
>>> respond to the call.
>>>
>>> Fucking idiot. Yet the state trusts somebody that fucking stupid with
>>> lethal force. Well in her case, 5 shots at point blank and not so lethal.
>>
>> The "idiotic" woman is alive... something that seems to escape your
>> thought process as you construct your "brilliant" argument.
>>
>>
>
>If shit for brains woman called the cops, the guy probably wouldn't have
>got through the door. But the fucking bitch had to endanger everyone
>with her stupidity. Too bad she didn't off herself and do everyone a favor.

Dumbshit, her husband called 911. The tapes are being played on the
news; 911 operators sitting there with their thumbs up their asses, as
usual., as she's shooting the perp. When seconds count, the police
are only minutes away.

[k...@attt.bizz]

Note also that the police are under *NO* obligation to protect you,
even if they can. Their job is to clean up the paperwork after the
crime is committed. If they can stop it without going too far out of
their way, it's your lucky day.

[k...@attt.bizz]

You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass and announced
itself in five languages.

[Michael A. Terrell]

miso wrote:
>
> On 1/7/2013 11:21 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

> ?
> ? miso wrote:
> ??
> ?? Let me ask Nancy Lanza
> ?
> ?
> ?
> ? Yawn. you always have to show just how low you can go.
> ?

>
> The truth hurts, does it.

Yes, and you keep coming back for more. Too bad it never sticks.

[Michael A. Terrell]

k...@attt.bizz wrote:
>
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:48:35 -0800, miso ?mi...@sushi.com? wrote:
>
> ?On 1/7/2013 11:21 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> ??
> ?? miso wrote:
> ???
> ??? Let me ask Nancy Lanza
> ??
> ??
> ??
> ?? Yawn. you always have to show just how low you can go.
> ??
> ?
> ?The truth hurts, does it.

>
> You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass and announced
> itself in five languages.

Although he would ask to be bit again, and again and...

[tuinkabouter]

If you don't agree, then answer the next question.

Why is America trying to prevent Iraq getting Atomic arms.

[John Devereux]

Because they are only supposed to have the weapons of mass destruction
America sells to them?

--

John Devereux

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Jan 9, 6:23 am, tuinkabouter <dachthetn...@net.invalid> wrote:

I most certainly do NOT agree. I take it you do, though, you
heartless Liberal.

> Why is America trying to prevent Iraq getting Atomic arms.

Sigh. Guns (of any sort, from matchlocks to miniguns) are not
analogous to nuclear weapons. When a nuke hits it target as precisely
as possible there is fallout which doesn't happen with guns.

That's just one reason why I do NOT support the use of nuclear
weapons by anyone.

That's also why the U. S. is trying to prevent Iran acquiring them;
we are in the unique position of having used them in combat and know
just exactly how bad an idea they are; that's also why we're trying
desperately to draw down our own stocks with the eventual goal of
zero, and to get every other nation that has them to do the same, but
nobody wants to go first.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Michael A. Terrell]

John Devereux wrote:
>
> Because they are only supposed to have the weapons of mass destruction
> America sells to them?

You're a more likely to be a target than the US. The weapon is just
the first part. The second is the delivery system.

[k...@attt.bizz]

Shipping containers will work just fine.

[josephkk]

On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 09:10:10 -0800 (PST), brent <bule...@columbus.rr.com>
wrote:

And so are her kids.

?-)

[josephkk]

On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:47:39 -0800, miso <mi...@sushi.com> wrote:

>On 1/8/2013 9:10 AM, brent wrote:
>> On Jan 8, 1:59 am, miso <m...@sushi.com> wrote:
>>> ---------------
>>> The Loganville mother of two assumed the knocks on her front door Friday
>>> afternoon were from a solicitor.
>>>

>>> “Don’t answer,” she yelled to her 9-year-old twins playing downstairs.

>>>
>>> When the visitor began repeatedly ringing the doorbell, she called her
>>> husband at work.
>>>

>>> “Get the kids and hide,” he told his wife.

>>>
>>> -----------------
>>> The shit for brains woman should have called the cops first. Nothing in
>>> the story says how long it took the husband to call the cops. That is
>>> time wasted. Further, she bypassed the location service provided by
>>> calling 911. To add to the confusion, the 911 service saw the address of
>>> her husband, which is not the incident address. So then dispatch has to
>>> get the proper address over the phone, then find the right district to
>>> respond to the call.
>>>
>>> Fucking idiot. Yet the state trusts somebody that fucking stupid with
>>> lethal force. Well in her case, 5 shots at point blank and not so lethal.
>>
>> The "idiotic" woman is alive... something that seems to escape your
>> thought process as you construct your "brilliant" argument.
>>
>>
>
>If shit for brains woman called the cops, the guy probably wouldn't have
>got through the door. But the fucking bitch had to endanger everyone
>with her stupidity. Too bad she didn't off herself and do everyone a favor.

Why so much hate for someone defending themselves successfully. You seem
to believe in cops a lot better than reality shows them to be.

?-)

[John Devereux]

If you hadn't snipped it, you might have realised that was a joke about
the OP getting the country wrong.

Or not.

--

John Devereux

[tuinkabouter]

Yes, I was.

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On Jan 7, 2:49 pm, Mike Perkins <s...@spam.com> wrote:
> On 07/01/2013 16:52, Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> > Hammers should be banned...
>
> >        http://tinyurl.com/aohq9p4
>
> >                                          ...Jim Thompson
>
> Hammers serve a useful purpose.  The article did not say how many were
> actually killed with a hammer.

Guns have the most most useful use possible--protecting your life.
The right of self-defense is a basic human right.

It's hard to imagine a more basic, more important use for anything, or
right to it. Such uses happen all the time. All the time.


> In fact its a bit like saying trailers and cars killed 5,000 people last
> year, so lets blame and ban trailers?

Indeed. Far more teenagers kill themselves and others in car
crashes. That's bad for our life expectancy stats too. So, let's ban
that.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[Michael A. Terrell]

dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> On Jan 7, 2:49 pm, Mike Perkins ?s...@spam.com? wrote:
> ? On 07/01/2013 16:52, Jim Thompson wrote:
> ?
> ? ? Hammers should be banned...
> ?
> ? ? http://tinyurl.com/aohq9p4
> ?
> ? ? ...Jim Thompson
> ?
> ? Hammers serve a useful purpose. The article did not say how many were
> ? actually killed with a hammer.

>
> Guns have the most most useful use possible--protecting your life.
> The right of self-defense is a basic human right.
>
> It's hard to imagine a more basic, more important use for anything, or
> right to it. Such uses happen all the time. All the time.
>

> ? In fact its a bit like saying trailers and cars killed 5,000 people last
> ? year, so lets blame and ban trailers?

>
> Indeed. Far more teenagers kill themselves and others in car
> crashes. That's bad for our life expectancy stats too. So, let's ban
> that.

Or ban all 'Know it All teenagers'!

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

What's being proposed, at bottom, is that a 100 lb. woman being raped
in a dark alley has no right to defend herself. Her only option, in
that world, is to wait and hope he doesn't kill her, and that society
catches and punishes him if he does, after she's dead.

It leaves women defenseless. Old guys, too.

James

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On Jan 9, 3:06 pm, John Devereux <j...@devereux.me.uk> wrote:
> tuinkabouter <dachthetn...@net.invalid> writes:

Our weapons of mass construction are worse--Coke, KFC, McD's, etc.
Those are deadlier.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[hamilton]

Would it be worth while to try to find these perps before they can
imbibe in their blood lust ?

[Gib Bogle]

On 8/01/2013 5:52 a.m., Jim Thompson wrote:
> Hammers should be banned...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/aohq9p4
>
> ...Jim Thompson
>

Cross-posting idjits should be banned.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Gib Bogle wrote:
>
> On 8/01/2013 5:52 a.m., Jim Thompson wrote:

> ? Hammers should be banned...
> ?

> ? http://tinyurl.com/aohq9p4

> ?
> ? ...Jim Thompson
> ?
>

> Cross-posting idjits should be banned.

No problem. PLONK

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On Jan 10, 3:57 pm, hamilton <hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:

> Would it be worth while to try to find these perps before they can
> imbibe in their blood lust ?

Sure, but how? You can't lock people up for things you think they
might do, not in a free country.

Spotting a few stats from Wikipedia, the U.K. rape rate is about
85,000 a year in a population of 63 million. <800 were convicted,
that year.[1] We had roughly 91,000 in 2008, with a population of
~307 million (estimated).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#United_Kingdom

The U.K. rate above would result in 319,000 additional rapes in
America per year.

Other than catch and punish offenders, I'm not sure what we could do.
Or the U.K., for that matter.


James

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:57:46 -0700, hamilton <hami...@nothere.com>
wrote:

So you think Minority Report is nonfiction?

[k...@attt.bizz]

Why not "know it all leftists?

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:46:54 -0800 (PST), dagmarg...@yahoo.com
wrote:

Well, we might try profiling. Hmm, no, that won't work; lefties will
get their panties in a bunch. How about locking up all the crazies?
Nope, lefties hate that too. Maybe you can hope they kill your
neighbor first and pray they catch them before it's your turn.

>Spotting a few stats from Wikipedia, the U.K. rape rate is about
>85,000 a year in a population of 63 million. <800 were convicted,
>that year.[1] We had roughly 91,000 in 2008, with a population of
>~307 million (estimated).
>
>[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#United_Kingdom
>
>The U.K. rate above would result in 319,000 additional rapes in
>America per year.
>
>Other than catch and punish offenders, I'm not sure what we could do.
>Or the U.K., for that matter.

I don't know about you but given half a chance, I'll shoot them.
Limeys can worry about themselves.

[Sergey Kubushyn]

The problem is they are no perps _BEFORE_ they commited the crime. They are
perfectly legal and there is no way to find out if they are going to commit
one.

Your guys problem is that you simply do NOT understand what police is, how
they work, and what they are supposed to do.

They are NOT to protect anybody from a crime. That is not their job at all
and they are perfectly right telling they have no such duty. Their job is to
catch the perp AFTER he commited a crime to prevent further crimes. That is
what they are paid for because we, The People, decided that we better pay
them than pursue those criminals ourselves. But we do NOT pay them for
anybody's protection. If you want such a protection from a third party
instead of defending yourself go hire a bodyguard.

In other words they do have janitors cleaning restrooms but you have to wipe
your ass yourself. Janitors don't do this; they are not paid for it and it
is not a part of their contract.

---
******************************************************************
* KSI@home KOI8 Net < > The impossible we do immediately. *
* Las Vegas NV, USA < > Miracles require 24-hour notice. *
******************************************************************

[Jim Thompson]

I plonked Bogle a long time ago... all whine and no produce. Plus,
clueless to how good readers don't double display.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

[hamilton]

On 1/10/2013 3:05 PM, k...@attt.bizz wrote:

>
> So you think Minority Report is nonfiction?
>

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/01/precog-software-predicts-crime/

[Michael A. Terrell]

k...@attt.bizz wrote:
>
> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> ?

> ? Or ban all 'Know it All teenagers'!

>
> Why not "know it all leftists?

A FEW 'Know it All teenagers' aren't Democrats.

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:03:32 -0700, hamilton <hami...@nothere.com>
wrote:

>On 1/10/2013 3:05 PM, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
>
>>
>> So you think Minority Report is nonfiction?
>>
>http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/01/precog-software-predicts-crime/

Why not just keep them in prison, if they're dangerous? Execute a few
hundred percent more violent criminals, before they get the chance.

Next you're going to tell us that you're ready to cede your freedom to
a programmer. You lefties really *ARE* nuts.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:35:03 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"

> ?mike.t...@earthlink.net? wrote:
>
> ?
> ?Gib Bogle wrote:
> ??
> ?? On 8/01/2013 5:52 a.m., Jim Thompson wrote:
> ?? ? Hammers should be banned...
> ?? ?
> ?? ? http://tinyurl.com/aohq9p4
> ?? ?
> ?? ? ...Jim Thompson
> ?? ?
> ??
> ?? Cross-posting idjits should be banned.
> ?
> ?
> ? No problem. PLONK

>
> I plonked Bogle a long time ago... all whine and no produce. Plus,
> clueless to how good readers don't double display.

I missed him when I switched computers.

[k...@attt.bizz]

Giuliani thought a bit differently. His theory was that the big perps
start out as little perps. Arrest the turnstile jumpers, first. If
they are packing, throw away the key. If not, hassle them anyway.
Teach them that breaking "small" laws won't be tolerated and maybe
they won't graduate to bigger crimes. It royally pissed off the
lefties but it worked, at least to a degree.

>Your guys problem is that you simply do NOT understand what police is, how
>they work, and what they are supposed to do.

Lefties have no interest in understanding. They want to act.
Consequences of their actions don't matter.

>They are NOT to protect anybody from a crime. That is not their job at all
>and they are perfectly right telling they have no such duty. Their job is to
>catch the perp AFTER he commited a crime to prevent further crimes. That is
>what they are paid for because we, The People, decided that we better pay
>them than pursue those criminals ourselves. But we do NOT pay them for
>anybody's protection. If you want such a protection from a third party
>instead of defending yourself go hire a bodyguard.

Absolutely correct. They have no duty to protect you, even if they
happen to be there.

>In other words they do have janitors cleaning restrooms but you have to wipe
>your ass yourself. Janitors don't do this; they are not paid for it and it
>is not a part of their contract.

Apropos analogy.

[k...@attt.bizz]

Damned few, unfortunately.

[Sergey Kubushyn]

In sci.electronics.design k...@attt.bizz wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 22:33:57 +0000 (UTC), Sergey Kubushyn
> <k...@koi8.net> wrote:

B>

>>In sci.electronics.design hamilton <hami...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/10/2013 1:37 PM, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Jan 8, 2:09 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 7, 10:41 pm, miso <m...@sushi.com> wrote:

[dd]

>>>>
>>> Would it be worth while to try to find these perps before they can
>>> imbibe in their blood lust ?
>>
>>The problem is they are no perps _BEFORE_ they commited the crime. They are
>>perfectly legal and there is no way to find out if they are going to commit
>>one.
>
> Giuliani thought a bit differently. His theory was that the big perps
> start out as little perps. Arrest the turnstile jumpers, first. If
> they are packing, throw away the key. If not, hassle them anyway.
> Teach them that breaking "small" laws won't be tolerated and maybe
> they won't graduate to bigger crimes. It royally pissed off the
> lefties but it worked, at least to a degree.

That might be true for career criminals but it absolutely won't work for
those commiting mass murders. There was no breaking a small law for majority
of those guys; they were absolutely clean wrt the law, then they commited
those horrible crimes that were their very first ones, and they made those
their last ones by commiting suicide so there was nobody to stand trial.

For those all the police do is counting bodies and writing reports after
everything's ended. One should have no brains to think it could've been
predicted or somebody would help them before the performance is over. This
is very fast action and perps usually run out of ammo before police has a
chance to get there. And even if they didn't and police arrived BEFORE the
game is over they still have enough time to complete their rampage and kill
theirselves when police performs their routine protocol taking positions
etc.

>>Your guys problem is that you simply do NOT understand what police is, how
>>they work, and what they are supposed to do.
>
> Lefties have no interest in understanding. They want to act.
> Consequences of their actions don't matter.

Yep, absolutely right. But there is something bigger behind it. First of all
that last shooting was extremely suspicious -- do somebody still remember
that _ALL_ channels were telling an "assault type rifle" has been found in a
car parked on the school lot when they were in a rush and broadcasted
everything live, without any censorship? Do those crying for action
understand that "assault rifle" is almost the worst type of firearm to use
in a classroom? Do they have any idea how much "thousands of rounds" for
such a weapon weight and whether an average person would be able to walk
even a hundred yards carrying those on him? Call me paranoid but that looks
orchestrated to me; done in a cold blood to get a pretext for confiscation
of the only arms in civilian posession somehow suitable for combat. Nobody
cries wolf about handguns that were used for gun-related crimes more than
all other weapons combined. Explanation is very simple...

>>They are NOT to protect anybody from a crime. That is not their job at all
>>and they are perfectly right telling they have no such duty. Their job is to
>>catch the perp AFTER he commited a crime to prevent further crimes. That is
>>what they are paid for because we, The People, decided that we better pay
>>them than pursue those criminals ourselves. But we do NOT pay them for
>>anybody's protection. If you want such a protection from a third party
>>instead of defending yourself go hire a bodyguard.
>
> Absolutely correct. They have no duty to protect you, even if they
> happen to be there.
>
>>In other words they do have janitors cleaning restrooms but you have to wipe
>>your ass yourself. Janitors don't do this; they are not paid for it and it
>>is not a part of their contract.
>
> Apropos analogy.

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 01:09:28 +0000 (UTC), Sergey Kubushyn

The only thing that will work against crazies is self defense. Pack
your own heat.

"The only thing that will stop a bad person with a gun is a good
person with a gun." Wishes won't do it, as the principal of Sandy
Hook teaches us.

>For those all the police do is counting bodies and writing reports after
>everything's ended. One should have no brains to think it could've been
>predicted or somebody would help them before the performance is over. This
>is very fast action and perps usually run out of ammo before police has a
>chance to get there. And even if they didn't and police arrived BEFORE the
>game is over they still have enough time to complete their rampage and kill
>theirselves when police performs their routine protocol taking positions
>etc.

The cop at Columbine at least kept the perps busy and wasted their
ammo. Again, a good guy with a gun...

>>>Your guys problem is that you simply do NOT understand what police is, how
>>>they work, and what they are supposed to do.
>>
>> Lefties have no interest in understanding. They want to act.
>> Consequences of their actions don't matter.
>
>Yep, absolutely right. But there is something bigger behind it. First of all
>that last shooting was extremely suspicious -- do somebody still remember
>that _ALL_ channels were telling an "assault type rifle" has been found in a
>car parked on the school lot when they were in a rush and broadcasted
>everything live, without any censorship? Do those crying for action
>understand that "assault rifle" is almost the worst type of firearm to use
>in a classroom?

Again, lefties have no interest in understanding. Don't even try to
educate them. They're impervious to facts.

>Do they have any idea how much "thousands of rounds" for
>such a weapon weight and whether an average person would be able to walk
>even a hundred yards carrying those on him? Call me paranoid but that looks
>orchestrated to me; done in a cold blood to get a pretext for confiscation
>of the only arms in civilian posession somehow suitable for combat. Nobody
>cries wolf about handguns that were used for gun-related crimes more than
>all other weapons combined. Explanation is very simple...

Too much conspiracy theory. After the election, all they had to do is
wait. A crazy was bound to pop up somewhere. Interesting that he
popped up in a place with some of the tightest gun controls. Again,
lefties don't care about facts.

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On Jan 10, 3:19 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

That means banning teenagers. :-) As much as their parents sometimes
want to, that's hard to do.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On Jan 10, 9:34 pm, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:

> So, despite your terrible 'cleverness', the fact remains that self
> defense is not only "a useful purpose" it is a fundamental right
> without which there are no others.

Yes. It's being said that their only function is killing, but that's
simply not true--we most certainly do not allow guns to be made for
murder, or sold for that purpose either. That's rare, it's illegal,
and severely punished.

Firearms are for defense, for sport, and for food.

> Being a 'well armed threat' to tyranny, both foreign and domestic, is
> also "a useful purpose" and one the founding fathers knew very well.

That is, of course, the founder's ultimate purpose--to protect freedom
itself, nothing less. It makes for a more stable government.

The protection isn't needed very often, maybe not even in a lifetime,
but by far the most murderous malefactors--the greatest historical
threats to citizens--have been their own governments gone wrong.

Even our friends in Europe have experienced this recently, and not
just once, but several instances in living memory. That's much less
likely in a nation with arms.

If the Battle of Britain had turned out differently, our good friends
there might've needed individual firearms very very badly.

James

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 18:27:13 -0800 (PST), dagmarg...@yahoo.com
wrote:

Even harder with the next generation.

[Michael A. Terrell]

dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >

> > Or ban all 'Know it All teenagers'!
>
> That means banning teenagers. :-) As much as their parents sometimes
> want to, that's hard to do.

Just lock them all in the mall. With no phones, credit cards or
cash. Check on them a week later. They would be like the foul mouthed
parrot that wouldn't shut up! ;-)

[Michael A. Terrell]

If you do it right, they will never be a problem again. ;-)

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 18:27:13 -0800 (PST), dagmarg...@yahoo.com
wrote:

Males don't stop being smart-ass until about age 25. Then they
suddenly discover that Dad isn't dumb ;-)

[hamilton]

When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly
stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was
astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.

- attributed by Reader's Digest, Sept. 1937.

This quote has been attributed to Mark Twain, but until the attribution
can be verified, the quote should not be regarded as authentic.

[k...@attt.bizz]

I guess that depends on what you define as the "problem". ;-)

[k...@attt.bizz]

I walked into a public restroom behind one, earlier this week, who
wore his pants down below his butt. The problem was that the little
bastard was going commando. He was hanging it out for everyone to
see. Amazing.

[k...@attt.bizz]

With my son, that transformation was so fast it was an amazing thing
to watch. Even my wife got a kick out of it.

[Charles]

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message
news:msjme81gcdup200a3...@4ax.com...

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 18:20:46 +0100, tuinkabouter
<dachth...@net.invalid> wrote:

>On 1/7/2013 5:52 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>> Hammers should be banned...
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/aohq9p4
>
>But killing 20 children and six adults in one go is nearly impossible
>with a hammer.
>
>That is the problem with semi automatic fire arms.
>
>Besides that, there are many accidents with guns.

Arithmetic is not the best suite of leftists. MORE people were killed
with hammers than with rifles. Sigh....

Sigh is my sentiment too. Show me and the rest of us where you get your
statistics.

[Jim Thompson]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 18:19:30 -0600, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:

>From the above posted URL article's link to 2011 FBI stats.

The statistics on Schuler's mental incapacity are already
well-documented.

[Michael A. Terrell]

k...@attt.bizz wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 00:40:04 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"

> ?mike.t...@earthlink.net? wrote:
>
> ?
> ?dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> ??
> ?? Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> ?? ?
> ?? ? Or ban all 'Know it All teenagers'!
> ??
> ?? That means banning teenagers. :-) As much as their parents sometimes
> ?? want to, that's hard to do.
> ?
> ?
> ? Just lock them all in the mall. With no phones, credit cards or
> ?cash. Check on them a week later. They would be like the foul mouthed
> ?parrot that wouldn't shut up! ;-)

>
> I walked into a public restroom behind one, earlier this week, who
> wore his pants down below his butt. The problem was that the little
> bastard was going commando. He was hanging it out for everyone to
> see. Amazing.

And you were fresh out of angry red ants?

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On Jan 11, 7:56 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 18:19:30 -0600, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
> >On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:05:10 -0500, "Charles"
> ><charlesschu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>"Jim Thompson"  wrote in message
> >>news:msjme81gcdup200a3...@4ax.com...
>
> >>On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 18:20:46 +0100, tuinkabouter
> >><dachthetn...@net.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>>On 1/7/2013 5:52 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
> >>>> Hammers should be banned...
>
> >>>>        http://tinyurl.com/aohq9p4
>
> >>>But killing 20 children and six adults in one go is nearly impossible
> >>>with a hammer.
>
> >>>That is the problem with semi automatic fire arms.
>
> >>>Besides that, there are many accidents with guns.
>
> >>Arithmetic is not the best suite of leftists.  MORE people were killed
> >>with hammers than with rifles.  Sigh....
>
> >>Sigh is my sentiment too.  Show me and the rest of us where you get your
> >>statistics.
>
> >From the above posted URL article's link to 2011 FBI stats.
>
> The statistics on Schuler's mental incapacity are already
> well-documented.

Charles seems perfectly competent to me. He missed a link, asked for
backup, and flipper gave it. Problem solved.

IMO, arguing about which implements are used in how many instances
totally loses the point--it's a basic human RIGHT. The right of self-
defense.

As an example, I haven't looked[1], but it's almost certain that
promiscuous gay sex kills far, far more people every year through
AIDs, hepatitis, etc. Yet, are any of these people arguing we need to
register gay people, saying "We don't want to interfere with their
rights, no, of course not, we just want them to register, and take a
training course. Why, think of the cost to the public health
service"? Is anyone calling for a national HIV registry, one that
newspapers can publish with Google maps online?

Of course not. What free people do is none of our business, none of
the govt's business, as long as it's voluntary, and doesn't infringe
someone else's rights.

[1] Okay, I looked. Roughly 48,000 new HIV infections in 2009[2]. Men
having sex with men (MSM) comprise 2% of the US population, but
accounted for 61% of new infections in 2009. MSM, accordingly, are
being infected at a rate 30x higher than their prevalence in the
population.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/incidence.htm

[2] 1 Prejean J, Song R, Hernandez A, Ziebell R, Green T, et al.
(2011) Estimated HIV Incidence in the United States, 2006-2009. PLoS
ONE 6(8): e17502. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017502


So, we're focused on one right, but not talking about a clear,
present, and far bigger danger to more people. Why? Freedom.
Freedom of those individuals, freedom that's sacred, and ought not be
questioned.

And, people have the right of self-defense. Further, an armed
populace serves a vital interest to the stability of our system of
government, which is why the founders insisted on it. That's what
matters. Of course there's a price, just like alcohol, tobacco,
certain lifestyle choices, and teen-age driving. There are also huge
benefits. We call it freedom.

James Arthur

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 07:57:29 -0800 (PST), dagmarg...@yahoo.com
wrote:

[snip]

>
>And, people have the right of self-defense. Further, an armed
>populace serves a vital interest to the stability of our system of
>government, which is why the founders insisted on it. That's what
>matters. Of course there's a price, just like alcohol, tobacco,
>certain lifestyle choices, and teen-age driving. There are also huge
>benefits. We call it freedom.
>
>James Arthur

But we'll lose it...

http://constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kreca/kreca9.1.1.html

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On Jan 12, 12:05 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-
My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 07:57:29 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com

> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> >And, people have the right of self-defense.  Further, an armed
> >populace serves a vital interest to the stability of our system of
> >government, which is why the founders insisted on it.  That's what
> >matters.  Of course there's a price, just like alcohol, tobacco,
> >certain lifestyle choices, and teen-age driving.  There are also huge
> >benefits. We call it freedom.
>
>

> But we'll lose it...
>
>        http://constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm

Agreed on the militia. But, the orwellian federal monitoring
precludes those being formed today. They'd arrest you. So, that's
not the answer.

The answer is simpler, it's an idea: freedom. The right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If someone really wants women to be defenseless, let 'em try to make
that argument, and counter it when they do. No one can defend that
argument.

If they--in the name of the general welfare--want to argue against the
dangers XYZ people (e.g. gays) might pose to the general public, that
those people should be forced to register, take training courses, and
apply for licenses... well, that /is/ effectively what the
administration is arguing for, just applied to a different group.
This time.

Everyone knows that's wrong. If that's where they want to go, the
American people will throw it off.

We are a free people. The government works for us. It's our servant,
not the reverse.

James Arthur

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 11:12:09 -0800 (PST), dagmarg...@yahoo.com
wrote:

>On Jan 12, 12:05 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-
>My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 07:57:29 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>
>> >And, people have the right of self-defense.  Further, an armed
>> >populace serves a vital interest to the stability of our system of
>> >government, which is why the founders insisted on it.  That's what
>> >matters.  Of course there's a price, just like alcohol, tobacco,
>> >certain lifestyle choices, and teen-age driving.  There are also huge
>> >benefits. We call it freedom.
>>
>>
>> But we'll lose it...
>>
>>        http://constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm
>
>Agreed on the militia. But, the orwellian federal monitoring
>precludes those being formed today. They'd arrest you. So, that's
>not the answer.

You missed the point.... "militia" is not plural.

>
>The answer is simpler, it's an idea: freedom. The right to life,
>liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
>
>If someone really wants women to be defenseless, let 'em try to make
>that argument, and counter it when they do. No one can defend that
>argument.
>
>If they--in the name of the general welfare--want to argue against the
>dangers XYZ people (e.g. gays) might pose to the general public, that
>those people should be forced to register, take training courses, and
>apply for licenses... well, that /is/ effectively what the
>administration is arguing for, just applied to a different group.
>This time.
>
>Everyone knows that's wrong. If that's where they want to go, the
>American people will throw it off.
>
>We are a free people. The government works for us. It's our servant,
>not the reverse.
>
>James Arthur

[Charles]

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message

news:s3d1f8tloq5sra1sf...@4ax.com...

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 18:19:30 -0600, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:05:10 -0500, "Charles"
><charles...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Jim Thompson" wrote in message
>>news:msjme81gcdup200a3...@4ax.com...
>>
>>On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 18:20:46 +0100, tuinkabouter
>><dachth...@net.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On 1/7/2013 5:52 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>> Hammers should be banned...
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/aohq9p4
>>>
>>>But killing 20 children and six adults in one go is nearly impossible
>>>with a hammer.
>>>
>>>That is the problem with semi automatic fire arms.
>>>
>>>Besides that, there are many accidents with guns.
>>
>>Arithmetic is not the best suite of leftists. MORE people were killed
>>with hammers than with rifles. Sigh....
>>
>>Sigh is my sentiment too. Show me and the rest of us where you get your
>>statistics.
>
>From the above posted URL article's link to 2011 FBI stats.

The statistics on Schuler's mental incapacity are already
well-documented.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl07.xls

When one seeks to substantiate ones position via derogatory remarks, one is
clearly demonstrating ones own inadequacy.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Charles wrote:
>
> The statistics on Schuler's mental incapacity are already
> well-documented.

And verified every time that you post something.

> http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl07.xls
>
> When one seeks to substantiate ones position via derogatory remarks, one is
> clearly demonstrating ones own inadequacy.

So does constantly referring to yourself as 'one'. People would
treat you better if you didn't come across as a know it all jerk. That
make it look as if you're trying to fill Sloman's shoes.