Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
It was not a legit election
98 views
Skip to first unread message
ohar...@mindspring.com
May 17, 2013, 12:32:32 PM5/17/13
to
http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
Dean Markley
May 17, 2013, 2:38:56 PM5/17/13
to
On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:32:32 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
>
>
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
Why don't you post in a politics newsgroup? Jaysus man!
> http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
>
>
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
ohar...@mindspring.com
May 17, 2013, 3:49:48 PM5/17/13
to
On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:32:32 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
>
>
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
Who the real CIC is matters. Here is more evidence that the election was a fraud:
>
>
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/05/17/NYT-Obama-Admin-Aware-of-IRS-Scandal-6-Months-before-Election
Arved Sandstrom
May 17, 2013, 6:12:13 PM5/17/13
to
On 05/17/2013 01:32 PM, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
>
http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation-supposes-its-outraged-by-white-house-scanda,32486/
> http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
>
tutall
May 18, 2013, 4:47:35 PM5/18/13
to
Isn't it outrageous that there are so many scumbags making political
groups under the guise of tax free charitable groups so they can hide
the money donors and thereby subvert our democracy?
It's fucking awful, don't you think? Don't you think the IRS should go
after these obvious shams?
Oh, right, one office did, and you're angry. Just at the wrong people.
Message has been deleted
ohar...@mindspring.com
May 18, 2013, 9:02:56 PM5/18/13
to
On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:32:32 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
>
>
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
Lefties have no problem defending tyranny as long as it is them doing it. You notice they have no problems with "Prog" orgs getting a pass but they support audits of any Obama enemies. This is absolute proof of their real intentions, tyranny against anybody with whom they disagree.
>
>
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
American servicemen need to begin to consider whether their supposed CIC is truly the CIC and to begin to make plans "just in case". Do you support the U.S. Constitutional form of govt or do you want to fight for an Obama tyranny? Make note of the people around you, not what they say but their almost unconcious reactions to news of Obama tyranny so you will later know what side they are really on.
tutall
May 18, 2013, 11:02:34 PM5/18/13
to
On May 18, 3:01 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> being a 'charitable group'. It's got to do with being a NON-PROFIT
> group.
Pthth. Is there a point there? Nope, you're still Fred.
> >It's fucking awful, don't you think? Don't you think the IRS should go
> >after these obvious shams?
>
> No, because they're not 'shams' and there's nothing illegal about
> them.
It's illegal is their purpose is political. You don't even understand
that bit?
> >Oh, right, one office did, and you're angry. Just at the wrong people.
>
> Nope. I don't care which side does it.
And you didn't understand why, for such a long time I thought you an
OHara here were the same person.
> tutall <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Isn't it outrageous that there are so many scumbags making political
> >groups under the guise of tax free charitable groups so they can hide
> >the money donors and thereby subvert our democracy?
>
> You don't understand what a 501c is. It's got nothing to do with
>
> >Isn't it outrageous that there are so many scumbags making political
> >groups under the guise of tax free charitable groups so they can hide
> >the money donors and thereby subvert our democracy?
>
> being a 'charitable group'. It's got to do with being a NON-PROFIT
> group.
Pthth. Is there a point there? Nope, you're still Fred.
> >It's fucking awful, don't you think? Don't you think the IRS should go
> >after these obvious shams?
>
> them.
It's illegal is their purpose is political. You don't even understand
that bit?
> >Oh, right, one office did, and you're angry. Just at the wrong people.
>
And you didn't understand why, for such a long time I thought you an
OHara here were the same person.
ohar...@mindspring.com
May 18, 2013, 11:40:57 PM5/18/13
to
On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:32:32 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
>
>
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
ONE office did it to orgs ALL OVER THE COUNTRY? Do you really believe that? Do you wanna buy some swampland?
>
>
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
Message has been deleted
Bill
May 19, 2013, 8:25:25 AM5/19/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 18:02:56 -0700 (PDT), ohar...@mindspring.com
wrote:
>American servicemen need to begin to consider whether their supposed CIC is truly the CIC and to begin to make plans "just in case". Do you support the U.S. Constitutional form of govt or do you want to fight for an Obama tyranny?
Is 'incitement to armed rebellion' a crime in the USA?
Especially when directed at servicemen (You notice he excludes
servicewomen from his call to rebel against the lawful authority)
wrote:
>American servicemen need to begin to consider whether their supposed CIC is truly the CIC and to begin to make plans "just in case". Do you support the U.S. Constitutional form of govt or do you want to fight for an Obama tyranny?
Especially when directed at servicemen (You notice he excludes
servicewomen from his call to rebel against the lawful authority)
katy...@gmail.com
May 19, 2013, 11:37:27 AM5/19/13
to
On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:32:32 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
>
>
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
"Incitement to armed rebellion", where do you get that? I just mean "do not re-enlist" Such tinfoil hat conspiracy theories you progs have.
>
>
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
Message has been deleted
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
May 19, 2013, 1:54:55 PM5/19/13
to
Bill wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 18:02:56 -0700 (PDT), ohar...@mindspring.com
> wrote:
>
>
>>American servicemen need to begin to consider whether their supposed CIC is truly the CIC and to begin to make plans "just in case". Do you support the U.S. Constitutional form of govt or do you want to fight for an Obama tyranny?
>
>
> Is 'incitement to armed rebellion' a crime in the USA?
Would these statements be a crime in UK?
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 18:02:56 -0700 (PDT), ohar...@mindspring.com
> wrote:
>
>
>>American servicemen need to begin to consider whether their supposed CIC is truly the CIC and to begin to make plans "just in case". Do you support the U.S. Constitutional form of govt or do you want to fight for an Obama tyranny?
>
>
> Is 'incitement to armed rebellion' a crime in the USA?
;-)
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
May 19, 2013, 3:25:13 PM5/19/13
to
In article <KuadndvaM_94jATM...@supernews.com>,
"Dr. Vincent Quin, PhrauD." on Sunday, May 19, 2013 12:25:11 PM spewed
certainly awarding yourself a PhrauDulent doctorate would be
"Dr. Vincent Quin, PhrauD." on Sunday, May 19, 2013 12:25:11 PM spewed
Bill
May 19, 2013, 3:36:48 PM5/19/13
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_Disaffection_Act_1934 ) but
I very much doubt they'd drag an Internet loon into court.
ohar...@mindspring.com
May 19, 2013, 3:49:09 PM5/19/13
to
On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:32:32 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
>
>
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
Tinfoil hat conspiracy theories of the left. All I do is to remind servicemen of the oath they took and the left goes bonkers. Why not accuse me of blasphemy too.
>
>
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
Bill
May 19, 2013, 3:52:20 PM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:49:09 -0700 (PDT), ohar...@mindspring.com
wrote:
In what way are US soldiers being asked to break their oath?
wrote:
ohar...@mindspring.com
May 19, 2013, 4:50:23 PM5/19/13
to
On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:32:32 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
>
>
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
I never said they were. Like a silly Prog, you are reading things that are not there.
>
>
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
Andrew Swallow
May 19, 2013, 7:16:37 PM5/19/13
to
want to hide does not work. As to the incitement to armed rebellion
that can from military men being told 'and to begin to make plans "just
in case".'
Andrew Swallow
a425couple
May 19, 2013, 7:52:32 PM5/19/13
to
"tutall" <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...
While I feel "ohara"s opinions are somewhat over the top,
I stongly feel "tutall"s here are reprehensible.
He ("tutal") is here defending the IRS doing discriminatory actions
against citizens he chooses to call "scumbags".
Even POTUS Obama has stated they failed.
POTUS statement is at:
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Screen%20Shot%202013-05-14%20at%208.50.11%20PM.png
"intolerable and inexcusable"
"the federal government must conduct itself in a way that
is worthy of the public trust, and that is especially true of the IRS.
The IRS must apply the law in a fair and impartial way, --
This report shows some employees failed that test."
While I feel "ohara"s opinions are somewhat over the top,
I stongly feel "tutall"s here are reprehensible.
He ("tutal") is here defending the IRS doing discriminatory actions
against citizens he chooses to call "scumbags".
Even POTUS Obama has stated they failed.
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Screen%20Shot%202013-05-14%20at%208.50.11%20PM.png
"intolerable and inexcusable"
"the federal government must conduct itself in a way that
is worthy of the public trust, and that is especially true of the IRS.
The IRS must apply the law in a fair and impartial way, --
This report shows some employees failed that test."
Bill
May 19, 2013, 7:59:24 PM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 16:52:32 -0700, "a425couple"
<a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"tutall" <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...
>
>While I feel "ohara"s opinions are somewhat over the top,
>I stongly feel "tutall"s here are reprehensible.
>He ("tutal") is here defending the IRS doing discriminatory actions
>against citizens he chooses to call "scumbags".
>Even POTUS Obama has stated they failed.
>
Reprehensible, yes.
<a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"tutall" <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...
>
>While I feel "ohara"s opinions are somewhat over the top,
>I stongly feel "tutall"s here are reprehensible.
>He ("tutal") is here defending the IRS doing discriminatory actions
>against citizens he chooses to call "scumbags".
>Even POTUS Obama has stated they failed.
>
But you have, within limits, a right to free speech...
However ohara's statements are probably illegal because they're an
incitement to rebellion by soldiers who have sworn an oath.
Message has been deleted
ohar...@mindspring.com
May 19, 2013, 11:06:44 PM5/19/13
to
On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:32:32 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
>
>
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
I will go MUCH further. Servicemen should consider the things at their disposal and how they might be used to fight the enemies of the US Constitution. They should consider how those things at their disposal might be used by defenders of the Constitution and used less effectively by enemies of the Constitution.
>
>
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
Bill
May 20, 2013, 6:43:03 AM5/20/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 20:06:44 -0700 (PDT), ohar...@mindspring.com
wrote:
I think that's what could be called 'a mealy mouthed retreat from the
brink by a coward'.
wrote:
brink by a coward'.
dott.Piergiorgio
May 20, 2013, 7:26:48 AM5/20/13
to
Il 20/05/2013 03:04, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
>> However ohara's statements are probably illegal because they're an
>> incitement to rebellion by soldiers who have sworn an oath.
>>
>
> More proof that English isn't among the languages that Wee Willie
>> However ohara's statements are probably illegal because they're an
>> incitement to rebellion by soldiers who have sworn an oath.
>>
>
> Black has any knowledge of. Could someone please translate into
> trollish for him?
well, here in Italy LE and Carabinieri wisely avoid wasting time around
'net venting (trust me, this country, known to have 30 million football
managers, now looks like has some millions of "brigatisti"..) but US LE
environment isn't exactly known for for wisdom and basic good sense...
Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.
La N.
May 20, 2013, 7:30:34 AM5/20/13
to
"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:habip8dne4125pqab...@4ax.com...
anything? Is he head of CENTCOM or something? I've lost track of his
promotions.
- nilita
dott.Piergiorgio
May 20, 2013, 7:35:31 AM5/20/13
to
Il 20/05/2013 01:16, Andrew Swallow ha scritto:
>> "Incitement to armed rebellion", where do you get that? I just mean
>> "do not re-enlist" Such tinfoil hat conspiracy theories you progs have.
>>
>
> A warning about the internet, it does not forget. Deleting things you
> want to hide does not work. As to the incitement to armed rebellion
> that can from military men being told 'and to begin to make plans "just
> in case".'
it's the same thing as saying that the various "war plan gray" of yore,
>> "Incitement to armed rebellion", where do you get that? I just mean
>> "do not re-enlist" Such tinfoil hat conspiracy theories you progs have.
>>
>
> A warning about the internet, it does not forget. Deleting things you
> want to hide does not work. As to the incitement to armed rebellion
> that can from military men being told 'and to begin to make plans "just
> in case".'
and all planning for the cases of secession and/or major civilian unrest
are illegal (because in those plannings one must consider the enemy's
strategy and operations, whose is equal to make rebellion/secession
planning....
(also, I noticed that up to WWII US army's map exercises near-always
happen to use the map of MD/VA aerea, a thing whose perplexed myself...)
Message has been deleted
ohar...@mindspring.com
May 20, 2013, 11:44:03 AM5/20/13
to
On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:32:32 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
>
>
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
Never met La N. My interpretation of her remark is that it is doubtful any servicemen would listen to me and in this she is correct.
> http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
>
>
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
So, I spend my evenings in my lawn chair in front of the pond exhorting my amphibian minions to "Take up arms.....er Legs" and "Hop to it" and we engage in a conspiracy to throw their bodies in front of Obamas Limo to make it crash.
When my brilliant oratory is done, the whole pond erupts in a thunder of croaking.
La N, can I get political asylum in Canuckistan? After all, we let y'all Canadians into Florida.
Mark Test
May 20, 2013, 12:12:00 PM5/20/13
to
"Arved Sandstrom" wrote in message news:1Xxlt.2$v4...@newsfe13.iad...
On 05/17/2013 01:32 PM, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have
> been elected?
>
http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation-supposes-its-outraged-by-white-house-scanda,32486/
Love the Onion! Thanks for sharing.
On 05/17/2013 01:32 PM, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have
> been elected?
>
Love the Onion! Thanks for sharing.
dott.Piergiorgio
May 20, 2013, 3:09:56 PM5/20/13
to
Il 20/05/2013 17:03, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
> says? Are they married or something? I've lost track of her
> peccadilloes and perambulations.
pls don't restart... or send both of you behind the blackboard ! ;) :P
> "La N." <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> And since when does Froggie have the power of reminding servicemen of
>> anything? Is he head of CENTCOM or something? I've lost track of his
>> promotions.
>>
>
> Since when does Nilita "have the power" to criticize what "Froggie"
>> And since when does Froggie have the power of reminding servicemen of
>> anything? Is he head of CENTCOM or something? I've lost track of his
>> promotions.
>>
>
> says? Are they married or something? I've lost track of her
> peccadilloes and perambulations.
pls don't restart... or send both of you behind the blackboard ! ;) :P
La N.
May 20, 2013, 4:47:28 PM5/20/13
to
"dott.Piergiorgio" <chied...@ask.me> wrote in message
news:8yumt.11521$iY1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
>
> pls don't restart... or send both of you behind the blackboard ! ;) :P
>
> Best regards from Italy,
> dott. Piergiorgio.
>
>
And please keep me out of this bickering. Thank you. My comments were
> pls don't restart... or send both of you behind the blackboard ! ;) :P
>
> Best regards from Italy,
> dott. Piergiorgio.
>
>
directed towards Froggie (formerly known as "my pet frog".
- nilita
La N.
May 20, 2013, 4:52:45 PM5/20/13
to
<ohar...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:41fdea52-6b7c-4be0...@googlegroups.com...
are cheap, cheap, cheap.
And, oh, btw, Frog, guess what Breaking News just popped into my inbox:
Original Message -----
From: CNN Breaking News
To: textbrea...@ema3lsv06.turner.com
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:04 PM
Subject: CNN Breaking News
A new CNN/ORC International poll shows that President Barack Obama remains
popular and a majority of Americans continue to think he is honest and has
managed the government effectively, while the tea party movement got a boost
after being targeted by the IRS.
The survey was taken last week after the IRS, Benghazi and Associated Press
controversies marked one of the worst weeks for the White House. It asked if
Obama is a strong leader, with 58% saying he is, a level he last reached
just after the death of Osama bin Laden in 2011.
The tea party movement's overall favorable rating is up nine points to 37%
since March; 45% hold an unfavorable view of the tea party, the poll shows.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a favorite for the Democratic
presidential nomination if she runs in 2016, continues to hold a favorable
rating over 60%.
The survey, conducted May 17-18, has a sampling error of +/- 3 percentage po
ints.
***********************
- nil
Arved Sandstrom
May 20, 2013, 5:13:22 PM5/20/13
to
On 05/20/2013 05:52 PM, La N. wrote:
>
> <ohar...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:41fdea52-6b7c-4be0...@googlegroups.com...
>> On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:32:32 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>> http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have
>>> been elected?
>>
>> Never met La N. My interpretation of her remark is that it is doubtful
>> any servicemen would listen to me and in this she is correct.
>> So, I spend my evenings in my lawn chair in front of the pond exhorting my
>> amphibian minions to "Take up arms.....er Legs" and "Hop to it" and we
>> engage in a conspiracy to throw their bodies in front of Obamas Limo to
>> make it crash.
>> When my brilliant oratory is done, the whole pond erupts in a thunder of
>> croaking.
>> La N, can I get political asylum in Canuckistan? After all, we let y'all
>> Canadians into Florida.
>
> Canucks from my part of the country tend to winter in Arizona where houses
> are cheap, cheap, cheap.
[ SNIP ]
>
> <ohar...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:41fdea52-6b7c-4be0...@googlegroups.com...
>> On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:32:32 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>> http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have
>>> been elected?
>>
>> Never met La N. My interpretation of her remark is that it is doubtful
>> any servicemen would listen to me and in this she is correct.
>> So, I spend my evenings in my lawn chair in front of the pond exhorting my
>> amphibian minions to "Take up arms.....er Legs" and "Hop to it" and we
>> engage in a conspiracy to throw their bodies in front of Obamas Limo to
>> make it crash.
>> When my brilliant oratory is done, the whole pond erupts in a thunder of
>> croaking.
>> La N, can I get political asylum in Canuckistan? After all, we let y'all
>> Canadians into Florida.
>
> Canucks from my part of the country tend to winter in Arizona where houses
> are cheap, cheap, cheap.
Forgive my cynicism, but why do Canucks from *your* part of our
wonderful country need to winter anywhere? :-) You guys on the Left
Coast don't even have a real winter until you hit Alaska.
Me OTOH - and I'm bitter about this - had flurries, hail and sleet just
2 days ago.
AHS
La N.
May 20, 2013, 5:18:18 PM5/20/13
to
"Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@eastlink.ca> wrote in message
news:Tlwmt.2709$lJ7....@newsfe01.iad...
I haven't seen snow for two years since I moved here from .. brrrr...
Saskatchewan .....
- nilita (nice temperature weather here)
tutall
May 20, 2013, 5:45:25 PM5/20/13
to
On May 19, 4:52 pm, "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "tutall" <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...
>
> While I feel "ohara"s opinions are somewhat over the top,
> I stongly feel "tutall"s here are reprehensible.
> He ("tutal") is here defending the IRS doing discriminatory actions
> against citizens he chooses to call "scumbags".
Oh drama queen time is it? Are you one of those people who feel so
> "tutall" <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...
>
> While I feel "ohara"s opinions are somewhat over the top,
> I stongly feel "tutall"s here are reprehensible.
> He ("tutal") is here defending the IRS doing discriminatory actions
> against citizens he chooses to call "scumbags".
victimized all the time?
Read a bit more on this, you'll find there's not much there there. And
those people I'm calling scumbags are the ones trying to hide their
politics and obsure their donors, and yes, that would include groups
of any stripe.
I would like to have the larger ones such as American Crossroads
looked at more closely. If you can name a similar one supporting Dems,
by all means, them too.
These Super Pacs operating this was is not a good thing. Do you
disagree with that statement too?
> Even POTUS Obama has stated they failed.
But hell, enjoy your victimization if you like. I also war against
Christmas seasonally if you'd like someone to blame for that.
ohar...@mindspring.com
May 21, 2013, 12:02:17 AM5/21/13
to
On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:32:32 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
>
>
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
Arizona? Huh, can terrestrial life even live there? I got more water in a cubic meter of air here than in all of AZ. You might as well "winter" on the moon and you'd get as much sunlight.
> http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
>
>
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
Message has been deleted
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
May 21, 2013, 1:34:02 AM5/21/13
to
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
May 21, 2013, 1:34:19 AM5/21/13
to
in democracy as you do into heroic armed rebellion and 2nd
Amendments arguing, then there would be no need for the armed rebellion.
you lazy citizens don't deserve a democracy
;-)
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
May 21, 2013, 1:38:45 AM5/21/13
to
;-)
Bill
May 21, 2013, 7:00:01 AM5/21/13
to
a425couple
May 21, 2013, 12:07:58 PM5/21/13
to
"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message ...
Well, I spent a career plus dealing with that type of thing,
and although I'm working on getting out of practice, and
I sure have not noticed everything Ohara has posted,
nothing of his I've read, strikes me as raising to a prosecutable level.
Meanwhile, a refresher, perhaps relevant.
In the UK, your military, police, judges, lawyers, office holders,
all give oaths to support a person, the Queen.
In the US the military, all police/LEOs, judges, prosecutors,
lawyers, and all office holders give an oath to support the
constitution.
(and your Peirs Morgan may, in other ways be smart enough,
but IMHO, him calling it a "scrap of paper" was stupid!)
Additionally, most of the above have given their oaths
to support their state constitutions.
Reminding people of this is certainly not criminal.
And meanwhile, of related interest:
http://pjmedia.com/blog/new-gun-laws/?singlepage=true
IMHO, one of the most thought provoking sections:
' 3) Local law enforcement officials and state governments have
also vowed civil disobedience.
Over 280 sheriffs and eight state sheriffs' associations have vowed to
protect citizens' Second Amendment rights against new gun laws.
The Utah Sheriffs' Association used unusually strong language:
"We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade
our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation."
Similarly, several state legislatures are considering laws to stop federal
officials from enforcing new gun laws within their jurisdictions, including
Missouri, Wyoming, and North Dakota.'
and although I'm working on getting out of practice, and
I sure have not noticed everything Ohara has posted,
nothing of his I've read, strikes me as raising to a prosecutable level.
Meanwhile, a refresher, perhaps relevant.
In the UK, your military, police, judges, lawyers, office holders,
all give oaths to support a person, the Queen.
In the US the military, all police/LEOs, judges, prosecutors,
lawyers, and all office holders give an oath to support the
constitution.
(and your Peirs Morgan may, in other ways be smart enough,
but IMHO, him calling it a "scrap of paper" was stupid!)
Additionally, most of the above have given their oaths
to support their state constitutions.
Reminding people of this is certainly not criminal.
And meanwhile, of related interest:
http://pjmedia.com/blog/new-gun-laws/?singlepage=true
IMHO, one of the most thought provoking sections:
' 3) Local law enforcement officials and state governments have
also vowed civil disobedience.
Over 280 sheriffs and eight state sheriffs' associations have vowed to
protect citizens' Second Amendment rights against new gun laws.
The Utah Sheriffs' Association used unusually strong language:
"We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade
our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation."
Similarly, several state legislatures are considering laws to stop federal
officials from enforcing new gun laws within their jurisdictions, including
Missouri, Wyoming, and North Dakota.'
a425couple
May 21, 2013, 12:33:18 PM5/21/13
to
"dott.Piergiorgio" <chied...@ask.me> wrote in message...
> Andrew Swallow ha scritto:
(now that I see where the $%#** he wanted it!)
The reason military maneuvers include maps of the MD/VA area
is the location of the national capital, Washington DC, is on the border
between the two states.
If you are planning a coup or similar, Seven Days in May, you would
prefer to have some control over the Capital city.
Recent movie had North Korea using a crash of a large aircraft to
destroy the East Wing of the White House. Not sure why they
did that, the East Wing is residence, the West Wing has the
power structure and connection to the rest of the world.
> Andrew Swallow ha scritto:
> it's the same thing as saying that the various "war plan gray" of yore,
> and all planning for the cases of secession and/or major civilian unrest
> are illegal (because in those plannings one must consider the enemy's
> strategy and operations, whose is equal to make rebellion/secession
> planning....
>
> (also, I noticed that up to WWII US army's map exercises near-always
> happen to use the map of MD/VA aerea, a thing whose perplexed myself...)
Jack Linthicum wished to add:
> and all planning for the cases of secession and/or major civilian unrest
> are illegal (because in those plannings one must consider the enemy's
> strategy and operations, whose is equal to make rebellion/secession
> planning....
>
> (also, I noticed that up to WWII US army's map exercises near-always
> happen to use the map of MD/VA aerea, a thing whose perplexed myself...)
(now that I see where the $%#** he wanted it!)
The reason military maneuvers include maps of the MD/VA area
is the location of the national capital, Washington DC, is on the border
between the two states.
If you are planning a coup or similar, Seven Days in May, you would
prefer to have some control over the Capital city.
Recent movie had North Korea using a crash of a large aircraft to
destroy the East Wing of the White House. Not sure why they
did that, the East Wing is residence, the West Wing has the
power structure and connection to the rest of the world.
a425couple
May 21, 2013, 2:00:43 PM5/21/13
to
"tutall" <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...
- "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
-> "tutall" <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...
>
> While I feel "ohara"s opinions are somewhat over the top,
> I stongly feel "tutall"s here are reprehensible.
> He ("tutal") is here defending the IRS doing discriminatory actions
> against citizens he chooses to call "scumbags".
- Oh drama queen time is it?
> While I feel "ohara"s opinions are somewhat over the top,
> I stongly feel "tutall"s here are reprehensible.
> He ("tutal") is here defending the IRS doing discriminatory actions
> against citizens he chooses to call "scumbags".
What??
I felt your statement and opinion was reprehensible
( Deserving rebuke or censure; blameworthy)
and I said so. I'm not sure why you call that "drama queen".
> Even POTUS Obama has stated they failed.
And if you think POTUS Obama is pandering to
the Tea Party groups, most will not comprehend it.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
May 21, 2013, 2:38:19 PM5/21/13
to
In article <oMqdnYmE0_XNmgbM...@supernews.com>,
"Dr. Vincent Quin, PhrauD." on Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:38:17 AM spewed
inform us of what you are doing to deserve democracy except to clutter
the electrons and increase the wealth of the electric and internet
utilities you use
"Dr. Vincent Quin, PhrauD." on Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:38:17 AM spewed
the electrons and increase the wealth of the electric and internet
utilities you use
Bill
May 21, 2013, 2:52:11 PM5/21/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 09:07:58 -0700, "a425couple"
<a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message ...
<a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message ...
>> However ohara's statements are probably illegal because they're an
>> incitement to rebellion by soldiers who have sworn an oath.
>
>Well, I spent a career plus dealing with that type of thing,
>and although I'm working on getting out of practice, and
>I sure have not noticed everything Ohara has posted,
>nothing of his I've read, strikes me as raising to a prosecutable level.
OK,. sounds reasonable, I was just trying to get him worried.
>> incitement to rebellion by soldiers who have sworn an oath.
>
>Well, I spent a career plus dealing with that type of thing,
>and although I'm working on getting out of practice, and
>I sure have not noticed everything Ohara has posted,
>nothing of his I've read, strikes me as raising to a prosecutable level.
>
>Meanwhile, a refresher, perhaps relevant.
>In the UK, your military, police, judges, lawyers, office holders,
>all give oaths to support a person, the Queen.
>In the US the military, all police/LEOs, judges, prosecutors,
>lawyers, and all office holders give an oath to support the
>constitution.
Lawyers don't, neither do civil servants.
The oath makes no mention of a constitution either.
Its exact form of words is:
I, (Insert full name), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true
allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors,
according to law. So help me God.
The police and clergy swear different oaths.
In over twenty years working in the defence sector I was never asked
to swear any kind of oath although I did have to sign to say I had
read and understood the Official Secrets Act every year.
>Over 280 sheriffs and eight state sheriffs' associations have vowed to
>protect citizens' Second Amendment rights against new gun laws.
>The Utah Sheriffs' Association used unusually strong language:
> "We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the
> Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade
> our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation."
>Similarly, several state legislatures are considering laws to stop federal
>officials from enforcing new gun laws within their jurisdictions, including
>Missouri, Wyoming, and North Dakota.'
to impose a reasonably lax set of laws controlling firearms.
Say the US Federal Government passes a law that requires secure
storage for all firearms, and brings in a system of inspection for
that.
Message has been deleted
Bill
May 22, 2013, 12:43:28 PM5/22/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:09:29 -0700, Fred J. McCall
<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Say the US Federal Government passes a law that requires secure
>>storage for all firearms, and brings in a system of inspection for
>>that.
>>
>
>Most states would tell them they're exceeding their authority.
The last time the various states tried that it all ended in tears,
Sherman's March to the Sea, Gettysburg and etc...
You don't want to go through all that again just because you want to
preserve the right of lunatics to shoot school kids, do you?
<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Say the US Federal Government passes a law that requires secure
>>storage for all firearms, and brings in a system of inspection for
>>that.
>>
>
The last time the various states tried that it all ended in tears,
Sherman's March to the Sea, Gettysburg and etc...
You don't want to go through all that again just because you want to
preserve the right of lunatics to shoot school kids, do you?
a425couple
May 22, 2013, 7:54:49 PM5/22/13
to
"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
> tutall <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> tutall <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >Isn't it outrageous that there are so many scumbags making political
>>> >groups under the guise of tax free charitable groups so they can hide
>>> >the money donors and thereby subvert our democracy?
>>>
>>> You don't understand what a 501c is. It's got nothing to do with
>>> being a 'charitable group'. It's got to do with being a NON-PROFIT
>>> group.
>>
>>Pthth. Is there a point there? Nope, you're still Fred.
>
> In other words, your ignorance has been exposed and there's nothing
> you can say in response.
>>> >
>>> >It's fucking awful, don't you think? Don't you think the IRS should go
>>> >after these obvious shams?
>>>
>>> No, because they're not 'shams' and there's nothing illegal about
>>> them.
>>
>>It's illegal is their purpose is political. You don't even understand
>>that bit?
>
> Uh, no, since that's an untrue statement. Here, educate yourself.
> http://www.muridae.com/nporegulation/lobbying.html
>
>>> >Oh, right, one office did, and you're angry. Just at the wrong people.
>>>
>>> Nope. I don't care which side does it.
>>
>>And you didn't understand why, for such a long time I thought you an
>>OHara here were the same person.
>
> Oh, I understand your inability to think.
(Well, on this point, I agree with Fred's point)
Hey Fred, the answer is included right here!
"Introduction
Tax-exempt nonprofit organizations categorized under IRC 501(c)(3)
in federal law [i.e. 26 USC 501(c)(3)] are generally permitted to "lobby"
to some extent, but are absolutely prohibited from engaging in
"political activity." The distinction between these two activities is
crucial,
but not always simple to make."
Obviously, for "tutal", if it is not simple, he can not recognize it!
But, on the larger issue, these "fine points" do keep
getting tougher. In the past I've served as a Treasurer
for a party's legislative district and it took plenty of
study and work to keep the i's doted and t's crossed.
I'm pretty sure I would not want to do that again.
> tutall <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> tutall <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >Isn't it outrageous that there are so many scumbags making political
>>> >groups under the guise of tax free charitable groups so they can hide
>>> >the money donors and thereby subvert our democracy?
>>>
>>> You don't understand what a 501c is. It's got nothing to do with
>>> being a 'charitable group'. It's got to do with being a NON-PROFIT
>>> group.
>>
>>Pthth. Is there a point there? Nope, you're still Fred.
>
> In other words, your ignorance has been exposed and there's nothing
> you can say in response.
>>> >
>>> >It's fucking awful, don't you think? Don't you think the IRS should go
>>> >after these obvious shams?
>>>
>>> No, because they're not 'shams' and there's nothing illegal about
>>> them.
>>
>>It's illegal is their purpose is political. You don't even understand
>>that bit?
>
> Uh, no, since that's an untrue statement. Here, educate yourself.
> http://www.muridae.com/nporegulation/lobbying.html
>
>>> >Oh, right, one office did, and you're angry. Just at the wrong people.
>>>
>>> Nope. I don't care which side does it.
>>
>>And you didn't understand why, for such a long time I thought you an
>>OHara here were the same person.
>
> Oh, I understand your inability to think.
(Well, on this point, I agree with Fred's point)
Hey Fred, the answer is included right here!
"Introduction
Tax-exempt nonprofit organizations categorized under IRC 501(c)(3)
in federal law [i.e. 26 USC 501(c)(3)] are generally permitted to "lobby"
to some extent, but are absolutely prohibited from engaging in
"political activity." The distinction between these two activities is
crucial,
but not always simple to make."
Obviously, for "tutal", if it is not simple, he can not recognize it!
But, on the larger issue, these "fine points" do keep
getting tougher. In the past I've served as a Treasurer
for a party's legislative district and it took plenty of
study and work to keep the i's doted and t's crossed.
I'm pretty sure I would not want to do that again.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
May 22, 2013, 8:18:07 PM5/22/13
to
Incite to rebellion *now* is not same as incite to prepare for
possible bad government in *future*.
;-)
tutall
May 22, 2013, 8:59:06 PM5/22/13
to
On May 22, 4:54 pm, "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Fred J. McCall" <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
Being unable to spell "tall" makes you an expert on, what?
Now, please, take the next step and actually apply that knowledge. Rub
those grey cells together now.
Rub them really really hard, now, please explain to the class how
Rove's American fits that definition.
As compared to say, the NAACP.
>
> But, on the larger issue, these "fine points" do keep
> getting tougher. In the past I've served as a Treasurer
> for a party's legislative district and it took plenty of
> study and work to keep the i's doted and t's crossed.
> I'm pretty sure I would not want to do that again.- Hide quoted text -
On the larger issue these 501C's need to be better defined. Maybe
congress could do something along those lines?
Oh, right, this congress does not want to do it's job. This one seems
to believe their mission is to not govern.
Why are we paying these shits and why are they taking our money to
not do their job?
> "Fred J. McCall" <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
Now, please, take the next step and actually apply that knowledge. Rub
those grey cells together now.
Rub them really really hard, now, please explain to the class how
Rove's American fits that definition.
As compared to say, the NAACP.
>
> But, on the larger issue, these "fine points" do keep
> getting tougher. In the past I've served as a Treasurer
> for a party's legislative district and it took plenty of
> study and work to keep the i's doted and t's crossed.
On the larger issue these 501C's need to be better defined. Maybe
congress could do something along those lines?
Oh, right, this congress does not want to do it's job. This one seems
to believe their mission is to not govern.
Why are we paying these shits and why are they taking our money to
not do their job?
Frogwatch
May 22, 2013, 11:11:04 PM5/22/13
to
On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:32:32 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
>
>
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
Bill:
> http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
>
>
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
I do not pretend to be very familiar with the law in England and you clearly are not familiar with the law in the USA. In the USA, I would actually have to state that a specific person(s) should do somethign illegal and suggest a way for them to do so to be prosecutable. If I actually say that US soldiers should turn their arms against Obama it would elicit nothing more'n yawns here.
BTW, I have my "nom-de usenet" back if you'll notice. All of SMN should tremble in loathing.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
May 22, 2013, 11:46:53 PM5/22/13
to
Frogwatch wrote:
>
> Bill:
You're a Looney Toon.
;-)
>
> Bill:
>
> If I actually say that US soldiers should turn their arms against Obama it would elicit nothing more'n yawns here.
No, son, you would go to jail. Definitely.
> If I actually say that US soldiers should turn their arms against Obama it would elicit nothing more'n yawns here.
You're a Looney Toon.
;-)
Message has been deleted
tutall
May 23, 2013, 12:18:48 AM5/23/13
to
On May 22, 9:10 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hint: It wouldn't. Gun control only controls the honest sane people.
Based on that "logic" we should get rid of drug laws too then.
Drugs don't addict people, only people become addicted.
> Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hint: It wouldn't. Gun control only controls the honest sane people.
Based on that "logic" we should get rid of drug laws too then.
Drugs don't addict people, only people become addicted.
ohar...@mindspring.com
May 23, 2013, 1:11:00 AM5/23/13
to
On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:32:32 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
>
>
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
OK, experiment always trumps theory.
> http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
>
>
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
U.S. Soldiers should turn their guns against Obama and ignore any orders he may give.
Should I sit and wait for the FBI to show up or go to bed?
Andrew Swallow
May 23, 2013, 2:55:23 AM5/23/13
to
On 23/05/2013 05:10, Fred J. McCall wrote:
{snip}
>
> Hint: It wouldn't. Gun control only controls the honest sane people.
>
That is sufficient. Anyone out of uniform carrying a gun has just
confessed to being dishonest. The police shoot them.
Andrew Swallow
{snip}
>
> Hint: It wouldn't. Gun control only controls the honest sane people.
>
confessed to being dishonest. The police shoot them.
Andrew Swallow
Gernot Hassenpflug
May 23, 2013, 6:09:03 AM5/23/13
to
blighters! House-to-house searches called for.
--
Gernot Hassenpflug
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
ohar...@mindspring.com
May 23, 2013, 10:25:09 AM5/23/13
to
On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:32:32 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
>
>
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
I think we can safely conclude that I am correct; one can say nearly anything unless it is "actionable" without having stormtroopers appear at your door.
> http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
>
>
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
What prob happed is that somewhere a computer flagged my post and a low level functionary might have looked at it in a bored way saying, "That loon Frogwatch running his mouth again, nuthin to get excited about", end of story.
tutall
May 23, 2013, 10:48:20 AM5/23/13
to
On May 23, 7:00 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> rate sometime.
> heroin is addictive?
Are there truly people who are so stupid that they don't know that
guns make homicide easier.
If knives and machetes are grass, guns are crack.
> tutall <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 22, 9:10 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Hint: It wouldn't. Gun control only controls the honest sane people.
>
> >Based on that "logic" we should get rid of drug laws too then.
>
> We probably should. You should take a look at the associated homicide
> >On May 22, 9:10 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Hint: It wouldn't. Gun control only controls the honest sane people.
>
> >Based on that "logic" we should get rid of drug laws too then.
>
> rate sometime.
>
>
>
> >Drugs don't addict people, only people become addicted.
>
> Are there truly people who are so stupid that they don't know that
>
>
> >Drugs don't addict people, only people become addicted.
>
> heroin is addictive?
Are there truly people who are so stupid that they don't know that
guns make homicide easier.
If knives and machetes are grass, guns are crack.
tutall
May 23, 2013, 10:56:51 AM5/23/13
to
On May 21, 11:00 am, "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "tutall" <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...
>
> - "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> -> "tutall" <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...
>
> > While I feel "ohara"s opinions are somewhat over the top,
> > I stongly feel "tutall"s here are reprehensible.
> > He ("tutal") is here defending the IRS doing discriminatory actions
> > against citizens he chooses to call "scumbags".
>
> - Oh drama queen time is it?
>
> What??
> I felt your statement and opinion was reprehensible
> "tutall" <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...
>
> - "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> -> "tutall" <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...
>
> > While I feel "ohara"s opinions are somewhat over the top,
> > I stongly feel "tutall"s here are reprehensible.
> > He ("tutal") is here defending the IRS doing discriminatory actions
> > against citizens he chooses to call "scumbags".
>
> - Oh drama queen time is it?
>
> What??
> I felt your statement and opinion was reprehensible
> and I said so. I'm not sure why you call that "drama queen".
Yes, your opinion was all about feeling. Hence the drama queen label.
If you bothered to actually read what I'm writing, your panties would
not be bunched up.
>
> > Even POTUS Obama has stated they failed.
>
> - Yes, that office did, and he's pandering a bit too.
>
> And if you think POTUS Obama is pandering to
> the Tea Party groups, most will not comprehend it.
"pandering" and amended it to suit your narrative.
I know knocking down strawmen is easy, sure seems boring as hell too.
Instead of arguing with the voices in your head, why don't you try
arguing with what I actually write? If I am unclear in some thing,
just ask, and we can have a honest to goodness discussion.
Or, you can keep on making strawmen and I can keep on making fun of
you for it.
Message has been deleted
Andrew Swallow
May 23, 2013, 11:28:28 AM5/23/13
to
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
May 23, 2013, 11:30:21 AM5/23/13
to
On 23/05/2013 15:03, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Oh, don't be silly. You think there are always police around?
>
There will be. Unarmed people call the police when they see armed men
around.
Andrew Swallow
>
There will be. Unarmed people call the police when they see armed men
around.
Andrew Swallow
tutall
May 23, 2013, 11:53:10 AM5/23/13
to
> make humans illegal.
Handwaving like this is best you can do.
Butter knives? Sledge hammers? Ninja stars?
What's easier and less personal in the heat of things than a gun?
In a house with common household object, and a pistol, in what order
would you put these:
Fireplace poker
Chef's knife
Hammer
Screwdriver
Chair
Baseball Bat
Gun.
The personal violence level required to use the old traditional
weapons (knives and such) are much higher than with a gun. You have to
get close and personal with the person you a killing, you have to get
yourself bloody and feel, with your hands and body, the results of
your blows. A gun allows a person to distance themselves from the
victim, lowering the violence threashold drastically.
All this is too obvious to all but gun nitwits. I expect nothing more
than more personal insults rather than reasoned response to this. Not
from you anyway Fred.
> >If knives and machetes are grass, guns are crack.
>
Lack of argument noted.
ohar...@mindspring.com
May 23, 2013, 12:25:39 PM5/23/13
to
On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:32:32 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
>
>
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
I think I am much safer knowing that there are random people around me with concealed carry permits although I know I don't want a gun.
> http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
>
>
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
peter skelton
May 24, 2013, 7:46:23 AM5/24/13
to
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news:o1rtp8lm11mju1dni...@4ax.com...
>Twice as many people are murdered with hammers every year
>as are
murdered with 'AR-15 like assault weapons". So why no cries
to ban
hammers? They obviously make murder easier than an AR-15
does.
Naturally you took access into account when you worked up
the data behind that statement, didn't you?
You're a shockingly incompetent statistician Fred.
news:o1rtp8lm11mju1dni...@4ax.com...
>as are
murdered with 'AR-15 like assault weapons". So why no cries
to ban
hammers? They obviously make murder easier than an AR-15
does.
Naturally you took access into account when you worked up
the data behind that statement, didn't you?
You're a shockingly incompetent statistician Fred.
tutall
May 24, 2013, 10:25:15 AM5/24/13
to
On May 23, 9:30 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> tutall <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 23, 8:28 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> tutall <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On May 23, 7:00 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> tutall <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On May 22, 9:10 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> Hint: It wouldn't. Gun control only controls the honest sane people.
>
> >> >> >Based on that "logic" we should get rid of drug laws too then.
>
> >> >> We probably should. You should take a look at the associated homicide
> >> >> rate sometime.
>
> >> >> >Drugs don't addict people, only people become addicted.
>
> >> >> Are there truly people who are so stupid that they don't know that
> >> >> heroin is addictive?
>
> >> >Are there truly people who are so stupid that they don't know that
> >> >guns make homicide easier.
>
> >> Lots of things "make homicide easier". The only real solution is to
> >> make humans illegal.
>
> >Handwaving like this is best you can do.
>
> >Butter knives? Sledge hammers? Ninja stars?
> >What's easier and less personal in the heat of things than a gun?
>
> tutall <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 23, 8:28 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> tutall <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On May 23, 7:00 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> tutall <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On May 22, 9:10 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> Hint: It wouldn't. Gun control only controls the honest sane people.
>
> >> >> >Based on that "logic" we should get rid of drug laws too then.
>
> >> >> We probably should. You should take a look at the associated homicide
> >> >> rate sometime.
>
> >> >> >Drugs don't addict people, only people become addicted.
>
> >> >> Are there truly people who are so stupid that they don't know that
> >> >> heroin is addictive?
>
> >> >Are there truly people who are so stupid that they don't know that
> >> >guns make homicide easier.
>
> >> Lots of things "make homicide easier". The only real solution is to
> >> make humans illegal.
>
> >Handwaving like this is best you can do.
>
> >Butter knives? Sledge hammers? Ninja stars?
> >What's easier and less personal in the heat of things than a gun?
>
> Twice as many people are murdered with hammers every year as are
> murdered with 'AR-15 like assault weapons". So why no cries to ban
> hammers? They obviously make murder easier than an AR-15 does.
As Peter points out, this is an argument only a grade schooler would
> murdered with 'AR-15 like assault weapons". So why no cries to ban
> hammers? They obviously make murder easier than an AR-15 does.
find convincing.
Fittingly, you are the one making it.
So, you do not recognize what every other sane person does: that
different delivery systems can and do remove the killer further from
the reality of the killing, death and mayhem.
Knife
Gun
Artillery
B-52
We thought you ignored reality, now we know it.
> <snip irrelevant idiocy>
>
> Explain Switzerland and Mexico.
Mexico, with 60,000 dead from gang warfare? That Mexico?
Mexico with lax enforcement and low regulatory wild west culture? Why
on earth would you ever want to compare the US to Mexico? Unless you
*want* the US to more resemble our neighbor to the south. Which will
be the result if current Randian thinking among the extremists becomes
reality.
Note, when gunnuts cite countries they are very selective as to what
country, and when. Because when you expand comparisons to other 1st
world countries, most of western Europe, Japan, Taiwan and Singapore,
their arguments fall to tatters.
>
> >> >If knives and machetes are grass, guns are crack.
>
> >> And you should stop smoking it.
>
> >Lack of argument noted.
>
So predictable. Name calling and hand waving is all you got. No wonder
you're so angry.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
peter skelton
May 24, 2013, 11:16:18 AM5/24/13
to
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news:05vup8dpqcsuk8t32...@4ax.com...
No, I don't like people who grossly misrepresent them
>You're a shockingly incompetent statistician Fred.
>what they are.
Yes the facts are that an assault weapon is several hundred
(perhaps thousand) times more likely to be involved in a
murder than a hammer and that you misrepresent that fact.
I know you hate facts Fred, but please try to be more subtle
about it.
Dean Markley
May 24, 2013, 1:42:55 PM5/24/13
to
a425couple
May 24, 2013, 1:47:07 PM5/24/13
to
"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
> Fred J. McCall
-> <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
->>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Say the US Federal Government passes a law that requires secure
>>>storage for all firearms, and brings in a system of inspection for
>>>that.
>>
>>Most states would tell them they're exceeding their authority.
>
> The last time the various states tried that it all ended in tears,
> Sherman's March to the Sea, Gettysburg and etc...
> You don't want to go through all that again
Bill, quite clearly the Federal Government itself
did not wish the result of the Civil War was to do away
with the existance or function of the states.
Their are plenty of valid areas of dispute between
the fed. and the states.
And the Federal Govt. often enough loses.
I have to be brief & on my way for the weekend,
and this is far from a 'finished product', but I hope
I'm better "sending" it rather than "discarding" it,
here are some of my ideas on the following:
>>>Say the US Federal Government passes a law that
>>>requires secure storage for all firearms, and brings in a
>>>system of inspection for that.
1. I do not think politically that it would have much chance.
1. Ex. #1 My state is quite clearly majority Democrat
with long time D control of the governorship & both houses.
The most liberal, big city D's were sure they were going
to get a major gun control bill through and introduced it.
Some time passed, then it got read, and turns out it had
a provision very much like the above (home inspections
for safety), even the normally liberal columnists screamed!!
Simple fact, invading personal privacy is a hot button
issue that really is not that partisan.
The moderate & more conservative elected Democrats
walked away so quick, they would not even bring up the
bill for vote or amendment.
The authors claimed that it was a mistaken 'draft' that
their low paid staffers submitted by mistake. Opps!
1.Ex.2 Montana's Democrat Senator Max Baucus
has served long and played some pretty influential
roles for the Ds. He's easily won his elections.
He is retiring. The Democrats really want to keep
his seat D. They are searching for a mostly pro-gun
rights D, to be electable and to replace him.
2. I do not think a law like that would pass
a review and a decision by the SCOTUS.
Unlike what Piers Morgan thinks, the US Constitution
is more than a "scrap of paper"!
3. I do not think a law like that would pass
a review and a decision by many of the states courts.
Yes, I know, you think the Federal Government
is supreme, but not always.
Example The Federal Government has for a long
time had marrajuanna as illegal. Well, my state
and another decided to make it legal.
The Feds, certainly so far, seem to be realizing
it is not likely to win (or not worth the fight).
4. Even if it passed that, I do not think that the
Feds. could come up with the inspectors, and
that a fair number of states & many counties would
not assist. Also please recall the Posse Comitatus Act.
5. Even, if it did start being enforced, I think
enough tragedies would soon develop ---
Yeah, a fair amount of the super hard core pro-gun
talk ("pry it from my cold dead fingers") is just talk,
or would gradually be overcome by practicality,
but a substantial enough core is real.
Good LEOs and productive citizens will die.
The moderates are going to do some rethinking.
(Sure, the hard core anti-gun individuals are going to
be gleefully watching and saying, "See, we told you
they were whacko & dangerous" - but moderates--)
Like Prohibition, reality will not work well.
And contrary to your previously posted opinion,
Ruby Ridge was much more than a quick roll over.
And had serious lasting costs.
6. Also, face it, law enforcement is expensive. And
all related downstream like prosecution & confinement
is also expensive. And pulling LEOs off current work
also quickly brings serious issues.
The Feds already have budget issues, and many states
and counties are in even worse shape.
* Prisons are already being shut down for budget issues,
murderers and rapists released early, teachers laid off,
road building & repair postponed, and more?
* I'm reminded of one LE department's fair size platoon
(33 LEOs) with a really dreary task, they are assigned to
get the known weapons that evidence shows felons and unstable
individuals already have. They succeeded in seizing 2,000
firearms last year. As hard as they work at it,
they can not make progress, because more keep getting
added. If we can not get the guns from felons, why even
try from the law abiding?
7. As I've said before, I am pretty confident that none of
the likely proposals will effect me personally, but I
fear for the consequences for many.
> Fred J. McCall
-> <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
->>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Say the US Federal Government passes a law that requires secure
>>>storage for all firearms, and brings in a system of inspection for
>>>that.
>>
>>Most states would tell them they're exceeding their authority.
>
> The last time the various states tried that it all ended in tears,
> Sherman's March to the Sea, Gettysburg and etc...
> You don't want to go through all that again
Bill, quite clearly the Federal Government itself
did not wish the result of the Civil War was to do away
with the existance or function of the states.
Their are plenty of valid areas of dispute between
the fed. and the states.
And the Federal Govt. often enough loses.
I have to be brief & on my way for the weekend,
and this is far from a 'finished product', but I hope
I'm better "sending" it rather than "discarding" it,
here are some of my ideas on the following:
>>>Say the US Federal Government passes a law that
>>>requires secure storage for all firearms, and brings in a
>>>system of inspection for that.
1. I do not think politically that it would have much chance.
1. Ex. #1 My state is quite clearly majority Democrat
with long time D control of the governorship & both houses.
The most liberal, big city D's were sure they were going
to get a major gun control bill through and introduced it.
Some time passed, then it got read, and turns out it had
a provision very much like the above (home inspections
for safety), even the normally liberal columnists screamed!!
Simple fact, invading personal privacy is a hot button
issue that really is not that partisan.
The moderate & more conservative elected Democrats
walked away so quick, they would not even bring up the
bill for vote or amendment.
The authors claimed that it was a mistaken 'draft' that
their low paid staffers submitted by mistake. Opps!
1.Ex.2 Montana's Democrat Senator Max Baucus
has served long and played some pretty influential
roles for the Ds. He's easily won his elections.
He is retiring. The Democrats really want to keep
his seat D. They are searching for a mostly pro-gun
rights D, to be electable and to replace him.
2. I do not think a law like that would pass
a review and a decision by the SCOTUS.
Unlike what Piers Morgan thinks, the US Constitution
is more than a "scrap of paper"!
3. I do not think a law like that would pass
a review and a decision by many of the states courts.
Yes, I know, you think the Federal Government
is supreme, but not always.
Example The Federal Government has for a long
time had marrajuanna as illegal. Well, my state
and another decided to make it legal.
The Feds, certainly so far, seem to be realizing
it is not likely to win (or not worth the fight).
4. Even if it passed that, I do not think that the
Feds. could come up with the inspectors, and
that a fair number of states & many counties would
not assist. Also please recall the Posse Comitatus Act.
5. Even, if it did start being enforced, I think
enough tragedies would soon develop ---
Yeah, a fair amount of the super hard core pro-gun
talk ("pry it from my cold dead fingers") is just talk,
or would gradually be overcome by practicality,
but a substantial enough core is real.
Good LEOs and productive citizens will die.
The moderates are going to do some rethinking.
(Sure, the hard core anti-gun individuals are going to
be gleefully watching and saying, "See, we told you
they were whacko & dangerous" - but moderates--)
Like Prohibition, reality will not work well.
And contrary to your previously posted opinion,
Ruby Ridge was much more than a quick roll over.
And had serious lasting costs.
6. Also, face it, law enforcement is expensive. And
all related downstream like prosecution & confinement
is also expensive. And pulling LEOs off current work
also quickly brings serious issues.
The Feds already have budget issues, and many states
and counties are in even worse shape.
* Prisons are already being shut down for budget issues,
murderers and rapists released early, teachers laid off,
road building & repair postponed, and more?
* I'm reminded of one LE department's fair size platoon
(33 LEOs) with a really dreary task, they are assigned to
get the known weapons that evidence shows felons and unstable
individuals already have. They succeeded in seizing 2,000
firearms last year. As hard as they work at it,
they can not make progress, because more keep getting
added. If we can not get the guns from felons, why even
try from the law abiding?
7. As I've said before, I am pretty confident that none of
the likely proposals will effect me personally, but I
fear for the consequences for many.
peter skelton
May 24, 2013, 3:55:21 PM5/24/13
to
"Dean Markley" wrote in message
news:3e16d8fa-ea3a-44f9...@googlegroups.com...
WHat is the ratio of assault weapons to hammers, both in
private hands in the US? (Don't be a damn fool.)
news:3e16d8fa-ea3a-44f9...@googlegroups.com...
private hands in the US? (Don't be a damn fool.)
Andrew Swallow
May 24, 2013, 6:48:05 PM5/24/13
to
Legally that bit is easy since Congress has the power "To provide for
organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, ..."
Those Militia weapons had better be kept in a Militia approved gun safe.
Any Militiaman losing his weapons can expect to be on a charge.
You do not need home inspections, just a reminder letter if the
householder has a gun license but does not have a registered gun safe.
Andrew Swallow
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
ohar...@mindspring.com
May 25, 2013, 12:52:50 AM5/25/13
to
On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:32:32 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
>
>
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
It does NOT end with them until you die and maybe not even then. They are evil, case closed. You must defeat evil, not convince it.
> http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
>
>
>
> If the electorate had known of this, do you truly think Obama would have been elected?
peter skelton
May 25, 2013, 7:39:02 AM5/25/13
to
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news:bu60q8hva31pu8k7b...@4ax.com...
"peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
<s>
>>You're a shockingly incompetent statistician Fred.
>
>>Sorry you don't like the facts, Pint Size, but they are
>>what they are.
>
>Yes the facts are that an assault weapon is several hundred
>(perhaps thousand) times more likely to be involved in a
>murder than a hammer and that you misrepresent that fact.
>
>are
murdered with hammers as are murdered with AR-15 type
assault weapons.
That is a FACT. You not liking it doesn't make it not a
fact. You
claiming it's a misrepresentation doesn't make it not a
fact. It just
makes you a liar.
I have not disagreed with that fact. Your statement that I
have is, like so much of what you say, a deliberate lie.
From the fact, you concluded that hammer were more dangerous
than assault weapons and should be banned. That is a
misrepresentation, As I pointed out. Wiggle as you like, you
are dishonest.
You claim that I am a liar is bogus here as it always is.
Message has been deleted
Arved Sandstrom
May 25, 2013, 9:59:34 AM5/25/13
to
> that the 2nd Amendment describes an INDIVIDUAL right, just like the
> rest of the Bill of Rights. It has nothing to do with the militia.
[ SNIP ]
The latest Supreme Court ruling has a great deal to do with the concept
of a militia, Fred. The Court ruling establishes that the right to bear
arms is a genuine individual right, unconnected with service in a
militia, yes. But to believe that the Second Amendment has nothing to do
with a militia is rather incredible, seeing as how the amendment
explicitly uses the word, and the entire amendment is constructed with
reference to the concept of a militia.
If you ever studied the ruling, Fred, you'd see that the upheld
individual right to bear arms is limited (despite what the NRA believes)
and it is founded on reasons for that individual right, namely, common
lawful purposes such as self-defense, and the theoretical ability for
the armed citizenry to form a militia not beholden to the government of
the day.
"Unconnected with service" means that you don't have to satisfy certain
rules in order to bear arms, because it is an individual right. But with
reference to the thinking of the Founding Fathers, every armed citizen
is automatically in the citizen's militia. Again, to so blithely dismiss
the concept of a militia in connection with the Second Amendment is
astonishing, given the actual text.
AHS
--
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign:
that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
-- Jonathan Swift
peter skelton
May 25, 2013, 10:02:05 AM5/25/13
to
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news:44c1q8pghs293e5qd...@4ax.com...
>actually said. I
misrepresented nothing and I'm not responsible for the
conversation in
your head.
Here it is.
>Twice as many people are murdered with hammers every year
>as are
>murdered with 'AR-15 like assault weapons". So why no
>cries
>to ban
>hammers? They obviously make murder easier than an AR-15
>does.
How in hell did you expect to get away with that?
>cries
>to ban
>hammers? They obviously make murder easier than an AR-15
>does.
Arved Sandstrom
May 25, 2013, 10:49:57 AM5/25/13
to
On 05/25/2013 11:02 AM, peter skelton wrote:
[ SNIP ]
>>
>
>> I concluded NOTHING. You lie again. Go read what I actually said. I
> misrepresented nothing and I'm not responsible for the conversation in
> your head.
>
> Here it is.
>
>> Twice as many people are murdered with hammers every year
>> as are
>> murdered with 'AR-15 like assault weapons". So why no
>> cries
>> to ban
>> hammers? They obviously make murder easier than an AR-15
>> does.
>
> How in hell did you expect to get away with that?
>
The fact that more people get killed with (or by) X than by Y is
presumably not linked to the fact that there are more X's than Y's. :-)
Or maybe Fred believes that more folks have mil-type weaponry than have
hammers.
Fred's missing a few points also. The reality is that people find it
easiest to kill the more psychological distance they've got. Really hard
even in anger to throttle or stab, not easy to bludgeon someone to death
with a hammer either, but with a firearm you distance yourself. The fact
that there may be as much as half as many murders with "AR-15 like
assault weapons" as with hammers evidences this, because no way is the
number of hammer-owners only 2X the number of mil-type weapons owners.
[ SNIP ]
>>
>
>> I concluded NOTHING. You lie again. Go read what I actually said. I
> misrepresented nothing and I'm not responsible for the conversation in
> your head.
>
> Here it is.
>
>> Twice as many people are murdered with hammers every year
>> as are
>> murdered with 'AR-15 like assault weapons". So why no
>> cries
>> to ban
>> hammers? They obviously make murder easier than an AR-15
>> does.
>
> How in hell did you expect to get away with that?
>
presumably not linked to the fact that there are more X's than Y's. :-)
Or maybe Fred believes that more folks have mil-type weaponry than have
hammers.
Fred's missing a few points also. The reality is that people find it
easiest to kill the more psychological distance they've got. Really hard
even in anger to throttle or stab, not easy to bludgeon someone to death
with a hammer either, but with a firearm you distance yourself. The fact
that there may be as much as half as many murders with "AR-15 like
assault weapons" as with hammers evidences this, because no way is the
number of hammer-owners only 2X the number of mil-type weapons owners.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
peter skelton
May 25, 2013, 11:47:34 AM5/25/13
to
"Arved Sandstrom" wrote in message
news:pc4ot.1101$Y_6...@newsfe01.iad...
That's pretty much what I had to say (so your words are pure
genius). Fred upsets me at times because he can think but
too often chooses not to.
news:pc4ot.1101$Y_6...@newsfe01.iad...
genius). Fred upsets me at times because he can think but
too often chooses not to.
peter skelton
May 25, 2013, 11:58:53 AM5/25/13
to
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news:76n1q8dlv63ttje2g...@4ax.com...
>being
applied to AR-15 like assault weapons.
A society can certainly run without private assault weapons,
running one without hammers might be a bit harder.
>What 'conclusion' did I put
forward? Why, the simple fact that more people are murdered
with
hammers.
Confusing your data with your conclusions is very sloppy
thinking. The conclusion you put forward was that "they
hammers make murder easier than an AR 15 does". Leaving
aside your atrocious grammar, that is obviously fallacious
given the relative availabilities of the two tools.
Message has been deleted
Andrew Swallow
May 25, 2013, 12:03:30 PM5/25/13
to
> You're stupidly behind the times. The Supreme Court has already ruled
> that the 2nd Amendment describes an INDIVIDUAL right, just like the
> rest of the Bill of Rights. It has nothing to do with the militia.
>
That was nothing to do with the Second Amendment, I was using the *main*
> that the 2nd Amendment describes an INDIVIDUAL right, just like the
> rest of the Bill of Rights. It has nothing to do with the militia.
>
Constitution.
>>
>> You do not need home inspections, just a reminder letter if the
>> householder has a gun license but does not have a registered gun safe.
>>
>
> you people?
>
With bank robbers and terrorists in jail for pulling the trigger without
filling in forms E1, C325 and ZX961. ;)
Andrew Swallow
Arved Sandstrom
May 25, 2013, 4:55:00 PM5/25/13
to
On 05/25/2013 12:58 PM, peter skelton wrote:
> "Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
> news:76n1q8dlv63ttje2g...@4ax.com...
> "Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
[ SNIP ]
>>
>
>> Why, I merely applied the same 'logic' to hammers that is being
> applied to AR-15 like assault weapons.
>
> A society can certainly run without private assault weapons, running one
> without hammers might be a bit harder.
>
>> What 'conclusion' did I put
> forward? Why, the simple fact that more people are murdered with
> hammers.
>
> Confusing your data with your conclusions is very sloppy thinking. The
> conclusion you put forward was that "they hammers make murder easier
> than an AR 15 does". Leaving aside your atrocious grammar, that is
> obviously fallacious given the relative availabilities of the two tools.
>
it's artificial and contrived, he's smart enough to know better.
For the inner circle of the NRA, and the minority of people who think
like them, like Fred, intelligent people all of them, they have to twist
themselves into knots to hide and deny one of the inherent
contradictions of widespread firearms ownership: that with the good
comes bad. They'd have it that people are no more likely to commit
violence with a firearm than with their hands, which is prima facie absurd.
Arved Sandstrom
May 25, 2013, 5:04:57 PM5/25/13
to
On 05/25/2013 01:01 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"presumably" as in that's the point you'd have to be making, if you
actually believed it, that is.
>>
>> Or maybe Fred believes that more folks have mil-type weaponry than have
>> hammers.
>>
>
> Neither hammers no AR-15s are "mil-type weaponry".
Oh jesus, are you going dilettante and pedant on us, Fred? WTF is an
AR-15 other than a rifle that was originally designed for military use?
That civilians get erections from owning one doesn't mean it's not still
a rifle originally designed for the military.
>>
>> Fred's missing a few points also. The reality is that people find it
>> easiest to kill the more psychological distance they've got. Really hard
>> even in anger to throttle or stab, not easy to bludgeon someone to death
>> with a hammer either, but with a firearm you distance yourself.
>>
>
> Yet when it comes down to it, 90# of people can't pull the trigger
> without some amount of conditioning. Killing someone with a hammer
> isn't all that hard. All you have to do is lose your temper and
> swing. Practically no one ever gets killed in anger with an AR-15.
Well, according to you, half as many get killed with AR-15 type weapons
as do with hammers. And there's way way more hammers out there. So your
various assertions aren't coming together here.
>>
>> The fact
>> that there may be as much as half as many murders with "AR-15 like
>> assault weapons" as with hammers evidences this, because no way is the
>> number of hammer-owners only 2X the number of mil-type weapons owners.
>>
>
> It 'illustrates' no such thing. What it illustrates is that AR-15s
> and similar weapons are practically never used in crimes of any sort.
>
Well, by simple math then neither are hammers, using your statements. So
no problem - no need to restrict hammers.
> Arved Sandstrom <asand...@eastlink.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 05/25/2013 11:02 AM, peter skelton wrote:
>> [ SNIP ]
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> I concluded NOTHING. You lie again. Go read what I actually said. I
>>> misrepresented nothing and I'm not responsible for the conversation in
>>> your head.
>>>
>>> Here it is.
>>>
>>>> Twice as many people are murdered with hammers every year
>>>> as are
>>>> murdered with 'AR-15 like assault weapons". So why no
>>>> cries
>>>> to ban
>>>> hammers? They obviously make murder easier than an AR-15
>>>> does.
>>>
>>> How in hell did you expect to get away with that?
>>>
>>
>> The fact that more people get killed with (or by) X than by Y is
>> presumably not linked to the fact that there are more X's than Y's. :-)
>>
>
> 'Presumably'?
>
>> On 05/25/2013 11:02 AM, peter skelton wrote:
>> [ SNIP ]
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> I concluded NOTHING. You lie again. Go read what I actually said. I
>>> misrepresented nothing and I'm not responsible for the conversation in
>>> your head.
>>>
>>> Here it is.
>>>
>>>> Twice as many people are murdered with hammers every year
>>>> as are
>>>> murdered with 'AR-15 like assault weapons". So why no
>>>> cries
>>>> to ban
>>>> hammers? They obviously make murder easier than an AR-15
>>>> does.
>>>
>>> How in hell did you expect to get away with that?
>>>
>>
>> The fact that more people get killed with (or by) X than by Y is
>> presumably not linked to the fact that there are more X's than Y's. :-)
>>
>
"presumably" as in that's the point you'd have to be making, if you
actually believed it, that is.
>>
>> Or maybe Fred believes that more folks have mil-type weaponry than have
>> hammers.
>>
>
Oh jesus, are you going dilettante and pedant on us, Fred? WTF is an
AR-15 other than a rifle that was originally designed for military use?
That civilians get erections from owning one doesn't mean it's not still
a rifle originally designed for the military.
>>
>> Fred's missing a few points also. The reality is that people find it
>> easiest to kill the more psychological distance they've got. Really hard
>> even in anger to throttle or stab, not easy to bludgeon someone to death
>> with a hammer either, but with a firearm you distance yourself.
>>
>
> without some amount of conditioning. Killing someone with a hammer
> isn't all that hard. All you have to do is lose your temper and
> swing. Practically no one ever gets killed in anger with an AR-15.
Well, according to you, half as many get killed with AR-15 type weapons
as do with hammers. And there's way way more hammers out there. So your
various assertions aren't coming together here.
>>
>> The fact
>> that there may be as much as half as many murders with "AR-15 like
>> assault weapons" as with hammers evidences this, because no way is the
>> number of hammer-owners only 2X the number of mil-type weapons owners.
>>
>
> and similar weapons are practically never used in crimes of any sort.
>
Well, by simple math then neither are hammers, using your statements. So
no problem - no need to restrict hammers.
Arved Sandstrom
May 25, 2013, 5:08:59 PM5/25/13
to
On 05/25/2013 12:45 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Nonsense.
> have to do with directly.
[ SNIP ]
Fred McCall, Usenet, May 25th 2013: "The Constitution explicitly uses
many words that it doesn't have to do with directly".
That quote is going in the word bank. It's the most frank admission of
past, present and future weaseling that I've seen come out of you maybe
forever.
Talking of nonsense, to this specific point, you can talk to the supreme
justices about your interpretation - they think you're full of it.
>
>>
>> The Court ruling establishes that the right to bear
>> arms is a genuine individual right, unconnected with service in a
>> militia, yes.
>>
>
> There you go. Simple fact. Get over it.
>>
>> The Court ruling establishes that the right to bear
>> arms is a genuine individual right, unconnected with service in a
>> militia, yes.
>>
>
>
>>
>> But to believe that the Second Amendment has nothing to do
>> with a militia is rather incredible, seeing as how the amendment
>> explicitly uses the word, and the entire amendment is constructed with
>> reference to the concept of a militia.
>>
>
> Nonsense. The Constitution explicitly uses many words that it doesn't
>>
>> But to believe that the Second Amendment has nothing to do
>> with a militia is rather incredible, seeing as how the amendment
>> explicitly uses the word, and the entire amendment is constructed with
>> reference to the concept of a militia.
>>
>
> have to do with directly.
[ SNIP ]
Fred McCall, Usenet, May 25th 2013: "The Constitution explicitly uses
many words that it doesn't have to do with directly".
That quote is going in the word bank. It's the most frank admission of
past, present and future weaseling that I've seen come out of you maybe
forever.
Talking of nonsense, to this specific point, you can talk to the supreme
justices about your interpretation - they think you're full of it.
peter skelton
May 25, 2013, 7:35:59 PM5/25/13
to
"Arved Sandstrom" wrote in message
news:Fy9ot.9862$bK1....@newsfe11.iad...
like that in there. I get kicked deliberately, elbowed and
so on pretty much every week, three times a week, soccer
being my exercise of choice. Perhaps twice or three times a
year two fellows will lose it over some incident in the game
during the rehydration phase - they get separated and
quieted down, but, at the moment, they're out for blood. Not
having weapons around at the time is a good idea. They up
the ante.
That being said, I understand and agree with what you've
said about guns depersonalizing violence and making it
easier to commit. They aren't the only thing that acts that
way, cars, drink, sex drive & drugs are among the others.
Societies have seen fit to put controls on them.
Message has been deleted
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages