Attorney General Holder Reveals Aggressive Gun Control
wis...@yahoo.com
<gas...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>Attorney General Holder Reveals Aggressive Gun Control
>
>Attorney General Holder Reveals Aggressive Gun Control
>In Response to Ft. Hood Terror Attack
>
>WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Before the Senate
>Judiciary Committee November 18th, 2009, Attorney General Eric
>Holder revealed a stunningly broad and aggressive anti-gun agenda.
>
>
>
>"The President of the United States asked that politicians not use
>the Ft. Hood attack to engage in 'political theater.' It appears
>those committed to attacking gun owners and the Second Amendment
>simply can't help themselves and are engaged in blaming guns and
>gun owners on the heels of this terrorist attack. Sadly it looks
>like 'politics as usual,'" said LEAA's spokesperson, Ted Deeds.
>
>After explaining and defending his decision to give enemy
>combatants constitutional protections and the right to public trial
>in civilian courts, Attorney General Holder revealed his support
>for a national gun owner registration scheme and authorizing the
>government to ban firearm possession for any person by merely
>adding that person's name to the terror watch list.
>
>Drawing reasonable conclusions from what Holder publicly said, we
>now know:
>
>� Holder wants a national, permanent gun registration system
>administered by law enforcement. A registration of honest citizens
>that have cleared the federal background check for gun purchases
>with those records permanently retained by and shared among law
>enforcement.
>� Holder wants new federal authority to prohibit any person on the
>federal watch list (reported to be 400,000 names) from buying guns
>and supports confiscating guns from those on the list who possess
>them.
>
>Transcribing General Holder: "The position of the Administration is
>that there should be a basis for law enforcement to share
>information about gun purchases." "... [It's not] inconsistent to
>allow law enforcement agencies to share that kind of information,
>for that information to be retained and then to be shared by law
>enforcement." "It seems incongruous to me that we would bar certain
>people from flying on airplanes because they are on the terrorist
>watch list and yet we would still allow them to posses weapons."
>{Emphasis added}
>
>LEAA's Executive Director Jim Fotis said, "Those behind the badge
>don't believe more restrictions on honest gun owners is a
>reasonable, practical or constitutional response to acts of
>terrorism. As a retired officer, I know that America's men and
>women in blue want to fight terrorism, to stop terrorists; not
>waste time keeping records on innocent gun owners!"
>
>www.leaa.org
>
>SOURCE Law Enforcement Alliance of America
Holder, another racial pick by Obama. Worthless
punk.
Climber
spamtrap1888
Some people -- for example convicted felons and lunatics -- should not
own guns. Unless you're a lunatic or a convicted felon, I don't see
how compiling a list of such people would bother you.
Bert Hyman
spamtrap1888 <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Some people -- for example convicted felons and lunatics -- should not
> own guns.
That's your opinion. Many people have many different opinions.
> Unless you're a lunatic or a convicted felon, I don't see
> how compiling a list of such people would bother you.
When someone holding a different opinion on who should own guns takes
power, you might see some sort of problem developing.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Brent
> On Nov 23, 3:44?am, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:24:57 -0800 (PST), Steve from Colorado
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <gass...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>> >Attorney General Holder Reveals Aggressive Gun Control
>>
>> >Attorney General Holder Reveals Aggressive Gun Control
>> >In Response to Ft. Hood Terror Attack
>>
>> >WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Before the Senate
>> >Judiciary Committee November 18th, 2009, Attorney General Eric
>> >Holder revealed a stunningly broad and aggressive anti-gun agenda.
>>
>> >"The President of the United States asked that politicians not use
>> >the Ft. Hood attack to engage in 'political theater.' It appears
>> >those committed to attacking gun owners and the Second Amendment
>> >simply can't help themselves and are engaged in blaming guns and
>> >gun owners on the heels of this terrorist attack. Sadly it looks
>> >like 'politics as usual,'" said LEAA's spokesperson, Ted Deeds.
>>
>> >After explaining and defending his decision to give enemy
>> >combatants constitutional protections and the right to public trial
>> >in civilian courts, Attorney General Holder revealed his support
>> >for a national gun owner registration scheme and authorizing the
>> >government to ban firearm possession for any person by merely
>> >adding that person's name to the terror watch list.
>>
>> >Drawing reasonable conclusions from what Holder publicly said, we
>> >now know:
>>
>> >administered by law enforcement. A registration of honest citizens
>> >that have cleared the federal background check for gun purchases
>> >with those records permanently retained by and shared among law
>> >enforcement.
The goal appears to be to have a ban that 'law enforcement' can add
people to as they see fit. No due process or anything of sort. Just
arbitrary and unaccountable power in the bowels of the bureaucracy.
edi...@netpath.net
National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners of America - and
didn't. No mention of it in email from this state's Gun Owners of
America affiliate, either.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/08/04/where-is-your-townhall/ is
the all-states, continually-updated calendar of "town halls."
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
Cydrome Leader
yup.
I wonder when the banned from speech list gets created.
Dave Bugg
> I wonder when the banned from speech list gets created.
Go to any college campus. Its been going on for a decade or so. :-)
--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan
wis...@yahoo.com
Holder is a known hater of guns rights. He fought long and hard in
opposition to the Heller vs. DC Government case. He is pure garbage.
ted
spamtrap1888
> Innews:d8beb18d-e7b0-48e6...@u8g2000prd.googlegroups.com
>
> spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Some people -- for example convicted felons and lunatics -- should not
> > own guns.
>
> That's your opinion. Many people have many different opinions.
I have yet to see any organizations whose mission statements are "Arm
the Criminals" or "Looneys Need Guns, Too." Let me know where not to
send my money too.
> > Unless you're a lunatic or a convicted felon, I don't see
> > how compiling a list of such people would bother you.
>
> When someone holding a different opinion on who should own guns takes
> power, you might see some sort of problem developing.
I guess in some people's minds, if Lawrence Singleton couldn't get
arms (not the kind he chopped off his victims) the terrorists won.
Bert Hyman
news:30df8593-a061-4bd4...@g10g2000pri.googlegroups.com
spamtrap1888 <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 10:46�am, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> Innews:d8beb18d-e7b0-48e6...@u8g2000prd.googlegroups.co
>> m
>>
>> spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Some people -- for example convicted felons and lunatics -- should
>> > not own guns.
>>
>> That's your opinion. Many people have many different opinions.
>
> I have yet to see any organizations whose mission statements are "Arm
> the Criminals" or "Looneys Need Guns, Too." Let me know where not to
> send my money too.
But you probably know of organizations whose mission is to disarm the
civilian populace of the US.
Of course, if these organizations succeed in their goal, the side effect
would be to "Arm the Criminals", as you put it.
Brent
>> Innews:d8beb18d-e7b0-48e6...@u8g2000prd.googlegroups.com
>>
>> spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Some people -- for example convicted felons and lunatics -- should not
>> > own guns.
>>
>> That's your opinion. Many people have many different opinions.
>
> I have yet to see any organizations whose mission statements are "Arm
> the Criminals" or "Looneys Need Guns, Too." Let me know where not to
> send my money too.
But there are people arguing for workplace safety for criminals.
Sid Vicious
I am of the opinion and belief that Proven Convicted Criminals and/or
the insane, should not be able to purchase weapons of any kind, Forever!
I also believe that idiots should ever be allowed out of the
institutions they were kept in, so that they have the option to kill or
rape again.
I don't believe in "parole."
I believe that the victims or the families of the victims, should have
the last say.
I do however, believe in HARD LABOR, and chain gangs in all Prisons!
I don't agree with PROVEN prisoners having any other privilege, then to
grow their own food, and clean themselves.
I believe PRISONERS should eat the cheapest meals that THEY can grow.
I believe prisons should be cold, damp, wet, and horrible, and have
inner city punks spend a week with the "professionals".
I BELIEVE PRISONS SHOULD be so terrifyingly ugly, that one would rather
gather an education, instead of a life of crime.
I believe that!
Why don't you agree?
The Daring Dufas
The most recent was Australia if I remember correctly.
TDD
The Daring Dufas
If we're going to have a death penalty, why not a mandatory death
sentence for the commission of any felony by any public servant who
takes an oath to uphold the laws and constitution of the country?
Sentence to be carried out within 48hours no appeal, no pardon no
parole. People with special power and special privileges should get
special punishment. I'd also like to see a mandatory 10years with
no pardon or parole for the same folks but damn, the prisons would
fill up with politicians. Perhaps the cemeteries too. That would be
interesting, a cemetery just for executed politicians. *snicker*
TDD
The Daring Dufas
Darn, premature postification strikes again. I forgot to write
"Mandatory 10years for any misdemeanor." They had better get
a driver and a limo.
TDD
Brent
You might want to reconsider that:
http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/
gb
>Anyone find ANY verification of this, ANYWHERE? I tried both the
>National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners of America - and
>didn't. No mention of it in email from this state's Gun Owners of
>America affiliate, either.
there isn't any. The Gun Fondlers within the WingNut set make this
tale up once or twice a year and then promulgate it on the Net.
No one's going to either register or confiscate any gunzzz.
They're just not that important.
climber
NewsMax just sent a message to their subscribers with gives more
details.
climber
elmer
A right is not licensable. No law will stop the terrorists or criminals.
If Clinton had left the Military alone, assuming Bush and this
Administration had, the other Troops would have had some firearms among
them. They would have stopped the Islamic Terrorist that killed 12
unarmed Soldiers/Victims and wounded 30 something others.
That is the only logic of the situation. What Holder and Blomberg and
the like want is illogical and deprives us of the right to have the
means to defend ourselves. I think Blomberg is conducting class warfare
seeking to disarm the sheep. Holder and others are just serving the
Ultra Rich Elites desire to keep us subjugated.
Stephan Rothstein
> I am of the opinion and belief that Proven Convicted Criminals and/or
> the insane, should not be able to purchase weapons of any kind, Forever!
Which criminals? In Texas, for one example, all traffic violations are
class C misdemeanors. This means that if you got a ticket in Texas and
either paid it or were found guilty, you are a proven, convicted
criminal. Obviously, you did not realize this or mean to include them
but it brings up the point of how to define which crimes. The next point
in that debate is who gets to pass the laws making acts criminal.
The second question is how to define insane? That is a legal term and a
common usage term but not a medical one. What mental disorders do you
consider insane? A person who insists on washing his hands many times a
day might be suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder but is no
threat to anyone. Surely you would not want to stop him from enjoying
his shooting? What about the guy who justs likes to lounge around in his
house naked? This is not normal, but does it rise to the level of
insanity? Masturbation is listed as a sexual disorder in medical
manuals, but almost every single person has done it. Does that make it
insane or normal? How can it be normal if it is a disorder?
The problem with making absolute statements that involve depriving
people of their rights is always in the fine print. I am not even sure I
could agree with you on murderers and rapists the way the legal system
is currently working. Texas just executed a man for murder under the law
of parties (he drove the car and did not pull the trigger, but all
parties to an offense are equally guilty of the offense). I don't have a
problem with this generally, but the actual murderer who pulled the
trigger only got a life sentence and not death. Something seems wrong there.
Steve Rothstein
Brent
> The second question is how to define insane?
Some governments have used interesting definitions of mental illness to
restrict the population. Treatment facilites are often located in places
like Siberia.
Benj
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:24:57 -0800 (PST), Steve from Colorado
> >WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Before the Senate
> >Judiciary Committee November 18th, 2009, Attorney General Eric
> >Holder revealed a stunningly broad and aggressive anti-gun agenda.
> >Drawing reasonable conclusions from what Holder publicly said, we
> >now know:
>
> >• Holder wants a national, permanent gun registration system
> >administered by law enforcement. A registration of honest citizens
> >that have cleared the federal background check for gun purchases
> >with those records permanently retained by and shared among law
> >enforcement.
Of course he does. As a long-time anti-gunner he has wet dreams over
gun registration. Of course the NICS names are most likely already
kept SOMEWHERE (rumor is they are kept in foreign countries so that
U.S. can deny keeping a gun owner registration list). All Holder wants
to do is make that secret registration open and legal. [Of course it
can't be made lawful since Second Amendment prohibits infringement of
the right, but can be passed into law to appear legal] Gun owner
registration list will then be made totally available to all
government agents for usual purposes such as firearm confiscation, and
calling SWAT team for "dynamic entry with guns blazing if any person
on the list becomes a suspect of ANY kind.
> >• Holder wants new federal authority to prohibit any person on the
> >federal watch list (reported to be 400,000 names) from buying guns
> >and supports confiscating guns from those on the list who possess
> >them.
If the government can keep people from flying by putting them on a
list why not keep them from buying guns? Why not keep them from
voting? Why not prohibit them from drinking at whites only drinking
fountains? Why indeed?
No doubt the person who determines if a person goes on the "watch"
list would be the attorney general of the United States.
> >Transcribing General Holder: "The position of the Administration is
> >that there should be a basis for law enforcement to share
> >information about gun purchases." "... [It's not] inconsistent to
> >allow law enforcement agencies to share that kind of information,
> >for that information to be retained and then to be shared by law
> >enforcement." "It seems incongruous to me that we would bar certain
> >people from flying on airplanes because they are on the terrorist
> >watch list and yet we would still allow them to posses weapons."
> >{Emphasis added}
It seems that after Ft. Hood there is an obvious need to have a king
(we'll just use the word Czar instead) who can point a finger and have
someone killed. Holder is ready to volunteer for the job. Why should a
court have to adjudicate a person mentally incompetent, when Holder
can just read their name and tell if they should go on some prohibited
list? It's only sensible and historically traditional as well. It's
going to be hard to teach Americans to bow and say "your majesty" but
with Obama setting the example, we'll soon get the idea.
Benj
> > spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Some people -- for example convicted felons and lunatics -- should not
> >>own guns.
> I am of the opinion and belief that Proven Convicted Criminals and/or
> the insane, should not be able to purchase weapons of any kind, Forever!
Obviously anonymous pussy "spamtral1888" has pulled the wool right
over your eyes and you don't even know you've been tricked. The trick
here is to start with what seems a "reasonable" proposal and then
carefully word it so it can be stretched to mean most anything.
What is a "proven convicted criminal"? What kind of conviction would
you use to judge. The reasonable approach would suggest that a person
CONVICTED of a violent felony might not be trusted with firearms even
after they get out of jail. But that isn't what you two are suggesting
and CERTAINLY NOT what Holder wants. In Kalifornia, for example, any
conviction that includes time in jail is listed as a felony. How
Conveeenient! And when is a person "insane". Everyone agrees that a
person who is mentally incompetent should not operate dangerous
machinery including firearms and automobiles. But the judge is not Mr.
Holder. The judge is a COURT OF LAW. A person must be ADJUDICATED
mentally incompetent to loose rights. This is called DUE PROCESS just
in case you fascists forgot.
> I also believe that idiots should ever be allowed out of the
> institutions they were kept in, so that they have the option to kill or
> rape again.
Are you referring to the adjudicated mentally incompetent or convicted
felons? While the length of a sentence for a crime is a valid matter
of debate, your view that nobody ever is rehabilitated from a life of
crime is not born out by any reasonable look at the data. That your
view is true for SOME persons, is not in dispute. The question is how
to decide which is which.
> I don't believe in "parole."
> I believe that the victims or the families of the victims, should have
> the last say.
What if the victims believe in parole? Again, your view that
punishment for ANY crime should go on forever (until death do we part)
is more than just a tad extreme.
> I do however, believe in HARD LABOR, and chain gangs in all Prisons!
AH, so cruel and unusual punishment is your version of justice? I'm
sure "Cool Hand Luke" is your favorite movie. It expressed your views
quite nicely. The punishment for bashing a few parking meters while
drunk is death. Yeah. That will fix it. He didn't bash any more meters
did he?
Of course the "HARD LABOR" thing means that you really wish to bring
back slavery. Slavery is such a "traditional" human institution, it's
a shame to see it die out, right? I hope you DO understand that
traditionally Slaves are prisoners (of war). Even the Africans who
we've been taught to believe were gathered up by whites in the African
bush were in fact SOLD into slavery by their fellow blacks. In the
view of the captors, they were doing the slaves a FAVOR since the
alternative to slavery was to be killed. Maybe that's what we need in
our prisons. You work at hard labor or you get killed. Hell, since the
majority of convicts in our prisons are black and Hispanic your idea
will even have the right "feel" for out country. I take it you live in
a southern state.
> I don't agree with PROVEN prisoners having any other privilege, then to
> grow their own food, and clean themselves.
> I believe PRISONERS should eat the cheapest meals that THEY can grow.
> I believe prisons should be cold, damp, wet, and horrible, and have
> inner city punks spend a week with the "professionals".
> I BELIEVE PRISONS SHOULD be so terrifyingly ugly, that one would rather
> gather an education, instead of a life of crime.
> I believe that!
>
> Why don't you agree?
Um, that would be because we don't believe in cruel and unusual
punishment. We don't believe in slavery. We don't believe in torture.
And we don't believe that no matter how low a person has sunk that
they should not be given a chance to make their ways straight... Even
you.
Alex DeLarge
Why Dondi, you 'soon to go postal' killer!
What are you doing hiding out over here?
Lol!
Home group a little toasty about now?
Here, let's remind folks heron who and what you are:
===================================================================================
gb wrote:
dated: 10/8/2009
Sender: g...@amusenet.com
<ubisc5h6ti7g43kg0...@4ax.com>
> You should really find another set of friends. ;)
"Not my friends, clearly. Never used one, and wouldn't. Have
considered, once I'm well into my dotage, taking one of the target
rifles and a Gillie Suit into the woods, and simply offing a bunch of
them as far from anything as is possible.
Society would suffer no great loss thereby, seems to me."
=================================================================================
Gray Ghost
4ax.com:
Then you might want to talk to Lookout becuase he is convinced, beyond
reason, that all guns will be registered.
--
�Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel
of envy, its inherent value is the equal sharing of misery.� Winston
Churchill
spamtrap1888
So you support the right of people like Seung-Hui Cho and Major Hasan
to arm themselves? I don't.
Whenever a lunatic acts out with a gun, my rights are in imminent
danger. Lunatics acting out with guns led to gun confiscation in the
UK and Australia. Why would my rights be in danger because two high
school students in Colorado wanted to get back at the popular kids?
No guns for lunatics.
And if you can't conform your conduct to the law, why should you be
trusted with a gun? We could limit the classes of felonies that make
you ineligible to own a gun. Originally, in England, the issue of
convicted felons arming themselves was moot, because the penalty for
felonies was to be hanged by the neck until you were dead, dead, dead.
In today's pussified world, though, we let them back on the street.
Bert Hyman
spamtrap1888 <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So you support the right of people like Seung-Hui Cho and Major Hasan
> to arm themselves? I don't.
Unless you're able to see into the future or somehow read people's
minds, there's no way to know what people are "like" until they commit
an overt act.
So, by your scheme, since everyone is a potential criminal, everyone
must be treated as if they were an actual criminal.
Are you seriously calling for the imposition of a police state?
Brent
When certain people want something banned they will use any excuse they
can find to make it happen. Anything that is not something the vast
majority of people do is subject to such attack. Driving isn't going to
get banned because someone runs from the cops and the high-speed chase
ends up in a deadly school bus crash. The issue isn't so much that
lunatics exist and might act out with a gun instead of a motor vehicle
but that the vast majority uses motor vehicles while only a minority
owns/uses guns.
It's much more difficult for government and those that use it to get
restrictive laws and bans passed on things most people do. It
usually requires a quite a lot of mis-information effort to make it
happen. When most people don't do it, it's much easier because the
majority doesn't understand that what is that they are all minorities in
something they do and thus do not care when something they don't do is
attacked.
> No guns for lunatics.
How do you define 'lunatic' prior to the event? That's the problem.
Ever notice that these lunatic shooters or other mass-killers are almost
if not always taking drugs for mental illness? Drugs that often have
violence/self destructive behavior as a side effect? And then sometimes
(with or without the drugs) there is some government/military
(sometimes even psychology related) thing going on in the background?
It's one hell of a concidence theory going on to maintain it's all just
random.
spamtrap1888
> Innews:48a42de5-11e3-482f...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com
>
> spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So you support the right of people like Seung-Hui Cho and Major Hasan
> > to arm themselves? I don't.
>
> Unless you're able to see into the future or somehow read people's
> minds, there's no way to know what people are "like" until they commit
> an overt act.
>
> So, by your scheme, since everyone is a potential criminal, everyone
> must be treated as if they were an actual criminal.
>
> Are you seriously calling for the imposition of a police state?
>
No, by my scheme, everyone who acts like a lunatic must have their
lunacy evaluated. Your scheme assumes that lunatics are entirely
normal-seeming people who suddenly snap without warning. But Cho and
Hasan gave plenty of warning. Here's Cho's story from wikip:
"In middle school, he was diagnosed with a severe anxiety disorder
known as selective mutism, as well as major depressive disorder.[8]
After this diagnosis he began to receive treatment and he continued
receiving therapy and special education support until his junior year
of high school. During Cho's last two years at Virginia Tech, several
instances of his aberrant behavior, as well as plays and other
writings he submitted containing references to violence, caused
concern among teachers and classmates.
"In the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre, Virginia Governor Tim
Kaine convened a panel consisting of various officials and experts to
investigate and examine the response and handling of issues related to
the shootings. The panel released its final report in August 2007,
devoting more than 30 pages to detailing Cho's troubled history. In
the report, the panel criticized the failure of the educators and
mental health professionals who came into contact with Cho during his
college years to notice his deteriorating condition and help him."
Middle school!
Here's Hasan's story, from NPR:
"When a group of key officials gathered in the spring of 2008 for
their monthly meeting in a Bethesda, Md., office, one of the leading —
and most perplexing — items on their agenda was: What should we do
about Hasan?
"Hasan had been a trouble spot on officials' radar since he started
training at Walter Reed, six years earlier. Several officials confirm
that supervisors had repeatedly given him poor evaluations and warned
him that he was doing substandard work.
"Both fellow students and faculty were deeply troubled by Hasan's
behavior — which they variously called disconnected, aloof, paranoid,
belligerent, and schizoid. The officials say he antagonized some
students and faculty by espousing what they perceived to be extremist
Islamic views. His supervisors at Walter Reed had even reprimanded him
for telling at least one patient that "Islam can save your soul."
"Participants in the spring meeting and in subsequent conversations
about Hasan reportedly included John Bradley, chief of psychiatry at
Walter Reed; Robert Ursano, chairman of the Psychiatry Department at
USUHS; Charles Engel, assistant chair of the Psychiatry Department and
director of Hasan's psychiatry fellowship; Dr. David Benedek, another
assistant chairman of psychiatry at USUHS; psychiatrist Carroll J.
Diebold; and Scott Moran, director of the psychiatric residency
program at Walter Reed, according to colleagues and other sources who
monitor the meetings.
"NPR tried to contact all these officials and the public affairs
officers at the institutions. They either didn't return phone calls or
said they could not comment.
"But psychiatrists and officials who are familiar with the
conversations, which continued into the spring of 2009, say they took
a remarkable turn: Is it possible, some mused, that Hasan was mentally
unstable and unfit to be an Army psychiatrist? "
Mentally unstable and unfit!
Perhaps if psychiatrists had had the guts to call out the clear and
present danger in their midst we wouldn't have had another massacre
caused by a lunatic acting out.
gb
(Gray Ghost) wrote:
>gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in news:786mg5d9ege76k6shiridvoroa9sfvtgbg@
>4ax.com:
>
>> No one's going to either register or confiscate any gunzzz.
>>
>> They're just not that important.
>>
>
>Then you might want to talk to Lookout becuase he is convinced, beyond
>reason, that all guns will be registered.
I've been hearing that cant for three decades anyway. You can perhaps
understand that I no longer pay it much attention.
Gray Ghost
4ax.com:
That's odd, he seems a good leftist. Can't you all just get along?
gb
(Gray Ghost) wrote:
>gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in news:351og55493q6p0lrceo1ohia42ii7p8t8q@
>4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:38:48 -0600, grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com
>> (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>>
>>>gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in news:786mg5d9ege76k6shiridvoroa9sfvtgbg@
>>>4ax.com:
>>>
>>
>>>> No one's going to either register or confiscate any gunzzz.
>>>>
>>>> They're just not that important.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Then you might want to talk to Lookout becuase he is convinced, beyond
>>>reason, that all guns will be registered.
>>
>> I've been hearing that cant for three decades anyway. You can perhaps
>> understand that I no longer pay it much attention.
>>
>That's odd, he seems a good leftist. Can't you all just get along?
We get along just fine. What's truly odd is that somehow You think
that because someone is to the left of your own personal and doubtless
glorious self, s/he's all het up about gunzzz.
I am somewhat to the left of your own personal and glorious self, I
suspect, on many matters. And I've owned gunzzz for most of my life,
learned how to shoot Well early on, and have used them for their
appropriate purpose.
I just don't believe even for a Moment that they are going to be used
to protect anyone's Freedom while in civilian hands, nor do I believe
that the gubmint is the least bit interested in the altogether
bothersome matter of trying to either register them all nor certainly
confiscating them all. I just don't see any particular point to it.
But I likewise don't believe for a moment that the Second Amendment is
all about gun fondlers having a Constitutional Right, no less, to all
manner of military firearms either.
Guns are only minimally useful for most folks. They are implements
capable of making small round holes at a distance. In that, they are
altogether less useful than my power screwdriver in most of my life. I
don't find myself somehow more potent or manly because I own them.
Indeed, most times, they are pretty much a bother to have on one's
person.
Most of the most avid sorts of gun fondlers I know tend to take them
Far more seriously than good sense would warrant. They are Not going
to start an armed insurrection with them. They are Not going to go
out and initiate a shootout with the local sharf, unless they feel
like starting one of those Suicide By Cop episodes. They spend
inordinate sums on them, mostly for converting money into noise.
And ftmp, they don't bother with the training necessary to use them
competently even for things like home defense. They tend, overall, to
lack the specific sorts of ability to handle the Situational Awareness
that competence requires.
But they do have some recreational applications, aside from the need
to convert money into noise. Target Shooting is an interesting sport,
and so is Hunting. Each of them is sorta fun -- neither of them will
teach Anyone how to use a firearm (generally a handgun) in
self-defense situations. That's a whole nuther sort of thing.
But those who maintain endlessly that their -- as in Their Own --
gunzzz maintain their Freedom are fooling themselves. Overwhelmingly
Murken history demonstrates that precisely the opposite is the case --
that the gunzz are used primarily to Deny citizens freedoms instead.
Those who like to get together and promulgate dark conspiratorial
desires for an armed insurrection are mostly just silly. Such a thing
is Far more difficult to put together than a simple win in an election
- which is what the FFs came up with as a stand-in for the sorts of
endless insurrections that mar the political process in many other
nations.
But regardless, even though there may be those who Talk endlessly
about such matters, no one's going to Do them. And no one in the
gubmint is actually trying to either register or confiscate gunz or my
power screwdriver.
Just too much bother for the end result.
Nearly as I can tell, these little Internet Warnings that pop up now
and again have a single purpose -- fundraising. They seem inevitably
to be followed by a plea to Send More Money to fend off the oncoming
oppression.
Which is fair. But that's just Marketing -- and not a CAPD to anyone.
Left or Right -- doesn't matter.
(And obtw, many to the left of your own personal glorious self own
firearms. If you ever have the odd notion that in the event of a
genuine armed insurrection all gun owners would flock to the side of
the insurrectionists, revisit that thought.)
Alex DeLarge
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:58:52 -0600, grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com
> (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>
>> gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in news:351og55493q6p0lrceo1ohia42ii7p8t8q@
>> 4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:38:48 -0600, grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com
>>> (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>>>
>>>> gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in news:786mg5d9ege76k6shiridvoroa9sfvtgbg@
>>>> 4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> No one's going to either register or confiscate any gunzzz.
>>>>>
>>>>> They're just not that important.
>>>>>
>>>> Then you might want to talk to Lookout becuase he is convinced, beyond
>>>> reason, that all guns will be registered.
>>> I've been hearing that cant for three decades anyway. You can perhaps
>>> understand that I no longer pay it much attention.
>>>
>> That's odd, he seems a good leftist. Can't you all just get along?
>
> We get along just fine.
For a potential KILLER and all...
RD (The Sandman)
4ax.com:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:58:52 -0600, grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com
> (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>
>>gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in news:351og55493q6p0lrceo1ohia42ii7p8t8q@
>>4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:38:48 -0600, grey_ghost471-
newsg...@yahoo.com
>>> (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>>>
>>>>gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in
news:786mg5d9ege76k6shiridvoroa9sfvtgbg@
>>>>4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> No one's going to either register or confiscate any gunzzz.
>>>>>
>>>>> They're just not that important.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Then you might want to talk to Lookout becuase he is convinced,
beyond
>>>>reason, that all guns will be registered.
>>>
>>> I've been hearing that cant for three decades anyway. You can
perhaps
>>> understand that I no longer pay it much attention.
>>>
>>That's odd, he seems a good leftist. Can't you all just get along?
>
> We get along just fine. What's truly odd is that somehow You think
> that because someone is to the left of your own personal and doubtless
> glorious self, s/he's all het up about gunzzz.
No, he is talking about one particular person, although, in general, he
is correct on many of those on the left. Keyword, many.
> I am somewhat to the left of your own personal and glorious self, I
> suspect, on many matters. And I've owned gunzzz for most of my life,
> learned how to shoot Well early on, and have used them for their
> appropriate purpose.
I am also a pro gun liberal. On the other hand, I am not a Democrat. ;)
Yes, there are pro gun Democrats. Check out the Democratic Freedom
Caucus or Second Amendment Democrats.
> I just don't believe even for a Moment that they are going to be used
> to protect anyone's Freedom while in civilian hands,
This is not a fear of mine either.
nor do I believe
> that the gubmint is the least bit interested in the altogether
> bothersome matter of trying to either register them all
This they are interested in. At least some of those in power are like
Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, Lautenberg, Holder, Emanuel, Obama, Clinton
(both of them) and Durbin to mention a few. All of those have made
statements in that regard or supported policies in that regard.
> nor certainly confiscating them all.
Feinstein is already on record for that.
> I just don't see any particular point to it.
But you aren't in power.
> But I likewise don't believe for a moment that the Second Amendment is
> all about gun fondlers having a Constitutional Right, no less, to all
> manner of military firearms either.
Nor do we. Most of feel that the 2A addresses the firearms that would
apply to most foot soldiers. Those would be shotgun, rifles and sidearms
and would apply to semi and full auto. No nukes, No F16s, No
flamethrowers.
> Guns are only minimally useful for most folks. They are implements
> capable of making small round holes at a distance. In that, they are
> altogether less useful than my power screwdriver in most of my life. I
> don't find myself somehow more potent or manly because I own them.
> Indeed, most times, they are pretty much a bother to have on one's
> person.
After awhile you don't even notice it.
> Most of the most avid sorts of gun fondlers I know tend to take them
> Far more seriously than good sense would warrant. They are Not going
> to start an armed insurrection with them. They are Not going to go
> out and initiate a shootout with the local sharf, unless they feel
> like starting one of those Suicide By Cop episodes.
Agreed.
> They spend
> inordinate sums on them, mostly for converting money into noise.
No, that is money into fun. I, like most of us, like to shoot them.
> And ftmp, they don't bother with the training necessary to use them
> competently even for things like home defense. They tend, overall, to
> lack the specific sorts of ability to handle the Situational Awareness
> that competence requires.
In many cases, that is true. However the same constitutional right
applies to them.
> But they do have some recreational applications, aside from the need
> to convert money into noise (fun).
> Target Shooting is an interesting sport,
> and so is Hunting. Each of them is sorta fun -- neither of them will
> teach Anyone how to use a firearm (generally a handgun) in
> self-defense situations. That's a whole nuther sort of thing.
Yep.
> But those who maintain endlessly that their -- as in Their Own --
> gunzzz maintain their Freedom are fooling themselves. Overwhelmingly
> Murken history demonstrates that precisely the opposite is the case --
> that the gunzz are used primarily to Deny citizens freedoms instead.
Have an example?
> Those who like to get together and promulgate dark conspiratorial
> desires for an armed insurrection are mostly just silly. Such a thing
> is Far more difficult to put together than a simple win in an election
> - which is what the FFs came up with as a stand-in for the sorts of
> endless insurrections that mar the political process in many other
> nations.
Agreed.....it is always the preferred method for change.
> But regardless, even though there may be those who Talk endlessly
> about such matters, no one's going to Do them. And no one in the
> gubmint is actually trying to either register or confiscate gunz or my
> power screwdriver.
Not quite true.....see above list. I agree that they aren't interested
in your power screwdriver.
> Just too much bother for the end result.
>
> Nearly as I can tell, these little Internet Warnings that pop up now
> and again have a single purpose -- fundraising. They seem inevitably
> to be followed by a plea to Send More Money to fend off the oncoming
> oppression.
>
> Which is fair. But that's just Marketing -- and not a CAPD to anyone.
>
> Left or Right -- doesn't matter.
>
> (And obtw, many to the left of your own personal glorious self own
> firearms. If you ever have the odd notion that in the event of a
> genuine armed insurrection all gun owners would flock to the side of
> the insurrectionists, revisit that thought.)
Keep that same thought in mind for all military or police.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
gb
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in news:nc8og5lmavbqagn5bgfqbaq9tf2m6e30oc@
>4ax.com:
>
>> What's truly odd is that somehow You think
>> that because someone is to the left of your own personal and doubtless
>> glorious self, s/he's all het up about gunzzz.
>
>No, he is talking about one particular person, although, in general, he
>is correct on many of those on the left. Keyword, many.
Man = How Many?
The better word is Some -- which is nicely indeterminate and doesn't
denote anything much worth bothering with. Fact of the matter is that
Many people on the Left of some individual on the Right don't much
think or care about the issue at all.
>I am also a pro gun liberal.
What, pray, is a Pro Gun anything? How can one be Pro of an object,
any more than one can be Anti an object?
The term is content-free altogether.
Guns simply exist. They will not Not exist any time soon.
> On the other hand, I am not a Democrat. ;)
No one really expects a partisan ID, regardless.
>Yes, there are pro gun Democrats.
The term is silly and without denotative meaning in any useful sense.
I am not a Pro Gun anything either. Nor am I an anti-Gun anything
either.
I an a Pro Good Sense individual about a number of things, including
power screwdrivers and gunzzz. But I hold neither object in any
particular reverence thereby.
Check out the Democratic Freedom
>Caucus or Second Amendment Democrats.
>> I just don't believe even for a Moment that they are going to be used
>> to protect anyone's Freedom while in civilian hands,
>
>This is not a fear of mine either.
>
> nor do I believe
>> that the gubmint is the least bit interested in the altogether
>> bothersome matter of trying to either register them all
>
>This they are interested in.
Not in any numbers and not in any Serious way, clearly. The whole
registration/confiscation issue comes up now and again when someone
needs a headline. Otherwise, precious little is ever actually Done to
register or confiscate or Ban anything. Why even the so-called
Assault Weapons Ban didn't ban any assault weapons.
>> I just don't see any particular point to it.
>
>But you aren't in power.
One doesn't need to be in power to see any particular point in it.
Officeholders play to the balconies. What matters is what happens and
not what some say.
>> But I likewise don't believe for a moment that the Second Amendment is
>> all about gun fondlers having a Constitutional Right, no less, to all
>> manner of military firearms either.
>
>Nor do we. Most of feel that the 2A addresses the firearms that would
>apply to most foot soldiers. Those would be shotgun, rifles and sidearms
>and would apply to semi and full auto. No nukes, No F16s, No
>flamethrowers.
How about Stingers, LAWs and such?
But on the FAW matter, we part company. I do Not want you -- librul
or no -- or anyone else having full access to FAWs across the counter.
Sorry. That is quite a reasonable restriction, seems to me, and to
the degree that I can, I will happily support those who would Not let
you have OTC access to any such.
>> Guns are only minimally useful for most folks. They are implements
>> capable of making small round holes at a distance. In that, they are
>> altogether less useful than my power screwdriver in most of my life. I
>> don't find myself somehow more potent or manly because I own them.
>> Indeed, most times, they are pretty much a bother to have on one's
>> person.
>
>After awhile you don't even notice it.
If that's true, then you ought to stop carrying. Monthly there's
another case or two of some twit being arrested for bringing a firearm
into airport security zones or courthouses or whatever.
If you are carrying, you'd best damned Well notice it and be aware of
it at all times. As has been noted, carrying a CW carries with it a
certain mindfulness that is a necessary part of the license.
>> They spend
>> inordinate sums on them, mostly for converting money into noise.
>
>No, that is money into fun. I, like most of us, like to shoot them.
Noise can be fun. Didn't say it wasn't. But that's what happens.
>> And ftmp, they don't bother with the training necessary to use them
>> competently even for things like home defense. They tend, overall, to
>> lack the specific sorts of ability to handle the Situational Awareness
>> that competence requires.
>
>In many cases, that is true. However the same constitutional right
>applies to them.
The limited Right -- not the expansive one you outlined earlier.
The greatest CAPD from gunzz generally is cluelessness. There should
be less of it.
>> Nearly as I can tell, these little Internet Warnings that pop up now
>> and again have a single purpose -- fundraising. They seem inevitably
>> to be followed by a plea to Send More Money to fend off the oncoming
>> oppression.
>>
>> Which is fair. But that's just Marketing -- and not a CAPD to anyone.
>>
>> Left or Right -- doesn't matter.
>>
>> (And obtw, many to the left of your own personal glorious self own
>> firearms. If you ever have the odd notion that in the event of a
>> genuine armed insurrection all gun owners would flock to the side of
>> the insurrectionists, revisit that thought.)
>
>Keep that same thought in mind for all military or police.
I do. If the insurrectionists wish to base their hopes and dreams that
the military and police will willingly abandon their solemn oaths,
seems to me that's a pretty odd sort of take on those whom we hire to
go in harm's way in oour name.
Is that a presumption that You hold?
RD (The Sandman)
news:gpfog59c296l15b8d...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:06:46 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in news:nc8og5lmavbqagn5bgfqbaq9tf2m6e30oc@
>>4ax.com:
>>
>>> What's truly odd is that somehow You think
>>> that because someone is to the left of your own personal and
>>> doubtless glorious self, s/he's all het up about gunzzz.
>>
>>No, he is talking about one particular person, although, in general,
>>he is correct on many of those on the left. Keyword, many.
>
> Man = How Many?
>
> The better word is Some -- which is nicely indeterminate and doesn't
> denote anything much worth bothering with. Fact of the matter is that
> Many people on the Left of some individual on the Right don't much
> think or care about the issue at all.
>
>>I am also a pro gun liberal.
>
> What, pray, is a Pro Gun anything?
Don't read too many gun groups....is that what you are saying? ;)
How can one be Pro of an object,
> any more than one can be Anti an object?
See above comment.
> The term is content-free altogether.
Not to most who frequent here.
> Guns simply exist. They will not Not exist any time soon.
>
>> On the other hand, I am not a Democrat. ;)
>
> No one really expects a partisan ID, regardless.
>
>>Yes, there are pro gun Democrats.
>
> The term is silly and without denotative meaning in any useful sense.
Perhaps to you.
> I am not a Pro Gun anything either. Nor am I an anti-Gun anything
> either.
>
> I an a Pro Good Sense individual about a number of things, including
> power screwdrivers and gunzzz. But I hold neither object in any
> particular reverence thereby.
>
Nor do I.....but appreciate a good gun more than I would a Harbor Freight
screwdriver.
> Check out the Democratic Freedom
>>Caucus or Second Amendment Democrats.
>
>>> I just don't believe even for a Moment that they are going to be
>>> used to protect anyone's Freedom while in civilian hands,
>>
>>This is not a fear of mine either.
>>
>> nor do I believe
>>> that the gubmint is the least bit interested in the altogether
>>> bothersome matter of trying to either register them all
>>
>>This they are interested in.
>
> Not in any numbers and not in any Serious way, clearly. The whole
> registration/confiscation issue comes up now and again when someone
> needs a headline. Otherwise, precious little is ever actually Done to
> register or confiscate or Ban anything. Why even the so-called
> Assault Weapons Ban didn't ban any assault weapons.
Just certain cosmetic combinations from being sold.
>>> I just don't see any particular point to it.
>>
>>But you aren't in power.
>
> One doesn't need to be in power to see any particular point in it.
> Officeholders play to the balconies. What matters is what happens and
> not what some say.
>
>>> But I likewise don't believe for a moment that the Second Amendment
>>> is all about gun fondlers having a Constitutional Right, no less, to
>>> all manner of military firearms either.
>>
>>Nor do we. Most of feel that the 2A addresses the firearms that would
>>apply to most foot soldiers. Those would be shotgun, rifles and
>>sidearms and would apply to semi and full auto. No nukes, No F16s, No
>>flamethrowers.
>
> How about Stingers, LAWs and such?
A stinger is a rocket, a LAW can be useful to have fun with at places
like Knob Creek or Big Sandy.
> But on the FAW matter, we part company. I do Not want you -- librul
> or no -- or anyone else having full access to FAWs across the counter.
You got your wish as no one has that today. Per federal law, one cannot
have any full auto firearm manufactured after 1986 and most of those pre
1986 are WWII weaponry and very expensive. There are several steps to go
through to get one and in some states, state law prevents their
ownership.
> Sorry. That is quite a reasonable restriction, seems to me, and to
> the degree that I can, I will happily support those who would Not let
> you have OTC access to any such.
See above....you may reast easy.
>>> Guns are only minimally useful for most folks. They are implements
>>> capable of making small round holes at a distance. In that, they
>>> are altogether less useful than my power screwdriver in most of my
>>> life. I don't find myself somehow more potent or manly because I own
>>> them. Indeed, most times, they are pretty much a bother to have on
>>> one's person.
>>
>>After awhile you don't even notice it.
>
> If that's true, then you ought to stop carrying.
There is a big difference between not noticing it and being aware that
you are armed. If you don't understand that, then perhaps you shouldn't
carry that power screwdriver.
> Monthly there's
> another case or two of some twit being arrested for bringing a firearm
> into airport security zones or courthouses or whatever.
Yep, but I have never done that in over 50 years of carrying one.
> If you are carrying, you'd best damned Well notice it
This you don't......
> and be aware of it at all times.
This you are.
> As has been noted, carrying a CW carries with it a
> certain mindfulness that is a necessary part of the license.
Yep, but apparently you don't have the understanding to do it if you
don't understand what was said. If you have carried, you do know. Let
me give you and example, I am not really aware of the belt on my waist or
the keys in my pocket, but I know damn well they are there.
>>> They spend
>>> inordinate sums on them, mostly for converting money into noise.
>>
>>No, that is money into fun. I, like most of us, like to shoot them.
>
> Noise can be fun. Didn't say it wasn't. But that's what happens.
One person's noise is another person's fun. As long as one doesn't
interefere with the other, we should all get along peacefully.
>>> And ftmp, they don't bother with the training necessary to use them
>>> competently even for things like home defense. They tend, overall,
>>> to lack the specific sorts of ability to handle the Situational
>>> Awareness that competence requires.
>>
>>In many cases, that is true. However the same constitutional right
>>applies to them.
>
> The limited Right -- not the expansive one you outlined earlier.
What expansive one? The one I outlined above is the one we have.
> The greatest CAPD from gunzz generally is cluelessness. There should
> be less of it.
I agree and that goes for both sides of the issue.
>>> Nearly as I can tell, these little Internet Warnings that pop up now
>>> and again have a single purpose -- fundraising. They seem
>>> inevitably to be followed by a plea to Send More Money to fend off
>>> the oncoming oppression.
>>>
>>> Which is fair. But that's just Marketing -- and not a CAPD to
>>> anyone.
>>>
>>> Left or Right -- doesn't matter.
>>>
>>> (And obtw, many to the left of your own personal glorious self own
>>> firearms. If you ever have the odd notion that in the event of a
>>> genuine armed insurrection all gun owners would flock to the side of
>>> the insurrectionists, revisit that thought.)
>>
>>Keep that same thought in mind for all military or police.
>
> I do. If the insurrectionists wish to base their hopes and dreams
In the first place I am not an insurrectionist. I don't base hopes and
dreams on all the military and police abandoning their solemn oaths. I
simply know that some of them will.
that
> the military and police will willingly abandon their solemn oaths,
> seems to me that's a pretty odd sort of take on those whom we hire to
> go in harm's way in oour name.
Some believe in the Constitution more than others.
> Is that a presumption that You hold?
I think you can figure out what presumption I hold if you read what is
actually written and not what you pull out of your ass.
gb
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in
>news:gpfog59c296l15b8d...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:06:46 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> What, pray, is a Pro Gun anything?
>
>Don't read too many gun groups....is that what you are saying? ;)
How many would be Too Many?
I am not a pro-shovel individual either. Shovels merely exist, and
one cannot be Pro shovel or Anti shovel.
I am mildly more bothered by individuals who would classify others as
such.
The problem with gunzzz is hardly the objects themselves. (Indeed,
the term hoplophobe as commandeered by gun fondlers is not about
gunzz, but about objects generally, if one is aware of the Greek
etymology of the term.)
There are some fools who make a big deal out of gunz, but they are no
more credible than those who make a big deal out of any other object.
The individuals have need to prove themselves capable of handling the
object. The objects themselves are entirely neutral in any reasonable
sense.
Gray Ghost
4ax.com:
Alas, you are to stupid to spell "guns" correctly. Pro gun is shorthand for
pro Constitution. Also pro freedom, pro personal liberty.
Alex DeLarge
===================================================================================
gb wrote:
dated: 10/8/2009
Sender: g...@amusenet.com
<ubisc5h6ti7g43kg0...@4ax.com>
> You should really find another set of friends. ;)
"Not my friends, clearly. Never used one, and wouldn't. Have
considered, once I'm well into my dotage, taking one of the target
rifles and a Gillie Suit into the woods, and simply offing a bunch of
them as far from anything as is possible.
Society would suffer no great loss thereby, seems to me."
=================================================================================
> Is that a presumption that You hold?
After this, we ALL know you're ready to go "postal" Dondi...
Alex DeLarge
===================================================================================
gb wrote:
dated: 10/8/2009
Sender: g...@amusenet.com
<ubisc5h6ti7g43kg0...@4ax.com>
> You should really find another set of friends. ;)
"Not my friends, clearly. Never used one, and wouldn't. Have
considered, once I'm well into my dotage, taking one of the target
rifles and a Gillie Suit into the woods, and simply offing a bunch of
them as far from anything as is possible.
Society would suffer no great loss thereby, seems to me."
=================================================================================
> How many would be Too Many?
One...killer....
Benj
spamtrap1888 wrote:
> On Nov 23, 7:52 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> So you support the right of people like Seung-Hui Cho and Major Hasan
> to arm themselves? I don't.
Now you know what I support? How extrasensory of you! Just in case
your drug-rotted liberal mind didn't notice. Mr. Cho was adjudicated
mentally incompetent. He was not permitted by law to buy/own
firearms. So much for your plan of "passing a law" to stop crime.
Furthermore, Major Hasan was in the army. I know the military is an
inscrutable organization to you winger libs, but fact is that unless
you give a reason to suspect you are untrustworthy, in the army they
actually give you guns to use to kill people with.
> Whenever a lunatic acts out with a gun, my rights are in imminent
> danger. Lunatics acting out with guns led to gun confiscation in the
> UK and Australia. Why would my rights be in danger because two high
> school students in Colorado wanted to get back at the popular kids?
And just HOW do you determine who is a "lunatic"? Sure it's obvious
AFTER the shooting stops. But you wingers want to PREVENT crimes
before they are committed so you can feel safe. Bad news educated
dude. You are in danger standing on a street corner. Any passing
vehicle could jump the curb at a moments notice and kill you. My idea
for you to find total safety for your "rights" is to pass a law to
lock you in a padded cell. Yeah, that might work.
> No guns for lunatics.
All you can do is shout "lunatic" but you don't tell us what it is.
How about no guns for drug users. No one should operate dangerous
machinery under the influence of illegal drugs. Why that just creates
"instant lunatics". Why are all you libs so pro drug.
No legalization of drugs.
> And if you can't conform your conduct to the law, why should you be
> trusted with a gun? We could limit the classes of felonies that make
> you ineligible to own a gun. Originally, in England, the issue of
> convicted felons arming themselves was moot, because the penalty for
> felonies was to be hanged by the neck until you were dead, dead, dead.
> In today's pussified world, though, we let them back on the street.
"Pussified"? You don't even post with your real name and address an
still think that others are "pussified"?
Well, banning guns sure prevented crimes and encroachment upon the
Rights of Englishmen...NOT! However, when it comes to felonies, a
review of which ones are serious and violent enough to warrant not
taking a chance on the person in the future is a good idea. Also a
good idea is to reinstitute the due process for restoring gun rights
if a person has demonstrated rehabilitation.
Killing people has it's utility, but given the findings (such as in
Illinois) where the great majority of convicted felons waiting for
execution on death row were found by DNA evidence to have been
wrongfully convicted, it rather puts your simple solution of kill them
all in a new light, does it not? The death penalty has never been a
good deterrent anyway. It's mostly useful for insuring the felon
doesn't commit any more crimes after the last one.
So let me see if I've got your idea right. Attorney General Holder
creates a list of people he'd like to "watch". They are forbidden to
own guns (and probably a have a few other rights stripped as well). If
they are found with a gun. The government simply kills them on the
spot. No judge. No jury. Just good ole wild-west "justice". Yeah,
that should result in a "civilized" society for you to feel "safe"
in.
Benj
gb wrote:
> I am not a pro-shovel individual either. Shovels merely exist, and
> one cannot be Pro shovel or Anti shovel.
>
> I am mildly more bothered by individuals who would classify others as
> such.
Why? As you point out below, objects are neutral it is the actions
with objects that is not neutral. Hence killing someone with a firearm
OR with a shovel is considered a crime.
> The individuals have need to prove themselves capable of handling the
> object. The objects themselves are entirely neutral in any reasonable
> sense.
So given that gun ownership and carrying is a right, your plan is that
everyone should prove themselves capable of handling the right before
they are allowed to exercise it, right? So this means you support poll
taxes, literacy tests, licensing for copy machines and printing
presses. Censorship of the internet and on and on.
The obvious difference between shovels and firearms is that firearms
are politically significant while shovels are not. As Mao noted "Power
comes from the barrel of a gun". And as Lenin observed, "One man with
a gun can control 100 without one."
Thus there are sensible POLITICAL reasons for removing guns from the
general population. It makes ruling them so much easier and less
dangerous for yourself. Hence anti-gun is just a shorthand for those
seeking public disarmament no matter what excuses are offered as the
reason for such actions. It's not that they hate firearms. As Sarah
Brady has said a million times. It's not about banning firearms. It's
about keeping them out of the "wrong" hands.
I'll leave it as an exercise for the interested student to determine
which hands are the "wrong" ones.
Lookout
>In news:48a42de5-11e3-482f...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com
>spamtrap1888 <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So you support the right of people like Seung-Hui Cho and Major Hasan
>> to arm themselves? I don't.
>
>Unless you're able to see into the future or somehow read people's
>minds, there's no way to know what people are "like" until they commit
>an overt act.
Correct
>So, by your scheme, since everyone is a potential criminal, everyone
>must be treated as if they were an actual criminal.
Incorrect. The public MUST BE protected...so you err on the side of
protection.
>Are you seriously calling for the imposition of a police state?
No one said that.
Lookout
That's why ALL US cars must be limited to 70MPH BY LAW.
Lookout
And Holder just proved my point. That idea is solidly in our future.
The NEAR future.
Gray Ghost
news:3nhqg5p989o949o5f...@4ax.com:
You should defintitely be slow cooked.
Brent
So the lunatic just drives 70mph in a residential area or in a parking
lot. The lunatic will get his crazies out one way or another. All that
is achieved is burdening people who weren't a problem in the first
place.
The control freak way is failure. The tighter the grip the more
that squeezes through the fingers, the worse things become. Everyone is
worse off except the lunatic, who keeps on being a lunatic.
spamtrap1888
> spamtrap1888 wrote:
> > On Nov 23, 7:52 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> > So you support the right of people like Seung-Hui Cho and Major Hasan
> > to arm themselves? I don't.
>
> Now you know what I support? How extrasensory of you!
No, I made a guess, and asked if it was accurate. That's why I used a
question mark, a punctuation character indicating a request for
information.
> Just in case
> your drug-rotted liberal mind didn't notice. Mr. Cho was adjudicated
> mentally incompetent. He was not permitted by law to buy/own
> firearms. So much for your plan of "passing a law" to stop crime.
He was permitted by state law to own firearms, although federal law
prohibited him. There was no enforcement mechanism -- such as a LIST
OF PROHIBITED PERSONS -- for the federal law.
> Furthermore, Major Hasan was in the army. I know the military is an
> inscrutable organization to you winger libs, but fact is that unless
> you give a reason to suspect you are untrustworthy, in the army they
> actually give you guns to use to kill people with.
Major Hasan did give his superiors -- psychiatrists all -- many
reasons to suspect he was fucking nuts. But they did nothing. The
pussification of the Army leadership is another issue for a different
thread, however.
>
> > Whenever a lunatic acts out with a gun, my rights are in imminent
> > danger. Lunatics acting out with guns led to gun confiscation in the
> > UK and Australia. Why would my rights be in danger because two high
> > school students in Colorado wanted to get back at the popular kids?
>
> And just HOW do you determine who is a "lunatic"? Sure it's obvious
> AFTER the shooting stops. But you wingers want to PREVENT crimes
> before they are committed so you can feel safe. Bad news educated
> dude. You are in danger standing on a street corner. Any passing
> vehicle could jump the curb at a moments notice and kill you.
So, you are opposed to getting bad drivers off the road because anyone
could be a bad driver at any moment? But the answer to your question
is simple. People who act crazy should be examined to see if they are
crazy, because crazy people should not own guns.
> My idea
> for you to find total safety for your "rights" is to pass a law to
> lock you in a padded cell. Yeah, that might work.
>
> > No guns for lunatics.
>
> All you can do is shout "lunatic" but you don't tell us what it is.
> How about no guns for drug users. No one should operate dangerous
> machinery under the influence of illegal drugs. Why that just creates
> "instant lunatics". Why are all you libs so pro drug.
If illegal drug users commit mass public shootings, then let's keep
them from owning guns as well.
>
> No legalization of drugs.
>
> > And if you can't conform your conduct to the law, why should you be
> > trusted with a gun? We could limit the classes of felonies that make
> > you ineligible to own a gun. Originally, in England, the issue of
> > convicted felons arming themselves was moot, because the penalty for
> > felonies was to be hanged by the neck until you were dead, dead, dead.
> > In today's pussified world, though, we let them back on the street.
>
> "Pussified"? You don't even post with your real name and address an
> still think that others are "pussified"?
Call me "The Federal Farmer." Or "Richard Saunders." Or even "Silence
Dogood."
>
> Well, banning guns sure prevented crimes and encroachment upon the
> Rights of Englishmen...NOT! However, when it comes to felonies, a
> review of which ones are serious and violent enough to warrant not
> taking a chance on the person in the future is a good idea. Also a
> good idea is to reinstitute the due process for restoring gun rights
> if a person has demonstrated rehabilitation.
>
> Killing people has it's utility, but given the findings (such as in
> Illinois) where the great majority of convicted felons waiting for
> execution on death row were found by DNA evidence to have been
> wrongfully convicted, it rather puts your simple solution of kill them
> all in a new light, does it not? The death penalty has never been a
> good deterrent anyway. It's mostly useful for insuring the felon
> doesn't commit any more crimes after the last one.
I simply pointed out that under the common law, there was no such
thing as restoring the civil rights of convicted felons because they
were no longer alive.
> So let me see if I've got your idea right. Attorney General Holder
> creates a list of people he'd like to "watch". They are forbidden to
> own guns (and probably a have a few other rights stripped as well). If
> they are found with a gun. The government simply kills them on the
> spot. No judge. No jury. Just good ole wild-west "justice". Yeah,
> that should result in a "civilized" society for you to feel "safe"
> in.
I don't know what Attorney General Holder wants. What I do know is
that a prohibited person list composed of felons and lunatics will
not affect my gun rights in the slightest.
spamtrap1888
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:07:06 +0000 (UTC), Brent
>
>
>
>
>
Former Senator Percy (R-Ill) pushed a bill through in 1982 to limit
speedometer readings to 85 mph, to eliminate the temptation to reach
dangerous speeds.
Brent
> People who act crazy should be examined to see if they are
> crazy, because crazy people should not own guns.
What is 'acting crazy' and who does the examination?
Brent
> Former Senator Percy (R-Ill) pushed a bill through in 1982 to limit
> speedometer readings to 85 mph, to eliminate the temptation to reach
> dangerous speeds.
Date is off at minimum. 1977 was the first year of 85mph speedometers as
I recall.
D.A.Tsenuf
"spamtrap1888" <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d8beb18d-e7b0-48e6...@u8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Some people -- for example convicted felons and lunatics -- should not
> how compiling a list of such people would bother you.
the problem with that argument can be reduced to 2 basic ones
1) Why are violent felons and lunatics running loose in the first place
If a felon lunatic has demonstrated more than a few times that he is
unable to funcion in society, then he should be locked up until that
changes.
2) If the felons and lunatics are not violent, then I see no reason for
them to be disarmed and unable to defend themselve.
spamtrap1888
> On 2009-11-25, spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > People who act crazy should be examined to see if they are
> > crazy, because crazy people should not own guns.
>
> What is 'acting crazy' and who does the examination?
Good questions. I'm not the best person to recommend how to flesh out
the idea. I do think that studying the characteristics of mass public
shooters should lead to an answer for how crazy is crazy enough. There
are procedures in place right now to determine if someone is a danger
to himself or others. Not being crazy I have not familiarized myself
with them.
gb
wrote:
Nah -- he did no such thing.
> That idea is solidly in our future.
>The NEAR future.
It has been, according to the NRA et al fundraising efforts, going to
happen Any Day Now for over thirty years.
But....
RD (The Sandman)
news:gkhqg5hqtnu1oondr...@4ax.com:
> On 24 Nov 2009 14:49:20 GMT, Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>>In news:48a42de5-11e3-482f-b7c4-91a5b80b8586
@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com
>>spamtrap1888 <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So you support the right of people like Seung-Hui Cho and Major Hasan
>>> to arm themselves? I don't.
>>
>>Unless you're able to see into the future or somehow read people's
>>minds, there's no way to know what people are "like" until they commit
>>an overt act.
>
> Correct
>
>>So, by your scheme, since everyone is a potential criminal, everyone
>>must be treated as if they were an actual criminal.
>
> Incorrect. The public MUST BE protected...so you err on the side of
> protection.
>
>>Are you seriously calling for the imposition of a police state?
>
> No one said that.
>
That rather depends on your definition of a police state, doesn't it. ;)
RD (The Sandman)
news:3nhqg5p989o949o5f...@4ax.com:
Is that another of your beliefs?
RD (The Sandman)
news:Xns9CCE68D661FA0We...@216.196.97.142:
I think he was but he wasn't completely done.
Sid Vicious
>>That's why ALL US cars must be limited to 70MPH BY LAW.
> Is that another of your beliefs?
Fine.
I'll buy an import, "Lookout."
Imagine the Indy 500 at that speed!
Sid Vicious
> grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) wrote in
> news:Xns9CCE68D661FA0We...@216.196.97.142:
>
>
>>Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>news:3nhqg5p989o949o5f...@4ax.com:
>>>That's why ALL US cars must be limited to 70MPH BY LAW.
>>You should defintitely be slow cooked.
> I think he was but he wasn't completely done.
Lookout was slow cooked, and came out the wrong hole to boot!
D.A.Tsenuf
On Nov 24, 6:49 am, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> Innews:48a42de5-11e3-482f...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com
>
> spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So you support the right of people like Seung-Hui Cho and Major Hasan
> > to arm themselves? I don't.
>
> minds, there's no way to know what people are "like" until they commit
> an overt act.
>
> must be treated as if they were an actual criminal.
>
>
# No, by my scheme, everyone who acts like a lunatic must have their
# lunacy evaluated.
Sort of like they did in the Soviet where any "dissident" was considered
"lunatic" enough to be carted off without a trial to an insame asylum..
Are you really this stupid ?
Oh wait !
You're one of our regural nym-changing trolls..
RD (The Sandman)
b3df-7ba...@m33g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 24, 11:09�pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>> spamtrap1888 wrote:
>> > On Nov 23, 7:52�pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>> > So you support the right of people like Seung-Hui Cho and Major
>> > Hasan to arm themselves? I don't.
>>
>> Now you know what I support? How extrasensory of you! �
>
> No, I made a guess, and asked if it was accurate. That's why I used a
> question mark, a punctuation character indicating a request for
> information.
You also started it with a supposition.
>> Just in case
>> your drug-rotted liberal mind didn't notice. Mr. Cho was adjudicated
>> mentally incompetent. He was not permitted by law to buy/own
>> firearms. �So much for your plan of "passing a law" to stop crime.
>
> He was permitted by state law to own firearms, although federal law
> prohibited him. There was no enforcement mechanism -- such as a LIST
> OF PROHIBITED PERSONS -- for the federal law.
What state law do you feel overrides federal law on firearms possession?
Take all the screens you need.
>> Furthermore, Major Hasan was in the army. I know the military is an
>> inscrutable organization to you winger libs, but fact is that unless
>> you give a reason to suspect you are untrustworthy, in the army they
>> actually give you guns to use to kill people with.
>
> Major Hasan did give his superiors -- psychiatrists all -- many
> reasons to suspect he was fucking nuts. But they did nothing.
This is true. Perhaps the investigation will root out some of those
problems.
> The
> pussification of the Army leadership is another issue for a different
> thread, however.
>
>>
>> > Whenever a lunatic acts out with a gun, my rights are in imminent
>> > danger. Lunatics acting out with guns led to gun confiscation in the
>> > UK and Australia. Why would my rights be in danger because two high
>> > school students in Colorado wanted to get back at the popular kids?
>>
>> And just HOW do you determine who is a "lunatic"? �Sure it's obvious
>> AFTER the shooting stops. But you wingers want to PREVENT crimes
>> before they are committed so you can feel safe. Bad news educated
>> dude. You are in danger standing on a street corner. Any passing
>> vehicle could jump the curb at a moments notice and kill you.
>
> So, you are opposed to getting bad drivers off the road because anyone
> could be a bad driver at any moment?
Nope, but the devil is in the details of how you intend to do it.
> But the answer to your question
> is simple. People who act crazy should be examined to see if they are
> crazy, because crazy people should not own guns.
Who makes that decision that they need to be examined? Currently, it is
associates recommendation to superiors, family, etc.. None of that
occurred, so who would have been your "fail-safe"?
>> My idea
>> for you to find total safety for your "rights" is to pass a law to
>> lock you in a padded cell. Yeah, that might work.
>>
>> > No guns for lunatics.
>>
>> All you can do is shout "lunatic" but you don't tell us what it is.
>> How about no guns for drug users.
Why not as long as there is no abuse involved?
>> No one should operate dangerous
>> machinery under the influence of illegal drugs.
Not necessarily.
Why that just creates
>> "instant lunatics". Why are all you libs so pro drug.
>
> If illegal drug users commit mass public shootings, then let's keep
> them from owning guns as well.
If they are convicted of committing mass public shootings, they will not
be legally owning firearms......guaranteed. Already in place.
>> No legalization of drugs.
>>
>> > And if you can't conform your conduct to the law, why should you be
>> > trusted with a gun? We could limit the classes of felonies that make
>> > you ineligible to own a gun. Originally, in England, the issue of
>> > convicted felons arming themselves was moot, because the penalty for
>> > felonies was to be hanged by the neck until you were dead, dead,
dead.
>> > In today's pussified world, though, we let them back on the street.
>>
>> "Pussified"? You don't even post with your real name and address an
>> still think that others are "pussified"?
>
> Call me "The Federal Farmer." Or "Richard Saunders." Or even "Silence
> Dogood."
>
>>
>> Well, banning guns sure prevented crimes and encroachment upon the
>> Rights of Englishmen...NOT! �However, when it comes to felonies, a
>> review of which ones are serious and violent enough to warrant not
>> taking a chance on the person in the future is a good idea. Also a
>> good idea is to reinstitute the due process for restoring gun rights
>> if a person has demonstrated �rehabilitation.
That process was different from state to state and the feds often didn't
go along.
>> Killing people has it's utility, but given the findings (such as in
>> Illinois) where the great majority of convicted felons waiting for
>> execution on death row were found by DNA evidence to have been
>> wrongfully convicted, it rather puts your simple solution of kill them
>> all in a new light, does it not? �The death penalty has never been a
>> good deterrent anyway. It's mostly useful for insuring the felon
>> doesn't commit any more crimes after the last one.
>
> I simply pointed out that under the common law, there was no such
> thing as restoring the civil rights of convicted felons because they
> were no longer alive.
That may be but most states do have a process for restoring those
rights...whether or not it is possible to complete it may be in doubt.
>> So let me see if I've got your idea right. Attorney General Holder
>> creates a list of people he'd like to "watch". They are forbidden to
>> own guns (and probably a have a few other rights stripped as well). If
>> they are found with a gun. The government simply kills them on the
>> spot. No judge. No jury. Just good ole wild-west "justice". �Yeah,
>> that should result in a "civilized" society for you to feel "safe"
>> in.
>
> I don't know what Attorney General Holder wants. What I do know is
> that a prohibited person list composed of felons and lunatics will
> not affect my gun rights in the slightest.
One already exists....and should only affect your gun rights if you
*mistakenly* end up on it.
RD (The Sandman)
news:bad4a7d0-667e-4e2f...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
Doesn't work real well, does it.
Alex DeLarge
> But....
Lookout
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:gkhqg5hqtnu1oondr...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 24 Nov 2009 14:49:20 GMT, Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In news:48a42de5-11e3-482f-b7c4-91a5b80b8586
>@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com
>>>spamtrap1888 <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So you support the right of people like Seung-Hui Cho and Major Hasan
>>>> to arm themselves? I don't.
>>>
>>>Unless you're able to see into the future or somehow read people's
>>>minds, there's no way to know what people are "like" until they commit
>>>an overt act.
>>
>> Correct
>>
>>>So, by your scheme, since everyone is a potential criminal, everyone
>>>must be treated as if they were an actual criminal.
>>
>> Incorrect. The public MUST BE protected...so you err on the side of
>> protection.
>>
>>>Are you seriously calling for the imposition of a police state?
>>
>> No one said that.
>>
>
>That rather depends on your definition of a police state, doesn't it. ;)
Good point. These idiots have no idea what socialism is why would they
know what a police state is?
Lookout
HAHHHAHAHAH
Glad I could piss you off again.
Lookout
<tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Wrong.
>The control freak way is failure.
So all laws should be gone? Oh ya..that's smart. You dumbass.
>The tighter the grip the more
>that squeezes through the fingers, the worse things become. Everyone is
>worse off except the lunatic, who keeps on being a lunatic.
Wrong again.
But you can tell who has little respect for the law from these
responses. I've been driving since '74 and I've never got a speeding
ticket.
Lookout
Limiting all US cars to 70MPHs would save gas and stop high speed
chases.
Lookout
Stupid question but I understand why you asked.
spamtrap1888
> "spamtrap1888" <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1831a7b4-300f-4345...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 24, 6:49 am, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:> Innews:48a42de5-11e3-482f...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com
>
> > spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > So you support the right of people like Seung-Hui Cho and Major Hasan
> > > to arm themselves? I don't.
>
> > Unless you're able to see into the future or somehow read people's
> > minds, there's no way to know what people are "like" until they commit
> > an overt act.
>
> > So, by your scheme, since everyone is a potential criminal, everyone
> > must be treated as if they were an actual criminal.
>
> > Are you seriously calling for the imposition of a police state?
>
> #
> # No, by my scheme, everyone who acts like a lunatic must have their
> # lunacy evaluated.
>
> Sort of like they did in the Soviet where any "dissident" was considered
> "lunatic" enough to be carted off without a trial to an insame asylum..
Sure, because the US of A is just like the old Soviet Union.
>
> Are you really this stupid ?
I must be, to be carrying on a conversation with someone like you.
>
> Oh wait !
> You're one of our regural nym-changing trolls..
I was trying to imagine what it would mean to have a brain that worked
like yours. Your mental processes could best be depicted by this old
Anacin commercial, from the 15 second mark to the 17th.
spamtrap1888
@comcast.net> wrote:
> spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote in news:558c48d7-129f-467c-
> b3df-7bad22101...@m33g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Nov 24, 11:09 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> >> spamtrap1888 wrote:
> >> > On Nov 23, 7:52 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> >> > So you support the right of people like Seung-Hui Cho and Major
> >> > Hasan to arm themselves? I don't.
>
> >> Now you know what I support? How extrasensory of you!
>
> > No, I made a guess, and asked if it was accurate. That's why I used a
> > question mark, a punctuation character indicating a request for
> > information.
>
> You also started it with a supposition.
I had to start somewhere.
> >> Just in case
> >> your drug-rotted liberal mind didn't notice. Mr. Cho was adjudicated
> >> mentally incompetent. He was not permitted by law to buy/own
> >> firearms. So much for your plan of "passing a law" to stop crime.
>
> > He was permitted by state law to own firearms, although federal law
> > prohibited him. There was no enforcement mechanism -- such as a LIST
> > OF PROHIBITED PERSONS -- for the federal law.
>
> What state law do you feel overrides federal law on firearms possession?
> Take all the screens you need.
As I understand it, the problem was in the handoff between the state
legal system and the federal legal system -- there wasn't any. The
Feds had a broader definition of "adjudicated incompetent" than
Virginia did.
Most of the rest of your neverending screed I can live with
...
>
> >> "instant lunatics". Why are all you libs so pro drug.
>
> > If illegal drug users commit mass public shootings, then let's keep
> > them from owning guns as well.
>
> If they are convicted of committing mass public shootings, they will not
> be legally owning firearms......guaranteed. Already in place.
>
This would be a good-enough answer once mass public shootings no
longer automatically trigger cries to restrict gun ownership for
normal, law-abiding people. We're dodging a bullet with Major Hasan
(so to speak) because people think he's not nuts but a jihadist.
spamtrap1888
All the more reason to limit US cars to 40 mph.
Airplanes are huge gas guzzlers, injecting greenhouse gases into the
upper atmosphere (look at any contrail), where they make up a large
part of that part of the atmosphere. Therefore they must be banned
entirely.
Brent
And what a compeling argument of nothing you present.
>>The control freak way is failure.
>
> So all laws should be gone? Oh ya..that's smart. You dumbass.
Strawman.
>>The tighter the grip the more
>>that squeezes through the fingers, the worse things become. Everyone is
>>worse off except the lunatic, who keeps on being a lunatic.
> Wrong again.
And no argument presented.
> But you can tell who has little respect for the law from these
> responses. I've been driving since '74 and I've never got a speeding
> ticket.
That's just luck and when and where you drive. Try driving the dan ryan
or the bishop ford at the speed limit.
SaPeIsMa
On Nov 25, 7:52 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2009-11-25, spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > People who act crazy should be examined to see if they are
> > crazy, because crazy people should not own guns.
>
> What is 'acting crazy' and who does the examination?
# Good questions. I'm not the best person to recommend how to flesh out
# the idea. I do think that studying the characteristics of mass public
# shooters should lead to an answer for how crazy is crazy enough. There
# are procedures in place right now to determine if someone is a danger
# to himself or others. Not being crazy I have not familiarized myself
# with them.
Nice dance
Once you have come up with a standard that can withstand review, come back
to us
Until then you'd ve wise NOT to want to pass legislation UNTIL that hurdle
has been passed.
SaPeIsMa
On Nov 25, 11:46 am, "D.A.Tsenuf" <D...@Tsenuf.com> wrote:
> "spamtrap1888" <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1831a7b4-300f-4345...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 24, 6:49 am, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:>
> Innews:48a42de5-11e3-482f...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com
>
> > spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > So you support the right of people like Seung-Hui Cho and Major Hasan
> > > to arm themselves? I don't.
>
> > Unless you're able to see into the future or somehow read people's
> > minds, there's no way to know what people are "like" until they commit
> > an overt act.
>
> > So, by your scheme, since everyone is a potential criminal, everyone
> > must be treated as if they were an actual criminal.
>
> > Are you seriously calling for the imposition of a police state?
>
> #
> # No, by my scheme, everyone who acts like a lunatic must have their
> # lunacy evaluated.
>
> Sort of like they did in the Soviet where any "dissident" was considered
> "lunatic" enough to be carted off without a trial to an insame asylum..
# Sure, because the US of A is just like the old Soviet Union.
Well it's well-meaning idiots like you that are paving that particular road.
>
> Are you really this stupid ?
#
# I must be, to be carrying on a conversation with someone like you.
Yes, idiots are always defensive when they have to address someone smarter
than them
You are clearly an example of that.
>
> Oh wait !
> You're one of our regural nym-changing trolls..
#
# I was trying to imagine what it would mean to have a brain that worked
# like yours. Your mental processes could best be depicted by this old
# Anacin commercial, from the 15 second mark to the 17th.
#
# http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeas5jtffpM
Thanks for the admission by default that I was right
SaPeIsMa
# All the more reason to limit US cars to 40 mph.
#
# Airplanes are huge gas guzzlers, injecting greenhouse gases into the
# upper atmosphere (look at any contrail), where they make up a large
# part of that part of the atmosphere. Therefore they must be banned
# entirely.
Too bad that it's that kind of polution that has been keeping that upcoming
Ice Age that was announced in the 70s, at bay.
Apparently the stupid greenies prefer to starve and freeze, rather than live
in heat an plenty.
SaPeIsMa
"Brent" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hekmu2$f4f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Or the Merritt Parkway (Ct) going East, away from NYC, on a Friday.
RD (The Sandman)
news:5mgrg55nslqm72clb...@4ax.com:
The two are not mutually exclusive?
RD (The Sandman)
82ae-72a...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Yes, they can determine if *in their opinion* one is or is not a danger
to themselves or others, but the point really is.....how does that
process start? Being able to make that determination really won't occur
unless some initiates a process to make it happen.
Not being crazy I have not familiarized myself
> with them.
>
--
RD (The Sandman)
news:gogrg552e67bc0ta5...@4ax.com:
Which doesn't mean that you haven't sped or broken traffic laws. It
simply means that you have not been caught doing it.
RD (The Sandman)
news:lvgrg5hb0besq7jug...@4ax.com:
It was, apparently, your statement. I am simply seeking clarification of
it.
RD (The Sandman)
news:d123c3eb-5e57-42c1...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
That's partially true. It was a failure in the handoff. A problem that
was temporarily fixed by the governor in an EO.
> Most of the rest of your neverending screed I can live with
And what is that? Quite a bit agreed with you.
>> >> "instant lunatics". Why are all you libs so pro drug.
>>
>> > If illegal drug users commit mass public shootings, then let's keep
>> > them from owning guns as well.
>>
>> If they are convicted of committing mass public shootings, they will
>> not be legally owning firearms......guaranteed. �Already in place.
>>
>
> This would be a good-enough answer once mass public shootings no
> longer automatically trigger cries to restrict gun ownership for
> normal, law-abiding people.
They always will among certain parties in this country. That is a fact
of life like the sun rising in the morning.
We're dodging a bullet with Major Hasan
> (so to speak) because people think he's not nuts but a jihadist.
I think he is both.
RD (The Sandman)
RD (The Sandman)
news:07be392d-e077-4bc0...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
Particularly Al Gore's.
spamtrap1888
> "spamtrap1888" <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Nah. I already have my oceanfront place in the Sierras picked out. And
I'm heavily invested in a company that makes plastic rescue platforms
for polar bears. Once I get my orange grove going in Wyoming, I'll be
all set.
Brent
> Sure, because the US of A is just like the old Soviet Union.
Actually the number of parallels continues to grow. I saw this political
cartoon titled 'how the USA is like the USSR of the 1980s' each frame
was a parallel. Yes it was funny, but the humor did have a point.
Benj
> On 2009-11-26, spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sure, because the US of A is just like the old Soviet Union.
>
> Actually the number of parallels continues to grow. I saw this political
> cartoon titled 'how the USA is like the USSR of the 1980s' each frame
> was a parallel. Yes it was funny, but the humor did have a point.
You think the parallels are accidental? Nothing happens by accident
in politics as the saying goes. In spite of the fact that the "envy of
the world" the (former) USSR crashed and burned under the weight of
it's own ineffective system, there a many people in this country (Left
winger Democrats) who remain convinced that Marxist theories can still
be made to work if only THEY get a chance at implementing them. And
it looks like they are going to get the chance. After their "envy of
the world" crashes and burns then we can all work hard to put America
back the way it was before they destroyed it.
Lookout
>On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:03:25 -0600, Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:30:46 -0800, gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:38:48 -0600, grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com
>>>(Gray Ghost) wrote:
>>>
>>>>gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in news:786mg5d9ege76k6shiridvoroa9sfvtgbg@
>>>>4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> No one's going to either register or confiscate any gunzzz.
>>>>>
>>>>> They're just not that important.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Then you might want to talk to Lookout becuase he is convinced, beyond
>>>>reason, that all guns will be registered.
>>>
>>>I've been hearing that cant for three decades anyway. You can perhaps
>>>understand that I no longer pay it much attention.
>>
>>And Holder just proved my point.
>
>Nah -- he did no such thing.
>
>> That idea is solidly in our future.
>>The NEAR future.
>
>It has been, according to the NRA et al fundraising efforts, going to
>happen Any Day Now for over thirty years.
>
>But....
They prey on the fears of the ignorant just as religion does.
But this time the fear is well founded. It's going to happen. The tide
is turning.
D.A.Tsenuf
I'd like to see that
Hope you can dig up more info about it to see if it's available on the
internet
Brent
> On Nov 26, 12:35�pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-11-26, spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Sure, because the US of A is just like the old Soviet Union.
>>
>> Actually the number of parallels continues to grow. I saw this political
>> cartoon titled 'how the USA is like the USSR of the 1980s' each frame
>> was a parallel. Yes it was funny, but the humor did have a point.
> You think the parallels are accidental?
Why would you need to ask that question with what is above?
The parallels are the result of long term influence by those who benefit
from centralized systems.
> Nothing happens by accident
> in politics as the saying goes. In spite of the fact that the "envy of
> the world" the (former) USSR crashed and burned under the weight of
> it's own ineffective system, there a many people in this country (Left
> winger Democrats) who remain convinced that Marxist theories can still
> be made to work if only THEY get a chance at implementing them. And
> it looks like they are going to get the chance. After their "envy of
> the world" crashes and burns then we can all work hard to put America
> back the way it was before they destroyed it.
The USSR was a combination of communism and police state. The 'D' team
in the US brings the communism, the 'R' team brings the police state.
Both work together. Haven't you noticed that team 'D' hasn't undone
anything that team 'R' did before them? In fact I recently read that the
big O's team has successfully and quietly had much of the patriot act
renewed. The key is to look beyond the two teams and see who
owns/influences both of them.
Brent
I can't find the one I was thinking of, but this one is close and
shorter:
http://www.rall.com/uploaded_images/7-26-08-714215.jpg