>Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 05:37:09 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 03:41:37 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>><klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>"Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>>>"Bill" <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:f9sd28leash0qu6c99cj05i77p3gnamf7e@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 16:40:46 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>>>>> <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:55:23 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>>>>>>><klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns >>>>>>>>>>:
>>>>>>>>>>And here is the boss of the tag team.
>>>>>>>>>the Left *HATES* it when everyone doesn't agree with them. It HAS to
>>>>>>>>>be a conspiracy.
>>>>>>>>Clever snip.
>>>>>>>Same to you.
>>>>>>>>You snipped the part when Nazi No 1 claimed he knew exactly what Nazi
>>>>>>>>No 2 meant by his statement.
>>>>>>>You snipped the part about Dick Cheney. Are you THAT afraid of the old
>>>>>>>man? I will restore.....
>>>>>> Stop being absurd.
>>>>>> I caught them colluding about their answers.
>>>>>No, you simply asserted it.
>>>>This guy is a paranoid whack job.
>>>>"Colluding."
>>>I'm not the one who stopped posting.
>>>They all ran away together.
>>>Now, in afew hours when they've had time to discuss it, they'll all
>>>get back together and resume posting
>>All you have to do is prove your paranoid assertions.
>My assertions are already proved.
Not even close.
But I'm sure as far as your very active and paranoid imagination is
concerned, yes, everything points to frantic Sooper Sekrit
Communications between two or possibly more people with the sole
intent on cooperating against you.
Bill wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 07:12:07 -0400, "Jeffrey Hamilton"
> <bberesf...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>> Kerryn Offord wrote:
>>> On 11/08/2012 12:34 a.m., Jeffrey Hamilton wrote:
>>>> Kerryn Offord wrote:
>>>>> On 10/08/2012 2:06 p.m., Diogenes wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 13:26:40 +1200, Kerryn Offord
>>>>>> <ka...@uclive.ac.nz> wrote:
>>> <SNIP>
>>>>> And if you can get anybody to believe that, you've got a bridge
>>>>> for sale...
>>>> Could they possibly get any stupider ? Just when I think they've
>>>> bottomed out, they manage to sink even lower, amazing.
>>>> I can't believe they don't understand the phrase"freely" available.
>>>> cheers....Jeff
>>> Oh, I can believe it. It's the way they proudly broadcast their
>>> ignorance that I find beggars belief..
>>> Dumb and proud of it describes them...
>> It's like observing a 'bag 'o hammers' that can type...
> What's really interesting is that their technique isn't going to win
> them any friends.
> They'll alienate anyone who isn't fully on their side by coming across
> as unutterably arrogant and nasty.
> They obviously think they've won any possible argument and are
> reveling in the slaughter knowing there's nothing anyone can do to
> stop it.
> And of course sop far they've been right.
> Obama seem unable to even be bothered to gain any traction against the
> gun bunnies.
> I imagine that eventually something will happen that will be a horror
> of such magnitude that the great mass of the people will agree that
> something must be done, much as the banning of mail order purchase of
> firearms was banned after President Kennedy was murdered by a mail
> order rifle...
Honestly William, I don't know that even if a horrorific event of epic proportions took place, somewhere in America, that there would be the political will to do something concrete about the problem.
Guns are a *religion*, to many of these idiots.
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 05:49:16 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>My assertions are already proved.
>Not even close.
>But I'm sure as far as your very active and paranoid imagination is
>concerned, yes, everything points to frantic Sooper Sekrit
>Communications between two or possibly more people with the sole
>intent on cooperating against you.
That you say ordinary email is 'sooper sekrit' does rather reduce you
to the level of a nit wit.
<bberesf...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>Bill wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 07:12:07 -0400, "Jeffrey Hamilton"
>> <bberesf...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>>> Kerryn Offord wrote:
>>>> On 11/08/2012 12:34 a.m., Jeffrey Hamilton wrote:
>>>>> Kerryn Offord wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/08/2012 2:06 p.m., Diogenes wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 13:26:40 +1200, Kerryn Offord
>>>>>>> <ka...@uclive.ac.nz> wrote:
>>>> <SNIP>
>>>>>> And if you can get anybody to believe that, you've got a bridge
>>>>>> for sale...
>>>>> Could they possibly get any stupider ? Just when I think they've
>>>>> bottomed out, they manage to sink even lower, amazing.
>>>>> I can't believe they don't understand the phrase"freely" available.
>>>>> cheers....Jeff
>>>> Oh, I can believe it. It's the way they proudly broadcast their
>>>> ignorance that I find beggars belief..
>>>> Dumb and proud of it describes them...
>>> It's like observing a 'bag 'o hammers' that can type...
>> What's really interesting is that their technique isn't going to win
>> them any friends.
>> They'll alienate anyone who isn't fully on their side by coming across
>> as unutterably arrogant and nasty.
>> They obviously think they've won any possible argument and are
>> reveling in the slaughter knowing there's nothing anyone can do to
>> stop it.
>> And of course sop far they've been right.
>> Obama seem unable to even be bothered to gain any traction against the
>> gun bunnies.
>> I imagine that eventually something will happen that will be a horror
>> of such magnitude that the great mass of the people will agree that
>> something must be done, much as the banning of mail order purchase of
>> firearms was banned after President Kennedy was murdered by a mail
>> order rifle...
>Honestly William, I don't know that even if a horrorific event of epic >proportions took place, somewhere in America, that there would be the >political will to do something concrete about the problem.
>Guns are a *religion*, to many of these idiots.
Well they've certainly said they're prepared to kill anyone who says
that they should be controlled in some way.
As we must assume they have access to guns it is reasonable they do
intend to kill people for no better reason.
Any politician who tries to do anything could well be assassinated.
>>>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:33:34 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Now do pay attention, Diogenes, I'll type this at normal speed
>>>>>> because I don't give a rat's arse if you can't keep up or not,
>>>>>> William and NOT Kerryn posted this phrase "freely available"
>>>>>> asto the availibility of guns, YOUR moronic gun-bunnie buddies
>>>>>> all jumped on that phrase thinking it somehow meant FREE as in
>>>>>> *no cost*, when in fact it actually means READILY AVAIBLE
>>>>> Those comments were posted as humor (a play on words, if you will)
>>>> How the hell do you know that?
>>>> Sharing a computer are you?
>>>> Or maybe it's just collusion by email...
>>> Makes no difference....that knowledge is obviously above your pay
>>> grade.
>> And here is the boss of the tag team.
> Hey wait a second..
> I though I was the "boss of the tag team"
> Sandman is only the "boss of the tug team"...
Oh, does he *tug* your _tag_ ?
I suspected as much
>Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 05:38:00 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Say, you don't own a gun, do you? This would be a great time to turn
>>them in.
>Of course I own guns.
>And if you can be bothered to turn up the old NSRA 'Pistol Weekend'
>results for forty odd years ago you'll find my name on them...
>> This, coming from the *gun-bunnie tag-team* captain, priceless.
> Wow, just 3 hours and 10 minutes ago it was RD Sandman that you
> claimed was:
> "And here is the boss of the tag team" Seems you can't make up your mind > who's in charge.... of course since
> no one is, I can understand your confusion about it, but not about
> your assertion there is a team.
It seeems you can't read headers, that wasn't _my_ post, try again, troll.
>>>>>>>> What many 1st world nations recognize is that, American death
>>>>>>>> toll is approx. 25,000 citizens per year due to guns.
>>>>>>>> Just under 10,000 murdered and a further 15, 000 by suicide.
>>>>>>>> The rest of the civilized world believes those figures to be
>>>>>>>> extremely excessive and unnecessary.
>>>>>>> Well, you could always invade and fix things up.
>>>>>> That method seldom works, look at Iraq for example.
>>>>> Surely you smart people could fix things up better than the savage
>>>>> Americans.
>>>> If you mean by having fewer deaths due to gun play per capita, why
>>>> yes, Canada already has.
>>> And Mexico has more deaths due to gun play per capita.
>> See the figures below, I made it easy for you to demonstrate the % of
>> deaths per capita due to gun play.
>> Compared to whom ?
> Well let's see which countries have been discussed so far
> Canada and US obviously
> Is this too complicated for you ?
>>>> If you savage Americans wish to achieve similar results, then
>>>> follow Canada's example.
>>> Which would also be just like following Mexico's.
>> Why, Canada (pop.34,482,779) had 144 deaths due to gun play.
>> Mexico ( pop.110.810,000) had 2,606 deaths due to gun play.
>> United States (pop.312,780,968) had 9,369 deaths due to gun play
> As pointed out earlier these are false numbers
> For the US they include JUSTIFIED homicides, that include police and
> civilians
> For Canada and Mexico, since they are disarmed it only accounts for
> criminal homicides
>>> So why the difference in rates?
> Different countries and CULTURES, dummy
> ONLY an idiot believes that guns cause homicides
> Oh wait, it's jeffy..
>> Canada is normal and has strong gun control laws.
> LOL
> "normal" according to what standard, jeffy
> And is it those "strong gun control laws' that are the cause of the
> Yonge Street Mall shootout on Christmas eve ?
> What about those 4 Mounties killed out west ?
>> Mexico, I believe has strong gun control laws too, but it's
>> practically in a state of anarchy, due to corruption and the drug
>> cartels, oh yeah,
> Poor jeffy
> The Mexicans have been slaughtered for decades by various criminal
> groups because their Constitutional right to self-defense has been
> "regulated" away by a slew of gun-control laws.
> They are effectively plucked chicks waiting to have their heads
> cut off
>> and an absolute shit load of smuggled weapons from the United
>> States.
> Isn't it amazing how "gun bunnies" are wiling to pervert the law for
> the sake of justifying more gun-control, like the Obama
> administration did with Fast & Furious.
> And you're one of those stupid gullible useful idiots who buy into
> that crap.
>> The United States, last I heard, has approx. 20,000 gun laws
>> (federal and state), many of which it would appear, don't seem to
>> work very well. Now why is that, do you think ?
> Because has had been found by two independent studies of the CDC
> (Center for Disease Control) an the NAS (National Academy of Science)
> gun control laws have shown NO EFFECT on crime rates..
> They effectively are laws that only serve to disarm the law-abiding
> and not the criminals.
>>> Are you really sure it's just the gun control laws?
>> In Canada, yes, in the US I believe it depends on how well they are
>> written and how well they are enforced.
>> Case in point, the Safeway store shooter and the Viriginia Tech
>> shooter, both were able to purchase firearms through the simple
>> expediency of lying. To me, that indicates either a poorly written,
>> or a poorly enforced law. Having a shit load of gun control laws
>> means diddly squat if they're merely *window dressing*.
> You first need to read a book called "The Samurai, the Mountie, and
> the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other
> Democracies" by David B. Kopel
> That will at least open your mind to the notion that it's culture and
> NOT gun control that differentiates different even neighboring
> countries like Canada and the US
> AS to having a shit-load of gun laws, two independent studies have
> shown that it doesn't matter how many gun laws you have. The don't
> have any effect on crime rates
> You need to work to a simple equation
> Criminals + guns = crime
> Take out the guns, and you still have criminals committing crime.
> And you'll be like Mexico and Jamaica where the people are
> defenseless against those criminals
> Take out the criminals , and the guns will still be around, but you
> won't have criminals committing crimes
>Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 05:43:52 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>So far you have refrained from wishing to kill anyone who has
>>>disagreed with you.
>>>So, so far you're not a Nazi...
>>I see. So "wishing to kill someone for disagreeing with you" is your
>>definition of "Nazi," is it?
>Yes.
Just checking.
>>>When men with guns (and they're all men) say they'll shoot someone for
>>>disagreeing with someone then they're Nazis.
>Yes.
You're agreeing with your own words, Bill. Try and focus.
>>I see. So when, say, a communist does it, that makes him a Nazi, is
>>that right?
>As a general rule Communists don't do that.
Answer the question.
>They say 'Misguided people need reeducation'
And people who make up shit as they go along- like you- need to state
their definitions so we can all be on the same page here.
>>And when a woman does it, that makes her a Nazi. No, wait, you
>>specifically said "men with guns."
>>What happens to women who want to kill you for disagreeing with you?
>Same.
>But as rule women have more sense.
So they're nazis too. I see.
>>I'd say a great example of sophistry is when, say, someone claims two
>>people are colluding because they stop posting at the same time.
>Are there only two of them?
>I saw at least four, plus yourself.
Oh cool. Who am I colluding with again?
>Still, you'll know which are the sock puppets and I don't...
I'd say there's a lot of shit you don't know, including what a "nazi"
is. But that's the reason for Godwin's Law, for unsophisticated
posters such as yourself can be weeded out of the general discussion.
>>>Bullshit.
>>>It stopped before midnight GMT. If they're in the USA then they
>>>should have been posting for some considerable time. They were on
>>>previous days.
>>I see. It stopped before midnight. Hmmmm. That seems like a normal
>>time for posting to stop, since many people go to sleep around that
>>time.
>GMT idiot.
So where do they live?
>You know, 'Zulu Time', 'Coordinated Universal Time', stuff like
>that.
>'London time' for goomers, but London isn't on GMT at the moment...
>Learn to tell the time.
Sorry, I'm not as good at this paranoia stuff as you are. Forgive me.
>Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 05:49:16 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>My assertions are already proved.
>>Not even close.
>>But I'm sure as far as your very active and paranoid imagination is
>>concerned, yes, everything points to frantic Sooper Sekrit
>>Communications between two or possibly more people with the sole
>>intent on cooperating against you.
>That you say ordinary email is 'sooper sekrit' does rather reduce you
>to the level of a nit wit.
Oh, are they using "ordinary email?" How do you know this? How do you
know it's not Sooper Sekrit encypted one-time-read email?
>>>>>>>> What many 1st world nations recognize is that, American death
>>>>>>>> toll is approx. 25,000 citizens per year due to guns.
>>>>>>>> Just under 10,000 murdered and a further 15, 000 by suicide.
>>>>>>>> The rest of the civilized world believes those figures to be
>>>>>>>> extremely excessive and unnecessary.
>>>>>>> Well, you could always invade and fix things up.
>>>>>> That method seldom works, look at Iraq for example.
>>>>> Surely you smart people could fix things up better than the savage
>>>>> Americans.
>>>> If you mean by having fewer deaths due to gun play per capita, why
>>>> yes, Canada already has.
>>> And Mexico has more deaths due to gun play per capita.
>> Compared to whom ?
>> See the figures below, I made it easy for you to demonstrate the % of
>> deaths per capita due to gun play.
>>>> If you savage Americans wish to achieve similar results, then
>>>> follow Canada's example.
>>> Which would also be just like following Mexico's.
>> Why, Canada (pop.34,482,779) had 144 deaths due to gun play.
>> Mexico ( pop.110.810,000) had 2,606 deaths due to gun play.
>> United States (pop.312,780,968) had 9,369 deaths due to gun play
> "DEFINITION: Total recorded intentional homicides committed with a
> firearm. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence
> of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual
> prevalence."
> Try again when you can get some REAL data.
> Indeed, based on just the homicides attributed to the drug war, most
> of which are certainly involve guns
> We have a number far above what your source claims, but then your
> source admits that the count presented has nothing to do with the
> actual number of shooting deaths.
>>> So why the difference in rates?
>> Canada is normal and has strong gun control laws.
> So is it because you are normal or your gun control laws?
> I mean if you're going to assert causality, then you have to identify
> the specific cause.
>>>>>>>>>> Most Canadians and Australians aren't gun bunnies,
>>>>>>>>> Yet they insist on trying to argue points based on an
>>>>>>>>> absolutely incorrect and bizarre interpretation of the US
>>>>>>>>> Constitution and our system of government, even after
>>>>>>>>> repeated correction, complete with documentation.
>>>>>>>> What many 1st world nations recognize is that, American death
>>>>>>>> toll is approx. 25,000 citizens per year due to guns.
>>>>>>>> Just under 10,000 murdered and a further 15, 000 by suicide.
>>>>>>>> The rest of the civilized world believes those figures to be
>>>>>>>> extremely excessive and unnecessary.
>>>>>>> Then South Africa with it's strict gun control and 1st world
>>>>>>> nation status must really frost your ass.
>>>>>> Well, South Africa is _not_ a 1st world nation and has _never_
>>>>>> been a 1st world nation,
>>>>>> whatever gave you the impression it was ?
>>>>> Simple South Africa was a US ally during the cold war.
>>>>> Since 1st world nations refers to those nations which were a
>>>>> allied with the US during the cold war.
>> It would be an education if you ever learned to comprehend what it
>> is that you're reading.
>> South Africa _wasn't_ alligned with the US during the Cold War.
> That's so right, jeffy
> They were aligned with the Soviet Bloc
> Just like all the other Commonwealth nations at the time
> Uh-huh..
>> It was NATO that was aligned against The Eastern bloc of the
>> communist-socialist states.
>> The original twelve members of NATO in 1949 were the United States,
>> the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Norway,
>> Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg.
> DOH
> It wasn't ONLY NATO
> South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, among others were not
> part of NATO..
> But hey let's not let ignorance get in your way.
>> Even now with 28 members South Africa isn't one of them.
> And NO ONE, one dummy, (that's you jeffy) made ANY claim that it was
> Can you say STRAWMAN, jeffy..
> Can you you UNDERSTAND the NOTION of a "Strawman argument" jeffy ?
>>>>> Then South Africa is a 1st world nation.
>>>> You must be bloody kidding me.
>>>> I now see your problem, you're crazy.
>>> Ah yes
>>> Denial is NOT a river in Africa
>> No, but you appear to be eternally adrift on it.
>>> When someone points out your arrant ignorance, THEY must "be crazy"
>>> or some other stupid shit like that.
>>> How telling
>> You really, REALLY do need to learn to read for comprehension.
> LOL
> This from the moron who's stupid enough to come up with a strawman
> suggesting the South Africa was considered part of NATO
> Poor jeffy.
Supply a cite to back up your response, Spermbreath, or shut the fuck up.
>>>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 16:16:31 -0400, "David Geiger"
>>>> <BurningI...@bass.gov> wrote:
>>>>> Kill Bill!
>>>>> I will.
>>>> Yet another gun bunny who wants to kill me because of my views.
>>>> That's two so far...
>>> No, because we don't want you contaminating the gene pool.
>> Hey, Nazi, do you often kill people because you think they're sub
>> human?
>>> ^^^^
>> According to "Wild Bill", that claims to have a gun and shoots
>> regularly for
>> the last 40 years (his words!), EVERYBODY ELSE that has a gun is a
>> NAZI!
> No I don't Nazi boi, and that won't work this time because I've
> started playing by your rules.
> I don't want to kill anyone, you and your pals do.
> You want to shoot people because you say they're sub human.
> That makes you a Nazi.
> Live with your real face Nazi boi.
> Have the courage to stand up for what you believe in.
> You and your pals want to kill people who disagree with them and
> anyone they claim is sub human.
> You're a Nazi.
> Live with it.
>> ^^^^
> BILL EXPLODED!
> And his Canadian boyfriend, Jeff,(who is really a girl) enjoyed the
> climax! What a major implosion!
>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 18:46:54 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
>>>>>>> <SapeI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Do you even know the meaning of "due process"
>>>>>>>> If I come across some goblin trying to kill someone,
>>>>>>> Dehumanisation...
>>>>>> You think street scum are good guys?
>>>>> Anyone wanting to commit gratuitous murder or any other violent
>>>>> crime against a person is already disqualified from the label
>>>>> "human"
>>>> Dehumanising your enemy.
>>>> The next step is usually gas chambers...
>>> Do you think street scum or goblins are the good guys?
>> I know they are human and so entitled to a trial.
>> He, Nazi boi, how many did you shoot today?
>> Or have you shifted to a more industrialised form of mass murder?
>>> ^^^
>> Billy? You are truly retarded with that comment to RD.
>> Butt, that is expected of you.
> Bullshit son.
> <^^^
> Name ONE Canadian that agrees with you, you RETARD!
Well, here you go then, you now have ONE Canadian agreeing with William's assertion.
Now try to do something about those anger management issues of yours, that's a good little Nazi.
Mark Borgerson wrote:
> In article <abc020b1-6498-42cd-ba65-
> 2cc48113b...@nj2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, ikonoql...@gmail.com
> says...
>> On Aug 8, 11:59 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> So, where are you getting your money?
>>>> By selling stuff, the same way peope get money NOW. Where do you
>>>> think Arizona gets the money to buy the stuff it consumes now?
>>> A significant portion of the money Arizona spends comes from the
>>> federal government--for maintenance of military bases, military
>>> salaries, and social security payment to retirees.
>> A significant portion of Arizona's income is, on the other hand,
>> taxed away by the Federal governmet. It evens out.
> Well, not quite. The state gets more money from the federal
> government than it pays in taxes. Arizona received $1.60 for every
> dollar paid in taxe in 2010.
>Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 06:00:53 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>I see. So when, say, a communist does it, that makes him a Nazi, is
>>>>that right?
>On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 20:20:32 -0400, Diogenes <cdho...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>>On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 00:37:17 +0100, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>>On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 19:19:15 -0400, Diogenes <cdho...@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:10:04 +0100, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 22:32:49 -0400, Diogenes <cdho...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>> Diogenes
>>>>>> The wars are long, the peace is frail
>>>>>> The madmen come again . . . .
>>>>>Would that be Diogenes the Stoic or Diogenes the Cynic?
>>>>The one that scorned Alexander the Great and who had an interesting
>>>>choice of urinals.
>>> Diogenes the Cynic then.
>>>The one who took a shit in a theatre...
>> . . which may have been a valid criticism of the play.
>Someone who thinks that my be a valid form of criticism doesn't
>actually understand what the man was getting at.
>>>Of course there is a ' Diogenes Syndrome' named after him...
>>>Often known as 'senile squalor syndrome'.
>>However the eponym is widely regarded as a misnomer
>Not by me it isn't.
Which serves only to illustrate your overweening arrogance. Here is
another cite for you, Billy Boy. Now I'll give you a hint: you put the
cursor on the following line and then click twice, got it?
>>>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:33:34 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Now do pay attention, Diogenes, I'll type this at normal speed
>>> because
>>>>>> I don't give a rat's arse if you can't keep up or not, William and
>>> NOT
>>>>>> Kerryn posted this phrase "freely available" asto the availibility of
>>>>>> guns, YOUR moronic gun-bunnie buddies all jumped on that phrase
>>>>>> thinking it somehow meant FREE as in *no cost*, when in fact it
>>>>>> actually means READILY AVAIBLE
>>>>> Those comments were posted as humor (a play on words, if you will)
>>>> How the hell do you know that?
>>>> Sharing a computer are you?
>>>> Or maybe it's just collusion by email...
>>> Makes no difference....that knowledge is obviously above your pay grade.
>> And here is the boss of the tag team.
> Hey wait a second..
> I though I was the "boss of the tag team"
> Sandman is only the "boss of the tug team"...
> Who made changes and didn't notify me
> I demand an answer..
>>>>>>>>> What many 1st world nations recognize is that, American death
>>>>>>>>> toll is approx. 25,000 citizens per year due to guns.
>>>>>>>>> Just under 10,000 murdered and a further 15, 000 by suicide.
>>>>>>>>> The rest of the civilized world believes those figures to be
>>>>>>>>> extremely excessive and unnecessary.
>>>>>>>> Well, you could always invade and fix things up.
>>>>>>> That method seldom works, look at Iraq for example.
>>>>>> Surely you smart people could fix things up better than the
>>>>>> savage Americans.
>>>>> If you mean by having fewer deaths due to gun play per capita, why
>>>>> yes, Canada already has.
>>>> And Mexico has more deaths due to gun play per capita.
>>> Compared to whom ?
>>> See the figures below, I made it easy for you to demonstrate the %
>>> of deaths per capita due to gun play.
>>>>> If you savage Americans wish to achieve similar results, then
>>>>> follow Canada's example.
>>>> Which would also be just like following Mexico's.
>>> Why, Canada (pop.34,482,779) had 144 deaths due to gun play.
>>> Mexico ( pop.110.810,000) had 2,606 deaths due to gun
>>> play. United States (pop.312,780,968) had 9,369 deaths due to gun
>>> play
>>>> So why the difference in rates?
>>> Canada is normal and has strong gun control laws.
>>> Mexico, I believe has strong gun control laws too, but it's
>>> practically in a state of anarchy, due to corruption and the drug
>>> cartels, oh yeah, and an absolute shit load of smuggled weapons
>>> from the United States.
>> Many of them from our own dear ATF.
>>> The United States, last I heard, has approx. 20,000 gun laws
>>> (federal and state), many of which it would appear, don't seem to
>>> work very well. Now why is that, do you think ?
>> Lack of enforcement.
>>>> Are you really sure it's just the gun control laws?
>>> In Canada, yes, in the US I believe it depends on how well they are
>>> written and how well they are enforced.
>> Well, there registration database has turned into a rather useless
>> white elephant with over 50% non compliance.
>>> Case in point, the Safeway store shooter and the Viriginia Tech
>>> shooter, both were able to purchase firearms through the simple
>>> expediency of lying.
>> Hmmmm, I can't address the Safeway shooter but Cho was able to get
>> his legally because the medical authorities at Virginia Tech did not
>> forward his commitment to the NICS database. A problem which has
>> since been fixed by the governor and the state legislature.
>> To me, that indicates either a poorly written, or
>>> a poorly enforced law. Having a shit load of gun control laws means
>>> diddly squat if they're merely *window dressing*.
>> That's true but some of those problem's like Cho come about from
>> state medical privacy laws and misunderstandings of them.
> The Dawson College shooter in Montreal, of 2006, got his guns legally
> too. And the recently deep-sixed Canadian LGR - Long Gun Registry,
> which cost over 2C$ Billions to create, and cost more than 1C$ Million
> to operate annually, never went up to 50% compliance, had major errors
> in it's data, and was never shown to have helped solve a single > crime. At the in the pro-LGR crowd had to hook up the system so that
> every time a query about ANYTHING was made by a cop on the street ,
> the LGR was automatically queried too. And then they tried to use the
> hit count as a justification that it was being used.
> That's about as stupid as setting up your cell phone to count a "use"
> every time it moves.
> And then claiming that it's proof that your phone is being heavily
> used and is very useful to you.
> And idiots like jeffy, in full ignorance of the independent findings
> of the CDC and NAS, that gun control cannot be shown to have any
> effect of reducing crime, still buy into the notion, gun control works
> It's about as stupid as taking away everyone's cars to stop drunk
> driving.
Thanks for the info. I was aware of the less than 50% compliance but had thought the costs were over $1B. Thanks for the update.
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 18:46:54 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
>>>>>>>> <SapeI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Do you even know the meaning of "due process"
>>>>>>>>>If I come across some goblin trying to kill someone,
>>>>>>>> Dehumanisation...
>>>>>>> You think street scum are good guys?
>>>>>>Anyone wanting to commit gratuitous murder or any other violent
>>>>>>crime against a person is already disqualified from the label
>>>>>>"human"
>>>>> Dehumanising your enemy.
>>>>> The next step is usually gas chambers...
>>>>Do you think street scum or goblins are the good guys?
>>> I know they are human and so entitled to a trial.
>>Hmmmm, they threaten or attack me and my family and I won't agree with
>>you.
> Then you're a Nazi.
You are one ignorant mother. You even seem to enjoy wallowing in that ignorance like a pig in mud.
> You claim the protection of the US constitution for your guns and yet
> ignore the 'land of laws rather than men' that was so dear to your
> founders.
