Yet another reason why we need gun control...
sit...@aol.com
government to do away with that barbaric constitutional amendment? We
have more shootings in this country than any other. Why? Because the
government doesn't have the balls to step in and draw a hard line
against these toothless gun-toting losers.
The blood of all the victims in nothern Illinois is on their hands and
the hands of all those who champion the right the bear arms.
JackBruce
Bert Hyman
news:82254fdf-9462-44a8...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> How many of these school shootings is it going to take for the
> government to do away with that barbaric constitutional amendment?
Which one? The 4th? The 5th?
What protections are you suggesting be eliminated?
Please elaborate.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@iphouse.com
sit...@aol.com
Here's all the evidence I need to justify the need to expunge the
second amendment from the Constitution.
"The man who gunned down five people at Northern Illinois University
in a suicidal rampage became erratic after halting his medication and
carried a shotgun to campus inside a guitar case, police said Friday.
The man, 27-year-old former student Stephen Kazmierczak, was also
wielding three handguns during Thursday's ambush inside a lecture
hall.
Two of the weapons -- the pump-action Remington shotgun and a Glock 9mm
handgun -- were purchased legally less than a week ago, on Feb. 9,
authorities said. They were purchased in Champaign, where Kazmierczak
was enrolled at the University of Illinois.
The other weapons were still being traced."
Why would these inbred gun shop owners sell firearms to a mentally
handicapped nutball? They should be charged with criminal negligence.
In my book, ALL those who promote or propigate guns are murderers. I
just wish they would all turn their guns on themselves and let the
rest of society live in peace.
AirRaid
FUCK YOU, CUNT!
sit...@aol.com
No, fuck you, murderer! Why don't you go to these victims' families
and explain to them why we need guns?
AirRaid
Die, you fucking leftist, cancerous piece of socialist, communist
filth.
I hope this shooting encourages more and more people to get guns, to
arm themselves before the government decides to try to take guns away
on a mass scale.
YOU SICKENING, FUCKING CUNT.
JackBruce
> On Feb 15, 11:38 am, AirRaid <airraid1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 15, 10:57 am, sith...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>How many of these school shootings is it going to take for the
>>>government to do away with that barbaric constitutional amendment? We
>>>have more shootings in this country than any other. Why? Because the
>>>government doesn't have the balls to step in and draw a hard line
>>>against these toothless gun-toting losers.
>>
>>>The blood of all the victims in nothern Illinois is on their hands and
>>>the hands of all those who champion the right the bear arms.
>>FUCK YOU, CUNT!
Well said!
Short, distinct.. directly to the point!
> No, fuck you, murderer! Why don't you go to these victims' families
> and explain to them why we need guns?
Tell me who they are and where they live, and I would LOVE to explain to
them that there kids right to defend themselves was taken away by the
likes of you.
But then, I would also need YOUR real name and address, so that they
could thank you personaly.
sit...@aol.com
Right to defend ourselves? What is this, the old west? We wouldn't
need guns to defend ourselves if they weren't in the hands of the
likes of you, would we?
gibso...@yahoo.com
God damn, what a fuckin crybaby!
sit...@aol.com
No, I just tell it how it is. You and every gun-toting redneck are
murderers in my book. Those who champion guns should be washing the
blood off their hands right now.
gibso...@yahoo.com
Crybaby
gibso...@yahoo.com
If you don't like it here, you're free to move to another country.
JackBruce
> On Feb 15, 12:02 pm, JackBruce <Cr...@Bass.gov.> wrote:
>
> Certainly.
>
> 401 W La Veta Avenue, Apt. 160
> Orange, CA 92866-2655
>
> I'll be there with bells on.
I'm sure you do wear them.
But I was aware beforehand of the "Don't ask. Don't tell" policy.
Perhaps YOU would like to talk to the victims families first?
(Your choice!)
I am sure they would like to have a friendly chit-chat with you when
you bring up _YOUR_ rediculouse point!
Just a moment.. your IP/NNTP posting host #161.45.159.196 says yer in
Tennesse.
So I have to assume that yer a liar, AND a cowardly idiot!
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> sit...@aol.com () wrote in
> news:82254fdf-9462-44a8...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> How many of these school shootings is it going to take for the
>> government to do away with that barbaric constitutional amendment?
>
> Which one? The 4th? The 5th?
>
> What protections are you suggesting be eliminated?
>
> Please elaborate.
In his case, the 1st would be an excellent start.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
sit...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
And just how does that make me a liar, smart guy? How "rediculouse"!
JackBruce
Not at all, buckaroo.
This is the real world, that I live in.
Are you saying that _you_ do NOT have a right to defend one's self?
What planet do you reside on?
No crime or fights in your parsec?
> We wouldn't
> need guns to defend ourselves if they weren't in the hands of the
> likes of you, would we?
Well buttercup, considering that I don't commit crimes in the first
place, I guess I have a right to WANT the firearms I own for the
plethora of other legitimate reasons.. eh wot?
And if you Liberal retards would stop sendng PROVEN repeat offenders
back out onto the streets, all crimes would be reduced significantly!
WHY DOES your kind keep releasing killers and rapists, anyway?
Regardless, the major reason I have firearms, is to have fun shooting
things... and animals filled with potentially great tasting meat!
Also, when the likes of you go off their medications, I have the option
to stop you(kill if needed) instead of having to wait 45 minutes for the
police to show up...IF I can call them first.
yer a retard.
sit...@aol.com
wrote:
> Bert Hyman wrote:
> > sith...@aol.com () wrote in
Christ, you're a nurse? I need to remind myself to never have a heart
attack in your neck of the woods. I would have expeced more from a
health-care provider, but I was wrong. I would you would have seen
first hand the tragic results of gun violence. It just goes to show
how many moronic assholes there are out there.
sit...@aol.com
>
> Regardless, the major reason I have firearms, is to have fun shooting
> things... and animals filled with potentially great tasting meat!
Retard? Oh, that's original.
Why don't you shoot yourself while you're at it or suck on your own
potentially great tasting meat?
Bert Hyman
news:077414ed-8fb2-432c...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> Here's all the evidence I need to justify the need to expunge the
> second amendment from the Constitution.
The method for amending the US Constitution is described within it.
Get busy.
Bert Hyman
@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>It just goes to show how many moronic assholes there are out there.
Well ....
JackBruce
How do you have a Tennesse IP, yet give an address that you claim is
from California?
You aren't that smart, liar.
sit...@aol.com
piece of shit.
JackBruce
>
>
>> Regardless, the major reason I have firearms, is to have fun shooting
>>things... and animals filled with potentially great tasting meat!
>
>
> Retard? Oh, that's original.
Not at all.
You retards are not original at all.
> Why don't you shoot yourself while you're at it or suck on your own
> potentially great tasting meat?
Why would I "shoot myself?"
I'm not a retard like you and those other suicidal morons... nor do I
"suck on meat", like you retards.
I have teeth! I can still chew it.
Are you from Britain?
sit...@aol.com
Nope, but I proudly lived there during the late 1990s. I wish I could
return and get the hell out of this God-forsaken nightmare of a
country.
IraelCACHAOLopez
> You'd be fucking surprised at just how smart I am, you Republican
> piece of shit.
Who are you replying to?
Seems like you just proved how STUPID you are, without realizing it.
IsraelCACHAOLopez
> On Feb 15, 2:11 pm, JackBruce <Cr...@Bass.gov.> wrote:
>>Are you from Britain?
>
>
> Nope, but I proudly lived there during the late 1990s.
Liar!
> I wish I could
> return and get the hell out of this God-forsaken nightmare of a
> country.
What's keeping you?
Why can't you return?
If you hate the USA so much,why in the hell are still prefering to stay
here?
The UK _loves_ idiots like you!
You said yer the "smart one", so leave, and go back!
I'm not keeping you, am I?
NO guns there, right? :)
EVERYONE is perfectly safe in the UK, including George Harrison!
Oh wait! He's dead, and no gun was used!
gibso...@yahoo.com
That explains plenty!
IsraelCACHAOLopez
If he was so "smart" (let alone proud) why does he(Sith) live in a
place he hates?
gibso...@yahoo.com
I'm gonna say, she's not so smart!
IsraelCACHAOLopez
sit...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text
Shootings are rare in Scandinavian countries like Norway and Sweden.
Barely anyone there carries a gun, and they all still have their
teeth! Not a goddamn pickup truck or SUV in sight. Go figure.
Scout
<sit...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2dbae499-5e67-42e9...@28g2000hsw.googlegroups.com...
****answer
And shootings in Switzerland are rare as well, yet many people carry guns.
Then we have the UK where virtually no one carries a gun and gun crime is
high and getting higher.
Maybe we should look beyond a single cherry picked data point?
IsraelCACHAOLopez
> On Feb 15, 3:40 pm, IsraelCACHAOLopez <MamboK...@Bass.gov.> wrote:
>
>>gibson_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 15, 4:17 pm, IsraelCACHAOLopez <MamboK...@Bass.gov.> wrote:
>>
>>>>gibson_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Feb 15, 3:18 pm, sith...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Nope, but I proudly lived there during the late 1990s. I wish I could
>>>>>>return and get the hell out of this God-forsaken nightmare of a
>>>>>>country.
>>
>>>>>That explains plenty!
>>
>>>>If he was so "smart" (let alone proud) why does he(Sith) live in a
>>>>place he hates?
>>
>>>I'm gonna say, she's not so smart!
>>
>>A rather wise conclusion!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text
>
>
> Shootings are rare in Scandinavian countries like Norway and Sweden.
They are rare in the USA, as well.
They just get PUBLICIZED more here.
> Barely anyone there carries a gun, and they all still have their
> teeth! Not a goddamn pickup truck or SUV in sight. Go figure.
Then why are you still living here, if you hate and fear it so much?
Damn! For a self proclaimed "smart guy", yer the dumbest SOB I have ever
seen post!
Jim Yanik
news:Xns9A45719C618...@127.0.0.1:
> sit...@aol.com () wrote in
> news:82254fdf-9462-44a8...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> How many of these school shootings is it going to take for the
>> government to do away with that barbaric constitutional amendment?
>
> Which one? The 4th? The 5th?
>
> What protections are you suggesting be eliminated?
>
> Please elaborate.
>
First of all,the GOVERNMENT -cannot- "do away with" any part of the
Constitution;it takes an AMENDMENT to do that,and that requires a specific
process,outlined in the Constitution.
HINT;It involves the citizenry's approval by VOTE.
Once again,a liberal reacts from his EMOTIONS and not any reasoning or
knowledge.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Morton Davis
news:82254fdf-9462-44a8...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> How many of these school shootings is it going to take for the
> government to do away with that barbaric constitutional amendment?
What's barabric about it? Would you prefer he'd usded a bomb or walked in
and dropped a 3" tab of swimming pool cholrine into a container of Muratic
acid?
Gray Ghost
@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> How many of these school shootings is it going to take for the
> government to do away with that barbaric constitutional amendment? We
> have more shootings in this country than any other. Why? Because the
> government doesn't have the balls to step in and draw a hard line
> against these toothless gun-toting losers.
>
> The blood of all the victims in nothern Illinois is on their hands and
> the hands of all those who champion the right the bear arms.
Maybe more private enterprise shootings, but in general governmental or
quasigovernmental murders using all types of weapons is actually the big
winner.
Frank
RSweeney
> government to do away with that barbaric constitutional amendment? We
> have more shootings in this country than any other. Why? Because the
> government doesn't have the balls to step in and draw a hard line
> against these toothless gun-toting losers.
>
> The blood of all the victims in nothern Illinois is on their hands and
> the hands of all those who champion the right the bear arms.
How many dead from drug overdoses will it take before we make drugs illegal
and thus end the problem forever?
Are you a child?
Gray Ghost
15fd35...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> On Feb 15, 11:43 am, sith...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 11:38 am, AirRaid <airraid1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Feb 15, 10:57 am, sith...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> > > How many of these school shootings is it going to take for the
>> > > government to do away with that barbaric constitutional amendment? We
>> > > have more shootings in this country than any other. Why? Because the
>> > > government doesn't have the balls to step in and draw a hard line
>> > > against these toothless gun-toting losers.
>>
>> > > The blood of all the victims in nothern Illinois is on their hands and
>> > > the hands of all those who champion the right the bear arms.
>>
>> > FUCK YOU, CUNT!
>>
>> No, fuck you, murderer! Why don't you go to these victims' families
>> and explain to them why we need guns?
>
> Die, you fucking leftist, cancerous piece of socialist, communist
> filth.
>
> I hope this shooting encourages more and more people to get guns, to
> arm themselves before the government decides to try to take guns away
> on a mass scale.
>
> YOU SICKENING, FUCKING CUNT.
>
Hey bud, we are trying here to show that we are the more rational of the two
sides with the more rational, human rights based argument.
While I get your anger, expressing it this way does not help. Lots more
people read this than post. You are speaking to them, not to Che Guevera's
dumber brother.
At least two of these knotheads have already suggested amending the
Constitution on ways that are not legal. Meaning they have no respect for the
law only the outcome they want.
Several have already wished that members of our families get killed so we may
feel the pain. They also try to dehumanize us by calling us inbred, redneck,
morons, etc. The idea being that if they dehumanize us sufficiently the
population in general won't mind it when "they" send the police to take our
guns or kill us in violation of large parts of the Constitution.
Though i occaisonally slip, we really don't need to use profanity on them.
Let them rave in thier bigotted childish way, it's really quite amusing the
adults can think this way and pathetic that they talk like they do from the
safety of thier anonymity. I can assure none of these invertebrates would
have the courage to speak like this to you face to face. There is actually a
legal term for it - fighting words - to get in your face and say such things
would be inviting a modest beating that would be legally defensible as having
been so provacative as to be beyond a reasonable person's ability to repond,
particularly when they talk about our kids getting killed. This would not sit
well with me as I love my children very much and would most likely be
provoked were some of these offensive things said to me.
There own rage is thier own undoing. let them act stupidly, who will they
convinve with thier spittle flecked bravado? Most people in the end realize
the truth of this, that's whe concealed carry has succeeded in so many
states. Allow the "undecideds" to see the difference between our sides -
spittle spewing maniacs that want our children dead and the Constitution
assaulted "just this one time" "for the right cause" and mature responsible
people making the rational argument for law and personal responsibility.
Unless of course you know where this mook lives. I think maybe he needs to
have his tires slashed jsut to let him know he can be touched.
Count to 10 before you answer. Some nights I mark a post and don't reply for
a day or two.
Frank
Blinky Bill
"RSweeney" <docks...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0NadnWFO-ZPk9yva...@comcast.com...
So a far better idea would be to decriminalise them - then no-one will die
from overdoses?
> Are you a child?
Are you?
Gray Ghost
@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> You'd be fucking surprised at just how smart I am, you Republican
> piece of shit.
>
It's always about politics with these "people". Party above country, party
above law.
I seem to have read that somewhere, back in the last century some people
believed that. Now who and where was that.
Frank
Gray Ghost
16b071...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Considering the rather crude, childish and demeaning comments, I rather doubt
you are as smart as a Republican campaign poster, let alone a Republican.
I've debated much smarter, classier amd more dignified lefties before and
gave them respect for being so. You on the other speak not as an educated man
but as a uneducated, lower socioeconomic class, angry social misfit with
rather serious human relations issues. And not a bit of common sense, well
that is indicative of the more highly educated today. No, I'm betting of the
lower socioeconomic class angry misfit.
Frank
Gray Ghost
adf874...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
We'll take up a collection to buy the ticket if you promise not to come back.
Frank
Gray Ghost
28g2000hsw.googlegroups.com:
Wrong. Norway has a rather robust "gun culture".
From Wiki:
Norway is a nature loving country, and has a large population of hunters.
Shotguns and semi-automatic and bolt action rifles make up the better part of
the guns in civilian homes.
...
Handguns, however, are allowed in all calibers as they are used in sports
shooting. Norway has long traditions of high-end sports shooting
competitions, specially with rifle shooting. Each caliber must be used in a
type of competition to be allowed. Also, there is a restriction on the number
of weapons an owner can have for each caliber. For recreational shooters,
only one gun is allowed in each caliber. For professional and semi-
professional shooters, a spare gun is allowed. A recreational shooter is only
allowed to own four different handguns. To obtain more, documentation on
extensive sports shooting activities is needed.
and
Gun ownership is a non-controversial subject in Norwegian politics, even when
the gun crime is at an all time high. This is due to the fact that most
illegally used guns are stolen from larger, often military, storage
facilities. Break-ins in private homes seldom leads to the theft of weapons,
unless the owner doesn't follow the regulations. Thus, the private ownership
is not under scrutiny. By far, the most crimes are committed with stolen
weapons not legally obtained ones.
***************************************************************
As I comemted earlier, you do not come across as educated or even inherently
bright. In fact you come across as the typical movement Democrat, angry,
resentful, wanting to cause pain to others.
Here's some more pain for you:
According to the www.britannica.com there are as of 2003 a bit less the 2
million cars in Norway and about 441,00 trucks and buses. Checking auto sale
sites advertising in Norway shows a large number of SUVs German being quite
popular though apparetnly American cars have taken over the most popular spot
with Hapanese right behind. Sort of makes sense considerinf the harsh winters
and all the hunting activity that SUVs might even be practical.
So basically you are uninformed on the subjects which you thought to impress
us on, a sure indicator of a weak mind.
But please don't let me stop you, you have the freedom to emigrate anywhere
else you want to go. So go.
Frank
Gray Ghost
news:8323880c-a28f-4333...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> On Feb 15, 12:31 pm, gibson_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 12:43 pm, sith...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 15, 11:38 am, AirRaid <airraid1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Feb 15, 10:57 am, sith...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> > > > How many of these school shootings is it going to take for the
>> > > > government to do away with that barbaric constitutional amendment?
>> > > > We have more shootings in this country than any other. Why?
>> > > > Because the government doesn't have the balls to step in and draw
>> > > > a hard line against these toothless gun-toting losers.
>>
>> > > > The blood of all the victims in nothern Illinois is on their hands
>> > > > and the hands of all those who champion the right the bear arms.
>>
>> > > FUCK YOU, CUNT!
>>
>> > No, fuck you, murderer! Why don't you go to these victims' families
>> > and explain to them why we need guns?
>>
>> God damn, what a fuckin crybaby!- Hide quoted text -
>
> No, I just tell it how it is. You and every gun-toting redneck are
> murderers in my book. Those who champion guns should be washing the
> blood off their hands right now.
>
So you're saying that people who have not actually killed anybody are guilty
of murder for the political position they take?
Frank
AirRaid
>
>
> >>>On Feb 15, 11:38 am, AirRaid <airraid1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>On Feb 15, 10:57 am, sith...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >>>>>How many of these school shootings is it going to take for the
> >>>>>government to do away with that barbaric constitutional amendment? We
> >>>>>have more shootings in this country than any other. Why? Because the
> >>>>>government doesn't have the balls to step in and draw a hard line
> >>>>>against these toothless gun-toting losers.
>
> >>>>>The blood of all the victims in nothern Illinois is on their hands and
> >>>>>the hands of all those who champion the right the bear arms.
>
> >>>>FUCK YOU, CUNT!
>
> >> Short, distinct.. directly to the point!
>
> >>>and explain to them why we need guns?
>
> >>them that there kids right to defend themselves was taken away by the
> >>likes of you.
> >> But then, I would also need YOUR real name and address, so that they
> >>could thank you personaly.
>
>
> Not at all, buckaroo.
> This is the real world, that I live in.
> Are you saying that _you_ do NOT have a right to defend one's self?
>
> What planet do you reside on?
> No crime or fights in your parsec?
>
> > We wouldn't
> > need guns to defend ourselves if they weren't in the hands of the
> > likes of you, would we?
>
> Well buttercup, considering that I don't commit crimes in the first
> place, I guess I have a right to WANT the firearms I own for the
> plethora of other legitimate reasons.. eh wot?
>
> And if you Liberal retards would stop sendng PROVEN repeat offenders
> back out onto the streets, all crimes would be reduced significantly!
>
> WHY DOES your kind keep releasing killers and rapists, anyway?
>
> Regardless, the major reason I have firearms, is to have fun shooting
> things... and animals filled with potentially great tasting meat!
>
I love meat, what's cookin ?
> Also, when the likes of you go off their medications, I have the option
> to stop you(kill if needed) instead of having to wait 45 minutes for the
> police to show up...IF I can call them first.
>
> yer a retard.
AirRaid
> On Feb 15, 12:31 pm, gibson_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 12:43 pm, sith...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 15, 11:38 am, AirRaid <airraid1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 15, 10:57 am, sith...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > > > How many of these school shootings is it going to take for the
> > > > > government to do away with that barbaric constitutional amendment? We
> > > > > have more shootings in this country than any other. Why? Because the
> > > > > government doesn't have the balls to step in and draw a hard line
> > > > > against these toothless gun-toting losers.
>
> > > > > The blood of all the victims in nothern Illinois is on their hands and
> > > > > the hands of all those who champion the right the bear arms.
>
> > > > FUCK YOU, CUNT!
>
> > > and explain to them why we need guns?
>
>
> No, I just tell it how it is. You and every gun-toting redneck are
> murderers in my book. Those who champion guns should be washing the
> blood off their hands right now.
You would be a murderer for supporting the scum that would take away
the guns of good citizens. You should burn in hell for these acts of
cold-blooded murder. Please get cancer.
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>>> The blood of all the victims in nothern Illinois is on their hands and
>>> the hands of all those who champion the right the bear arms.
>>
>> How many dead from drug overdoses will it take before we make drugs
>> illegal and thus end the problem forever?
>
> So a far better idea would be to decriminalise them - then no-one will die
> from overdoses?
Then nobody will die from turf wars over the sale and distribution of them. Not
only that, obtaining the money to support an illegal drug habit probably is a
major cause of crime in this and other countries.
Would the mere availability of OTC heroin at a drugstore make me want to become
a junkie? Not bloody likely.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
wal
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7vudnT8ERvOPJyva...@giganews.com...
> Blinky Bill wrote:
>>>> The blood of all the victims in nothern Illinois is on their hands and
>>>> the hands of all those who champion the right the bear arms.
>>>
>>> How many dead from drug overdoses will it take before we make drugs
>>> illegal and thus end the problem forever?
>>
>> So a far better idea would be to decriminalise them - then no-one will
>> die
>> from overdoses?
>
>
> Then nobody will die from turf wars over the sale and distribution of
> them.
The subject raised by the OP and being discussed was overdoses. Try to stay
on topic. (But like you, I also think the analogy the OP tried to make was
stupid.)
Jim Yanik
news:PAztj.15647$421....@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
ILLEGAL drugs are of UNKNOWN quality and purity.
You do not know precisely what's in them or how much of the active drug.
THAT is why some users OD.
Also,they take more than one type of drug at the same time,having unknown
drug interactions.
LEGAL drugs have quality control,accurate dosages,interactions are
documented.ODs in those cases are ususaly use of more than one drug.[or
with alcohol]
But,after all is said and done,a person who ODs is only doing it to
themself,and not affecting others. It's their own choice.
It's like suicide;*not relevant* to criminal violence that affects much
more than just the users/dealers.
Wayne
"Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
news:gostj.35544$9j6.5700@attbi_s22...
Blinky Bill
"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9A4669CA1CC...@64.209.0.87...
> "wal" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in
> news:PAztj.15647$421....@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>
>>
>> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:7vudnT8ERvOPJyva...@giganews.com...
>>> Blinky Bill wrote:
>>>>>> The blood of all the victims in nothern Illinois is on their hands
>>>>>> and the hands of all those who champion the right the bear arms.
>>>>>
>>>>> How many dead from drug overdoses will it take before we make drugs
>>>>> illegal and thus end the problem forever?
>>>>
>>>> So a far better idea would be to decriminalise them - then no-one
>>>> will die
>>>> from overdoses?
>>>
>>>
>>> Then nobody will die from turf wars over the sale and distribution of
>>> them.
>>
>> The subject raised by the OP and being discussed was overdoses. Try to
>> stay on topic. (But like you, I also think the analogy the OP tried to
>> make was stupid.)
>>
>>
>>
>
> ILLEGAL drugs are of UNKNOWN quality and purity.
There is no reason to suppose that decriminalising them would necessarily
change that.
> You do not know precisely what's in them or how much of the active drug.
> THAT is why some users OD.
Decriminalising would not necessarily change that.
> Also,they take more than one type of drug at the same time,having unknown
> drug interactions.
> LEGAL drugs have quality control,accurate dosages,interactions are
> documented.ODs in those cases are ususaly use of more than one drug.[or
> with alcohol]
That is the case for legal drugs manufactured by pharmaceutical companies.
Decriminalising currently illegal drugs would not nrcessarily lead to them
being manufactured to the standards of these companies.
>
> But,after all is said and done,a person who ODs is only doing it to
> themself,and not affecting others. It's their own choice.
> It's like suicide;*not relevant* to criminal violence that affects much
> more than just the users/dealers.
So it was a stupid analogy.
RSweeney
"Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in message news:VhLtj.15778
>> You do not know precisely what's in them or how much of the active drug.
>> THAT is why some users OD.
>
> Decriminalising would not necessarily change that.
Do you believe that liquor stores sell antifreeze and methanol laced booze?
Blinky Bill
Are you capable of making a post that addresses the subject under
discussion?
ozark...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Are you able to think in the abstract? If you miss his point, perhaps
you will undertand when you finish high school.
Blinky Bill
<ozark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lv6fr3hrvq9dsn6b1...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 02:24:19 GMT, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"RSweeney" <docks...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:eaGdnS6FD_EKHyra...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in message news:VhLtj.15778
>>>
>>>>> You do not know precisely what's in them or how much of the active
>>>>> drug.
>>>>> THAT is why some users OD.
>>>>
>>>> Decriminalising would not necessarily change that.
>>>
>>> Do you believe that liquor stores sell antifreeze and methanol laced
>>> booze?
>>
>>Are you capable of making a post that addresses the subject under
>>discussion?
>
> Are you able to think in the abstract?
Apparently my thoughts aren't as abstract as the previous poster.
> If you miss his point, perhaps
> you will undertand when you finish high school.
And when you finish pre-school you might be able to explain the ratiionale
behind using an analogy to explain another analogy which didn't explain the
original subject of discussion.
Peter Franks
> have more shootings in this country than any other. Why? Because the
> government doesn't have the balls to step in and draw a hard line
> against these toothless gun-toting losers.
>
> the hands of all those who champion the right the bear arms.
Do you believe there is a right to self-defense?
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>>> So a far better idea would be to decriminalise them - then no-one will
>>> die
>>> from overdoses?
>>
>>
>> Then nobody will die from turf wars over the sale and distribution of
>> them.
>
> The subject raised by the OP and being discussed was overdoses. Try to stay
> on topic. (But like you, I also think the analogy the OP tried to make was
> stupid.)
Of course there would still be ODs. That doesn't mean the idea is completely
without merit. I would expect we would be ahead of the game as a society if we
were able to remove the profit motive from the sale of narcotics. When was the
last time there was a driveby shooting over the sale of alcohol? If I had to
guess, I'd say it was about the time of the repeal of the 18th Amendment.
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
The discussion is evolving. Try to keep up.
Blinky Bill
What part of my reply makes you think I haven't kept up with the attempt to
move the goal posts? These exchanges inevitably "evolve" when the
short-comings of an argument are pointed out. And of course the idea of
introducing another analogy to explain an analogy which didn't adequately
reflect the original claim is an act of desperate stupidity.
Blinky Bill
> wal wrote:
>>>> So a far better idea would be to decriminalise them - then no-one will
>>>> die
>>>> from overdoses?
>>>
>>>
>>> Then nobody will die from turf wars over the sale and distribution of
>>> them.
>>
>> The subject raised by the OP and being discussed was overdoses. Try to
>> stay
>> on topic. (But like you, I also think the analogy the OP tried to make
>> was
>> stupid.)
>
>
> Of course there would still be ODs.
Thanks - so the OPs question about people dying from overdoses has been
answered.
RSweeney
Can't figure out the connection between legal liquor and the disappearance
of off-spec booze can you?
Walk upstairs and ask your mom.
RSweeney
Hey, don't bother the kid, I told him to leave his basement "apartment" and
ask an adult about it.
Blinky Bill
I can't figure the connection between liquor and either illegal drugs or
guns.
ozark...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>
><ozark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:lv6fr3hrvq9dsn6b1...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 02:24:19 GMT, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"RSweeney" <docks...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:eaGdnS6FD_EKHyra...@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in message news:VhLtj.15778
>>>>
>>>>>> You do not know precisely what's in them or how much of the active
>>>>>> drug.
>>>>>> THAT is why some users OD.
>>>>>
>>>>> Decriminalising would not necessarily change that.
>>>>
>>>> Do you believe that liquor stores sell antifreeze and methanol laced
>>>> booze?
>>>
>>>Are you capable of making a post that addresses the subject under
>>>discussion?
>>
>> Are you able to think in the abstract?
>
>Apparently my thoughts aren't as abstract as the previous poster.
Not only are they not as abstract - they seem to be missing.
>
>> If you miss his point, perhaps
>> you will undertand when you finish high school.
>
>And when you finish pre-school you might be able to explain the ratiionale
>behind using an analogy to explain another analogy which didn't explain the
>original subject of discussion.
LOL The rationale is very clear: So you are either dumb or dishonest.
You pick.
Shall I explain it for you?
Blinky Bill
<ozark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tmffr39g89ogviipv...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 02:52:59 GMT, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>><ozark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:lv6fr3hrvq9dsn6b1...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 02:24:19 GMT, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"RSweeney" <docks...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:eaGdnS6FD_EKHyra...@comcast.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in message news:VhLtj.15778
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You do not know precisely what's in them or how much of the active
>>>>>>> drug.
>>>>>>> THAT is why some users OD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Decriminalising would not necessarily change that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you believe that liquor stores sell antifreeze and methanol laced
>>>>> booze?
>>>>
>>>>Are you capable of making a post that addresses the subject under
>>>>discussion?
>>>
>>> Are you able to think in the abstract?
>>
>>Apparently my thoughts aren't as abstract as the previous poster.
>
> Not only are they not as abstract - they seem to be missing.
It only seems that way to you because you have the attention span of a gnat,
and the intelligence to go with it.
>
>>
>>> If you miss his point, perhaps
>>> you will undertand when you finish high school.
>>
>>And when you finish pre-school you might be able to explain the ratiionale
>>behind using an analogy to explain another analogy which didn't explain
>>the
>>original subject of discussion.
>
> LOL The rationale is very clear:
It only seems that way to you because you have the attention span of a gnat,
and the intelligence to go with it.
> So you are either dumb or dishonest.
Or rational.
> You pick.
Rational - one of the others fits you.
>
> Shall I explain it for you?
Explain using an analogy to explain an analogy that failed to explain the
original argument being made? Don't hold back - go for it - I could do with
a laugh.
ozark...@yahoo.com
wrote:
LOL You are the one who missed it - not me.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> If you miss his point, perhaps
>>>> you will undertand when you finish high school.
>>>
>>>And when you finish pre-school you might be able to explain the ratiionale
>>>behind using an analogy to explain another analogy which didn't explain
>>>the
>>>original subject of discussion.
>>
>> LOL The rationale is very clear:
>
>It only seems that way to you because you have the attention span of a gnat,
>and the intelligence to go with it.
And again.
>
>
>> So you are either dumb or dishonest.
>
>Or rational.
Not quite
>
>> You pick.
>
>Rational - one of the others fits you.
LOL Keep trying grassiopper
>
>>
>> Shall I explain it for you?
>
>Explain using an analogy to explain an analogy that failed to explain the
>original argument being made? Don't hold back - go for it - I could do with
>a laugh.
LOL I wil use small words so you can understand (probably about a
50/50 proposition): Your comment "Decriminalising would not
necessarily change that." - referring to the quality of the product -
is wrong. You quite obviously do not undestand how a product such as
drugs would be handled.
Now go back to school and stick to books with lots of pictures.
Blinky Bill
<ozark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gunfr3pqdu036vj2h...@4ax.com...
That's just how it seems to you <chuckle>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If you miss his point, perhaps
>>>>> you will undertand when you finish high school.
>>>>
>>>>And when you finish pre-school you might be able to explain the
>>>>ratiionale
>>>>behind using an analogy to explain another analogy which didn't explain
>>>>the
>>>>original subject of discussion.
>>>
>>> LOL The rationale is very clear:
>>
>>It only seems that way to you because you have the attention span of a
>>gnat,
>>and the intelligence to go with it.
>
> And again.
Indeed <chuckle>
>
>>
>>
>>> So you are either dumb or dishonest.
>>
>>Or rational.
>
> Not quite
Very quite.
>
>>
>>> You pick.
>>
>>Rational - one of the others fits you.
>
> LOL Keep trying grassiopper
Um, whatever.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Shall I explain it for you?
>>
>>Explain using an analogy to explain an analogy that failed to explain the
>>original argument being made? Don't hold back - go for it - I could do
>>with
>>a laugh.
>
> LOL I wil use small words so you can understand (probably about a
> 50/50 proposition): Your comment "Decriminalising would not
> necessarily change that." - referring to the quality of the product -
> is wrong.
A statement of fact in a hypothetical situation - you are as mad as your
fellow gun-loons. No-one knows what other laws would change if drugs were
decriminalised, or how those laws would change.
> You quite obviously do not undestand how a product such as
> drugs would be handled.
And neither do you, since it is a hypothetical situation. But you think the
world will conform to your fantasy.
> Now go back to school and stick to books with lots of pictures.
Don't get antsy - ask mummy to change your nappy.
Jim Yanik
news:eaGdnS6FD_EKHyra...@comcast.com:
*legal* drugs would fall under the aegis of the Food and Drug
Administration.
ozark...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Glad you agree
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> So you are either dumb or dishonest.
>>>
>>>Or rational.
>>
>> Not quite
>
>Very quite.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> You pick.
>>>
>>>Rational - one of the others fits you.
>>
>> LOL Keep trying grassiopper
>
>Um, whatever.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Shall I explain it for you?
>>>
>>>Explain using an analogy to explain an analogy that failed to explain the
>>>original argument being made? Don't hold back - go for it - I could do
>>>with
>>>a laugh.
>>
>> LOL I wil use small words so you can understand (probably about a
>> 50/50 proposition): Your comment "Decriminalising would not
>> necessarily change that." - referring to the quality of the product -
>> is wrong.
>
>A statement of fact in a hypothetical situation - you are as mad as your
>fellow gun-loons. No-one knows what other laws would change if drugs were
>decriminalised, or how those laws would change.
No one knows exactly what will happen in any future circumstance,
dimbulb. However, even an fool such as yourself should be able to
predict there would be government controls.
But then again, I may be overanticipating your capabilities.
>
>> You quite obviously do not undestand how a product such as
>> drugs would be handled.
>
>And neither do you, since it is a hypothetical situation. But you think the
>world will conform to your fantasy.
LOL As opposed to your unrealistic fantasy? Mine is just about a
sure thing - whether you agree or not.
r_c_...@hushmail.com
> <ozarkhe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:tmffr39g89ogviipv...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 02:52:59 GMT, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>news:lv6fr3hrvq9dsn6b1...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 02:24:19 GMT, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
If I'm not mistaken, the point is something like this:
In the early part of last century, these Unites States banned
alcoholic beverages in an attempt to promote the betterment of
society, and protect people. One result was a vast increase in
crime. When this ban was lifted (replaced by certain government
oversight powers with respect to manufacture and quality controls),
the associated crime decreased.
For the last several decades, these United States has banned certain
drugs in an attempt to promote the betterment of society, and protect
people. One result has been a vast increase in crime. The argument
is that if this ban was lifted (and replaced by certain government
oversight powers with respect to manufacture and quality controls),
the associated crime would likely decrease. This seems logical, given
the experience outlined in the previous paragraph.
The original post in this thread advocated banning firearms in these
United States in order to promote the betterment of society, and to
protect people. The fear being expressed by the "pro-gun" posters -
and it follows logically from the previous two paragraphs - is that
such a ban would be accompanied by a vast increase in crime.
I won't argue that analogies do not always fit perfectly, especially
when not fully explained; some abstract thinking (of which you are
certainly capable) may be required.
Does this clear things up?
Spaz
> government to do away with that barbaric constitutional amendment? We
> have more shootings in this country than any other. Why? Because the
> government doesn't have the balls to step in and draw a hard line
> against these toothless gun-toting losers.
Don't worry. It won't be long now. Change is coming soon.
> The blood of all the victims in nothern Illinois is on their hands and
> the hands of all those who champion the right the bear arms.
They know that. They just don't have the integrity to admit it. Their
greed for profits from guns sales won't allow it.
PLMerite
"Spaz" <ye...@right.com> wrote in message
news:bKWdneQ00bxo4yXa...@comcast.com...
> <sit...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:82254fdf-9462-44a8...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> How many of these school shootings is it going to take for the
>> government to do away with that barbaric constitutional amendment? We
>> have more shootings in this country than any other. Why? Because the
>> government doesn't have the balls to step in and draw a hard line
>> against these toothless gun-toting losers.
>
> Don't worry. It won't be long now. Change is coming soon.
Yeah, we'll get right on that.
>> The blood of all the victims in nothern Illinois is on their hands and
>> the hands of all those who champion the right the bear arms.
>
> They know that. They just don't have the integrity to admit it. Their
> greed for profits from guns sales won't allow it.
It's my absolute refusal to let people like you dictate my life to me that
keeps me armed.
Well armed.
Regards, PLMerite
--
"Unarmed, one can only flee from Evil. But Evil is not overcome by fleeing
from it." - Jeff Cooper
Bama Brian
> How many of these school shootings is it going to take for the
> government to do away with that barbaric constitutional amendment? We
> have more shootings in this country than any other. Why? Because the
> government doesn't have the balls to step in and draw a hard line
> against these toothless gun-toting losers.
>
> the hands of all those who champion the right the bear arms.
Better hope the fedgov never does away with the 2nd. Because if it can
and if it does, it will also do away with the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th,
7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Amendments as well.
And then where will you be, sithdope? Who knows? Maybe the fedgov will
grant you some freedom and let you out of your house to vote - for the
"official" candidate, just as Joe Stalin did.
--
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, 1863 - 1952
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
Bama Brian
> On Feb 15, 1:12 pm, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com>
> wrote:
>> Bert Hyman wrote:
>>> sith...@aol.com () wrote in
>>> news:82254fdf-9462-44a8...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>>> How many of these school shootings is it going to take for the
>>>> government to do away with that barbaric constitutional amendment?
>>> What protections are you suggesting be eliminated?
>>> Please elaborate.
>> In his case, the 1st would be an excellent start.> Christ, you're a nurse? I need to remind myself to never have a heart
> attack in your neck of the woods. I would have expeced more from a
> health-care provider, but I was wrong. I would you would have seen
> first hand the tragic results of gun violence. It just goes to show
> how many moronic assholes there are out there.
My wife is also a nurse, with over 40 years of experience. She has her
very own Concealed Carry Weapons permit. As she says, she's there to
heal folks - and not to be mugged in the parking lot for drug money.
And lest you think this is an exception, you'd be surprised at how many
medical professionals have guns, and how many of these have CCW permits.
Bama Brian
> On Feb 15, 11:38 am, AirRaid <airraid1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 10:57 am, sith...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> How many of these school shootings is it going to take for the
>>> have more shootings in this country than any other. Why? Because the
>>> government doesn't have the balls to step in and draw a hard line
>>> against these toothless gun-toting losers.
>>> The blood of all the victims in nothern Illinois is on their hands and
>>> the hands of all those who champion the right the bear arms.
>
> No, fuck you, murderer! Why don't you go to these victims' families
> and explain to them why we need guns?
This is going to surprise you, but the answer is simply because we are a
free nation. When the fedgov starts dictating what freedoms we can
have, then we become a nation of slaves.
RSweeney
You claimed that making drugs legal would not affect the content/quality of
the drugs.
I merely pointed out that in the identical case of illegal vs legal whiskey,
the opposite occurred and quality was standardized.
As for guns, most anti-rights zealots believe that making them illegal for
honest people will somehow deny them to the dishonest.... again something
NOT supported by the history of any prohibition.
Blinky Bill
>
> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in message
> news:HSOtj.15883$421....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "RSweeney" <docks...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:g9CdnZblecFIKira...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in message
>>> news:nVMtj.15841$421....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>> "RSweeney" <docks...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:eaGdnS6FD_EKHyra...@comcast.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in message news:VhLtj.15778
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You do not know precisely what's in them or how much of the active
>>>>>>> drug.
>>>>>>> THAT is why some users OD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Decriminalising would not necessarily change that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you believe that liquor stores sell antifreeze and methanol laced
>>>>> booze?
>>>>
>>>> Are you capable of making a post that addresses the subject under
>>>> discussion?
>>>
>>> Can't figure out the connection between legal liquor and the
>>> disappearance of off-spec booze can you?
>>
>> I can't figure the connection between liquor and either illegal drugs or
>> guns.
>
> You claimed that making drugs legal would not affect the content/quality
> of the drugs.
No I didn't - don't tell lies about what I have written.
Blinky Bill
<ozark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5rpgr394aaedsen2p...@4ax.com...
Why wouldn't I agree that you have the attention span and intelligence of a
gnat? I wrote it originally and you've done nothing to change my opinion.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> So you are either dumb or dishonest.
>>>>
>>>>Or rational.
>>>
>>> Not quite
>>
>>Very quite.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You pick.
>>>>
>>>>Rational - one of the others fits you.
>>>
>>> LOL Keep trying grassiopper
>>
>>Um, whatever.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Shall I explain it for you?
>>>>
>>>>Explain using an analogy to explain an analogy that failed to explain
>>>>the
>>>>original argument being made? Don't hold back - go for it - I could do
>>>>with
>>>>a laugh.
>>>
>>> LOL I wil use small words so you can understand (probably about a
>>> 50/50 proposition): Your comment "Decriminalising would not
>>> necessarily change that." - referring to the quality of the product -
>>> is wrong.
>>
>>A statement of fact in a hypothetical situation - you are as mad as your
>>fellow gun-loons. No-one knows what other laws would change if drugs were
>>decriminalised, or how those laws would change.
>
> No one knows exactly what will happen in any future circumstance,
Thank you - that's what I have been saying for quite some time.
> dimbulb. However, even an fool such as yourself should be able to
> predict there would be government controls.
And even a moron such as yourself should be able to see that such controls
won't stop overdoses, which was what was being discussed.
>
> But then again, I may be overanticipating your capabilities.
Sure - point out how there are no overdoses from prescription drugs subject
to government controls, idiot.
>>> You quite obviously do not undestand how a product such as
>>> drugs would be handled.
>>
>>And neither do you, since it is a hypothetical situation. But you think
>>the
>>world will conform to your fantasy.
>
> LOL As opposed to your unrealistic fantasy? Mine is just about a
> sure thing - whether you agree or not.
Then use you fantasy to explain exactly how overdoses will be prevented,
retard.
ozark...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Nope - here is what I responded to:
> ILLEGAL drugs are of UNKNOWN quality and purity.
There is no reason to suppose that decriminalising them would
necessarily change that.
> You do not know precisely what's in them or how much of the active drug.
> THAT is why some users OD.
Decriminalising would not necessarily change that.
And, government controls would indeed stop overdoses for the items
listed.
>
>>
>> But then again, I may be overanticipating your capabilities.
>
>Sure - point out how there are no overdoses from prescription drugs subject
>to government controls, idiot.
Not my intent; if you ere to read you would jhave known that rather
than me having to point it out to yiou right above.
>
>>>> You quite obviously do not undestand how a product such as
>>>> drugs would be handled.
>>>
>>>And neither do you, since it is a hypothetical situation. But you think
>>>the
>>>world will conform to your fantasy.
>>
>> LOL As opposed to your unrealistic fantasy? Mine is just about a
>> sure thing - whether you agree or not.
>
>Then use you fantasy to explain exactly how overdoses will be prevented,
>retard.
Didn't claim they would entirely. Read right above - it explains it.
Again; you are either stupid or dishonest - I think i may have to vote
for both.
ozark...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>
>
> ILLEGAL drugs are of UNKNOWN quality and purity.
There is no reason to suppose that decriminalising them would
necessarily change that.
Here is your post - looks pretty straightforward.
Blinky Bill
<ozark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:epvhr3l11gsmnnjko...@4ax.com...
You were replying to what I wrote and what I wrote involved an analogy that
apparently incorporated the notion that decriminalising drugs would
eliminate overdoses.
>
>> ILLEGAL drugs are of UNKNOWN quality and purity.
>
> There is no reason to suppose that decriminalising them would
> necessarily change that.
>
>> You do not know precisely what's in them or how much of the active drug.
>> THAT is why some users OD.
>
> Decriminalising would not necessarily change that.
And I repeat that "even a moron such as yourself should be able to see that
such controls
won't stop overdoses, which was what was being discussed."
It's just a few lines up - the bit about OD.
>
> And, government controls would indeed stop overdoses for the items
> listed.
Just like they have for prescription drugs - don't be an idiot.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> But then again, I may be overanticipating your capabilities.
>>
>>Sure - point out how there are no overdoses from prescription drugs
>>subject
>>to government controls, idiot.
>
> Not my intent;
You certainly can't do it.
> if you ere to read you would jhave known that rather
> than me having to point it out to yiou right above.
>>>>> You quite obviously do not undestand how a product such as
>>>>> drugs would be handled.
>>>>
>>>>And neither do you, since it is a hypothetical situation. But you think
>>>>the
>>>>world will conform to your fantasy.
>>>
>>> LOL As opposed to your unrealistic fantasy? Mine is just about a
>>> sure thing - whether you agree or not.
>>
>>Then use you fantasy to explain exactly how overdoses will be prevented,
>>retard.
>
>
> Didn't claim they would entirely. Read right above - it explains it.
Sure does
"government controls would indeed stop overdoses for the items listed."
Just like they did for Heath Ledger.
>
> Again; you are either stupid or dishonest - I think i may have to vote
> for both.
No indecisiveness from me - you are both a cockhead and a fuckwit.
Blinky Bill
<ozark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:870ir3hnec6aq7d3p...@4ax.com...
Indeed - where do I say "making drugs legal would not affect the
content/quality
of the drugs."?
>
Grendel
They HAD gun control at the college, dipshit. Didn't work out to well
for them, did it?
> How many of these school shootings is it going to take for the
> government to do away with that barbaric constitutional amendment? We
> have more shootings in this country than any other.
Care to back that up with statistics? Don't think you can. Off the
top of my head I can name at least 4 countries with more.
> Why?
Because of liberal dipshits like yourself who love to blame an
inanimate object but feel sorry for the killers and 'want to give them
another chance.'
That, and spineless cowards who want to make a name for themselves by
becoming the latest mass murderer. Here's an idea. Stop splattering
their names, faces and life stories all over the media.
> Because the
> government doesn't have the balls to step in and draw a hard line
> against these toothless gun-toting losers.
Here's a newsflash for you, dipshit. We have this thing called the
"Constitution" that recognizes our right to protect ourselves and to
keep and bear arms. It also spells out just how the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights can be amended.
Here's another newsflash for you, dipshit. We live in a
'Representative Republic'. That means we elect our officials to do
what we tell them. That means WE tell THEM what to do, not the other
way around.
I realize that this does not satisfy your need for Momma Guv'mint to
take care of you, but this is a country for men, not sheep.
If you can't be accurate, at least attempt to be entertaining. So
far, you're only tedious.
Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.
"Nature abhors and moron."
RSweeney
Your words below (moved from the stream above)
What exactly did you mean?
ozark...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Nope - when I stepped in it was about the part on unknown qauality.
>
>>
>>> ILLEGAL drugs are of UNKNOWN quality and purity.
>>
>> There is no reason to suppose that decriminalising them would
>> necessarily change that.
>>
>>> You do not know precisely what's in them or how much of the active drug.
>>> THAT is why some users OD.
>>
>> Decriminalising would not necessarily change that.
>
>And I repeat that "even a moron such as yourself should be able to see that
>such controls
>won't stop overdoses, which was what was being discussed."
>
>It's just a few lines up - the bit about OD.
Pay attention.
>
>
>>
>> And, government controls would indeed stop overdoses for the items
>> listed.
>
>Just like they have for prescription drugs - don't be an idiot.
Nope - not on unknown quality, etc. Better pay attention grasshopper.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But then again, I may be overanticipating your capabilities.
>>>
>>>Sure - point out how there are no overdoses from prescription drugs
>>>subject
>>>to government controls, idiot.
>>
>> Not my intent;
>
>You certainly can't do it.
Pay attention grasshopper
>
>> if you ere to read you would jhave known that rather
>> than me having to point it out to yiou right above.
>
>>>>>> You quite obviously do not undestand how a product such as
>>>>>> drugs would be handled.
>>>>>
>>>>>And neither do you, since it is a hypothetical situation. But you think
>>>>>the
>>>>>world will conform to your fantasy.
>>>>
>>>> LOL As opposed to your unrealistic fantasy? Mine is just about a
>>>> sure thing - whether you agree or not.
>>>
>>>Then use you fantasy to explain exactly how overdoses will be prevented,
>>>retard.
>>
>>
>> Didn't claim they would entirely. Read right above - it explains it.
>
>Sure does
>"government controls would indeed stop overdoses for the items listed."
>Just like they did for Heath Ledger.
Not for the part I was addressing.
>
>>
>> Again; you are either stupid or dishonest - I think i may have to vote
>> for both.
>
>No indecisiveness from me - you are both a cockhead and a fuckwit.
Ah yes, a sure sign that I have spanked you.......
ozark...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Perhaps English is not your first language grasshopper. Pay
attention.
read what you wrote - slowly and carefully. Or perhaps you can find
someone to translate it for you....
Blinky Bill
<ozark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4n3ir3ptdnh91ocs5...@4ax.com...
I did that and it is still the same, cockbreath.
> Or perhaps you can find
> someone to translate it for you....
I know you sometimes speak in tongues, but what you wrote seemed to be
English, and no translation seemed necessary. Tell me what language I need
to translate from.
Blinky Bill
<ozark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8h3ir3ps3fjj5kl79...@4ax.com...
Nope - decriminalising drugs and the elimination of overdoses. Pay
attention.
>>> Again; you are either stupid or dishonest - I think i may have to vote
>>> for both.
>>
>>No indecisiveness from me - you are both a cockhead and a fuckwit.
>
> Ah yes, a sure sign that I have spanked you.......
Decisiveness is a sign you have spanked me? Is that your fantasy - to spank
someone you believe is a schoolchild - what a sick paedophilic pervert you
are.
Blinky Bill
Decriminalising might or might not result in government regulation of the
drug. Look up "decriminalise" in a dictionary - there is no mention of any
form of quality control or accurate labelling. Here it is from Wiktionary.
"decriminalization -The act of making a previously illegal activity no
longer treatable as a criminal offence. "
Now it MAY be that some form of government regulation applies, but that is a
separate issue to decriminalisation. Now, IF regulation did happen and the
laws were like those pertaining to alcohol where I live, people could still
manufacture their own. However, they would be only restricted in selling it,
not from consuming it or giving it away to friends. If a similar regime
applied to drugs, then there is still the possibility of overdose, because
the active constituents in the home-made product may be present in different
quatities to the "commercial" product.
Buck Mulligan
>I know you sometimes speak in tongues, but what you wrote seemed to be
>English, and no translation seemed necessary. Tell me what language I need
>to translate from.
>
The only language you seem to be fluent in is Stupid.
_____
"So far all I've needed is a keyboard, but if pushed I may choose
something else, like the shopkeeper did."
-Blinky Bill admits he'd choose
gun as the most effective
means of self defense, if only his government
would allow it.
Blinky Bill
"Buck Mulligan" <bkmul...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:scsir317le1eg0u7l...@4ax.com...
> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I know you sometimes speak in tongues, but what you wrote seemed to be
>>English, and no translation seemed necessary. Tell me what language I need
>>to translate from.
>>
>
> The only language you seem to be fluent in is Stupid.
But you admit you are mad so no-one cares what you think <chuckle>
Now you can fuck-off.
Buck Mulligan
>
>"Buck Mulligan" <bkmul...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:scsir317le1eg0u7l...@4ax.com...
>> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I know you sometimes speak in tongues, but what you wrote seemed to be
>>>English, and no translation seemed necessary. Tell me what language I need
>>>to translate from.
>>>
>>
>> The only language you seem to be fluent in is Stupid.
>
>But you admit you are
right, and you're fucked in the head with no right of self defense.
_____
"This is not the place to give time to the self defence debate.
Zimring and Hawkins have examined the arguments on the matter in their
book, A Citizens Guide to Gun Control.4 We know that in the US self
defence is a justified reason to own a gun. This is not the case in
Australia. One hopes that all Australian jurisdictions keep this as a
cornerstone of their gun control policies. The idea of the citizen as
police is as unwise as it is dangerous."
http://www.guncontrol.org.au/index.php?article=88
RSweeney
"Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in message news:xD8uj.16362
>> Your words below (moved from the stream above)
>> What exactly did you mean?
>>
>>> You do not know precisely what's in them or how much of the active drug.
>>> THAT is why some users OD.
>>
>>>Decriminalising would not necessarily change that.
>
> Decriminalising might or might not result in government regulation of the
> drug. Look up "decriminalise" in a dictionary - there is no mention of any
> form of quality control or accurate labelling. Here it is from Wiktionary.
> "decriminalization -The act of making a previously illegal activity no
> longer treatable as a criminal offence. "
>
> Now it MAY be that some form of government regulation applies, but that is
> a separate issue to decriminalisation. Now, IF regulation did happen and
> the laws were like those pertaining to alcohol where I live, people could
> still manufacture their own. However, they would be only restricted in
> selling it, not from consuming it or giving it away to friends. If a
> similar regime applied to drugs, then there is still the possibility of
> overdose, because the active constituents in the home-made product may be
> present in different quatities to the "commercial" product.
Again, the history of alcohol and even of homeopathic medicines does not
support your position.
Homebrew is a tiny portion of the total consumed.
Blinky Bill
Why? So you apparently believe no-one has ever died from an overdose of
regulated alcohol or regulated drugs or homeopathic medicines. You are
divorced from reality.
http://www.drugfree.org.au/fileadmin/Media/Reference/DFA_DrugRelatedStats.pdf
For 2005 -
methadone - 106 overdoses
Methadone is a regulated drug which is manufactured to standards of purity
and quality. That didn't prevent people from dying of overdoses.
benzodiazepines - 249 overdoses
Benzodiazepines are regulated drugs manufactured to standards of purity and
quality. That didn't prevent people from dying of overdoses.
alcohol - 178 overdoses
Alcohol is a regulated drug which is manufactured to standards of purity and
quality. That didn't prevent people from dying of overdoses.
As for homeopathic medicines, there are examples of their use resulting in
death.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baby-death-call-for-homeopath-rules/2007/11/19/1195321684868.html
>
> Homebrew is a tiny portion of the total consumed.
That may well be the case, but nevertheless it is an example of a legal drug
not necessarily being subject to quality controls, which refutes your claim.
I think your position is not supported by facts
ozark...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Nope - you pay attention. I entered the discussion and addressed the
point about the quality of the product.
>
>>>> Again; you are either stupid or dishonest - I think i may have to vote
>>>> for both.
>>>
>>>No indecisiveness from me - you are both a cockhead and a fuckwit.
>>
>> Ah yes, a sure sign that I have spanked you.......
>
>Decisiveness is a sign you have spanked me? Is that your fantasy - to spank
>someone you believe is a schoolchild - what a sick paedophilic pervert you
>are.
Yep: A sure sign. You have no recourse left except to resort to
childish vulgar insults. To be honest - I expected that.
>
Blinky Bill
> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Buck Mulligan" <bkmul...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:scsir317le1eg0u7l...@4ax.com...
>>> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I know you sometimes speak in tongues, but what you wrote seemed to be
>>>>English, and no translation seemed necessary. Tell me what language I
>>>>need
>>>>to translate from.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The only language you seem to be fluent in is Stupid.
>>
>>But you admit you are
>
No argument here - that fits in with barking mad <chuckle>
ozark...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Sadly you failed to comprhend it.
> and it is still the same, cockbreath.
LOL Agian with the vulgarity. That certainly sums up your character.
ozark...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>
Might or might not? Sadly you are clutching at straws.
>Look up "decriminalise" in a dictionary - there is no mention of any
>form of quality control or accurate labelling. Here it is from Wiktionary.
>"decriminalization -The act of making a previously illegal activity no
>longer treatable as a criminal offence. "
>
>Now it MAY be that some form of government regulation applies, but that is a
>separate issue to decriminalisation. Now, IF regulation did happen and the
>laws were like those pertaining to alcohol where I live, people could still
>manufacture their own. However, they would be only restricted in selling it,
>not from consuming it or giving it away to friends. If a similar regime
>applied to drugs, then there is still the possibility of overdose, because
>the active constituents in the home-made product may be present in different
>quatities to the "commercial" product.
Ah yes - trying to waffle.
Next will come the vulgar insults.