Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Gun Control Bill: taking the 'mass' out of mass murder...a start
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Jan 4, 2013, 1:36:56 PM1/4/13
to
Gun Control Bill Introduced on 1st Day of Congress
-------------------------------------------------------
Gun control advocates introduced legislation on the first day of
the new Congress to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines used in
recent massacres, including the one at Sandy Hook Elementary last
month. Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York said in a
statement: "These assault magazines help put the 'mass' in 'mass
shooting' and anything we can do to stop their proliferation will
save lives in America." McCarthy, who lost her husband in a
shooting on the Long Island Rail Road — her son was also severely
injured — introduced the ammunition ban with fellow Democratic Rep.
Diana DeGette of Colorado. Gun control supporters are hoping an
apparent shift in attitudes after 20 children and six adults were
killed at Sandy Hook Elementary, as well as the shooter’s mother
who was killed first in her home, might pave the way for reform. In
the latest potential sign of that shift, Republican Rep. Peter King
of New York questioned ownership of assault weapons during an
appearance on MSNBC.
Peter King: "I really don’t know why people need assault
weapons. I’m not a hunter, but I understand people who want. I
understand people who live in rough neighborhoods or have a small
business and want to maintain a pistol to protect themselves, so
long as they’re properly vetted and licensed. But an assault
weapon? Listen, I’m sure 99 percent of people with assault weapons
are good Americans. But to give that potential to a mass murderer
who would be able to out-arm the police, who, as we saw, could
carry out the worst devastation?"
-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/4/headlines#142
posted as a public service
;-)
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jan 4, 2013, 3:37:02 PM1/4/13
to
>"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> Listen, I’m sure 99 percent of people with assault weapons
>are good Americans. But to give that potential to a mass murderer
>who would be able to out-arm the police, who, as we saw, could
>carry out the worst devastation?"
Which is why Dianne Feinstein should have her vagina sewn shut.
99 percent of women are not prostitutes, but to give that potential to
some disease-ridden whore who could infect thousands is just too much
of a risk.
"Even if we can only save one life, we have to take action."
-Joe Biden
> Listen, I’m sure 99 percent of people with assault weapons
>are good Americans. But to give that potential to a mass murderer
>who would be able to out-arm the police, who, as we saw, could
>carry out the worst devastation?"
99 percent of women are not prostitutes, but to give that potential to
some disease-ridden whore who could infect thousands is just too much
of a risk.
"Even if we can only save one life, we have to take action."
-Joe Biden
Jeffrey Hamilton
Jan 4, 2013, 4:37:49 PM1/4/13
to
Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in
>> talk.politics.guns :
>
>> Listen, I'm sure 99 percent of people with assault weapons
>> are good Americans. But to give that potential to a mass murderer
>> who would be able to out-arm the police, who, as we saw, could
>> carry out the worst devastation?"
>
> Which is why Dianne Feinstein should have her vagina sewn shut.
I do believe Diane is way past her reproductive years, but just in case and
>> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in
>> talk.politics.guns :
>
>> Listen, I'm sure 99 percent of people with assault weapons
>> are good Americans. But to give that potential to a mass murderer
>> who would be able to out-arm the police, who, as we saw, could
>> carry out the worst devastation?"
>
> Which is why Dianne Feinstein should have her vagina sewn shut.
to cover both sides of the argument, you should probably have your penis
"vulcanised", so as to ensure that *_your_* lunacy spreads no further !
> 99 percent of women are not prostitutes, but to give that potential to
> some disease-ridden whore who could infect thousands is just too much
> of a risk.
for further mass murder to some mindless, gun worshiping NRA addicts, could
result in the further deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent
Americans, "is just too much of a risk" !
> "Even if we can only save one life, we have to take action."
> -Joe Biden
cheers....Jeff
JohnJohnsn
Jan 4, 2013, 5:01:53 PM1/4/13
to
On Jan 4, 3:37 pm, "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bberesf...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
> The majority of American males are NOT lunatics, but to give the potential
> for further mass murder to some mindless, gun worshiping NRA addicts,
> could result in the further deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent
> Americans, "is just too much of a risk" !
>
"Why is it that every time a lunatic uses a firearm to commit an
>
> The majority of American males are NOT lunatics, but to give the potential
> for further mass murder to some mindless, gun worshiping NRA addicts,
> could result in the further deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent
> Americans, "is just too much of a risk" !
>
atrocity the gun-control fanatics want to punish the millions of gun
owners that DIDN'T do it?!?!?
--Me, Dec. 18, 2012
BTW,,, Jeffrey; wanna tell us just how well that gun registration
program up there in Canuckistan worked out for ya? :)
Oh; that's right: it DIDN'T!!!
Conservatives and enthusiasts cheer the end of the long-gun registry
By Jeff Davis
Postmedia News | Feb 15, 2012 1:08 PM ET
OTTAWA — The Conservative government says its MPs will celebrate after
a historic vote to end the long-gun registry Wednesday evening,
despite vehement opposition to the move in Quebec and much of urban
Canada.
Public Safety Minister Vic Toews told reporters Wednesday, hours
before the vote, that the government’s actions are long overdue.
“It does nothing to help put an end to gun crimes, nor has it saved
one Canadian life,” he said.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/15/conservatives-and-enthusiasts-cheer-the-end-of-the-long-gun-registry/
OOPS!!! ;)
<+>
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are
neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make
things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they
serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed
man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. "
--Thomas Jefferson
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousands real
advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience’ that would
take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown
in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that
forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm
those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes."
--Cesare Bonesana, Marchese Beccaria, `Of Crimes and Punishments'
"Why is it that every time a lunatic uses a firearm to commit an
atrocity the gun-control fanatics want to punish the millions of gun
owners that DIDN'T do it?!?!?
--Me, Dec. 18, 2012
peter skelton
Jan 4, 2013, 5:22:29 PM1/4/13
to
"JohnJohnsn" wrote in message
news:c5666546-c9de-4122...@b11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 4, 3:37 pm, "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bberesf...@cogeco.ca>
wrote:
>
> The majority of American males are NOT lunatics, but to
> give the potential
> for further mass murder to some mindless, gun worshiping
> NRA addicts,
> could result in the further deaths of thousands upon
> thousands of innocent
> Americans, "is just too much of a risk" !
>
"Why is it that every time a lunatic uses a firearm to
commit an
atrocity the gun-control fanatics want to punish the
millions of gun
owners that DIDN'T do it?!?!?
--Me, Dec. 18, 2012
BTW,,, Jeffrey; wanna tell us just how well that gun
registration
program up there in Canuckistan worked out for ya? :)
Oh; that's right: it DIDN'T!!!
<s>
That, of course, is a flat lie. We have our paranoid
"there's a conspiracy to take our guns" twits too. The
registry cost far too much, but it became, very quickly, a
useful tool for the police. They, and the majority of the
population, supported the registry.
news:c5666546-c9de-4122...@b11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 4, 3:37 pm, "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bberesf...@cogeco.ca>
wrote:
>
> The majority of American males are NOT lunatics, but to
> give the potential
> for further mass murder to some mindless, gun worshiping
> NRA addicts,
> could result in the further deaths of thousands upon
> thousands of innocent
> Americans, "is just too much of a risk" !
>
"Why is it that every time a lunatic uses a firearm to
commit an
atrocity the gun-control fanatics want to punish the
millions of gun
owners that DIDN'T do it?!?!?
--Me, Dec. 18, 2012
BTW,,, Jeffrey; wanna tell us just how well that gun
registration
program up there in Canuckistan worked out for ya? :)
Oh; that's right: it DIDN'T!!!
That, of course, is a flat lie. We have our paranoid
"there's a conspiracy to take our guns" twits too. The
registry cost far too much, but it became, very quickly, a
useful tool for the police. They, and the majority of the
population, supported the registry.
SaPeIsMa
Jan 4, 2013, 5:39:07 PM1/4/13
to
"peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:kc7kna$gjh$1...@dont-email.me...
vulnerable.
Scout
Jan 4, 2013, 5:43:12 PM1/4/13
to
Show us the number of crimes solved by this "useful tool".
peter skelton
Jan 4, 2013, 5:47:31 PM1/4/13
to
"SaPeIsMa" wrote in message
news:kc7lrn$n57$4...@dont-email.me...
You seem rather ignorant of the facts.
news:kc7lrn$n57$4...@dont-email.me...
peter skelton
Jan 4, 2013, 5:50:13 PM1/4/13
to
"Scout" wrote in message news:kc7lu5$njv$1...@dont-email.me...
It's purpose was to shorten investigations, in that it was
very successful. Setting purposes other than that envisaged
is bloody stupid. (How many bales of hay can you carry in
your beemer?)
very successful. Setting purposes other than that envisaged
is bloody stupid. (How many bales of hay can you carry in
your beemer?)
SaPeIsMa
Jan 4, 2013, 6:08:34 PM1/4/13
to
news:kc7m68$ovo$1...@dont-email.me...
Probably far more up to speed on it than you..
Scout
Jan 4, 2013, 6:15:00 PM1/4/13
to
news:kc7mba$pvj$1...@dont-email.me...
Ok, show us how many criminal investigations were shortened and by how much
on the average.
Then show us that the time saved justified the costs by showing a comparison
with the value of the man-hours you claim were saved.
on the average.
Then show us that the time saved justified the costs by showing a comparison
with the value of the man-hours you claim were saved.
SaPeIsMa
Jan 4, 2013, 6:12:48 PM1/4/13
to
news:kc7mba$pvj$1...@dont-email.me...
BULLSHIT
There was NOT ONE crime that was solved, or facilitated, not to mention
prevented by the LGR
> Setting purposes other than that envisaged is bloody stupid.
And yet that was NOT how the LGR was sold...
>
> (How many bales of hay can you carry in your beemer?)
>
NONE ! (you stupid wank !)
"Beemer" refers to BMW motorcycles.
"Bimmer" refers to BMW cars
Obviously, you have never owned either one..
Sticks to subjects you know, dummy.
There was NOT ONE crime that was solved, or facilitated, not to mention
prevented by the LGR
> Setting purposes other than that envisaged is bloody stupid.
>
> (How many bales of hay can you carry in your beemer?)
>
"Beemer" refers to BMW motorcycles.
"Bimmer" refers to BMW cars
Obviously, you have never owned either one..
Sticks to subjects you know, dummy.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Jan 4, 2013, 7:39:13 PM1/4/13
to
JohnJohnsn wrote:
> On Jan 4, 3:37 pm, "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bberesf...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
>>The majority of American males are NOT lunatics, but to give the potential
>>for further mass murder to some mindless, gun worshiping NRA addicts,
>>could result in the further deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent
>>Americans, "is just too much of a risk" !
>>
>
> "Why is it that every time a lunatic uses a firearm to commit an atrocity
frequency? "mass" murder? needless and stupid? AVOIDABLE!?
> On Jan 4, 3:37 pm, "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bberesf...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
>>The majority of American males are NOT lunatics, but to give the potential
>>for further mass murder to some mindless, gun worshiping NRA addicts,
>>could result in the further deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent
>>Americans, "is just too much of a risk" !
>>
>
> "Why is it that every time a lunatic uses a firearm to commit an atrocity
tighten the screws, i say
;-)
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jan 4, 2013, 7:42:42 PM1/4/13
to
>"Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in
>>> talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>> Listen, I'm sure 99 percent of people with assault weapons
>>> are good Americans. But to give that potential to a mass murderer
>>> who would be able to out-arm the police, who, as we saw, could
>>> carry out the worst devastation?"
>>
>> Which is why Dianne Feinstein should have her vagina sewn shut.
>
>I do believe Diane is way past her reproductive years
Good God man, I didn't mean you should make her pregnant. She can be
past her reproductive years and still take on the Seventh Fleet.
>> 99 percent of women are not prostitutes, but to give that potential to
>> some disease-ridden whore who could infect thousands is just too much
>> of a risk.
>
>The majority of American males are NOT lunatics [..]
We're talking about the dangerous spread of STD's and if e can save
ONE CHILD by sewing Feinstein's vagina shut, I say fire up the
industrial sewing machine and let's get a nice zig zag stitch in
there.
>Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in
>>> talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>> Listen, I'm sure 99 percent of people with assault weapons
>>> are good Americans. But to give that potential to a mass murderer
>>> who would be able to out-arm the police, who, as we saw, could
>>> carry out the worst devastation?"
>>
>> Which is why Dianne Feinstein should have her vagina sewn shut.
>
>I do believe Diane is way past her reproductive years
past her reproductive years and still take on the Seventh Fleet.
>> 99 percent of women are not prostitutes, but to give that potential to
>> some disease-ridden whore who could infect thousands is just too much
>> of a risk.
>
We're talking about the dangerous spread of STD's and if e can save
ONE CHILD by sewing Feinstein's vagina shut, I say fire up the
industrial sewing machine and let's get a nice zig zag stitch in
there.
ozark...@yahoo.com
Jan 4, 2013, 7:53:14 PM1/4/13
to
The crew that needs tightening is located somewhere between your ears.
Tell us how your "tightening" will work.
Jeffrey Hamilton
Jan 4, 2013, 7:53:30 PM1/4/13
to
JohnJohnsn wrote:
> On Jan 4, 3:37 pm, "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bberesf...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>>
>> The majority of American males are NOT lunatics, but to give the
>> potential for further mass murder to some mindless, gun worshiping
>> NRA addicts, could result in the further deaths of thousands upon
>> thousands of innocent Americans, "is just too much of a risk" !
>>
> "Why is it that every time a lunatic uses a firearm to commit an
> atrocity the gun-control fanatics want to punish the millions of gun
> owners that DIDN'T do it?!?!?
> --Me, Dec. 18, 2012
>
> BTW,,, Jeffrey; wanna tell us just how well that gun registration
> program up there in Canuckistan worked out for ya? :)
>
> Oh; that's right: it DIDN'T!!!
Look at our body count, now look at yours....oops...that's how well it
> On Jan 4, 3:37 pm, "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bberesf...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>>
>> The majority of American males are NOT lunatics, but to give the
>> potential for further mass murder to some mindless, gun worshiping
>> NRA addicts, could result in the further deaths of thousands upon
>> thousands of innocent Americans, "is just too much of a risk" !
>>
> "Why is it that every time a lunatic uses a firearm to commit an
> atrocity the gun-control fanatics want to punish the millions of gun
> owners that DIDN'T do it?!?!?
> --Me, Dec. 18, 2012
>
> BTW,,, Jeffrey; wanna tell us just how well that gun registration
> program up there in Canuckistan worked out for ya? :)
>
> Oh; that's right: it DIDN'T!!!
worked out....
cheers....Jeff
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Jan 4, 2013, 8:08:54 PM1/4/13
to
ozark...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:39:13 -0800, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
> <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Jan 4, 3:37 pm, "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bberesf...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The majority of American males are NOT lunatics, but to give the potential
>>>>for further mass murder to some mindless, gun worshiping NRA addicts,
>>>>could result in the further deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent
>>>>Americans, "is just too much of a risk" !
>>>>
>>>
>>>"Why is it that every time a lunatic uses a firearm to commit an atrocity
>>
>>frequency? "mass" murder? needless and stupid? AVOIDABLE!?
>>
>>tighten the screws, i say
>>;-)
>
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:39:13 -0800, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
> <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Jan 4, 3:37 pm, "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bberesf...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The majority of American males are NOT lunatics, but to give the potential
>>>>for further mass murder to some mindless, gun worshiping NRA addicts,
>>>>could result in the further deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent
>>>>Americans, "is just too much of a risk" !
>>>>
>>>
>>>"Why is it that every time a lunatic uses a firearm to commit an atrocity
>>
>>frequency? "mass" murder? needless and stupid? AVOIDABLE!?
>>
>>tighten the screws, i say
>>;-)
>
> Tell us how your "tightening" will work.
gradually increasing restrictions on weapons of MASS murder (WMM)
;-)
Gray Guest
Jan 5, 2013, 2:15:55 AM1/5/13
to
"Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote in
news:kc7i2v$vr5$2...@dont-email.me:
> The majority of American males are NOT lunatics, but to give the
> potential for further mass murder to some mindless, gun worshiping NRA
> addicts, could result in the further deaths of thousands upon thousands
> of innocent Americans, "is just too much of a risk" !
--
Refusenik #1
Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.
Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama
Joel Edge
Jan 5, 2013, 8:03:46 AM1/5/13
to
On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 13:36:56 -0500, Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote
(in article <XPidncPlicagvHrN...@supernews.com>):
I don't understand how some people think "assault weapons' are legal. They
aren't.
(in article <XPidncPlicagvHrN...@supernews.com>):
aren't.
SaPeIsMa
Jan 5, 2013, 8:08:05 AM1/5/13
to
"Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:kc7ths$3hc$1...@dont-email.me...
debunked a long time ago..
Read "The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy.."
It will avoid you looking the next time you post crap.
dott.Piergiorgio
Jan 5, 2013, 9:05:33 AM1/5/13
to
Il 04/01/2013 19:36, Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. ha scritto:
> Gun Control Bill Introduced on 1st Day of Congress
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Gun control advocates introduced legislation on the first day of
> the new Congress to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines used in
> recent massacres, including the one at Sandy Hook Elementary last
> month.
<snippaggio>
> Gun Control Bill Introduced on 1st Day of Congress
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Gun control advocates introduced legislation on the first day of
> the new Congress to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines used in
> recent massacres, including the one at Sandy Hook Elementary last
> month.
> weapon? Listen, I’m sure 99 percent of people with assault weapons
> are good Americans. But to give that potential to a mass murderer
> who would be able to out-arm the police, who, as we saw, could
> carry out the worst devastation?"
security and security from people gone postal; in the (IMO rather
improbable) case of an actual invasion of CONUS, it's a simple matter of
ordering (or by initiative of COs) US depots to issue combat magazines &
ammo to civilians (aside that IMO, today's militia are
insurgents/guerrillas and the emphasis in a fighting homeland defense
doctrine should be about explosives & demolitions; I hope to have
glimpsed a faint reckoning of this in the large number of NG units whose
are engineers or combat engineers...)
Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.
Jim Wilkins
Jan 5, 2013, 9:25:29 AM1/5/13
to
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kc98s5$44f$2...@dont-email.me...
rate of the rest of the state, enough to skew the average and make the
nation as a whole look much worse than it really is. It's 'racist' to
discuss who commits the urban crimes.
http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/crimnet/ojsa/indexcrimes/2010-county-violent-rates.pdf
It also shows how little of the violent crime involves firearms.
news:kc98s5$44f$2...@dont-email.me...
>
> "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> news:kc7ths$3hc$1...@dont-email.me...
> "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> news:kc7ths$3hc$1...@dont-email.me...
> Always funny to see the idiots fall back on correlation that has
> been debunked a long time ago..
>
> Read "The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy.."
>
> It will avoid you looking the next time you post crap.
This shows how a few urban areas have 10-20 times the violent crime
> been debunked a long time ago..
>
> Read "The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy.."
>
> It will avoid you looking the next time you post crap.
rate of the rest of the state, enough to skew the average and make the
nation as a whole look much worse than it really is. It's 'racist' to
discuss who commits the urban crimes.
http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/crimnet/ojsa/indexcrimes/2010-county-violent-rates.pdf
It also shows how little of the violent crime involves firearms.
Jim Wilkins
Jan 5, 2013, 9:43:08 AM1/5/13
to
"dott.Piergiorgio" <chied...@ask.me> wrote in message
news:NqWFs.21600$5b....@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
purposely structured to let the people control their government.
news:NqWFs.21600$5b....@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
>
> seems to me a good compromise between national (constituitional)
> security and security from people gone postal; in the (IMO rather
> improbable) case of an actual invasion of CONUS, it's a simple
> matter of ordering (or by initiative of COs) US depots to issue
> combat magazines & ammo to civilians (aside that IMO, today's
> militia are insurgents/guerrillas and the emphasis in a fighting
> homeland defense doctrine should be about explosives & demolitions;
> I hope to have glimpsed a faint reckoning of this in the large
> number of NG units whose are engineers or combat engineers...)
>
> Best regards from Italy,
> dott. Piergiorgio.
>
That assumes the government controls the people. Our Constitution was
> seems to me a good compromise between national (constituitional)
> security and security from people gone postal; in the (IMO rather
> improbable) case of an actual invasion of CONUS, it's a simple
> matter of ordering (or by initiative of COs) US depots to issue
> combat magazines & ammo to civilians (aside that IMO, today's
> militia are insurgents/guerrillas and the emphasis in a fighting
> homeland defense doctrine should be about explosives & demolitions;
> I hope to have glimpsed a faint reckoning of this in the large
> number of NG units whose are engineers or combat engineers...)
>
> Best regards from Italy,
> dott. Piergiorgio.
>
purposely structured to let the people control their government.
a425couple
Jan 5, 2013, 9:47:15 AM1/5/13
to
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message...
> "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message...
The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America
Adopt the Gun Controls of other Democracies?
By David B. Kopel
472 pages
Publisher:Prometheus Books
Place of publication:Buffalo, NY
Publication year:1992
Contents
1: Introduction 13
2: Japan: No Guns, No Gun Crime 20
3: Great Britain: The Queen's Peace 59
4: Canada: Love of Government 136
5: Australia: No One is Happy 193
6: New Zealand: Everyone is Happy 233
7: Jamaica: War on Guns 257
8: Switzerland: The Armed Society -----
And noting, there is now one book seller willing
to deliver it to my door for $4.20, and quite a few
will do it for under $7.00.
But,,,,, now I'm not automaticly going to say that
a book over 20 years old is useless,
but have not the laws in Australia & Canada changed?
I really do not wish to read, & put ideas into my head,
that are NOW wrong & incorrect!
By the way, does someone wish to tell me,
what final conclusion for the USA, Kopel suggests?
> "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message...
>> JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>> On Jan 4, 3:37 pm, "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bberesf...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>>>> The majority of American males are NOT lunatics, but to give the
>>>> potential for further mass murder to some mindless, gun worshiping
>>>> NRA addicts, could result in the further deaths of thousands upon
>>>> thousands of innocent Americans, "is just too much of a risk" !
>>>>
>>> "Why is it that every time a lunatic uses a firearm to commit an
>>> atrocity the gun-control fanatics want to punish the millions of gun
>>> owners that DIDN'T do it?!?!?
>>> --Me, Dec. 18, 2012
>>>
>>> BTW,,, Jeffrey; wanna tell us just how well that gun registration
>>> program up there in Canuckistan worked out for ya? :)
>>>
>>> Oh; that's right: it DIDN'T!!!
>>
>> Look at our body count, now look at yours....oops...that's how well it
>> worked out....
>
>>> On Jan 4, 3:37 pm, "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bberesf...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>>>> The majority of American males are NOT lunatics, but to give the
>>>> potential for further mass murder to some mindless, gun worshiping
>>>> NRA addicts, could result in the further deaths of thousands upon
>>>> thousands of innocent Americans, "is just too much of a risk" !
>>>>
>>> "Why is it that every time a lunatic uses a firearm to commit an
>>> atrocity the gun-control fanatics want to punish the millions of gun
>>> owners that DIDN'T do it?!?!?
>>> --Me, Dec. 18, 2012
>>>
>>> BTW,,, Jeffrey; wanna tell us just how well that gun registration
>>> program up there in Canuckistan worked out for ya? :)
>>>
>>> Oh; that's right: it DIDN'T!!!
>>
>> Look at our body count, now look at yours....oops...that's how well it
>> worked out....
>
> Always funny to see the idiots fall back on correlation that has been
> debunked a long time ago..
>
> Read "The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy.."
> It will avoid you looking the next time you post crap.
I'm seeing a book:
> debunked a long time ago..
>
> Read "The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy.."
> It will avoid you looking the next time you post crap.
The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America
Adopt the Gun Controls of other Democracies?
By David B. Kopel
472 pages
Publisher:Prometheus Books
Place of publication:Buffalo, NY
Publication year:1992
Contents
1: Introduction 13
2: Japan: No Guns, No Gun Crime 20
3: Great Britain: The Queen's Peace 59
4: Canada: Love of Government 136
5: Australia: No One is Happy 193
6: New Zealand: Everyone is Happy 233
7: Jamaica: War on Guns 257
8: Switzerland: The Armed Society -----
And noting, there is now one book seller willing
to deliver it to my door for $4.20, and quite a few
will do it for under $7.00.
But,,,,, now I'm not automaticly going to say that
a book over 20 years old is useless,
but have not the laws in Australia & Canada changed?
I really do not wish to read, & put ideas into my head,
that are NOW wrong & incorrect!
By the way, does someone wish to tell me,
what final conclusion for the USA, Kopel suggests?
Andrew Chaplin
Jan 5, 2013, 9:53:17 AM1/5/13
to
"a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:kc9ee...@news1.newsguy.com:
I thought this was a useful review:
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/JohnsonReview1.html.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
news:kc9ee...@news1.newsguy.com:
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/JohnsonReview1.html.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
peter skelton
Jan 5, 2013, 10:43:14 AM1/5/13
to
"SaPeIsMa" wrote in message
news:kc7o0n$3m7$2...@dont-email.me...
Actually it's the truth, even Harper admits is
>There was NOT ONE crime that was solved, or facilitated,
>not to mention
prevented by the LGR
Your first claim is partly true, the second a blatant lie,
the third not provable
> Setting purposes other than that envisaged is bloody
> stupid.
>And yet that was NOT how the LGR was sold...
That, of course presumes the LGR was 'sold', which is not
the truth. Like its removal, it was the action of a majority
government which published a decision, You are
preposterously off the facts, I am going to stop now.
news:kc7o0n$3m7$2...@dont-email.me...
>There was NOT ONE crime that was solved, or facilitated,
>not to mention
prevented by the LGR
the third not provable
> Setting purposes other than that envisaged is bloody
> stupid.
>And yet that was NOT how the LGR was sold...
the truth. Like its removal, it was the action of a majority
government which published a decision, You are
preposterously off the facts, I am going to stop now.
peter skelton
Jan 5, 2013, 10:45:52 AM1/5/13
to
"Scout" wrote in message news:kc7npq$2lc$1...@dont-email.me...
All those in which a gun was recovered, by about four hours.
>Then show us that the time saved justified the costs by
>showing a comparison
with the value of the man-hours you claim were saved.
The set-up costs aren't justified. (ISTR we argued this
through before). Your position is that of a person who pays
too much for a house and solves his problem by burning it
down, forgetting to take out insurance first.
>Then show us that the time saved justified the costs by
>showing a comparison
with the value of the man-hours you claim were saved.
through before). Your position is that of a person who pays
too much for a house and solves his problem by burning it
down, forgetting to take out insurance first.
peter skelton
Jan 5, 2013, 10:49:03 AM1/5/13
to
"Andrew Chaplin" wrote in message
news:XnsA13F64968A041H...@88.198.244.100...
Thanks
news:XnsA13F64968A041H...@88.198.244.100...
peter skelton
Jan 5, 2013, 10:51:11 AM1/5/13
to
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
news:kc9e5a$2hv$1...@dont-email.me...
No, your government is the vehicle by which your people
control each other.
news:kc9e5a$2hv$1...@dont-email.me...
control each other.
Scout
Jan 5, 2013, 11:51:03 AM1/5/13
to
news:kc9hrl$pl3$1...@dont-email.me...
Cite.
>>Then show us that the time saved justified the costs by showing a
>>comparison
> with the value of the man-hours you claim were saved.
>
> The set-up costs aren't justified. (ISTR we argued this through before).
> Your position is that of a person who pays too much for a house and solves
> his problem by burning it down, forgetting to take out insurance first.
So it wasn't cost effective.
Thanks for that admission.
>>Then show us that the time saved justified the costs by showing a
>>comparison
> with the value of the man-hours you claim were saved.
>
> The set-up costs aren't justified. (ISTR we argued this through before).
> Your position is that of a person who pays too much for a house and solves
> his problem by burning it down, forgetting to take out insurance first.
Thanks for that admission.
JohnJohnsn
Jan 5, 2013, 12:14:53 PM1/5/13
to
On Jan 4, 4:22 pm, "peter skelton" <skelto...@yahoo.ca>wrote:
Vic Toews?
“It does nothing to help put an end to gun crimes, nor has it saved
one Canadian life.”
--Ibid.
And as to your claim "the majority of the [Canadian] population,
supported the registry":
Why the long-gun registry doesn’t work — and never did
[...]
"Canadian voters seem divided on this issue..."
[...]
"An estimated 65% of firearms owners registered at least one rifle or
shotgun, and no more than half of all long guns ended up in the
registry. Opposition was intense and has never abated. Grassroots
anger helped to fuel the rise of the Reform Party, and contributed to
the elimination of the Liberals as a political force in the West.
Despite their mutual antagonism, three opposition parties (Reform,
Progressive Conservative and New Democrat) united against the
legislation. Only the Bloc Québécois voted with the Liberals."
[...]
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/11/gary-mauser-why-the-long-gun-registry-doesnt-work-and-never-did/
Of course, being the typical Looney Liberals, the Democrat Party here
in the U.S. demonstrate their continuing insanity over "The Great
Unwashed" owning firearms and have once again begun pushing even more
ineffective gun control laws, while ignoring what happened to them
after their last big push: losing both houses of Congress!
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
different results.”
--Albert Einstein
"History is indeed the witness of the times, the light of truth."
--Marcus Tullius Cicero
>
>
>"JohnJohnsn" wrote in message
> news:c5666546-c9de-4122...@b11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
>> On Jan 4, 3:37 pm, "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bberesf...@cogeco.ca>
>> wrote:
>
>>> The majority of American males are NOT lunatics, but to give the potential
>>> for further mass murder to some mindless, gun worshiping NRA addicts,
>>> could result in the further deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent
>>> Americans, "is just too much of a risk" !
>
>>"Why is it that every time a lunatic uses a firearm to commit an
>> atrocity the gun-control fanatics want to punish the millions of gun
>> owners that DIDN'T do it?!?!?
>> --Me, Dec. 18, 2012
>
>> BTW,,, Jeffrey; wanna tell us just how well that gun registration
>> program up there in Canuckistan worked out for ya? :)
>
>> Oh; that's right: it DIDN'T!!!
>
> <s>
>
> That, of course, is a flat lie. We have our paranoid
> "there's a conspiracy to take our guns" twits too. The
> registry cost far too much, but it became, very quickly, a
> useful tool for the police. They, and the majority of the
> population, supported the registry.
>
Well, Petey; who are we to believe here; you or Public Safety Minister
>
>"JohnJohnsn" wrote in message
> news:c5666546-c9de-4122...@b11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
>> On Jan 4, 3:37 pm, "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bberesf...@cogeco.ca>
>> wrote:
>
>>> The majority of American males are NOT lunatics, but to give the potential
>>> for further mass murder to some mindless, gun worshiping NRA addicts,
>>> could result in the further deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent
>>> Americans, "is just too much of a risk" !
>
>>"Why is it that every time a lunatic uses a firearm to commit an
>> atrocity the gun-control fanatics want to punish the millions of gun
>> owners that DIDN'T do it?!?!?
>> --Me, Dec. 18, 2012
>
>> BTW,,, Jeffrey; wanna tell us just how well that gun registration
>> program up there in Canuckistan worked out for ya? :)
>
>> Oh; that's right: it DIDN'T!!!
>
> <s>
>
> That, of course, is a flat lie. We have our paranoid
> "there's a conspiracy to take our guns" twits too. The
> registry cost far too much, but it became, very quickly, a
> useful tool for the police. They, and the majority of the
> population, supported the registry.
>
Vic Toews?
“It does nothing to help put an end to gun crimes, nor has it saved
one Canadian life.”
--Ibid.
And as to your claim "the majority of the [Canadian] population,
supported the registry":
Why the long-gun registry doesn’t work — and never did
[...]
"Canadian voters seem divided on this issue..."
[...]
"An estimated 65% of firearms owners registered at least one rifle or
shotgun, and no more than half of all long guns ended up in the
registry. Opposition was intense and has never abated. Grassroots
anger helped to fuel the rise of the Reform Party, and contributed to
the elimination of the Liberals as a political force in the West.
Despite their mutual antagonism, three opposition parties (Reform,
Progressive Conservative and New Democrat) united against the
legislation. Only the Bloc Québécois voted with the Liberals."
[...]
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/11/gary-mauser-why-the-long-gun-registry-doesnt-work-and-never-did/
Of course, being the typical Looney Liberals, the Democrat Party here
in the U.S. demonstrate their continuing insanity over "The Great
Unwashed" owning firearms and have once again begun pushing even more
ineffective gun control laws, while ignoring what happened to them
after their last big push: losing both houses of Congress!
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
different results.”
--Albert Einstein
"History is indeed the witness of the times, the light of truth."
--Marcus Tullius Cicero
Jim Wilkins
Jan 5, 2013, 12:37:00 PM1/5/13
to
"peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:kc9i5k$rkq$1...@dont-email.me...
> "Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
>>That assumes the government controls the people. Our Constitution
>>was
> purposely structured to let the people control their government.
>
>
> No, your government is the vehicle by which your people control each
> other.
Some disaffected elements would gladly misuse it that way.
>>was
> purposely structured to let the people control their government.
>
>
> No, your government is the vehicle by which your people control each
> other.
SaPeIsMa
Jan 5, 2013, 12:44:31 PM1/5/13
to
Hell, the Canadian Constitution doesn't even recognize your right to private
property, and any rights you believe you have can be suspended by the
government enacting the "notwithstanding" clause.
You're in no position to comment about anyone else's Constitution, until you
stand up and get a real one for yourselves.
SaPeIsMa
Jan 5, 2013, 12:46:54 PM1/5/13
to
"a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kc9ee...@news1.newsguy.com...
If your local one does not have it, they may be able to borrow it from
another..
I have easy access to 4 different networks in my state
Among them, I have access to just about any book I want to read
>
Jim Wilkins
Jan 5, 2013, 12:49:18 PM1/5/13
to
"Andrew Chaplin" <ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote in message
from a left that is no more tolerant of dissent than the medieval
Catholic Church. Watch how they emulate the witch hunters.
>
> I thought this was a useful review:
> http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/JohnsonReview1.html.
> --
> Andrew Chaplin
It is. But he completely omits the vengeance and repression element
> I thought this was a useful review:
> http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/JohnsonReview1.html.
> --
> Andrew Chaplin
from a left that is no more tolerant of dissent than the medieval
Catholic Church. Watch how they emulate the witch hunters.
SaPeIsMa
Jan 5, 2013, 12:51:00 PM1/5/13
to
news:kc9hmo$omu$1...@dont-email.me...
Then you should have NO PROBLEMS providing the DATA to support that claim,
instead of making an appeal to authority.
>>There was NOT ONE crime that was solved, or facilitated, not to mention
> prevented by the LGR
>
> Your first claim is partly true, the second a blatant lie, the third not
> provable
>
Then you should have NO PROBLEMS providing the DATA..
>> Setting purposes other than that envisaged is bloody stupid.
>
>>And yet that was NOT how the LGR was sold...
>
> That, of course presumes the LGR was 'sold', which is not the truth. Like
> its removal, it was the action of a majority government which published a
> decision, You are preposterously off the facts, I am going to stop now.
>
DO that
Since you can NOT support ANY of your bullshit with DATA !
instead of making an appeal to authority.
>>There was NOT ONE crime that was solved, or facilitated, not to mention
> prevented by the LGR
>
> Your first claim is partly true, the second a blatant lie, the third not
> provable
>
>> Setting purposes other than that envisaged is bloody stupid.
>
>>And yet that was NOT how the LGR was sold...
>
> That, of course presumes the LGR was 'sold', which is not the truth. Like
> its removal, it was the action of a majority government which published a
> decision, You are preposterously off the facts, I am going to stop now.
>
Since you can NOT support ANY of your bullshit with DATA !
SaPeIsMa
Jan 5, 2013, 12:53:42 PM1/5/13
to
news:kc9hrl$pl3$1...@dont-email.me...
BULLSHIT
And what was the use and benefit ?
If the gun was stolen, it only identified the victim of the theft.
Which data would already be available to the police from the registry of
stolen firearms
>>Then show us that the time saved justified the costs by showing a
>>comparison
> with the value of the man-hours you claim were saved.
>
> The set-up costs aren't justified. (ISTR we argued this through before).
> Your position is that of a person who pays too much for a house and solves
> his problem by burning it down, forgetting to take out insurance first.
>
YAH!
2 Billion for a database that could have been run off a PC attached to a
network..
And since the house was completely unlivable, it wasn't worth keeping no
matter how much it cost.
And what was the use and benefit ?
If the gun was stolen, it only identified the victim of the theft.
Which data would already be available to the police from the registry of
stolen firearms
>>Then show us that the time saved justified the costs by showing a
>>comparison
> with the value of the man-hours you claim were saved.
>
> The set-up costs aren't justified. (ISTR we argued this through before).
> Your position is that of a person who pays too much for a house and solves
> his problem by burning it down, forgetting to take out insurance first.
>
2 Billion for a database that could have been run off a PC attached to a
network..
And since the house was completely unlivable, it wasn't worth keeping no
matter how much it cost.
JohnJohnsn
Jan 5, 2013, 1:03:30 PM1/5/13
to
On Jan 4, 4:47 pm, "peter skelton" <skelto...@yahoo.ca>wrote:
>
>
>"SaPeIsMa" wrote in message
> news:kc7lrn$n57$4...@dont-email.me...
>
>>"peter skelton" <skelto...@yahoo.ca>wrote in message
>> at a time they were vulnerable.
>
> You seem rather ignorant of the facts.
>
The "facts" seem to show you to either be: 1) bone ignorant; or 2) a
gun control quisling/troll:
Why the long-gun registry doesn’t work — and never did
Gary Mauser, Special to National Post, Don Mills, Ontario, Canada |
Dec 11, 2012
In March, Stephen Harper’s government reversed decades of increasing
restrictions on civilian firearms, scrapping the controversial long-
gun registry on grounds that it was wasteful and ineffective. Gun
laws, the prime minister correctly said, should focus on criminals
rather than law-abiding citizens such as farmers and hunters.
Some claim that this Conservative policy flies in the face of a
mountain of evidence, and even represents an assault against reason.
Canadian voters seem divided on this issue, as well as some basic
related questions: Are firearms in the hands of ordinary citizens a
serious threat to public safety? Is registration an effective approach
to controlling misuse? How useful was the long-gun registry to police?
This article will answer some of those questions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gun laws generally tend to be passed during periods of fear or
instability, and only occasionally reversed afterwards. In 1913, for
instance, a fear of immigrants prompted Ottawa’s first serious handgun
legislation, requiring civilians to obtain a police-issued permit to
acquire or carry handguns. Non-British immigrants found it difficult
to get a permit.
Fearing labour unrest as well as American rum-runners, Ottawa mandated
handgun registration in 1934. In 1941, concerned about possible
Japanese sabotage, the government prohibited all
“Orientals” (including Chinese) from owning firearms. (After the war,
these restrictions were rescinded.) Terrorism in Quebec swayed opinion
in the 1960s and ’70s, spurring Ottawa to limit handgun permits for
“protection” to a handful of people, such as retired police and
prospectors. In 1977, a Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC) was
required to obtain ordinary rifles and shotguns. (The police decided
to refuse an FAC to anyone who indicated a desire for self-protection.
This is shocking given that in a typical year, tens of thousands of
Canadians use firearms to protect themselves or their families, mostly
from wildlife.)
The 1989 École Polytechnique massacre in Montreal prompted the
Mulroney government to introduce Bill C-17 in 1991, prohibiting a
large number of military-style rifles and shotguns. FAC applicants
were now required to provide a photograph and references, and to
submit to police screening. (Typically, vetting involves telephone
checks with neighbours and spouses or ex-spouses.)
In 1993, the Liberals brought in additional changes to gun laws,
passing Bill C-68 in 1995 (the Firearms Act). Over half of all
registered handguns in Canada were prohibited. No evidence was
provided that these handguns had been misused.
The heart of the Firearms Act to this day is licensing: Owning a
firearm, an ordinary rifle or shotgun became a criminal offence for
those who do not hold a valid licence. In addition, the 1995 law
broadened police powers of search and seizure, and expanded the types
of officials who could make use of such powers, and weakened
constitutionally-protected rights against self-incrimination. To
coincide with the “National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence
against Women,” the Firearms Act became law on Dec. 5, 1995. However,
it took until 1998 to issue licences and require buyers to register
long guns. In 2001, all gun owners were required to have a licence
and, by 2003, to register all of their rifles and shotguns.
Not everyone complied. An estimated 65% of firearms owners registered
grown out of control. Despite political promises that the program
would not cost over $2-million, costs were expected to exceed $1-
billion by 2005. By 2012, this had ballooned to $2.7-billion. The
auditor-general uncovered irregularities including mismanagement and
corruption. Her findings stimulated a parliamentary revolt. In 2003,
Parliament imposed an annual spending cap. The auditors’ reports led
to RCMP investigations of Liberal insiders and contributed to the fall
of the Liberal government in 2006.
To this day, it has been claimed that the registry is important in
protecting women. But in fact, there is no convincing evidence that
registering firearms has been effective in reducing either homicide
rates overall, or spousal murders in particular. Even though homicide
rates have been gradually falling since the 1970s, a wide variety of
researchers have been unable to find solid evidence linking gun laws
to this decline. Changing demographics, not firearms laws, better
explain the decline in homicides involving long guns over the past 20
years. It is difficult to argue that Canadian gun laws are effective
when homicide rates have dropped faster in the United States than in
Canada since 1991.
Another argument is that strict laws are required to monitor
potentially dangerous gun owners. However, in my Senate testimony, I
presented Statistics Canada data to show that anyone who has legally
obtained a gun is less likely to be murderous than other Canadians.
This should not surprise anyone: Firearms owners have been screened
for criminal acts since 1979; and since 1992, they have been stripped
of their firearms in cases where they commit a violent crime.
(Ironically, Canada does not currently have in place a coherent system
that tracks violent criminals on probation or parole — instead
choosing to track law-abiding, licensed duck hunters, farmers and
recreational sport shooters.)
A third claim is that long guns are the weapon of choice in domestic
homicides, and that registration can help to identify the perpetrator.
(This is related to the aforementioned claim that guns promote
violence against women.) In fact, the long-gun registry and licensing
are rarely needed by police to solve spousal homicides for three
reasons: (1) in almost all cases, spousal murderers are immediately
identified; (2) firearms are not often used to kill female spouses;
and (3) the firearms used by abusive spouses to kill their wives are
almost all possessed illegally. Statistics Canada data show that just
4% of long guns involved in homicides were registered.
In a typical year, there are almost 600 homicides and 60 female
spousal murders in Canada. On average, long guns are involved in the
deaths of just 11 female spouses. It is knives, not long guns, that
are the weapons used most often to kill women. Statistics Canada found
that most spouses (65%) accused of homicide had a history of violence
involving the victim. None of these spouses could legally own a
firearm.
Every home has a variety of objects, such as hammers or kitchen
knives, that can be used for assault or murder. Creating expensive
bureaucracies to register one or more of these items does nothing to
protect vulnerable women.
A fourth assertion is that the long-gun registry is an important tool
for the police because they use it 14,000 to 17,000 times daily.
Besides mistaking frequency of use with usefulness, this claim is
disingenuous because it confuses the long-gun registry with the
Canadian Firearms Registry Online (CFRO). Almost 98% of the queries to
the CFRO concern licensing, not the long-gun registry. The firearms
registry contains only gun-specific data, such as the make or model.
The statistics show that police recover registered long guns in just
1% of homicides. During the eight years from 2003 to 2010, there were
4,811 homicides; 1,485 of those involved firearms; only 45 featured
long guns registered to the accused. In none of these few cases have
the police been able to say that the long-gun registry provided the
identity of the murderer.
A fifth contention is that the registry tells the police who has
firearms. This is false. Neither licensing nor the long-gun registry
contains information about unregistered firearms. The most dangerous
criminals have not registered their firearms. Trusting the registry
can get police officers killed. When police approach a dangerous
person or situation, they must assume there could be an illegal
weapon. For this reason, experienced police officers have testified
that they do not find the registry helpful.
A sixth claim is that the data in the long-gun registry are too
valuable to be destroyed. Unfortunately, the many errors and omissions
in the registry vitiate its utility. The RCMP testified to the auditor-
general that they could not rely on it in court. Recent information
shows that many errors remain despite the best efforts of the Canadian
Firearms Program. Immense problems similarly have been reported
concerning the accuracy of the South African firearms registry and the
now-abandoned New Zealand long-gun registry.
The RCMP has reported error rates between 43% and 90% in firearms
applications and registry information. An Access to Information
request discovered that 4,438 stolen firearms had been successfully
reregistered without alerting authorities. Apparently, the thieves had
resold the firearms to new owners who (unsuspectingly) had
subsequently registered them. This is a classic database problem:
garbage in, gospel out. The irregularities stem from multiple causes
inherent in any registration system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence shows that the long-gun registry has not been effective
in reducing criminal violence. Nor is the Canadian experience unique.
No international study of firearm laws by criminologists or economists
has found support for the claim that restricting access to firearms by
civilians reduces criminal violence. And so ending the long gun
registry is consistent with the basic principles of good fiscal
management. Arguably any government program that fails to achieve its
objectives should be shut down.
In abolishing the long-gun registry, the Harper government was acting
in accordance with the available evidence. It is the government’s
opponents, whose ideological belief in the unproven efficacy of gun
control blinds them to fact, who are out of step with the available
evidence.
-30-
Gary A. Mauser is a professor emeritus at the Beedie School of
Business and the Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies at
Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, B.C. A longer version of this
article appears in the current issue of The Dorchester Review
magazine.
--
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/11/gary-mauser-why-the-long-gun-registry-doesnt-work-and-never-did/
Just even more proof that gun control is both selectively
discriminatory _and_ has racist roots!
So, Petey: are you bone ignorant; or merely a gun controller troll?
>
>
>"SaPeIsMa" wrote in message
> news:kc7lrn$n57$4...@dont-email.me...
>
>>"peter skelton" <skelto...@yahoo.ca>wrote in message
>> news:kc7kna$gjh$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>>>"JohnJohnsn" wrote in message
>>> news:c5666546-c9de-4122...@b11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>> On Jan 4, 3:37 pm, "Jeffrey Hamilton"
>>>> <bberesf...@cogeco.ca>wrote:
>
>>>>> The majority of American males are NOT lunatics, but to give the potential
>>>>> for further mass murder to some mindless, gun worshiping NRA addicts,
>>>>> could result in the further deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent
>>>>> Americans, "is just too much of a risk" !
>
>>>>"Why is it that every time a lunatic uses a firearm to commit an
>>>> atrocity the gun-control fanatics want to punish the millions of gun
>>>> owners that DIDN'T do it?!?!?
>>> --Me, Dec. 18, 2012
>
>>>> BTW, Jeffrey; wanna tell us just how well that gun registration
>
>>>"JohnJohnsn" wrote in message
>>> news:c5666546-c9de-4122...@b11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>> On Jan 4, 3:37 pm, "Jeffrey Hamilton"
>>>> <bberesf...@cogeco.ca>wrote:
>
>>>>> The majority of American males are NOT lunatics, but to give the potential
>>>>> for further mass murder to some mindless, gun worshiping NRA addicts,
>>>>> could result in the further deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent
>>>>> Americans, "is just too much of a risk" !
>
>>>>"Why is it that every time a lunatic uses a firearm to commit an
>>>> atrocity the gun-control fanatics want to punish the millions of gun
>>>> owners that DIDN'T do it?!?!?
>>> --Me, Dec. 18, 2012
>
>>>> program up there in Canuckistan worked out for ya? :)
>>
>>>> Oh; that's right: it DIDN'T!!!
>
>>> <s>
>
>>> That, of course, is a flat lie. We have our paranoid
>>> "there's a conspiracy to take our guns" twits too. The
>>> registry cost far too much, but it became, very quickly,
>>> a useful tool for the police. They, and the majority of the
>>> population, supported the registry.
>>
>> They supported a dishonest sales pitch thrown at them
>>
>>>> Oh; that's right: it DIDN'T!!!
>
>>> <s>
>
>>> That, of course, is a flat lie. We have our paranoid
>>> "there's a conspiracy to take our guns" twits too. The
>>> registry cost far too much, but it became, very quickly,
>>> a useful tool for the police. They, and the majority of the
>>> population, supported the registry.
>>
>> at a time they were vulnerable.
>
> You seem rather ignorant of the facts.
>
The "facts" seem to show you to either be: 1) bone ignorant; or 2) a
gun control quisling/troll:
Why the long-gun registry doesn’t work — and never did
Dec 11, 2012
In March, Stephen Harper’s government reversed decades of increasing
restrictions on civilian firearms, scrapping the controversial long-
gun registry on grounds that it was wasteful and ineffective. Gun
laws, the prime minister correctly said, should focus on criminals
rather than law-abiding citizens such as farmers and hunters.
Some claim that this Conservative policy flies in the face of a
mountain of evidence, and even represents an assault against reason.
Canadian voters seem divided on this issue, as well as some basic
related questions: Are firearms in the hands of ordinary citizens a
serious threat to public safety? Is registration an effective approach
to controlling misuse? How useful was the long-gun registry to police?
This article will answer some of those questions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gun laws generally tend to be passed during periods of fear or
instability, and only occasionally reversed afterwards. In 1913, for
instance, a fear of immigrants prompted Ottawa’s first serious handgun
legislation, requiring civilians to obtain a police-issued permit to
acquire or carry handguns. Non-British immigrants found it difficult
to get a permit.
Fearing labour unrest as well as American rum-runners, Ottawa mandated
handgun registration in 1934. In 1941, concerned about possible
Japanese sabotage, the government prohibited all
“Orientals” (including Chinese) from owning firearms. (After the war,
these restrictions were rescinded.) Terrorism in Quebec swayed opinion
in the 1960s and ’70s, spurring Ottawa to limit handgun permits for
“protection” to a handful of people, such as retired police and
prospectors. In 1977, a Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC) was
required to obtain ordinary rifles and shotguns. (The police decided
to refuse an FAC to anyone who indicated a desire for self-protection.
This is shocking given that in a typical year, tens of thousands of
Canadians use firearms to protect themselves or their families, mostly
from wildlife.)
The 1989 École Polytechnique massacre in Montreal prompted the
Mulroney government to introduce Bill C-17 in 1991, prohibiting a
large number of military-style rifles and shotguns. FAC applicants
were now required to provide a photograph and references, and to
submit to police screening. (Typically, vetting involves telephone
checks with neighbours and spouses or ex-spouses.)
In 1993, the Liberals brought in additional changes to gun laws,
passing Bill C-68 in 1995 (the Firearms Act). Over half of all
registered handguns in Canada were prohibited. No evidence was
provided that these handguns had been misused.
The heart of the Firearms Act to this day is licensing: Owning a
firearm, an ordinary rifle or shotgun became a criminal offence for
those who do not hold a valid licence. In addition, the 1995 law
broadened police powers of search and seizure, and expanded the types
of officials who could make use of such powers, and weakened
constitutionally-protected rights against self-incrimination. To
coincide with the “National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence
against Women,” the Firearms Act became law on Dec. 5, 1995. However,
it took until 1998 to issue licences and require buyers to register
long guns. In 2001, all gun owners were required to have a licence
and, by 2003, to register all of their rifles and shotguns.
Not everyone complied. An estimated 65% of firearms owners registered
at least one rifle or shotgun, and no more than half of all long guns
ended up in the registry. Opposition was intense and has never abated.
Grassroots anger helped to fuel the rise of the Reform Party, and
contributed to the elimination of the Liberals as a political force in
the West. Despite their mutual antagonism, three opposition parties
(Reform, Progressive Conservative and New Democrat) united against the
legislation. Only the Bloc Québécois voted with the Liberals.
In 2002, the auditor-general revealed that the Firearms Centre had
ended up in the registry. Opposition was intense and has never abated.
Grassroots anger helped to fuel the rise of the Reform Party, and
contributed to the elimination of the Liberals as a political force in
the West. Despite their mutual antagonism, three opposition parties
(Reform, Progressive Conservative and New Democrat) united against the
legislation. Only the Bloc Québécois voted with the Liberals.
grown out of control. Despite political promises that the program
would not cost over $2-million, costs were expected to exceed $1-
billion by 2005. By 2012, this had ballooned to $2.7-billion. The
auditor-general uncovered irregularities including mismanagement and
corruption. Her findings stimulated a parliamentary revolt. In 2003,
Parliament imposed an annual spending cap. The auditors’ reports led
to RCMP investigations of Liberal insiders and contributed to the fall
of the Liberal government in 2006.
To this day, it has been claimed that the registry is important in
protecting women. But in fact, there is no convincing evidence that
registering firearms has been effective in reducing either homicide
rates overall, or spousal murders in particular. Even though homicide
rates have been gradually falling since the 1970s, a wide variety of
researchers have been unable to find solid evidence linking gun laws
to this decline. Changing demographics, not firearms laws, better
explain the decline in homicides involving long guns over the past 20
years. It is difficult to argue that Canadian gun laws are effective
when homicide rates have dropped faster in the United States than in
Canada since 1991.
Another argument is that strict laws are required to monitor
potentially dangerous gun owners. However, in my Senate testimony, I
presented Statistics Canada data to show that anyone who has legally
obtained a gun is less likely to be murderous than other Canadians.
This should not surprise anyone: Firearms owners have been screened
for criminal acts since 1979; and since 1992, they have been stripped
of their firearms in cases where they commit a violent crime.
(Ironically, Canada does not currently have in place a coherent system
that tracks violent criminals on probation or parole — instead
choosing to track law-abiding, licensed duck hunters, farmers and
recreational sport shooters.)
A third claim is that long guns are the weapon of choice in domestic
homicides, and that registration can help to identify the perpetrator.
(This is related to the aforementioned claim that guns promote
violence against women.) In fact, the long-gun registry and licensing
are rarely needed by police to solve spousal homicides for three
reasons: (1) in almost all cases, spousal murderers are immediately
identified; (2) firearms are not often used to kill female spouses;
and (3) the firearms used by abusive spouses to kill their wives are
almost all possessed illegally. Statistics Canada data show that just
4% of long guns involved in homicides were registered.
In a typical year, there are almost 600 homicides and 60 female
spousal murders in Canada. On average, long guns are involved in the
deaths of just 11 female spouses. It is knives, not long guns, that
are the weapons used most often to kill women. Statistics Canada found
that most spouses (65%) accused of homicide had a history of violence
involving the victim. None of these spouses could legally own a
firearm.
Every home has a variety of objects, such as hammers or kitchen
knives, that can be used for assault or murder. Creating expensive
bureaucracies to register one or more of these items does nothing to
protect vulnerable women.
A fourth assertion is that the long-gun registry is an important tool
for the police because they use it 14,000 to 17,000 times daily.
Besides mistaking frequency of use with usefulness, this claim is
disingenuous because it confuses the long-gun registry with the
Canadian Firearms Registry Online (CFRO). Almost 98% of the queries to
the CFRO concern licensing, not the long-gun registry. The firearms
registry contains only gun-specific data, such as the make or model.
The statistics show that police recover registered long guns in just
1% of homicides. During the eight years from 2003 to 2010, there were
4,811 homicides; 1,485 of those involved firearms; only 45 featured
long guns registered to the accused. In none of these few cases have
the police been able to say that the long-gun registry provided the
identity of the murderer.
A fifth contention is that the registry tells the police who has
firearms. This is false. Neither licensing nor the long-gun registry
contains information about unregistered firearms. The most dangerous
criminals have not registered their firearms. Trusting the registry
can get police officers killed. When police approach a dangerous
person or situation, they must assume there could be an illegal
weapon. For this reason, experienced police officers have testified
that they do not find the registry helpful.
A sixth claim is that the data in the long-gun registry are too
valuable to be destroyed. Unfortunately, the many errors and omissions
in the registry vitiate its utility. The RCMP testified to the auditor-
general that they could not rely on it in court. Recent information
shows that many errors remain despite the best efforts of the Canadian
Firearms Program. Immense problems similarly have been reported
concerning the accuracy of the South African firearms registry and the
now-abandoned New Zealand long-gun registry.
The RCMP has reported error rates between 43% and 90% in firearms
applications and registry information. An Access to Information
request discovered that 4,438 stolen firearms had been successfully
reregistered without alerting authorities. Apparently, the thieves had
resold the firearms to new owners who (unsuspectingly) had
subsequently registered them. This is a classic database problem:
garbage in, gospel out. The irregularities stem from multiple causes
inherent in any registration system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence shows that the long-gun registry has not been effective
in reducing criminal violence. Nor is the Canadian experience unique.
No international study of firearm laws by criminologists or economists
has found support for the claim that restricting access to firearms by
civilians reduces criminal violence. And so ending the long gun
registry is consistent with the basic principles of good fiscal
management. Arguably any government program that fails to achieve its
objectives should be shut down.
In abolishing the long-gun registry, the Harper government was acting
in accordance with the available evidence. It is the government’s
opponents, whose ideological belief in the unproven efficacy of gun
control blinds them to fact, who are out of step with the available
evidence.
-30-
Gary A. Mauser is a professor emeritus at the Beedie School of
Business and the Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies at
Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, B.C. A longer version of this
article appears in the current issue of The Dorchester Review
magazine.
--
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/11/gary-mauser-why-the-long-gun-registry-doesnt-work-and-never-did/
Just even more proof that gun control is both selectively
discriminatory _and_ has racist roots!
So, Petey: are you bone ignorant; or merely a gun controller troll?
a425couple
Jan 5, 2013, 1:47:28 PM1/5/13
to
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message...
> "a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...
Well, some say "The meek shall inherit the earth!"
And others respond - "Yeah, often 6' of it!"
And similar can be said of those who think, and rethink, & ponder,
whilst others make a decision.
I posted the above (value at $4.20), waited 3 hours,
nobody had taken that bargan, Now - I took it!
>> But,,,,, now I'm not automaticly going to say that a book over 20 years
>> old is useless, but have not the laws in Australia & Canada changed?
>> I really do not wish to read, & put ideas into my head, that are NOW
>> wrong & incorrect!
>> By the way, does someone wish to tell me, what final conclusion for the
>> USA, Kopel suggests?
>
> I borrowed the book from my local library to read
> If your local one does not have it, they may be able to borrow it from
> another..
> I have easy access to 4 different networks in my state
> Among them, I have access to just about any book I want to read
Yes, I'm a great fan of our libraries,
(actually, I spent 10 years as a library board member
and we succeeded in getting a new one built!)
But, for a book like this, I'd definitely be prone to underlining,
highlighting, dog-earing, and page folding!
And then, after that much effort expended on it, I'll
want to keep it forever!
(Something akin to "They will have to pry my books
away from my cold dead fingers" -
Hmm, I will not predict what my wife will do then, to
get rid of all my collections. ? Her problem, not mine!)
I've been quite lucky in life, and after a lifetime of very
frugal living, I'm now more accepting it, when my wife tells
me, it is just fine to spend $4.20 on a book for myself.
Thank you "SaPeIsMa" for suggesting this book.
a425couple
Jan 5, 2013, 1:52:52 PM1/5/13
to
"Andrew Chaplin" <ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote in...
> "a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in
Yes, Thank you.
After I posted, I went ahead and read some portions of
the book itself on some previews, then some other reviews,
and then I was reading that one.
A couple (perhaps haphazard, perhaps reasonable?) excerpts:
"Kopel stresses that Americans would find repugnant some of the social
controls found in his cohort group. He points out that the relatively
crime-free, but authoritarian, Swiss were considering whether women
should vote while Americans were debating the Equal Rights Amendment.
Although he seems to criticize the breakdown in social controls that
occurred in this country in the 1960s, he does not suggest that controlling
crime requires a return to an American past where the liberty of only some
of us was valued. Indeed, he casts the dissipation of social controls and
corresponding escalation in violence as an almost inevitable result of
American culture. For Kopel, our violence is an outgrowth of America's
greatest strengths and virtues¾ its openness, its ethos of equality, and its
heterogeneity ¾ as well as its greatest vices, "
"While the drastically different cultural landscape permits the conclusion
that the "Jamaican failure" is as inappropriate to project for the United
States as the "Japanese success," the Jamaican experience at least calls
into question the claim that we would be better off even if we only get
guns away from nonpredatory citizens. "
"The slippery slope from regulation, to registration, to confiscation,
which often is viewed as gun lobby paranoia, comes to life in the British
example. Kopel describes the almost comical slide from vast restrictions
on handgun ownership, to knife bans, chemical defense spray (mace) bans,
and bans on "devil dogs" (Rottweiler, etc.) to which people had shifted out
of security concerns. Although this slide was spurred mainly by the idea
that
self-defense is not a legitimate interest ¾ an idea that is currently only a
mild
and even aberrant strain in the American gun debate¾ it demonstrates the
potential for reaching extreme restrictions, one "sensible step" at a time.
"
"Kopel suggests that the gun restrictions in the cohort group are part
of a broader societal balance between order and liberty. ---
he shows that countries which have adopted stringent gun-control
measures have made other significant and broader decisions to favor
order over liberty. He describes search and seizure tactics used and
apparently necessary to enforce gun restrictions against much smaller
populations of gun owners¾ tactics that would make civil libertarians
in this country shudder in dismay. While Kopel does not contend that
severe gun control necessarily leads to the panoply of speech, privacy,
electoral, and associational infringements that have accompanied it in
other countries, he does suggest that so far they all seem to have been
consistent stable mates. This trend may be more than a coincidence;
Kopel describes the conviction among certain American gun-control
advocates that we cannot control guns effectively unless we scrap
the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule and the requirement of
probable cause. He provokes the conclusion that when we "progress"
to the point that individual firearms can be taken effectively, we will
have lost much more than we have gained. "
> "a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in
After I posted, I went ahead and read some portions of
the book itself on some previews, then some other reviews,
and then I was reading that one.
A couple (perhaps haphazard, perhaps reasonable?) excerpts:
"Kopel stresses that Americans would find repugnant some of the social
controls found in his cohort group. He points out that the relatively
crime-free, but authoritarian, Swiss were considering whether women
should vote while Americans were debating the Equal Rights Amendment.
Although he seems to criticize the breakdown in social controls that
occurred in this country in the 1960s, he does not suggest that controlling
crime requires a return to an American past where the liberty of only some
of us was valued. Indeed, he casts the dissipation of social controls and
corresponding escalation in violence as an almost inevitable result of
American culture. For Kopel, our violence is an outgrowth of America's
greatest strengths and virtues¾ its openness, its ethos of equality, and its
heterogeneity ¾ as well as its greatest vices, "
"While the drastically different cultural landscape permits the conclusion
that the "Jamaican failure" is as inappropriate to project for the United
States as the "Japanese success," the Jamaican experience at least calls
into question the claim that we would be better off even if we only get
guns away from nonpredatory citizens. "
"The slippery slope from regulation, to registration, to confiscation,
which often is viewed as gun lobby paranoia, comes to life in the British
example. Kopel describes the almost comical slide from vast restrictions
on handgun ownership, to knife bans, chemical defense spray (mace) bans,
and bans on "devil dogs" (Rottweiler, etc.) to which people had shifted out
of security concerns. Although this slide was spurred mainly by the idea
that
self-defense is not a legitimate interest ¾ an idea that is currently only a
mild
and even aberrant strain in the American gun debate¾ it demonstrates the
potential for reaching extreme restrictions, one "sensible step" at a time.
"
"Kopel suggests that the gun restrictions in the cohort group are part
of a broader societal balance between order and liberty. ---
he shows that countries which have adopted stringent gun-control
measures have made other significant and broader decisions to favor
order over liberty. He describes search and seizure tactics used and
apparently necessary to enforce gun restrictions against much smaller
populations of gun owners¾ tactics that would make civil libertarians
in this country shudder in dismay. While Kopel does not contend that
severe gun control necessarily leads to the panoply of speech, privacy,
electoral, and associational infringements that have accompanied it in
other countries, he does suggest that so far they all seem to have been
consistent stable mates. This trend may be more than a coincidence;
Kopel describes the conviction among certain American gun-control
advocates that we cannot control guns effectively unless we scrap
the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule and the requirement of
probable cause. He provokes the conclusion that when we "progress"
to the point that individual firearms can be taken effectively, we will
have lost much more than we have gained. "
peter skelton
Jan 5, 2013, 2:44:04 PM1/5/13
to
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
news:kc9oba$5o7$1...@dont-email.me...
collection, traffic controls, that sort of thing. It's a
major function of anybody's government - the special feature
of yours (and many others) is that the people control it,
and the constitution limits it. If you don't understand
that, you have a serious problem.
peter skelton
Jan 5, 2013, 2:50:28 PM1/5/13
to
"SaPeIsMa" wrote in message
news:kc9p20$acl$2...@dont-email.me...
Please stop lying about Canadian's rights. If you don't
understand our system, then you're not lying, but you are
stupid
news:kc9p20$acl$2...@dont-email.me...
understand our system, then you're not lying, but you are
stupid
peter skelton
Jan 5, 2013, 2:54:34 PM1/5/13
to
"SaPeIsMa" wrote in message
news:kc9pdh$cv8$2...@dont-email.me...
What part of, I am going to stop now was too difficult for
you to understand. Last time we crossed swords, you
established beyond any shadow of doubt that you are very
stupid, very dishonest and very loud.
Go away.
news:kc9pdh$cv8$2...@dont-email.me...
you to understand. Last time we crossed swords, you
established beyond any shadow of doubt that you are very
stupid, very dishonest and very loud.
Go away.
peter skelton
Jan 5, 2013, 2:57:22 PM1/5/13
to
"Scout" wrote in message news:kc9lmu$jra$1...@dont-email.me...
OFCS, we've been through this before. Look up our last
conversation. What are you, a slow learner?
>>Then show us that the time saved justified the costs by
>>showing a comparison
> with the value of the man-hours you claim were saved.
>
> The set-up costs aren't justified. (ISTR we argued this
> through before). Your position is that of a person who
> pays too much for a house and solves his problem by
> burning it down, forgetting to take out insurance first.
>So it wasn't cost effective.
>Thanks for that admission.
Agreeing with an obvious truth in an area not under dispute
is not an admission.
conversation. What are you, a slow learner?
>>Then show us that the time saved justified the costs by
>>showing a comparison
> with the value of the man-hours you claim were saved.
>
> The set-up costs aren't justified. (ISTR we argued this
> through before). Your position is that of a person who
> pays too much for a house and solves his problem by
> burning it down, forgetting to take out insurance first.
>So it wasn't cost effective.
>Thanks for that admission.
is not an admission.
peter skelton
Jan 5, 2013, 3:03:27 PM1/5/13
to
"JohnJohnsn" wrote in message
news:f39cf6fc-6316-4a81...@v7g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
Starting with an insult.
>“It does nothing to help put an end to gun crimes, nor has
>it saved
one Canadian life.”
--Ibid.
Ibid is a reference to a previous reference, which turns out
to be something you said before.
>And as to your claim "the majority of the [Canadian]
>population,
supported the registry":
Angus Reid put the support for abolishment at 44%.
news:f39cf6fc-6316-4a81...@v7g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
>“It does nothing to help put an end to gun crimes, nor has
>it saved
one Canadian life.”
--Ibid.
to be something you said before.
>And as to your claim "the majority of the [Canadian]
>population,
supported the registry":
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Jan 5, 2013, 3:50:25 PM1/5/13
to
JohnJohnsn wrote:
>
> Of course, being the typical Looney Liberals, the Democrat Party here
> in the U.S. demonstrate their continuing insanity over "The Great
> Unwashed" owning firearms and have once again begun pushing even more
> ineffective gun control laws,
Son, disallowing guns in bars is *extremely* effective. Hot-headed
>
> Of course, being the typical Looney Liberals, the Democrat Party here
> in the U.S. demonstrate their continuing insanity over "The Great
> Unwashed" owning firearms and have once again begun pushing even more
> ineffective gun control laws,
drunken fistfights may occur nightly (very few deaths), but no
drunken gunfights (with high probable deaths, including bystanders).
Gun goofballs...we argue nonsense "statistics" with them...massacres continue...
;-)
Jim Wilkins
Jan 5, 2013, 3:57:46 PM1/5/13
to
"peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:kc9vqa$mm0$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> There have to be controls, sanctions against crime, tax collection,
> traffic controls, that sort of thing. It's a major function of
> anybody's government - the special feature of yours (and many
> others) is that the people control it, and the constitution limits
> it. If you don't understand that, you have a serious problem.
>
I live in one of those New Hampshire towns where we all meet yearly to
> There have to be controls, sanctions against crime, tax collection,
> traffic controls, that sort of thing. It's a major function of
> anybody's government - the special feature of yours (and many
> others) is that the people control it, and the constitution limits
> it. If you don't understand that, you have a serious problem.
>
debate and vote on the town and school budgets and such other issues
as arise, or are petitioned. The few hundred of us who choose to
participate in person ARE the government and become well practiced in
its mechanics, such as Robert's Rules of Order and the proper and
effective way to present, debate and vote on amendments.
The press naturally seeks small items of controversy to build into a
story. I've chatted with them and believe the high but boring level of
democracy and civilization we demonstrate goes right over their heads.
jsw
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jan 5, 2013, 4:15:35 PM1/5/13
to
>"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>
>> Of course, being the typical Looney Liberals, the Democrat Party here
>> in the U.S. demonstrate their continuing insanity over "The Great
>> Unwashed" owning firearms and have once again begun pushing even more
>> ineffective gun control laws,
>
>Son, disallowing guns in bars is *extremely* effective. Hot-headed
>drunken fistfights may occur nightly (very few deaths), but no
>drunken gunfights (with high probable deaths, including bystanders).
Really? There weren't any shootouts in bars?
Really?
>JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>
>> Of course, being the typical Looney Liberals, the Democrat Party here
>> in the U.S. demonstrate their continuing insanity over "The Great
>> Unwashed" owning firearms and have once again begun pushing even more
>> ineffective gun control laws,
>
>Son, disallowing guns in bars is *extremely* effective. Hot-headed
>drunken fistfights may occur nightly (very few deaths), but no
>drunken gunfights (with high probable deaths, including bystanders).
Really?
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Jan 5, 2013, 4:32:55 PM1/5/13
to
We argue nonsense "statistics" with gun goofballs...massacres continue...
;-)
a425couple
Jan 5, 2013, 4:37:16 PM1/5/13
to
"JohnJohnsn" <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message...
->> "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bberesf...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
-> The majority of American males are NOT lunatics, but to ---
>"Why is it that every time a lunatic uses a firearm ---
Interesting, how the thread got split up.
John, do you care to say, why you deleted the newsgroup
alt.war.vietnam?
->> "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bberesf...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
-> The majority of American males are NOT lunatics, but to ---
>"Why is it that every time a lunatic uses a firearm ---
Interesting, how the thread got split up.
John, do you care to say, why you deleted the newsgroup
alt.war.vietnam?
Scout
Jan 5, 2013, 4:45:50 PM1/5/13
to
news:kca0j8$rsb$1...@dont-email.me...
Fine, we all fully agree that the gun registration scheme of Canada has
never produced any results that justified it's costs.
So much for your claim it as "very successful".
never produced any results that justified it's costs.
So much for your claim it as "very successful".
Scout
Jan 5, 2013, 4:47:48 PM1/5/13
to
"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
news:T-WdnfEzh6uZD3XN...@supernews.com...
document for me the last time there was a drunken shooting in a Virginia bar
by a person that was legally carrying there.
---> insert your cite here.
Ok, fraud the ball's in your court.....
SaPeIsMa
Jan 5, 2013, 4:45:19 PM1/5/13
to
news:kca06a$p8a$1...@dont-email.me...
1) I'm a Canadian citizen,
2) I spent more the first 40 years of my life living in Canada.
3) Unlike you I did spend some time reading the Trudeau Constitution
Have you even read it once ?
4) So yeah, I understand your system quite well.
Funny, how when the ignorant are caught with their pants down, then the
person who shined the bright light on them is "ignorant and a liar"
2) I spent more the first 40 years of my life living in Canada.
3) Unlike you I did spend some time reading the Trudeau Constitution
Have you even read it once ?
4) So yeah, I understand your system quite well.
Funny, how when the ignorant are caught with their pants down, then the
person who shined the bright light on them is "ignorant and a liar"
SaPeIsMa
Jan 5, 2013, 4:48:28 PM1/5/13
to
news:kca0e0$qt6$1...@dont-email.me...
# Then you should have NO PROBLEMS providing the DATA to
# support that claim,
# instead of making an appeal to authority.
#
<crickets.wav>
skelton skedaddled under a rock
>
>
>>>There was NOT ONE crime that was solved, or facilitated, not to mention
>> prevented by the LGR
>>
# Your first claim is partly true, the second a blatant lie,
# the third not provable
#
skelton skedaddled under a rock
>
>>> Setting purposes other than that envisaged is bloody stupid.
>>
>>>And yet that was NOT how the LGR was sold...
>>
>> That, of course presumes the LGR was 'sold', which is not the truth. Like
>> its removal, it was the action of a majority government which published a
>> decision, You are preposterously off the facts, I am going to stop now.
>>
>
>>DO that
>>Since you can NOT support ANY of your bullshit with DATA !
>
# What part of, I am going to stop now was too difficult for
# you to understand. Last time we crossed swords, you
# established beyond any shadow of doubt that you are very
# stupid, very dishonest and very loud.
#
<crickets.wav>
skelton skedaddled under a rock
#
# Go away.
#
Keep hoping
That's your only hope of avoiding getting bitch-slapped around every time
you spout more of your ignorant cant...
# support that claim,
# instead of making an appeal to authority.
#
<crickets.wav>
skelton skedaddled under a rock
>
>
>>>There was NOT ONE crime that was solved, or facilitated, not to mention
>> prevented by the LGR
>>
# the third not provable
#
>
> Then you should have NO PROBLEMS providing the DATA..
>
<crickets.wav>
> Then you should have NO PROBLEMS providing the DATA..
>
skelton skedaddled under a rock
>
>>> Setting purposes other than that envisaged is bloody stupid.
>>
>>>And yet that was NOT how the LGR was sold...
>>
>> That, of course presumes the LGR was 'sold', which is not the truth. Like
>> its removal, it was the action of a majority government which published a
>> decision, You are preposterously off the facts, I am going to stop now.
>>
>
>>DO that
>>Since you can NOT support ANY of your bullshit with DATA !
>
# you to understand. Last time we crossed swords, you
# established beyond any shadow of doubt that you are very
# stupid, very dishonest and very loud.
#
<crickets.wav>
skelton skedaddled under a rock
#
# Go away.
#
Keep hoping
That's your only hope of avoiding getting bitch-slapped around every time
you spout more of your ignorant cant...
SaPeIsMa
Jan 5, 2013, 4:50:46 PM1/5/13
to
news:kca0j8$rsb$1...@dont-email.me...
That's right
And just like previous times, you're unable to provide the PROOF of your
bullshit
>>>Then show us that the time saved justified the costs by showing a
>>>comparison
>> with the value of the man-hours you claim were saved.
>>
>> The set-up costs aren't justified. (ISTR we argued this through before).
>> Your position is that of a person who pays too much for a house and
>> solves his problem by burning it down, forgetting to take out insurance
>> first.
>
>>So it wasn't cost effective.
>> Thanks for that admission.
>
> Agreeing with an obvious truth in an area not under dispute is not an
> admission.
>
But then you go on to lit that it actually did offer some results
Can't have it both ways, dummy
And we KNOW, it did NOTHING positive
Toews is on record for saying so
Meanwhile, there is NO record of Harper saying the opposite
And that means YOU are the liar...
And just like previous times, you're unable to provide the PROOF of your
bullshit
>>>Then show us that the time saved justified the costs by showing a
>>>comparison
>> with the value of the man-hours you claim were saved.
>>
>> The set-up costs aren't justified. (ISTR we argued this through before).
>> Your position is that of a person who pays too much for a house and
>> solves his problem by burning it down, forgetting to take out insurance
>> first.
>
>>So it wasn't cost effective.
>> Thanks for that admission.
>
> Agreeing with an obvious truth in an area not under dispute is not an
> admission.
>
Can't have it both ways, dummy
And we KNOW, it did NOTHING positive
Toews is on record for saying so
Meanwhile, there is NO record of Harper saying the opposite
And that means YOU are the liar...
SaPeIsMa
Jan 5, 2013, 4:53:38 PM1/5/13
to
news:kca0ul$uba$1...@dont-email.me...
Why not
He's less of a liar than you
He can back up his statement with DATA
You cannot
You winge and whine and call people names.
> Starting with an insult.
>
Well, considering that you are an insult to both intelligence and honest
discourse...
>>“It does nothing to help put an end to gun crimes, nor has it saved one
>>Canadian life.”> --Ibid.
>
> Ibid is a reference to a previous reference, which turns out to be
> something you said before.
>
It's a copied quote, dummy
But attempt to change the subject is noted
>>And as to your claim "the majority of the [Canadian] population, supported
>>the registry":
>
> Angus Reid put the support for abolishment at 44%.
>
And we can be sure that support for retention was NOT 56%
Caught lying again, skelton...
Now go crawl back under your rock, like a good little 'roach.
He's less of a liar than you
He can back up his statement with DATA
You cannot
You winge and whine and call people names.
> Starting with an insult.
>
Well, considering that you are an insult to both intelligence and honest
discourse...
>>“It does nothing to help put an end to gun crimes, nor has it saved one
>>Canadian life.”> --Ibid.
>
> Ibid is a reference to a previous reference, which turns out to be
> something you said before.
>
But attempt to change the subject is noted
>>And as to your claim "the majority of the [Canadian] population, supported
>>the registry":
>
> Angus Reid put the support for abolishment at 44%.
>
Caught lying again, skelton...
Now go crawl back under your rock, like a good little 'roach.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Jan 5, 2013, 5:09:04 PM1/5/13
to
Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
> news:T-WdnfEzh6uZD3XN...@supernews.com...
>
>> JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Of course, being the typical Looney Liberals, the Democrat Party here
>>> in the U.S. demonstrate their continuing insanity over "The Great
>>> Unwashed" owning firearms and have once again begun pushing even more
>>> ineffective gun control laws,
>>
>>
>> Son, disallowing guns in bars is *extremely* effective. Hot-headed
>> drunken fistfights may occur nightly (very few deaths), but no
>> drunken gunfights (with high probable deaths, including bystanders).
>>
>> Gun goofballs...we argue nonsense "statistics" with them...massacres
>> continue...
>> ;-)
>
>
> Odd, Virginia doesn't prohibit the open carry of guns in bars.
Virginia bar *owners*...private citizens...most certainly *do* prohibit.
>
>
> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
> news:T-WdnfEzh6uZD3XN...@supernews.com...
>
>> JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Of course, being the typical Looney Liberals, the Democrat Party here
>>> in the U.S. demonstrate their continuing insanity over "The Great
>>> Unwashed" owning firearms and have once again begun pushing even more
>>> ineffective gun control laws,
>>
>>
>> Son, disallowing guns in bars is *extremely* effective. Hot-headed
>> drunken fistfights may occur nightly (very few deaths), but no
>> drunken gunfights (with high probable deaths, including bystanders).
>>
>> Gun goofballs...we argue nonsense "statistics" with them...massacres
>> continue...
>> ;-)
>
>
> Odd, Virginia doesn't prohibit the open carry of guns in bars.
I'd bet that damn few, if any, bars where fistfights might occur also
allow open carry of sidearms. I say you are a liar for suggesting otherwise.
Gun goofballs...we argue nonsense "statistics" with them...massacres continue
Scout
Jan 5, 2013, 5:21:51 PM1/5/13
to
news:CqKdndvdA4PpOXXN...@supernews.com...
Do you have a cite to back up your assertion?
Somehow I doubt it.
>
> I'd bet that damn few, if any, bars where fistfights might occur also
> allow open carry of sidearms. I say you are a liar for suggesting
> otherwise.
Actually fist fights are often frowned upon in Virginia bars.
> Gun goofballs...we argue nonsense "statistics" with them...massacres
> continue
> ;-)
And yet you've not presented any case of a person carrying legally in a bar
causing a problem.
> Scout wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
>> news:T-WdnfEzh6uZD3XN...@supernews.com...
>>
>>> JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course, being the typical Looney Liberals, the Democrat Party here
>>>> in the U.S. demonstrate their continuing insanity over "The Great
>>>> Unwashed" owning firearms and have once again begun pushing even more
>>>> ineffective gun control laws,
>>>
>>>
>>> Son, disallowing guns in bars is *extremely* effective. Hot-headed
>>> drunken fistfights may occur nightly (very few deaths), but no
>>> drunken gunfights (with high probable deaths, including bystanders).
>>>
>>> Gun goofballs...we argue nonsense "statistics" with them...massacres
>>> continue...
>>> ;-)
>>
>>
>> Odd, Virginia doesn't prohibit the open carry of guns in bars.
>
> Virginia bar *owners*...private citizens...most certainly *do* prohibit.
Odd, I've not seen any signs posted.
>
>>
>>
>> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
>> news:T-WdnfEzh6uZD3XN...@supernews.com...
>>
>>> JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course, being the typical Looney Liberals, the Democrat Party here
>>>> in the U.S. demonstrate their continuing insanity over "The Great
>>>> Unwashed" owning firearms and have once again begun pushing even more
>>>> ineffective gun control laws,
>>>
>>>
>>> Son, disallowing guns in bars is *extremely* effective. Hot-headed
>>> drunken fistfights may occur nightly (very few deaths), but no
>>> drunken gunfights (with high probable deaths, including bystanders).
>>>
>>> Gun goofballs...we argue nonsense "statistics" with them...massacres
>>> continue...
>>> ;-)
>>
>>
>> Odd, Virginia doesn't prohibit the open carry of guns in bars.
>
> Virginia bar *owners*...private citizens...most certainly *do* prohibit.
Do you have a cite to back up your assertion?
Somehow I doubt it.
>
> I'd bet that damn few, if any, bars where fistfights might occur also
> allow open carry of sidearms. I say you are a liar for suggesting
> otherwise.
> Gun goofballs...we argue nonsense "statistics" with them...massacres
> continue
> ;-)
causing a problem.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Jan 5, 2013, 6:04:06 PM1/5/13
to
Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
> news:CqKdndvdA4PpOXXN...@supernews.com...
>
>> Scout wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:T-WdnfEzh6uZD3XN...@supernews.com...
>>>
>>>> JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, being the typical Looney Liberals, the Democrat Party here
>>>>> in the U.S. demonstrate their continuing insanity over "The Great
>>>>> Unwashed" owning firearms and have once again begun pushing even more
>>>>> ineffective gun control laws,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Son, disallowing guns in bars is *extremely* effective. Hot-headed
>>>> drunken fistfights may occur nightly (very few deaths), but no
>>>> drunken gunfights (with high probable deaths, including bystanders).
>>>>
>>>> Gun goofballs...we argue nonsense "statistics" with them...massacres
>>>> continue...
>>>> ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Odd, Virginia doesn't prohibit the open carry of guns in bars.
>>
>>
>> Virginia bar *owners*...private citizens...most certainly *do* prohibit.
>
>
> Odd, I've not seen any signs posted.
it's not just bars...private citizen business owners in *every* state
>
>
> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
> news:CqKdndvdA4PpOXXN...@supernews.com...
>
>> Scout wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:T-WdnfEzh6uZD3XN...@supernews.com...
>>>
>>>> JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, being the typical Looney Liberals, the Democrat Party here
>>>>> in the U.S. demonstrate their continuing insanity over "The Great
>>>>> Unwashed" owning firearms and have once again begun pushing even more
>>>>> ineffective gun control laws,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Son, disallowing guns in bars is *extremely* effective. Hot-headed
>>>> drunken fistfights may occur nightly (very few deaths), but no
>>>> drunken gunfights (with high probable deaths, including bystanders).
>>>>
>>>> Gun goofballs...we argue nonsense "statistics" with them...massacres
>>>> continue...
>>>> ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Odd, Virginia doesn't prohibit the open carry of guns in bars.
>>
>>
>> Virginia bar *owners*...private citizens...most certainly *do* prohibit.
>
>
> Odd, I've not seen any signs posted.
where open carry is legal don't want you gun goofballs with your sidearms.
i've never seen a sign "business welcome, bring your guns"
;-)
Andrew Swallow
Jan 5, 2013, 6:04:02 PM1/5/13
to
On 05/01/2013 14:43, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "dott.Piergiorgio" <chied...@ask.me> wrote in message
> news:NqWFs.21600$5b....@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
>>
>> seems to me a good compromise between national (constituitional)
>> security and security from people gone postal; in the (IMO rather
>> improbable) case of an actual invasion of CONUS, it's a simple
>> matter of ordering (or by initiative of COs) US depots to issue
>> combat magazines & ammo to civilians (aside that IMO, today's
>> militia are insurgents/guerrillas and the emphasis in a fighting
>> homeland defense doctrine should be about explosives & demolitions;
>> I hope to have glimpsed a faint reckoning of this in the large
>> number of NG units whose are engineers or combat engineers...)
>>
>> Best regards from Italy,
>> dott. Piergiorgio.
>>
>
> That assumes the government controls the people. Our Constitution was
> purposely structured to let the people control their government.
>
>
The State Governments controls the Militia.
> "dott.Piergiorgio" <chied...@ask.me> wrote in message
> news:NqWFs.21600$5b....@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
>>
>> seems to me a good compromise between national (constituitional)
>> security and security from people gone postal; in the (IMO rather
>> improbable) case of an actual invasion of CONUS, it's a simple
>> matter of ordering (or by initiative of COs) US depots to issue
>> combat magazines & ammo to civilians (aside that IMO, today's
>> militia are insurgents/guerrillas and the emphasis in a fighting
>> homeland defense doctrine should be about explosives & demolitions;
>> I hope to have glimpsed a faint reckoning of this in the large
>> number of NG units whose are engineers or combat engineers...)
>>
>> Best regards from Italy,
>> dott. Piergiorgio.
>>
>
> That assumes the government controls the people. Our Constitution was
> purposely structured to let the people control their government.
>
>
Andrew Swallow
peter skelton
Jan 5, 2013, 6:17:19 PM1/5/13
to
"SaPeIsMa" wrote in message
news:kca74p$664$2...@dont-email.me...
The 1982 Constitution Act is not the entire Canadian
Constitution. A great deal of it is still in the 1867 act,
more is scattered in bits and pieces through other
legislation (Canadian and British), and through Common Law
tradition.
news:kca74p$664$2...@dont-email.me...
Constitution. A great deal of it is still in the 1867 act,
more is scattered in bits and pieces through other
legislation (Canadian and British), and through Common Law
tradition.
peter skelton
Jan 5, 2013, 6:19:01 PM1/5/13
to
"Scout" wrote in message news:kca708$59e$1...@dont-email.me...
Which is poor excuse for destroying it once it was paid for.
>So much for your claim it as "very successful".
THat is so far from my claim that is very dishonest. Go on
back and read what I claimed, it's still there.
>So much for your claim it as "very successful".
back and read what I claimed, it's still there.
SaPeIsMa
Jan 5, 2013, 6:20:14 PM1/5/13
to
"Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:-pidnV4439X_LHXN...@bt.com...
Were you trying to make a point ?
JohnJohnsn
Jan 5, 2013, 6:27:09 PM1/5/13
to
On Jan 5, 4:21 pm, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon,net>wrote:
Oops! Internet Explorer could not find coldine.edu
Oops! Internet Explorer could not find www.coldine.edu
First sign that he's a troll.
Failure Notice
FROM MAILER...@yahoo.com
Sorry, we were unable to deliver your message to the following
address.
<dr...@coldine.edu>:
No MX or A records for coldine.edu
Proof he's a troll!
So; his Troll-o-Meter rating:
TROLL-O-METER
5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *stuporous
0* -*- *catatonic
* |\ *comatose
* \ *clinical death
* \ *biological death
* _\/ *demonic apparition
* * *damned for all eternity
Scout; "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D", a/k/a Fred J. McCoward, Jim Latuna,
Ian Ball, Jalinda Lemmen, Francine J. McCall, Kathrine Throm, Kunta
Kintá, James Kunce, Rev.
Publius Licinius Crassus Dives Mucianus, Po.M., KykciN, Di Kanallski,
John Kaufmann, William Inian, Linda Jones, Greg Inovich and even
"Robert McGiver, Gen. USN (ret)" (when did the U.S.Navy start havng
"Generals?!?!?), is nothing but yet another anonymous Looney Liberal
DemocRAT Gun-control troll; so:
_________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Do not feed the |
/ O O\__ | trolls. Thank you. |
/ \ | --Mgt. |
/ \ \ |________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
Oops! Internet Explorer could not find coldine.edu
Oops! Internet Explorer could not find www.coldine.edu
First sign that he's a troll.
Failure Notice
FROM MAILER...@yahoo.com
Sorry, we were unable to deliver your message to the following
address.
<dr...@coldine.edu>:
No MX or A records for coldine.edu
Proof he's a troll!
So; his Troll-o-Meter rating:
TROLL-O-METER
5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *stuporous
0* -*- *catatonic
* |\ *comatose
* \ *clinical death
* \ *biological death
* _\/ *demonic apparition
* * *damned for all eternity
Ian Ball, Jalinda Lemmen, Francine J. McCall, Kathrine Throm, Kunta
Kintá, James Kunce, Rev.
Publius Licinius Crassus Dives Mucianus, Po.M., KykciN, Di Kanallski,
John Kaufmann, William Inian, Linda Jones, Greg Inovich and even
"Robert McGiver, Gen. USN (ret)" (when did the U.S.Navy start havng
"Generals?!?!?), is nothing but yet another anonymous Looney Liberal
DemocRAT Gun-control troll; so:
_________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Do not feed the |
/ O O\__ | trolls. Thank you. |
/ \ | --Mgt. |
/ \ \ |________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
SaPeIsMa
Jan 5, 2013, 6:24:38 PM1/5/13
to
news:kcaca5$52p$1...@dont-email.me...
DOH !
redirection noted
Go find your rock, little 'roach
redirection noted
Go find your rock, little 'roach
SaPeIsMa
Jan 5, 2013, 6:27:09 PM1/5/13
to
news:kcacdb$5il$1...@dont-email.me...
What's the point of leeping something that:
1) is grossly incomplete ?
2) serves no useful purpose ?
3) has NO CHANCE of serving a useful purpose ?
Only an idiot would hang on to something useless that would cost more money
to keep
>>So much for your claim it was "very successful".
We know it did NOTHING of the sort.
1) is grossly incomplete ?
2) serves no useful purpose ?
3) has NO CHANCE of serving a useful purpose ?
Only an idiot would hang on to something useless that would cost more money
to keep
>>So much for your claim it was "very successful".
>
> THat is so far from my claim that is very dishonest. Go on back and read
> what I claimed, it's still there.
>
Sonny, YOU claimed that is has worked
> THat is so far from my claim that is very dishonest. Go on back and read
> what I claimed, it's still there.
>
We know it did NOTHING of the sort.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Jan 5, 2013, 6:54:23 PM1/5/13
to
> Publius Licinius Crassus Dives Mucianus, Po.M., KykciN, Di Kanallski,
> John Kaufmann, William Inian, Linda Jones, Greg Inovich and even
> "Robert McGiver, Gen. USN (ret)" (when did the U.S.Navy start havng
> "Generals?!?!?), is nothing but yet another anonymous Looney Liberal
> DemocRAT Gun-control troll; so:
>
> _________________
> /| /| | |
> ||__|| | Do not feed the |
> / O O\__ | trolls. Thank you. |
> / \ | --Mgt. |
> / \ \ |________________|
> / _ \ \ ||
> / |\____\ \ ||
> / | | | |\____/ ||
> / \|_|_|/ | _||
> / / \ |____| ||
> / | | | --|
> | | | |____ --|
> * _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
> *-- _--\ _ \ | ||
> / _ \\ | / `
> * / \_ /- | | |
> * ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
he he he...the last resort...he cannot refute my words so he
> John Kaufmann, William Inian, Linda Jones, Greg Inovich and even
> "Robert McGiver, Gen. USN (ret)" (when did the U.S.Navy start havng
> "Generals?!?!?), is nothing but yet another anonymous Looney Liberal
> DemocRAT Gun-control troll; so:
>
> _________________
> /| /| | |
> ||__|| | Do not feed the |
> / O O\__ | trolls. Thank you. |
> / \ | --Mgt. |
> / \ \ |________________|
> / _ \ \ ||
> / |\____\ \ ||
> / | | | |\____/ ||
> / \|_|_|/ | _||
> / / \ |____| ||
> / | | | --|
> | | | |____ --|
> * _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
> *-- _--\ _ \ | ||
> / _ \\ | / `
> * / \_ /- | | |
> * ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
furiously searches my name...looking for *anything* he can smear
this ph.d. has been around the block
;-)
Scout
Jan 5, 2013, 8:07:31 PM1/5/13
to
news:o9idnfNyQsnBLHXN...@supernews.com...
Sure, sure, but before we go there let's see you show that bars in Virginia
are regularly signed against carry.
Then if you can do that, perhaps we can see if you can show that private
businesses regularly are.
> i've never seen a sign "business welcome, bring your guns"
> ;-)
I have.
But unless there is a sign telling me I can't carry, then I can.
Still waiting on you to show me those signs you claim exist nearly
everywhere.
are regularly signed against carry.
Then if you can do that, perhaps we can see if you can show that private
businesses regularly are.
> i've never seen a sign "business welcome, bring your guns"
> ;-)
But unless there is a sign telling me I can't carry, then I can.
Still waiting on you to show me those signs you claim exist nearly
everywhere.
Scout
Jan 5, 2013, 8:08:45 PM1/5/13
to
news:kcacdb$5il$1...@dont-email.me...
It wasn't paid for....it cost massive amounts of money each year. So much so
that the legislature had to put a cap on expenditures in an attempt to keep
costs under control.
that the legislature had to put a cap on expenditures in an attempt to keep
costs under control.
Jeffrey Hamilton
Jan 5, 2013, 8:38:28 PM1/5/13
to
Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote in
>> talk.politics.guns :
>>>> talk.politics.guns :
>>>
>>>> Listen, I'm sure 99 percent of people with assault weapons
>>>> are good Americans. But to give that potential to a mass murderer
>>>> who would be able to out-arm the police, who, as we saw, could
>>>> carry out the worst devastation?"
>>>
>>> Which is why Dianne Feinstein should have her vagina sewn shut.
>>
>> I do believe Diane is way past her reproductive years
>
> Good God man, I didn't mean you should make her pregnant. She can be
> past her reproductive years and still take on the Seventh Fleet.
Good God little man, I don't believe you ever had any reproductive years.
>>> 99 percent of women are not prostitutes, but to give that potential
>>> to some disease-ridden whore who could infect thousands is just too
>>> much of a risk.
>>
>> The majority of American males are NOT lunatics [..]
>
> We're talking about the dangerous spread of STD's and if e can save
> ONE CHILD by sewing Feinstein's vagina shut, I say fire up the
> industrial sewing machine and let's get a nice zig zag stitch in
> there.
If you were really worried about the spread of STD's, you'd have vulcanized
your bunghole years ago.
cheers.....Jeff
>> "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote in
>> talk.politics.guns :
>>>> talk.politics.guns :
>>>
>>>> Listen, I'm sure 99 percent of people with assault weapons
>>>> are good Americans. But to give that potential to a mass murderer
>>>> who would be able to out-arm the police, who, as we saw, could
>>>> carry out the worst devastation?"
>>>
>>> Which is why Dianne Feinstein should have her vagina sewn shut.
>>
>> I do believe Diane is way past her reproductive years
>
> Good God man, I didn't mean you should make her pregnant. She can be
> past her reproductive years and still take on the Seventh Fleet.
Good God little man, I don't believe you ever had any reproductive years.
>>> 99 percent of women are not prostitutes, but to give that potential
>>> to some disease-ridden whore who could infect thousands is just too
>>> much of a risk.
>>
>> The majority of American males are NOT lunatics [..]
>
> We're talking about the dangerous spread of STD's and if e can save
> ONE CHILD by sewing Feinstein's vagina shut, I say fire up the
> industrial sewing machine and let's get a nice zig zag stitch in
> there.
If you were really worried about the spread of STD's, you'd have vulcanized
your bunghole years ago.
cheers.....Jeff
Jeffrey Hamilton
Jan 5, 2013, 8:42:06 PM1/5/13
to
SaPeIsMa wrote:
> "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> news:kc7ths$3hc$1...@dont-email.me...
>> it worked out....
>>
>> cheers....Jeff
>>
>
> Always funny to see the idiots fall back on correlation that has been
> debunked a long time ago..
>
> Read "The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy.."
>
> It will avoid you looking the next time you post crap.
I'll let you read the gun-bunny *_fiction_*, I prefer to deal with reality.
cheers....Jeff
> "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> news:kc7ths$3hc$1...@dont-email.me...
>> JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>> On Jan 4, 3:37 pm, "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bberesf...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The majority of American males are NOT lunatics, but to give the
>>>> potential for further mass murder to some mindless, gun worshiping
>>>> NRA addicts, could result in the further deaths of thousands upon
>>>> thousands of innocent Americans, "is just too much of a risk" !
>>>>
>>> "Why is it that every time a lunatic uses a firearm to commit an
>>> atrocity the gun-control fanatics want to punish the millions of gun
>>> owners that DIDN'T do it?!?!?
>>> --Me, Dec. 18, 2012
>>>
>>> BTW,,, Jeffrey; wanna tell us just how well that gun registration
>>> program up there in Canuckistan worked out for ya? :)
>>>
>>> Oh; that's right: it DIDN'T!!!
>>
>> Look at our body count, now look at yours....oops...that's how well
>>> On Jan 4, 3:37 pm, "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bberesf...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The majority of American males are NOT lunatics, but to give the
>>>> potential for further mass murder to some mindless, gun worshiping
>>>> NRA addicts, could result in the further deaths of thousands upon
>>>> thousands of innocent Americans, "is just too much of a risk" !
>>>>
>>> "Why is it that every time a lunatic uses a firearm to commit an
>>> atrocity the gun-control fanatics want to punish the millions of gun
>>> owners that DIDN'T do it?!?!?
>>> --Me, Dec. 18, 2012
>>>
>>> BTW,,, Jeffrey; wanna tell us just how well that gun registration
>>> program up there in Canuckistan worked out for ya? :)
>>>
>>> Oh; that's right: it DIDN'T!!!
>>
>> it worked out....
>>
>> cheers....Jeff
>>
>
> Always funny to see the idiots fall back on correlation that has been
> debunked a long time ago..
>
> Read "The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy.."
>
> It will avoid you looking the next time you post crap.
I'll let you read the gun-bunny *_fiction_*, I prefer to deal with reality.
cheers....Jeff
JohnJohnsn
Jan 5, 2013, 8:43:11 PM1/5/13
to
not just bars...private citizen business owners in *every* state where
open carry is legal don't want you gun goofballs with your sidearms."
No cite: just more unsupported assertion, "doctor."
open carry is legal don't want you gun goofballs with your sidearms."
Here in Texas a "bar" has to receive in excess of 50% of its income
revenue from the sale of alcoholic beverages before a CHL carrier is
prohibited from entry with their sidearm.
Of course, even where less than 50% is alcoholic beverage sales, the
CHL'er is still prohibited from becoming intoxicated.
There is a bill prefiled for this year's legislative session to define
"intoxication" for the purposes of a CHL:
(A) not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by
reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug,
a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or
any other substance into the body; or
(B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.
--HB 153, 83rd Legislative Session
<http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/doc/
HB00153I.doc>
>
>>>> I'd bet that damn few, if any, bars where fistfights might occur also
>>>> allow open carry of sidearms. I say you are a liar for suggesting
>>>> otherwise.
>
>>> Actually fist fights are often frowned upon in Virginia bars.
>
>>>> Gun goofballs...we argue nonsense "statistics" with them...massacres
>>>> continue
>>>> ;-)
>
>>> And yet you've not presented any case of a person carrying legally in a bar
>>> causing a problem.
>
>> Scout; "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D", a/k/a Fred J. McCoward, Jim Latuna,
>> Ian Ball, Jalinda Lemmen, Francine J. McCall, Kathrine Throm, Kunta
>> Kintá, James Kunce, Rev.
>>>> I'd bet that damn few, if any, bars where fistfights might occur also
>>>> allow open carry of sidearms. I say you are a liar for suggesting
>>>> otherwise.
>
>>> Actually fist fights are often frowned upon in Virginia bars.
>
>>>> Gun goofballs...we argue nonsense "statistics" with them...massacres
>>>> continue
>>>> ;-)
>
>>> And yet you've not presented any case of a person carrying legally in a bar
>>> causing a problem.
>
>> Scout; "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D", a/k/a Fred J. McCoward, Jim Latuna,
>> Ian Ball, Jalinda Lemmen, Francine J. McCall, Kathrine Throm, Kunta
>> Publius Licinius Crassus Dives Mucianus, Po.M., KykciN, Di Kanallski,
>> John Kaufmann, William Inian, Linda Jones, Greg Inovich and even
>> "Robert McGiver, Gen. USN (ret)" (when did the U.S.Navy start havng
>> "Generals?!?!?), is nothing but yet another anonymous Looney Liberal
>> DemocRAT Gun-control troll; so:
>
>> _________________
>> /| /| | |
>> ||__|| | Do not feed the |
>> / O O\__ | trolls. Thank you. |
>> / \ | --Mgt. |
>> / \ \ |________________|
>> / _ \ \ ||
>> / |\____\ \ ||
>> / | | | |\____/ ||
>> / \|_|_|/ | _||
>> / / \ |____| ||
>> / | | | --|
>> | | | |____ --|
>> * _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
>> *-- _--\ _ \ | ||
>> / _ \\ | / `
>> * / \_ /- | | |
>> * ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
>
> he he he...the last resort...he cannot refute my words...
>> John Kaufmann, William Inian, Linda Jones, Greg Inovich and even
>> "Robert McGiver, Gen. USN (ret)" (when did the U.S.Navy start havng
>> "Generals?!?!?), is nothing but yet another anonymous Looney Liberal
>> DemocRAT Gun-control troll; so:
>
>> _________________
>> /| /| | |
>> ||__|| | Do not feed the |
>> / O O\__ | trolls. Thank you. |
>> / \ | --Mgt. |
>> / \ \ |________________|
>> / _ \ \ ||
>> / |\____\ \ ||
>> / | | | |\____/ ||
>> / \|_|_|/ | _||
>> / / \ |____| ||
>> / | | | --|
>> | | | |____ --|
>> * _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
>> *-- _--\ _ \ | ||
>> / _ \\ | / `
>> * / \_ /- | | |
>> * ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
>
>
No need, "doctor:" Scout had already done a good job of kicking your
Looney Liberal Gun-controller ass.
>
> ...so he furiously searches my name...
>
Actually, the first sign you are a phony was when the email daemon
kicked my message to you back, saying there is no such "edu" as
"Coldine."
That "tweeked" my interest in you and your phony presence, leading me
to find where Mike "outted" your other phony "nyms" back in July.
>
> ...looking for *anything* he can smear
>
You've already "smeared" yourself all over Usenet, "Herr Doktor."
> ...looking for *anything* he can smear
>
>
> this ph.d. has been around the block
>
This "ph.d" has been proven here to be a phony "doctor."
> this ph.d. has been around the block
>
I post under my real name and address; why don't you Looney Liberals
do the same???
ps: I notice that you haunt military-oriented newsgroups: in what
branch did _you_ serve (if any)? <chuckle> :)
I, otoh, was Air Guard Security Police for five years. If you really
_are_ former military, you can find my page on Military.com.
JohnJohnsn, SSgt, Texas Air Guard Security Forces (now enjoying
retirement)
Jeffrey Hamilton
Jan 5, 2013, 8:48:12 PM1/5/13
to
Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> "a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:kc9ee...@news1.newsguy.com:
>
>> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message...
>>> "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message...
>>
>> The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America
>> Adopt the Gun Controls of other Democracies?
>> By David B. Kopel
>> 472 pages
>> Publisher:Prometheus Books
>> Place of publication:Buffalo, NY
>> Publication year:1992
>> Contents
>> 1: Introduction 13
>> 2: Japan: No Guns, No Gun Crime 20
>> 3: Great Britain: The Queen's Peace 59
>> 4: Canada: Love of Government 136
>> 5: Australia: No One is Happy 193
>> 6: New Zealand: Everyone is Happy 233
>> 7: Jamaica: War on Guns 257
>> 8: Switzerland: The Armed Society -----
>>
>> And noting, there is now one book seller willing
>> to deliver it to my door for $4.20, and quite a few
>> will do it for under $7.00.
>>
>> But,,,,, now I'm not automaticly going to say that
>> a book over 20 years old is useless,
>> but have not the laws in Australia & Canada changed?
>>
>> I really do not wish to read, & put ideas into my head,
>> that are NOW wrong & incorrect!
>>
>> By the way, does someone wish to tell me,
>> what final conclusion for the USA, Kopel suggests?
>
> I thought this was a useful review:
> http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/JohnsonReview1.html.
Thanks Andrew, good find, it figures some gun-bunny would offer a 20 year
old, seriously out of date, novel as a rebuttal.
cheers....Jeff
> "a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:kc9ee...@news1.newsguy.com:
>
>> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message...
>>> "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message...
>>>> JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 4, 3:37 pm, "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bberesf...@cogeco.ca>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> The majority of American males are NOT lunatics, but to give the
>>>>>> potential for further mass murder to some mindless, gun
>>>>>> worshiping NRA addicts, could result in the further deaths of
>>>>>> thousands upon thousands of innocent Americans, "is just too
>>>>>> much of a risk" !
>>>>>>
>>>>> "Why is it that every time a lunatic uses a firearm to commit an
>>>>> atrocity the gun-control fanatics want to punish the millions of
>>>>> gun owners that DIDN'T do it?!?!?
>>>>> --Me, Dec. 18, 2012
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW,,, Jeffrey; wanna tell us just how well that gun registration
>>>>> program up there in Canuckistan worked out for ya? :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh; that's right: it DIDN'T!!!
>>>>
>>>> Look at our body count, now look at yours....oops...that's how
>>>> well it worked out....
>>>
>>>>> On Jan 4, 3:37 pm, "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bberesf...@cogeco.ca>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> The majority of American males are NOT lunatics, but to give the
>>>>>> potential for further mass murder to some mindless, gun
>>>>>> worshiping NRA addicts, could result in the further deaths of
>>>>>> thousands upon thousands of innocent Americans, "is just too
>>>>>> much of a risk" !
>>>>>>
>>>>> "Why is it that every time a lunatic uses a firearm to commit an
>>>>> atrocity the gun-control fanatics want to punish the millions of
>>>>> gun owners that DIDN'T do it?!?!?
>>>>> --Me, Dec. 18, 2012
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW,,, Jeffrey; wanna tell us just how well that gun registration
>>>>> program up there in Canuckistan worked out for ya? :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh; that's right: it DIDN'T!!!
>>>>
>>>> Look at our body count, now look at yours....oops...that's how
>>>> well it worked out....
>>>
>>> Always funny to see the idiots fall back on correlation that has
>>> been debunked a long time ago..
>>>
>>> Read "The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy.."
>>> It will avoid you looking the next time you post crap.
>>
>> I'm seeing a book:
>>> been debunked a long time ago..
>>>
>>> Read "The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy.."
>>> It will avoid you looking the next time you post crap.
>>
>>
>> The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America
>> Adopt the Gun Controls of other Democracies?
>> By David B. Kopel
>> 472 pages
>> Publisher:Prometheus Books
>> Place of publication:Buffalo, NY
>> Publication year:1992
>> Contents
>> 1: Introduction 13
>> 2: Japan: No Guns, No Gun Crime 20
>> 3: Great Britain: The Queen's Peace 59
>> 4: Canada: Love of Government 136
>> 5: Australia: No One is Happy 193
>> 6: New Zealand: Everyone is Happy 233
>> 7: Jamaica: War on Guns 257
>> 8: Switzerland: The Armed Society -----
>>
>> And noting, there is now one book seller willing
>> to deliver it to my door for $4.20, and quite a few
>> will do it for under $7.00.
>>
>> But,,,,, now I'm not automaticly going to say that
>> a book over 20 years old is useless,
>> but have not the laws in Australia & Canada changed?
>>
>> I really do not wish to read, & put ideas into my head,
>> that are NOW wrong & incorrect!
>>
>> By the way, does someone wish to tell me,
>> what final conclusion for the USA, Kopel suggests?
>
> I thought this was a useful review:
> http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/JohnsonReview1.html.
Thanks Andrew, good find, it figures some gun-bunny would offer a 20 year
old, seriously out of date, novel as a rebuttal.
cheers....Jeff
Jeffrey Hamilton
Jan 5, 2013, 8:53:07 PM1/5/13
to
> news:kc7i2v$vr5$2...@dont-email.me:
> bigots?
You mean like Tea-Baggers, Birthers and such ?
Hey, you've already been doing that !
How's it worked out for you
Oh yeah, your sig. is silly.
cheers....Jeff
>
>> The majority of American males are NOT lunatics, but to give the
>> potential for further mass murder to some mindless, gun worshiping
>> NRA addicts, could result in the further deaths of thousands upon
>> thousands of innocent Americans, "is just too much of a risk" !
>
> HBow about putting the future of freedom in the hands of psychotic
>> The majority of American males are NOT lunatics, but to give the
>> potential for further mass murder to some mindless, gun worshiping
>> NRA addicts, could result in the further deaths of thousands upon
>> thousands of innocent Americans, "is just too much of a risk" !
>
> bigots?
You mean like Tea-Baggers, Birthers and such ?
Hey, you've already been doing that !
How's it worked out for you
Oh yeah, your sig. is silly.
cheers....Jeff
JohnJohnsn
Jan 5, 2013, 9:03:30 PM1/5/13
to
On Jan 5, 7:07 pm, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon,net> wrote:
>
>
> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
> news:o9idnfNyQsnBLHXN...@supernews.com...
>
>> Scout wrote:
>
>>>"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:CqKdndvdA4PpOXXN...@supernews.com...
>
>>>> Scout wrote:
>
>>>>>"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
In fact some have even made the news shortly after the Texas Concealed
Handgun License law went into effect.
The most memorable one was at the Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen; where
on 16 Oct. 1991 George "Jo Jo" Henard massacred 23 unarmed (by the
then-Texas gun law) people¹: including the parents of Suzanna Gratia
(Hupp²); who pushed the state legislature to passt the "shall-issue"
Concealed Handgun Law (with the help of then-State Senator Jerry
Patterson). George W signed it into law in 1995.
FYI: she later was elected to the Texas House of Representatives,
where she served for five terms.
--
¹http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre
²http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp
>
>
> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
> news:o9idnfNyQsnBLHXN...@supernews.com...
>
>> Scout wrote:
>
>>>"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:CqKdndvdA4PpOXXN...@supernews.com...
>
>>>> Scout wrote:
>
>>>>>"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
>>>>> news:T-WdnfEzh6uZD3XN...@supernews.com...
>
>>>>>> JohnJohnsn wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Of course, being the typical Looney Liberals, the Democrat Party
>>>>>>> here in the U.S. demonstrate their continuing insanity over "The
>>>>>>> Great Unwashed" owning firearms and have once again begun
>>>>>>> pushing even more ineffective gun control laws,
>
>>>>>> Son, disallowing guns in bars is *extremely* effective. Hot-headed
>>>>>> drunken fistfights may occur nightly (very few deaths), but no
>>>>>> drunken gunfights (with high probable deaths, including bystanders).
>
>>>>>> Gun goofballs...we argue nonsense "statistics" with them...massacres
>>>>>> continue...
>>>>>> ;-)
>
>>>>> Odd, Virginia doesn't prohibit the open carry of guns in bars.
>
>>>> Virginia bar *owners*...private citizens...most certainly *do* prohibit.
>
>>> Odd, I've not seen any signs posted.
>
>> it's not just bars...private citizen business owners in *every* state
>> where open carry is legal don't want you gun goofballs with your sidearms.
>
> Sure, sure, but before we go there let's see you show that bars in Virginia
> are regularly signed against carry.
>
> Then if you can do that, perhaps we can see if you can show that private
> businesses regularly are.
>
>> i've never seen a sign "business welcome, bring your guns"
>> ;-)
>
> I have.
>
Me, too.
>
>>>>>> JohnJohnsn wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Of course, being the typical Looney Liberals, the Democrat Party
>>>>>>> here in the U.S. demonstrate their continuing insanity over "The
>>>>>>> Great Unwashed" owning firearms and have once again begun
>>>>>>> pushing even more ineffective gun control laws,
>
>>>>>> Son, disallowing guns in bars is *extremely* effective. Hot-headed
>>>>>> drunken fistfights may occur nightly (very few deaths), but no
>>>>>> drunken gunfights (with high probable deaths, including bystanders).
>
>>>>>> Gun goofballs...we argue nonsense "statistics" with them...massacres
>>>>>> continue...
>>>>>> ;-)
>
>>>>> Odd, Virginia doesn't prohibit the open carry of guns in bars.
>
>>>> Virginia bar *owners*...private citizens...most certainly *do* prohibit.
>
>>> Odd, I've not seen any signs posted.
>
>> it's not just bars...private citizen business owners in *every* state
>> where open carry is legal don't want you gun goofballs with your sidearms.
>
> Sure, sure, but before we go there let's see you show that bars in Virginia
> are regularly signed against carry.
>
> Then if you can do that, perhaps we can see if you can show that private
> businesses regularly are.
>
>> i've never seen a sign "business welcome, bring your guns"
>> ;-)
>
> I have.
>
In fact some have even made the news shortly after the Texas Concealed
Handgun License law went into effect.
The most memorable one was at the Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen; where
on 16 Oct. 1991 George "Jo Jo" Henard massacred 23 unarmed (by the
then-Texas gun law) people¹: including the parents of Suzanna Gratia
(Hupp²); who pushed the state legislature to passt the "shall-issue"
Concealed Handgun Law (with the help of then-State Senator Jerry
Patterson). George W signed it into law in 1995.
FYI: she later was elected to the Texas House of Representatives,
where she served for five terms.
>
> But unless there is a sign telling me I can't carry, then I can.
>
> Still waiting on you to show me those signs you claim exist nearly
> everywhere.
>
It'll probably be a rather long wait, Scout. :)
> But unless there is a sign telling me I can't carry, then I can.
>
> Still waiting on you to show me those signs you claim exist nearly
> everywhere.
>
--
¹http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre
²http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Jan 5, 2013, 9:26:18 PM1/5/13
to
Scout wrote:
on-premises alcohol drinking.
>
> Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
>
>> JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course, being the typical Looney Liberals, the Democrat Party here
>>> in the U.S. demonstrate their continuing insanity over "The Great
>>> Unwashed" owning firearms and have once again begun pushing even more
>>> ineffective gun control laws,
>>
>> Son, disallowing guns in bars is *extremely* effective. Hot-headed
>> drunken fistfights may occur nightly (very few deaths), but no
>> drunken gunfights (with high probable deaths, including bystanders).
>
> Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
>
>> JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course, being the typical Looney Liberals, the Democrat Party here
>>> in the U.S. demonstrate their continuing insanity over "The Great
>>> Unwashed" owning firearms and have once again begun pushing even more
>>> ineffective gun control laws,
>>
>> Son, disallowing guns in bars is *extremely* effective. Hot-headed
>> drunken fistfights may occur nightly (very few deaths), but no
>> drunken gunfights (with high probable deaths, including bystanders).
>
> Virginia doesn't prohibit the open carry of guns in bars.
Yes it does...it is illegal to open carry where licensed for
on-premises alcohol drinking.
Scout
Jan 5, 2013, 10:17:46 PM1/5/13
to
news:FLOdnbnz0KUhfXXN...@supernews.com...
But before you start wasting your time, you should be made aware that while
concealed carry in a bar is illegal, the law is utterly silent when it comes
to carrying openly. Thus it's legal.
""It doesn't make a lot of sense that people could openly carry a firearm in
a restaurant, but a concealed-carry permit holder who had been through
training and an extensive background check wasn't allowed to carry a firearm
into a restaurant," said David Adams of the Virginia Shooting Sports
Association, the National Rifle Association state association for Virginia."
http://articles.dailypress.com/2010-06-30/news/dp-nws-guns-in-bars-20100630_1_gun-laws-concealed-gun-rights
And what's the title of the above article?
"New law to allow concealed guns in bars, restaurants"
Hey, not only can you carry openly, you can even carry concealed.
Now Dr. Faker don't you feel particularly ignorant and stupid?
You should.
> Scout wrote:
>>
>> Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
>>
>>> JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Of course, being the typical Looney Liberals, the Democrat Party here
>>>> in the U.S. demonstrate their continuing insanity over "The Great
>>>> Unwashed" owning firearms and have once again begun pushing even more
>>>> ineffective gun control laws,
>>>
>>> Son, disallowing guns in bars is *extremely* effective. Hot-headed
>>> drunken fistfights may occur nightly (very few deaths), but no
>>> drunken gunfights (with high probable deaths, including bystanders).
>>
>> Virginia doesn't prohibit the open carry of guns in bars.
>
> Yes it does...it is illegal to open carry where licensed for
> on-premises alcohol drinking.
Then you should be able to cite the statute that makes it illegal.
>>
>> Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
>>
>>> JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Of course, being the typical Looney Liberals, the Democrat Party here
>>>> in the U.S. demonstrate their continuing insanity over "The Great
>>>> Unwashed" owning firearms and have once again begun pushing even more
>>>> ineffective gun control laws,
>>>
>>> Son, disallowing guns in bars is *extremely* effective. Hot-headed
>>> drunken fistfights may occur nightly (very few deaths), but no
>>> drunken gunfights (with high probable deaths, including bystanders).
>>
>> Virginia doesn't prohibit the open carry of guns in bars.
>
> Yes it does...it is illegal to open carry where licensed for
> on-premises alcohol drinking.
But before you start wasting your time, you should be made aware that while
concealed carry in a bar is illegal, the law is utterly silent when it comes
to carrying openly. Thus it's legal.
""It doesn't make a lot of sense that people could openly carry a firearm in
a restaurant, but a concealed-carry permit holder who had been through
training and an extensive background check wasn't allowed to carry a firearm
into a restaurant," said David Adams of the Virginia Shooting Sports
Association, the National Rifle Association state association for Virginia."
http://articles.dailypress.com/2010-06-30/news/dp-nws-guns-in-bars-20100630_1_gun-laws-concealed-gun-rights
And what's the title of the above article?
"New law to allow concealed guns in bars, restaurants"
Hey, not only can you carry openly, you can even carry concealed.
Now Dr. Faker don't you feel particularly ignorant and stupid?
You should.
a425couple
Jan 5, 2013, 11:17:30 PM1/5/13
to
"Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message...
The United States Code:
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males
at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration
of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female
citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are-
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the
Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia
who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
And our SCOTUS has recently weighed in.
In the 2008 decision of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller,
the de jure definition of "militia" as used in United States jurisprudence
was
discussed. The court's opinion made explicit, in its obiter dicta, that the
term "militia", as used in colonial times in this originalist decision,
included
both the federally organized militia and the citizen-organized militias of
the
several States: "... the 'militia' in colonial America consisted of a subset
of 'the people'-those who were male, able-bodied, and within a certain
age range" (7) ... Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the
federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them"
Also note:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia
mi·li·tia noun \m?-'li-sh?\
Definition of MILITIA
1 a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable
to call only in emergency
b: a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law
as being subject to call to military service
Origin of MILITIA
Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
First Known Use: 1625
Obviously, the unorganized able bodied are included.
Also IMHO, it is worth noting that in our Federal system,
unlike your nations, the 50 states do have constiturions
that DO INDEED have some real power, & protections.
Many of them are much clearer and stronger than the 2nd
Amendment.
>>> seems to me a good compromise between national (constituitional)
>>> security and security from people gone postal; in the (IMO rather
>>> improbable) case of an actual invasion of CONUS, it's a simple
>>> matter of ordering (or by initiative of COs) US depots to issue
>>> combat magazines & ammo to civilians (aside that IMO, today's
>>> militia are insurgents/guerrillas and the emphasis in a fighting
>>> homeland defense doctrine should be about explosives & demolitions;
>>> I hope to have glimpsed a faint reckoning of this in the large
>>> number of NG units whose are engineers or combat engineers...)
>> ----
>>> security and security from people gone postal; in the (IMO rather
>>> improbable) case of an actual invasion of CONUS, it's a simple
>>> matter of ordering (or by initiative of COs) US depots to issue
>>> combat magazines & ammo to civilians (aside that IMO, today's
>>> militia are insurgents/guerrillas and the emphasis in a fighting
>>> homeland defense doctrine should be about explosives & demolitions;
>>> I hope to have glimpsed a faint reckoning of this in the large
>>> number of NG units whose are engineers or combat engineers...)
>>
> The State Governments controls the Militia.
Respectfully Andrew, you and dott. should consider:
> The State Governments controls the Militia.
The United States Code:
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males
at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration
of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female
citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are-
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the
Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia
who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
And our SCOTUS has recently weighed in.
In the 2008 decision of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller,
the de jure definition of "militia" as used in United States jurisprudence
was
discussed. The court's opinion made explicit, in its obiter dicta, that the
term "militia", as used in colonial times in this originalist decision,
included
both the federally organized militia and the citizen-organized militias of
the
several States: "... the 'militia' in colonial America consisted of a subset
of 'the people'-those who were male, able-bodied, and within a certain
age range" (7) ... Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the
federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them"
Also note:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia
mi·li·tia noun \m?-'li-sh?\
Definition of MILITIA
1 a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable
to call only in emergency
b: a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law
as being subject to call to military service
Origin of MILITIA
Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
First Known Use: 1625
Obviously, the unorganized able bodied are included.
Also IMHO, it is worth noting that in our Federal system,
unlike your nations, the 50 states do have constiturions
that DO INDEED have some real power, & protections.
Many of them are much clearer and stronger than the 2nd
Amendment.
Andrew Swallow
Jan 6, 2013, 1:13:44 AM1/6/13
to
invasion.
Andrew Swallow
Gray Guest
Jan 6, 2013, 1:37:04 AM1/6/13
to
"Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote in news:kcaldi$lua$1@dont-
email.me:
Another name calling poofter. Some day, some one like me is going to dump
you into a wood chipper.
>
> Oh yeah, your sig. is silly.
So you think it is better to comply with tyrants? Figures.
>
> cheers....Jeff
Die.... Frank
--
Refusenik #1
Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.
Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama
email.me:
you into a wood chipper.
>
> Oh yeah, your sig. is silly.
>
> cheers....Jeff
Die.... Frank
--
Refusenik #1
Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.
Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Jan 6, 2013, 2:16:16 AM1/6/13
to
Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
> news:FLOdnbnz0KUhfXXN...@supernews.com...
>
>> Scout wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
>>>
>>>> JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, being the typical Looney Liberals, the Democrat Party here
>>>>> in the U.S. demonstrate their continuing insanity over "The Great
>>>>> Unwashed" owning firearms and have once again begun pushing even more
>>>>> ineffective gun control laws,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Son, disallowing guns in bars is *extremely* effective. Hot-headed
>>>> drunken fistfights may occur nightly (very few deaths), but no
>>>> drunken gunfights (with high probable deaths, including bystanders).
>>>
>>>
>>> Virginia doesn't prohibit the open carry of guns in bars.
>>
>>
>> Yes it does...it is illegal to open carry where licensed for
>> on-premises alcohol drinking.
>
>
> Then you should be able to cite the statute that makes it illegal.
you find it jackass, i've already seen it today
>
>
> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
> news:FLOdnbnz0KUhfXXN...@supernews.com...
>
>> Scout wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
>>>
>>>> JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, being the typical Looney Liberals, the Democrat Party here
>>>>> in the U.S. demonstrate their continuing insanity over "The Great
>>>>> Unwashed" owning firearms and have once again begun pushing even more
>>>>> ineffective gun control laws,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Son, disallowing guns in bars is *extremely* effective. Hot-headed
>>>> drunken fistfights may occur nightly (very few deaths), but no
>>>> drunken gunfights (with high probable deaths, including bystanders).
>>>
>>>
>>> Virginia doesn't prohibit the open carry of guns in bars.
>>
>>
>> Yes it does...it is illegal to open carry where licensed for
>> on-premises alcohol drinking.
>
>
> Then you should be able to cite the statute that makes it illegal.
while we argue nonsense with gun goofballs...massacres continue...
;-)
Scout
Jan 6, 2013, 2:20:06 AM1/6/13
to
news:yJudnQqLV8cpuXTN...@supernews.com...
Then you should be able to pull it up very quickly simply by checking your
browser history.
But, then we know you're lying because I've already cited where it's legal.
> while we argue nonsense with gun goofballs...massacres continue...
> ;-)
Well, if you would shut up then we wouldn't have to argue with at least one
gun goofball.
browser history.
But, then we know you're lying because I've already cited where it's legal.
> while we argue nonsense with gun goofballs...massacres continue...
> ;-)
gun goofball.
peter skelton
Jan 6, 2013, 5:53:36 AM1/6/13
to
"SaPeIsMa" wrote in message
news:kcacsq$86t$3...@dont-email.me...
Redirection is pointing out the source of your ignorance
when that is what we are discussing?
You lack veracity
news:kcacsq$86t$3...@dont-email.me...
when that is what we are discussing?
You lack veracity
peter skelton
Jan 6, 2013, 5:54:43 AM1/6/13
to
"Scout" wrote in message news:kcait6$b3j$1...@dont-email.me...
Cite?
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jan 6, 2013, 7:51:37 AM1/6/13
to
>"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
>>>"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>> Really?
>
>Oh my local bar[..]
So we're just talking about your local bar? I thought we were talking
about bars in general.
Clarify- just your local bar, or bars in general?
>Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
>>>"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>
>>>JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>>
>>>>Of course, being the typical Looney Liberals, the Democrat Party here
>>>>in the U.S. demonstrate their continuing insanity over "The Great
>>>>Unwashed" owning firearms and have once again begun pushing even more
>>>>ineffective gun control laws,
>>>
>>>Son, disallowing guns in bars is *extremely* effective. Hot-headed
>>>drunken fistfights may occur nightly (very few deaths), but no
>>>drunken gunfights (with high probable deaths, including bystanders).
>>
>>
>> Really? There weren't any shootouts in bars?
>>
>>>JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>>
>>>>Of course, being the typical Looney Liberals, the Democrat Party here
>>>>in the U.S. demonstrate their continuing insanity over "The Great
>>>>Unwashed" owning firearms and have once again begun pushing even more
>>>>ineffective gun control laws,
>>>
>>>Son, disallowing guns in bars is *extremely* effective. Hot-headed
>>>drunken fistfights may occur nightly (very few deaths), but no
>>>drunken gunfights (with high probable deaths, including bystanders).
>>
>>
>>
>> Really?
>
>Oh my local bar[..]
So we're just talking about your local bar? I thought we were talking
about bars in general.
Clarify- just your local bar, or bars in general?
ozark...@yahoo.com
Jan 6, 2013, 8:41:58 AM1/6/13
to
On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 17:08:54 -0800, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
<dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>ozark...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:39:13 -0800, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
>> <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>tighten the screws, i say
>>>;-)
>>
>> Tell us how your "tightening" will work.
>
>gradually increasing restrictions on weapons of MASS murder (WMM)
Then start by providing your definition of WMM.
<dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>ozark...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:39:13 -0800, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
>> <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Jan 4, 3:37 pm, "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bberesf...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The majority of American males are NOT lunatics, but to give the potential
>>>>>for further mass murder to some mindless, gun worshiping NRA addicts,
>>>>>could result in the further deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent
>>>>>Americans, "is just too much of a risk" !
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Why is it that every time a lunatic uses a firearm to commit an atrocity
>>>
>>>frequency? "mass" murder? needless and stupid? AVOIDABLE!?
>>
>>>JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Jan 4, 3:37 pm, "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bberesf...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The majority of American males are NOT lunatics, but to give the potential
>>>>>for further mass murder to some mindless, gun worshiping NRA addicts,
>>>>>could result in the further deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent
>>>>>Americans, "is just too much of a risk" !
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Why is it that every time a lunatic uses a firearm to commit an atrocity
>>>
>>>
>>>tighten the screws, i say
>>>;-)
>>
>> Tell us how your "tightening" will work.
>
>gradually increasing restrictions on weapons of MASS murder (WMM)
Then start by providing your definition of WMM.
RD Sandman
Jan 6, 2013, 10:21:30 AM1/6/13
to
"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in
news:yJudnQqLV8cpuXTN...@supernews.com:
--
Sleep well, tonight.....
RD (The Sandman
If law school is so hard to get through....
how come there are so many lawyers?
RD Sandman
Jan 6, 2013, 10:23:11 AM1/6/13
to
Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:db6dnYyBU8GFi3TN...@bt.com:
SaPeIsMa
Jan 6, 2013, 12:18:27 PM1/6/13
to
news:kcakot$j6g$1...@dont-email.me...
jeffy, you wouldn't know "reality" if it was sitting on your nose poking you
in the eye.
in the eye.
SaPeIsMa
Jan 6, 2013, 12:49:16 PM1/6/13
to
news:db6dnYyBU8GFi3TN...@bt.com...
Your cryptic sentences may make sense to you.
But since we are not mind readers, you will need to stop being cryptic
But since we are not mind readers, you will need to stop being cryptic
SaPeIsMa
Jan 6, 2013, 12:50:47 PM1/6/13
to
news:kcbl3n$84l$1...@dont-email.me...
Your "pointing was COMPLETLY IRRELEVANT, for the simple fact that the
Trudeau Constitution SUPERCEDES the BNA ACT
You were just doing some stupid handwaving to cover your inability to
rebut..
> You lack veracity
What you NEED to believe has nothing to do with reality
Trudeau Constitution SUPERCEDES the BNA ACT
You were just doing some stupid handwaving to cover your inability to
rebut..
> You lack veracity
What you NEED to believe has nothing to do with reality
SaPeIsMa
Jan 6, 2013, 12:51:56 PM1/6/13
to
news:kcbl5q$8eb$1...@dont-email.me...
They did put a cap on it, dummy
A ZERO FUNDING cap..
Which is what you were whinging about originally.
A ZERO FUNDING cap..
Which is what you were whinging about originally.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Jan 6, 2013, 1:01:36 PM1/6/13
to
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
>
> Scout wrote:
>>
>> Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
>>
>>> JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Of course, being the typical Looney Liberals, the Democrat Party here
>>>> in the U.S. demonstrate their continuing insanity over "The Great
>>>> Unwashed" owning firearms and have once again begun pushing even more
>>>> ineffective gun control laws,
>>>
>>> Son, disallowing guns in bars is *extremely* effective. Hot-headed
>>> drunken fistfights may occur nightly (very few deaths), but no
>>> drunken gunfights (with high probable deaths, including bystanders).
>>>
>
> Scout wrote:
>>
>> Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
>>
>>> JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Of course, being the typical Looney Liberals, the Democrat Party here
>>>> in the U.S. demonstrate their continuing insanity over "The Great
>>>> Unwashed" owning firearms and have once again begun pushing even more
>>>> ineffective gun control laws,
>>>
>>> Son, disallowing guns in bars is *extremely* effective. Hot-headed
>>> drunken fistfights may occur nightly (very few deaths), but no
>>> drunken gunfights (with high probable deaths, including bystanders).
>>>
>>> Gun goofballs...we argue nonsense "statistics" with them...massacres
>>> continue...
>>> ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>>> continue...
>>> ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> Odd, Virginia doesn't prohibit the open carry of guns in bars.
>
>
> Virginia bar *owners*...private citizens...most certainly *do* prohibit.
>
>
>
> Virginia bar *owners*...private citizens...most certainly *do* prohibit.
>
> I'd bet that damn few, if any, bars where fistfights might occur also
> allow open carry of sidearms. I say you are a liar for suggesting
> otherwise.
and few business owners...*private citizens*...bars, restaurants,
> allow open carry of sidearms. I say you are a liar for suggesting
> otherwise.
etc....allow *any* employees to pack a piece...either concealed or open
not just Virginia...all across this great land of ours
;-)
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Jan 6, 2013, 1:07:17 PM1/6/13
to
RD Sandman wrote:
> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in
> news:yJudnQqLV8cpuXTN...@supernews.com:
>
>
>>Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
>>>news:FLOdnbnz0KUhfXXN...@supernews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Of course, being the typical Looney Liberals, the Democrat Party
>>>>>>>here in the U.S. demonstrate their continuing insanity over "The
>>>>>>>Great Unwashed" owning firearms and have once again begun pushing
>>>>>>>even more ineffective gun control laws,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Son, disallowing guns in bars is *extremely* effective.
>>>>>>Hot-headed drunken fistfights may occur nightly (very few deaths),
>>>>>>but no drunken gunfights (with high probable deaths, including
>>>>>>bystanders).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Virginia doesn't prohibit the open carry of guns in bars.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes it does...it is illegal to open carry where licensed for
>>>>on-premises alcohol drinking.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then you should be able to cite the statute that makes it illegal.
>>
>>you find it jackass, i've already seen it today
>
>
> IOW, you cannot produce it.
I can easily find shootouts/deaths in Virginia bars...want a url?
> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in
> news:yJudnQqLV8cpuXTN...@supernews.com:
>
>
>>Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
>>>news:FLOdnbnz0KUhfXXN...@supernews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Of course, being the typical Looney Liberals, the Democrat Party
>>>>>>>here in the U.S. demonstrate their continuing insanity over "The
>>>>>>>Great Unwashed" owning firearms and have once again begun pushing
>>>>>>>even more ineffective gun control laws,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Son, disallowing guns in bars is *extremely* effective.
>>>>>>Hot-headed drunken fistfights may occur nightly (very few deaths),
>>>>>>but no drunken gunfights (with high probable deaths, including
>>>>>>bystanders).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Virginia doesn't prohibit the open carry of guns in bars.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes it does...it is illegal to open carry where licensed for
>>>>on-premises alcohol drinking.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then you should be able to cite the statute that makes it illegal.
>>
>>you find it jackass, i've already seen it today
>
>
> IOW, you cannot produce it.
gun goofballs...we argue nonsense with them...massacres continue...
;-)
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jan 6, 2013, 1:13:26 PM1/6/13
to
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jan 6, 2013, 1:14:02 PM1/6/13
to
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Jan 6, 2013, 1:38:55 PM1/6/13
to
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jan 6, 2013, 1:48:03 PM1/6/13
to
back up your lies with some shit about employers.
Like I said- goal post move noted.
Jim Wilkins
Jan 6, 2013, 1:54:42 PM1/6/13
to
"Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:db6dnYyBU8GFi3TN...@bt.com...
> The State Governments can hold and issue the guns in the event of an
> invasion.
> Andrew Swallow
You can wait five days to cool off before posting attacks on
> invasion.
> Andrew Swallow
constitutional rights.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Jan 6, 2013, 1:58:45 PM1/6/13
to
shooting death of a Petersburg man. It happened around 1:30 Sunday
morning at Le'Venue of Bombay on East Washington Street in
Petersburg.
One person has been charged with murder, but police say more people
could be involved. Bernie Spratley, 25, died from a gunshot wound
to the abdomen.
He got into a fight with 21-year old Keon Hall while the two were
at Le'Venue. The brawl spilled into the parking lot. Police say it
ended when Hall shot Spratley.
http://www.nbc12.com/Global/story.asp?S=13579861
gun goofballs...we argue their goofyness...massacres continue...
;-)
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages