Did 6 Million Really Lie?
xganon
---
This post was anonymized at http://www.xganon.com
---
betweentheeyes
Great cross post. Could you explain why you cross posted this to the gun
discussion group, TPG?
betweentheeyes
xganon
> xganon <rema...@xganon.com><snip>
> Great cross post. Could you explain why you cross posted this to the gun
> discussion group, TPG?
>
>
It's my God Given Right under the first amendment, you moron. Are you trying to censor my views? What are you? Some kind of Facist?
Kent Finnell
"xganon" <rema...@xganon.com> wrote in message
news:4806b63bec18c0f5...@xganon.com...
> betweentheeyes<between...@supportingThe2nd.org> wrote in message
news:gfxe9.38874$Jo.2118@rwcrnsc53...
> > xganon <rema...@xganon.com><snip>
> > Great cross post. Could you explain why you cross posted this to the
gun
> > discussion group, TPG?
> >
> >
>
>
> It's my God Given Right under the first amendment, you moron. Are you
trying to censor my views? What are you? Some kind of Facist?
>
>
have a legitimate complaint. Since he's a private citizen and the internet
isn't a government facility, you can be questioned. Also remember, you MAY
have the right to say, transmit, or printed any thing you damn well please,
Gannon the anti-Semite aka Gannon the revisionist, we have a corresponding
right to ignore you, make fun of you, deride you for the idiot you are.
--
Kent Finnell, From The Music City, USA
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag;
and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
Luke 22:36
Rasputin
> The long awaited play by Zundel-brownshirt IIX A look at the lighter
side of the Polish Vacation Kamps during 1939.
These "camps" were not only for the jews. many millions of Poles,
Ukrainians, Russians, Moldavians, gypsies and many other any nationalities
died in those camps. Jews are bullshiting the whole world that six million
of them died, the true figure of dead jews is close to a million.
Che'Gu Maru
news:olye9.17251$jG2.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Six million Jews were murdered by your Nazi asshole-brothers, along with
unnumbered Romani. Compared to the Jews and the Romani, the Poles,
Ukranians, Russians, and others were a drop in the bucket.
The Jews have a word for people like you -- SHMUCK!
Che'Gu Maru
> betweentheeyes<between...@supportingThe2nd.org> wrote in message
news:gfxe9.38874$Jo.2118@rwcrnsc53...
> > xganon <rema...@xganon.com><snip>
> > Great cross post. Could you explain why you cross posted this to the
gun
> > discussion group, TPG?
>
> It's my God Given Right under the first amendment, you moron. Are you
trying to censor my views? What are you? Some kind of Facist?
>
you do about the Holocaust.
IF you are an American citizen (and in UseNet you could be Iraqi for all we
know), then all the First Amendment guarantees is that you cannot be
CRIMINALLY prosecuted by the government for what you have publically said.
But your boss can fire you. The rest of the citizenry can shun you. And the
owner of a private server can refuse to relay your messages if he so
chooses. You have absolutely NO right to stand up and shout about
Christianity during a Muslim service, and absolutely NO right to crosspost
in UseNet.
Of course, if you are the asshole you seem to be, that won't make a damn bit
of difference to you, will it.
Kurt Knoll
other means when killing Mosquitoes.
Kurt Knoll.
=========
"betweentheeyes" <between...@supportingThe2nd.org> wrote in message
news:gfxe9.38874$Jo.2118@rwcrnsc53...
Rasputin
Che'Gu Maru <chgu...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:alecmq$1p72$1...@news.hal-pc.org...
YOU ARE FUCKING LIAR! Nor do you know anything about the WWII. More than ten
million Russians alone perished in the Nazi slave camps and on the gallows.
You fucking lying Jews just want money to be paid to you because yoiu are
the best liars!
Morton Davis
-*MORT*-
xganon
wrote:
>"xganon" <rema...@xganon.com> wrote in message
>news:4806b63bec18c0f5...@xganon.com...
>> betweentheeyes<between...@supportingThe2nd.org> wrote in message
>news:gfxe9.38874$Jo.2118@rwcrnsc53...
>> > xganon <rema...@xganon.com><snip>
>> > Great cross post. Could you explain why you cross posted this to the
>> > gun discussion group, TPG?
>>
>> It's my God Given Right under the first amendment, you moron. Are you
>> trying to censor my views? What are you? Some kind of Facist?
>>
>Not really. If betweentheeyes represented a government agency, you might
>have a legitimate complaint. Since he's a private citizen and the internet
>isn't a government facility, you can be questioned. Also remember, you MAY
>have the right to say, transmit, or printed any thing you damn well please,
>Gannon the anti-Semite aka Gannon the revisionist, we have a corresponding
>right to ignore you, make fun of you, deride you for the idiot you are.
>
IS ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOU ALWAYS AN ANTI-SEMITE OR A NAZI? YOU DO
LIKE USING TERMS OF OPPROBRIUM LIKE MOST LIBERALS HAVE VENT TO DO.
>
>
>--
>Kent Finnell, From The Music City, USA
>
YOU ARE A LIAR AND YOU DON'T LIVE IN MEMPHIS.
Kent Finnell; 300 Berkley Dr; Madison, TN 37115; 615-865-7427
>
>He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag;
>and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
>Luke 22:36
>
IF DIANNE FEINSTEIN, BABS BOXER, CHARLES SCHUMER, JOEY LIEBERMAN WERE MAKING
POLICY IN THE DAYS OF CHRIST THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN SWORD CONTROL AND A 15
DAY WAITING PERIOD WITH A BACKGROUND CHECK.
Black Knight
> We need death certificates, nobody is officially dead until there's a death certificate. Do you really think that the Reich, who was so fastidious about paperwork, lost that many applications?
>
>
If you'd bother to read the Nuremberg Trial transcripts, you'd see
that the 6 million figure came from the records of the SS. Actually,
the Nuremberg estimate was 5.8 million. The essential accuracy was
confirmed at the Eichmann Trial in Israel. A letter was introduced as
evidence there, written by Eichmann to his boss Heinrich Himmler.In
that letter, Eichman gave the count as a round 6 million, also from SS
records.
This is at least the 8th time I have posted that same information
here. If you doubt what I say, go read the transcripts for yourself.
Bruno
Kent Finnell
> On Sat, 7 Sep 2002 21:10:26 -0500, "Kent Finnell" <kent...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"xganon" <rema...@xganon.com> wrote in message
> >news:4806b63bec18c0f5...@xganon.com...
> >> betweentheeyes<between...@supportingThe2nd.org> wrote in message
> >news:gfxe9.38874$Jo.2118@rwcrnsc53...
> >> > xganon <rema...@xganon.com><snip>
> >> > Great cross post. Could you explain why you cross posted this to the
> >> > gun discussion group, TPG?
> >>
> >> It's my God Given Right under the first amendment, you moron. Are you
> >> trying to censor my views? What are you? Some kind of Facist?
> >>
> >Not really. If betweentheeyes represented a government agency, you might
> >have a legitimate complaint. Since he's a private citizen and the
internet
> >isn't a government facility, you can be questioned. Also remember, you
MAY
> >have the right to say, transmit, or printed any thing you damn well
please,
corresponding
> >right to ignore you, make fun of you, deride you for the idiot you are.
> >
> IS ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOU ALWAYS AN ANTI-SEMITE OR A NAZI? YOU DO
> LIKE USING TERMS OF OPPROBRIUM LIKE MOST LIBERALS HAVE VENT TO DO.
Quit your shouting, boy. And it's been a long time since any one accused me
of being a liberal. Your childish ways are showing.
> >
> >
> >--
> >Kent Finnell, From The Music City, USA
> >
> YOU ARE A LIAR AND YOU DON'T LIVE IN MEMPHIS.
Wrong on both counts, shouting boy. I never said I lived in Memphis. Note
the sig ... The Music City USA. Nashville is Music City USA, not Memphis.
Memphis is The Bluff City. Madison is in Davidson County and the
governmental form of Nashville-Davidson County is Metropolotian, i.e., one
city-county government. Madison is a suburb and has no mayor, or other
independent governmental agencies. It's nothing more than a large
neighborhood with a post office.
> Kent Finnell; 300 Berkley Dr; Madison, TN 37115; 615-nnn-nnnn
Tsk, tsk, xganon the shouting boy, bad form. One shouldn't post another's
personal information like that. It doesn't really bother me that much since
I've always posted open. It just shows what a borish lout you are.
Want to know more? I'll post almost anything except my social security
number and credit card numbers. I'll even scan my birth certificate and
post it if that sort of thing really thrills you. Born 11/27/40 at
Vanderbilt University Hospital to ... oh, well, I'm sure even a thick clod
like you catches my drift.
> >
> >He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag;
> >and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
> >Luke 22:36
> >
> IF DIANNE FEINSTEIN, BABS BOXER, CHARLES SCHUMER, JOEY LIEBERMAN WERE
MAKING
> POLICY IN THE DAYS OF CHRIST THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN SWORD CONTROL AND A 15
> DAY WAITING PERIOD WITH A BACKGROUND CHECK.
>
No argument from me, shouting child. But that's not pertinent to the fact
that you are a revisionist stain on your mommy's little black dress.
--
Kent Finnell, From Music City USA
If the thief is caught while breaking in,
and is struck so that he dies, there shall
be no bloodguiltiness on his account.
Exodus 22:2.
Robert Frenchu
>We need death certificates, nobody is officially dead until there's a death certificate. Do you really think that the Reich, who was so fastidious about paperwork, lost that many applications?
Here is the Reich Office of Birth Certificates
http://www.web-birds.com/9th/48/001-kelz-germany2.jpg
Robert Frenchu
>We need death certificates, nobody is officially dead until there's a death certificate. Do you really think that the Reich, who was so fastidious about paperwork, lost that many applications?
Here is the Reich Office of Death Certificates
http://www.web-birds.com/9th/48/001-kelz-germany2.jpg
Rasputin
jews. If Hitler killed them, where did they come from? All of them wanted to
come to America to make money, some went to Israel because America did not
want them!
Paul Abeles
> We need death certificates, nobody is officially dead until there's a
death certificate. Do you really think that the Reich, who was so
fastidious about paperwork, lost that many applications?
Has your brain a death certificate?
Tilly
Then why do you just love those Nazis who murdered your fellow Russians?
You are indistinguishable from them.
You fucking lying Jews just want money to be paid to
> you because yoiu are the best liars!
:-p)
Tilly
--
climbaboard@remove_me.hotmail.com
Tilly
You wouldn't like to volounteer to shove him in a sack & drown
him.(unfortunaetly he's too heavy for me)
It would be a huge relief to all of us.
Tilly
--
climbaboard@remove_me.hotmail.com
William Daffer
> betweentheeyes<between...@supportingThe2nd.org> wrote in message news:gfxe9.38874$Jo.2118@rwcrnsc53...
>> xganon <rema...@xganon.com><snip>
>> Great cross post. Could you explain why you cross posted this to the gun
>> discussion group, TPG?
>>
>>
>
>
> It's my God Given Right under the first amendment, you moron.
You're right! It is your *God Given Right* to be a flaming asshole.
But that doesn't mean you're right to exercise that right!
> Are you trying to censor my views? What are you? Some kind of
> Facist?
No. he's someone who understands netiquette, unlike racist holocaust
deniers like yourself.
[followups set to alt.revisionism]
whd
--
Pat Blakely on the definition of terrorism
A terrorist act is an act by a group of people whom you oppose.
If you are a militant Moslem, the blowing up of the WTC was an act of
war, just as what the US is doing to the Taliban.
From <9rf4ur$4fn$1...@suaar1ab.prod.compuserve.com>
William Daffer
> On Sat, 7 Sep 2002 21:10:26 -0500, "Kent Finnell" <kent...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>>"xganon" <rema...@xganon.com> wrote in message
>>news:4806b63bec18c0f5...@xganon.com...
>>> betweentheeyes<between...@supportingThe2nd.org> wrote in message
>>news:gfxe9.38874$Jo.2118@rwcrnsc53...
>>> > xganon <rema...@xganon.com><snip>
>>> > Great cross post. Could you explain why you cross posted this to the
>>> > gun discussion group, TPG?
>>>
>>> It's my God Given Right under the first amendment, you moron. Are you
>>> trying to censor my views? What are you? Some kind of Facist?
>>>
>> Not really. If betweentheeyes represented a government agency, you
>> might have a legitimate complaint. Since he's a private citizen and
>> the internet isn't a government facility, you can be questioned.
>> Also remember, you MAY have the right to say, transmit, or printed
>> any thing you damn well please, Gannon the anti-Semite aka Gannon
>> the revisionist, we have a corresponding right to ignore you, make
>> fun of you, deride you for the idiot you are.
>>
>
> IS ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOU ALWAYS AN ANTI-SEMITE OR A NAZI?
> YOU DO LIKE USING TERMS OF OPPROBRIUM LIKE MOST LIBERALS HAVE VENT
> TO DO.
But you are an anti-semite, aren't you? What's wrong with calling
you one? Are *you* trying to censor *us*?
whd
[followups set]
--
On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 19:18:49 +0100, in message
<3b9e...@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>, David E. Michael expressed support
for the craven cowards who hijacked four airliners, flying two into
the Twin Towers, one into the Pentagon and simply crashing the fourth,
with an attendant loss of life estimated in the thousands, with the
words:
"This afternoon a truly wonderful thing has happened . . . Today was
a glorious day. May there be many others like it."
For the complete post of this terrorist sympathizer, see:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3b9e5465%40news-uk.onetel.net.uk
Kurt Knoll
along
> >>> with unnumbered Romani. Compared to the Jews and the Romani, the
Interesting Statement here how did the do it. Daniel Keren justifies his
Six Million by shortening the Cremation time down to 15 minutes to make
it technically possible. Now can you give me some Realistic figures by
adding all the extra Nationalities on top with your new Cremation times
I AM CURIOUS.
Kurt Knoll.
=======
"Tilly" <climbaboard@remove_me.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tVIe9.4494$Y3.8...@news.xtra.co.nz...
Kurt Knoll
Russians?
> You are indistinguishable from them.
He Does not Drink Vodak German Schnaps is better.
=
"Tilly" <climbaboard@remove_me.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XTIe9.4493$Y3.8...@news.xtra.co.nz...
Rasputin
"Black Knight" <kni...@indystart.com> wrote in message
news:594c8e48.02090...@posting.google.com...
now reads 1.5 million, including hundreds of thousands of Poles.
Rocket J. Squirrel
I'm sure I speak for everybody here when I say that when I want facts
about Jewish history from an unimpeachable source, the FIRST person I
think of is mad Raspy.
In fact whenever I say, "but Rasputin says..." that ends the argument
right there, since everyone holds you in such high esteem.
Rocky. J. Squirrel
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <wDIe9.3643$1C2.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> in
alt.revisionism, on Sun, 08 Sep 2002 13:53:32 GMT, "Rasputin"
<a.se...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I was in Germany right after the war. Every DP camp was full of
> the fucking jews. If Hitler killed them, where did they come from?
I guess he didn't succeed in killing all of them. Must really burn
your ass, too.
> All of them wanted to
> come to America to make money, some went to Israel because America
> did not want them!
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPXuOfzfbIykA6SysEQJuWgCgw1yckKlVJij9lrgLWcW1BMHJsLgAnif0
3yHBE+GuNa9oTynxzqx5/PR4
=rVkk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
who
Quant
> LOL!
>
> I'm sure I speak for everybody here when I say that when I want facts
> about Jewish history from an unimpeachable source, the FIRST person I
> think of is mad Raspy.
>
> In fact whenever I say, "but Rasputin says..." that ends the argument
> right there, since everyone holds you in such high esteem.
>
> Rocky. J. Squirrel
>
LOL
;)
HissyFit'n PaminiFarm
you of all people, Paul, know they donot
give out certificates for dead-heads.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Truth Will Set You Free (John 8:32),
So Get Some At The Famous "urls" Page:
http://paminifarm.bravepages.com/urls.html
If you donot like what is there:
Add Your Own Link To The "urls" Page
http://paminifarm.jeeran.com/enter.html
Love From HissyFit'n PaminiFarm
Whatever You Do, Donot Take Off The Lid
Black Knight
His brain isn't really dead, just atrophied from lack of use.
Bruno
Black Knight
Also murdered were lots of Red Army POWs, who were supposed to be
given the protection of the Geneva Convention. Old Adolph wasn't big
on abiding by treaties.
Bruno
>
Paul Abeles
Just like his dick.
Rasputin
died of exposure and starvation, that is about three times more than all the
jews that went to germany to serve the nazis but were instead murdered by
them
Chris Morton
"Rasputin" says...
Most of the Jews murdered by the Germans weren't murdered in Germany.
Nice try.
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.
Black Knight
I like your sig line about gun control. Very good.Gun control also
disarms the handicapped. It renders defenseless the most vulnerable
people in society.
Have you read Prof. John Lott's study of concealed carry laws? It's
out in book form now.
Bruno
Brandon V. Orr
> "Rasputin" <a.se...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:olye9.17251$jG2.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > xganon <rema...@xganon.com> wrote in message
> > news:464a6cd2ec0568e5...@xganon.com...
> > > The long awaited play by Zundel-brownshirt IIX A look at the lighter
> > side of the Polish Vacation Kamps during 1939.
> >
> > These "camps" were not only for the jews. many millions of Poles,
> > Ukrainians, Russians, Moldavians, gypsies and many other any nationalities
> > died in those camps. Jews are bullshiting the whole world that six million
> > of them died, the true figure of dead jews is close to a million.
>
> Six million Jews were murdered by your Nazi asshole-brothers,
Why?
Because some anonymous whiner says so?
> along with
> unnumbered Romani.
Unnumbered because no one in power seems to give a toss about THEM.
> The Jews have a word for people like you -- SHMUCK!
The Nazis had a word for people like you -- COLLABORATOR!
Having no views of your own, you merely parrot the propaganda of your
masters.
What a contemptible man you are. Maybe if you at least used your real
name you wouldn't come across as quite so pathetic.
Brandon
Morton Davis
"Brandon V. Orr" <brandonvo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:586c3341.02091...@posting.google.com...
> "Che'Gu Maru" <chgu...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:<alecmq$1p72$1...@news.hal-pc.org>...
> > "Rasputin" <a.se...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:olye9.17251$jG2.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > > xganon <rema...@xganon.com> wrote in message
> > > news:464a6cd2ec0568e5...@xganon.com...
> > > > The long awaited play by Zundel-brownshirt IIX A look at the
lighter
> > > side of the Polish Vacation Kamps during 1939.
> > >
> > > These "camps" were not only for the jews. many millions of Poles,
> > > Ukrainians, Russians, Moldavians, gypsies and many other any
nationalities
> > > died in those camps. Jews are bullshiting the whole world that six
million
> > > of them died, the true figure of dead jews is close to a million.
> >
> > Six million Jews were murdered by your Nazi asshole-brothers,
>
> Why?
>
> Because some anonymous whiner says so?
The nazi's own records tell the tale.
-*MORT-
Kurt Knoll
Originals but show us something else they want us to see.
Kurt Knoll.
========
"Morton Davis" <oglet...@oglethorpe.com> wrote in message
news:aauf9.67330$Jo.11928@rwcrnsc53...
Morton Davis
news:10317059...@critter.monarch.net...
> What Records ?. Or do you mean Records were only Jews get to see the
> Originals but show us something else they want us to see.
>
> Kurt Knoll.
No. The records folk like yu love to deny exist, but are available to all.
-*MORT*-
Christopher Morton
V. Orr) wrote:
>"Che'Gu Maru" <chgu...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message news:<alecmq$1p72$1...@news.hal-pc.org>...
>> "Rasputin" <a.se...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> news:olye9.17251$jG2.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> >
>> > xganon <rema...@xganon.com> wrote in message
>> > news:464a6cd2ec0568e5...@xganon.com...
>> > > The long awaited play by Zundel-brownshirt IIX A look at the lighter
>> > side of the Polish Vacation Kamps during 1939.
>> >
>> > These "camps" were not only for the jews. many millions of Poles,
>> > Ukrainians, Russians, Moldavians, gypsies and many other any nationalities
>> > died in those camps. Jews are bullshiting the whole world that six million
>> > of them died, the true figure of dead jews is close to a million.
>>
>> Six million Jews were murdered by your Nazi asshole-brothers,
>
>Why?
>
>Because some anonymous whiner says so?
Because the fields around Auschwitz say so.
What is a Nazi?
A Nazi is above all else, a craven coward.
A Nazi is afraid to compete with others as
equals because he knows he can't measure up.
A Nazi is afraid of his own inadequacy, so
he wants to murder his betters.
A Nazi is afraid of the truth, so he wants
to murder those who tell it.
A Nazi is afraid of history, so he wants to
murder the past, to wipe out the knowledge
of the degeneracy, cowardice and failure of
National Socialism.
Finally, a Nazi is afraid of the power of
educated, informed adults. Freedom of
choice terrifies him... which is why he
chooses minor children as sexual partners.
He can't interact with competent adults in
a consensually sexual way. He needs to be
able to impose himself on a helpless victim,
be it a prepubescent boy, or a patient in a
mental hospital.
These are the things that a Nazi is, and
there's nothing polite or honest about it.
---
"Okay Chrissy, you cock-sucking saucer-lipped booger-eating
monkey-fucking nigger, I hereby announce that I can say any word and
your cynical manipulation of my expression won't ever make me a racist
or a bigot. I don't give a fuck." - Lee Harrison (lha...@amaonlon.com)
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>I like your sig line about gun control. Very good.Gun control also
>disarms the handicapped. It renders defenseless the most vulnerable
>people in society.
A considerable number of the pro-gun control people in usenet seem to
have S&M fantasies involving forced submission, either of themselves
or their imagined victims. That's one reason why they hate the idea
of women defending themselves so much. It spoils their domination
fantasies.
>Have you read Prof. John Lott's study of concealed carry laws? It's
>out in book form now.
No, but I'm sure I'll get around to it eventually.
Kurt Knoll
kk
"Morton Davis" <oglet...@oglethorpe.com> wrote in message
news:sowf9.438197$UU1.69629@sccrnsc03...
Kurt Knoll
> to murder those who tell it.
In Germany the people are not allowed to ask serious question about the
Holocaust. Are the Jews afraid some one finds out the truth ?.
Kurt Knoll.
=========
"Christopher Morton" <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:tiatnu8r5ji3kiu24...@4ax.com...
Morton Davis
news:10317245...@critter.monarch.net...
> I was talking about the originals ?.
>
> kk
>
So was I, dipshit.
-*MORT*-
Black Knight
> On 10 Sep 2002 03:13:04 -0700, kni...@indystart.com (Black Knight)
> wrote:
>
> >I like your sig line about gun control. Very good.Gun control also
> >disarms the handicapped. It renders defenseless the most vulnerable
> >people in society.
>
> A considerable number of the pro-gun control people in usenet seem to
> have S&M fantasies involving forced submission, either of themselves
> or their imagined victims. That's one reason why they hate the idea
> of women defending themselves so much. It spoils their domination
> fantasies.
The hard fact is that the police don't have the manpower to protect
everyone 24 hours a day. Most violent crimes happen very fast. Even if
you call the cops, the bad guy will most likely have done his nasty
deed and be gone before they show up. People have to protect
themselves.
We need some gun control, of course. People should not have access to
automatic weapons or artillery. It helps to remember that the Second
Amendment was written in the 18th century, when all the guns were
single shot muzzleloaders whose max rate of fire was about 3 rounds
per minute.
<deletia>
Bruno
Morton Davis
How many rounds are in a cannon loaded with nials?
-*MORT*-
Susan Cohen
Black Knight wrote:
To my mind, this is not the point *nearly* so much as it is the fact that only law-abiding, sane citizens should
have access to guns.
We don't need more gun control - we need only to be more effective with the controls already in place. Like
background checks.
Okay, maybe we also need to treat guns more like cars: you should have to prove you are proficient and safe before
getting a license to operate one.
Susan
Robert Frenchu
>We need some gun control, of course. People should not have access to
>automatic weapons or artillery.
Why not? What's wrong with automatic weapons?
>It helps to remember that the Second
>Amendment was written in the 18th century, when all the guns were
>single shot muzzleloaders whose max rate of fire was about 3 rounds
>per minute.
And newspapers were printed one page at a time, by hand. Does this
mean we should reinvestigate freedom of the press?
Yardpilot
> Christopher Morton <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:<heatnugeij4vi2l9q...@4ax.com>...
> > On 10 Sep 2002 03:13:04 -0700, kni...@indystart.com (Black Knight)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I like your sig line about gun control. Very good.Gun control also
> > >disarms the handicapped. It renders defenseless the most vulnerable
> > >people in society.
> >
> > A considerable number of the pro-gun control people in usenet seem to
> > have S&M fantasies involving forced submission, either of themselves
> > or their imagined victims. That's one reason why they hate the idea
> > of women defending themselves so much. It spoils their domination
> > fantasies.
>
> The hard fact is that the police don't have the manpower to protect
> everyone 24 hours a day. Most violent crimes happen very fast. Even if
> you call the cops, the bad guy will most likely have done his nasty
> deed and be gone before they show up. People have to protect
> themselves.
Yup.
>
> We need some gun control, of course.
Why?
> People should not have access to
> automatic weapons or artillery.
Why not?
> It helps to remember that the Second
> Amendment was written in the 18th century, when all the guns were
> single shot muzzleloaders whose max rate of fire was about 3 rounds
> per minute.
Yup, let's remember that people could buy and keep state-of-the-art
weaponry.
Yardpilot
"Susan Cohen" <fla...@hers.com> wrote in message
news:3D7F6368...@hers.com...
Oh, so you want gun ownership to be treated as a privilege. Interesting.
Yardpilot
One.
John A. Stovall
wrote:
>Christopher Morton <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<heatnugeij4vi2l9q...@4ax.com>...
>> On 10 Sep 2002 03:13:04 -0700, kni...@indystart.com (Black Knight)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I like your sig line about gun control. Very good.Gun control also
>> >disarms the handicapped. It renders defenseless the most vulnerable
>> >people in society.
>>
>> A considerable number of the pro-gun control people in usenet seem to
>> have S&M fantasies involving forced submission, either of themselves
>> or their imagined victims. That's one reason why they hate the idea
>> of women defending themselves so much. It spoils their domination
>> fantasies.
>
>The hard fact is that the police don't have the manpower to protect
>everyone 24 hours a day. Most violent crimes happen very fast. Even if
>you call the cops, the bad guy will most likely have done his nasty
>deed and be gone before they show up. People have to protect
>themselves.
>
>We need some gun control, of course. People should not have access to
>automatic weapons or artillery. It helps to remember that the Second
>Amendment was written in the 18th century, when all the guns were
>single shot muzzleloaders whose max rate of fire was about 3 rounds
>per minute.
So we should control computers, copy machines, etc. Since they
weren't know in the 18th Century.
By the way People have legal access to automatic weapons and artillery
now. Just pay the 200 tax and have fun.
http://www.machinegunshoot.com/photos.htm
*****************************************************
".......... Here is a burden
We are not fit for. We are not like Romans and Britons
- natural world-rulers,
Bullies by instinct - but we have to bear it.
Who has kissed Fate on the mouth, and blows out the lamp
- must lie with her."
"Historical Choice"
Robinson Jeffers
from "Double Axe"
Susan Cohen
Yardpilot wrote:
> "Morton Davis" <oglet...@oglethorpe.com> wrote in message
> news:wiJf9.445313$UU1.70980@sccrnsc03...
> >
> > How many rounds are in a cannon loaded with nials?
>
> One.
Thanks - I forgot to answer that one.
Susan
Morton Davis
"Yardpilot" <Yard...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:nBOf9.273458$_91.3...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
guns used in the Revolution.
-*MORT*-
Susan Cohen
Yardpilot wrote:
> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@hers.com> wrote in message
> news:3D7F6368...@hers.com...
> >
> > To my mind, this is not the point *nearly* so much as it is the fact that
> only law-abiding, sane citizens should
> > have access to guns.
> >
> > We don't need more gun control - we need only to be more effective with
> the controls already in place. Like
> > background checks.
> >
> > Okay, maybe we also need to treat guns more like cars: you should have to
> prove you are proficient and safe before
> > getting a license to operate one.
>
> Oh, so you want gun ownership to be treated as a privilege. Interesting.
Just like anything else we get. Your sarcasm/insinuation falls flat.
Susan
Marksman
Firearm ownership is protected under the 2nd amendment.
William Daffer
Mort;
If you're coming to this converstation from talk.politics.guns you
may not know our Kurt here. Kurt is probably the purest example of a
Holocuast denier there is. He is *completely* ignorant about
history, he doesn't want to know *anything* about the historical
evidence that exists, his opinions are formed like pristine pearls
in the near vacuum conditions inside his skull unsullied by anything
remotely resembling fact or logic. Every document that supports
history has been forged, every victim is a liar, ever perpetrator
has been tortured. He has *no* evidence for any of his claims, you
just have to take his word for everything despite the fact that he
makes elemental mistakes in history and fact: confusing, for
instance, for at least a month, Rudolf Hoess (the commandant of
Auschwitz) with Rudolf Hess, the deputy fuehrer who flew to England.
He claims he speaks German, but all the German speakers on this
and other newsgroups claim his German is as bad as his English. He
seems, by all the evidence I can find, to be a barely functioning
individual (what would be called a 'moron' in the old technical
sense of someone with an IQ around 80 and a mental age of between 7
and 12), his claims to being a computer programmer notwithstanding.
I spent some time actually trying to draw him into a conversation,
but he doesn't understand what a conversation is. You start
discussing the Einsatzgruppen reports detailing the murder squads in
eastern Poland and western Russia and suddenly he's ranting about
soap or lampshades or his experiences in occupied Germany. You
engage him in this new subject and suddenly he's ranting about
Israel and Jewish control of the media or U.S. Government. In this
he isn't any different from most deniers, but his inability to
follow a conversation has been raised to high art.
I finally gave up and killfiled him. He's a complete waste of time
and bandwidth, he is so clearly an idiot that not even other
holocaust deniers will rise to his defense; they are, quite clearly,
deeply embarrassed by him.
My advice? Killfile him.
whd
--
Ross, on the meaning of his response in
<20010802014157...@ng-fq1.aol.com>
Message-ID: <20010802191550...@ng-cl1.aol.com>
ROTFL.... It takes a jew with a University degree to detect an obvious farce.
Morton Davis
How many rounds are in a man o' war broadside?
-*MORT*-
Susan Cohen
Morton Davis wrote:
I always thought that "broadside" was a *directional* term...?
Susan
>
>
> -*MORT*-
Black Knight
> > kni...@indystart.com (Black Knight) wrote <594c8e48.02091...@posting.google.com> in talk.politics.guns. :
>
> >We need some gun control, of course. People should not have access to
> >automatic weapons or artillery.
>
> Why not? What's wrong with automatic weapons?
Nothing in the hands of soldiers protecting the USA. Their killing
capacity is too much to give a criminal. Of course, that's my opinion,
but I'm an NRA member and the NRA also takes that position. There are
a few states that allow civilians to have them. Arizona did at one
time.You have to set limits somewhere and that's where I'd set them.
> >It helps to remember that the Second
> >Amendment was written in the 18th century, when all the guns were
> >single shot muzzleloaders whose max rate of fire was about 3 rounds
> >per minute.
>
> And newspapers were printed one page at a time, by hand. Does this
> mean we should reinvestigate freedom of the press?
Irrelevant. I was talking about the intent of the Founding Fathers,
which is important when you interpret the Constitution.
Bruno
Black Knight
Can you read? I said no artillery.
Adam Littman
War ships back then had guns pointing out the sides. Your best position was
crossing the enemies "T". You had all your side guns and he had maybe 1, maybe
no guns pointing at you. One firing by each gun was a "broadside".
The first turret mounted warship gun was on the Monitor. A Union Ironclad in
the Civil War.
Before that, if you wanted to bring guns to bear, you had to turn the whole
ship.
--
___________
Adam Littman / ^ \
AL...@cornell.edu /\ / \ /\
/__\__/___\__/__\
/ \( ) ( )/ \
\ /\ o /\ /
\ / \( )/ \ /
"Four minutes twenty-two seconds, \/____\_/____\/
Baldric, you owe me a groat" \ \ /
--Blackadder \ / \ /
---------
Adam Littman
We have a right to travel, you still need a licence to drive. We have a right
to speak, you still can't yell at the top of your lungs in a quiet
neighborhood at 3 AM.
No rights are absolute. That is so if for no other reason than that other
people also have rights.
A proficiency and safety test could be administered in less than an hour.
Adam Littman
>
>"Black Knight" <kni...@indystart.com> wrote in message
>news:594c8e48.02091...@posting.google.com...
>> Christopher Morton <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>news:<heatnugeij4vi2l9q...@4ax.com>...
>> > On 10 Sep 2002 03:13:04 -0700, kni...@indystart.com (Black Knight)
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >I like your sig line about gun control. Very good.Gun control also
>> > >disarms the handicapped. It renders defenseless the most vulnerable
>> > >people in society.
>> >
>> > A considerable number of the pro-gun control people in usenet seem to
>> > have S&M fantasies involving forced submission, either of themselves
>> > or their imagined victims. That's one reason why they hate the idea
>> > of women defending themselves so much. It spoils their domination
>> > fantasies.
>>
>> The hard fact is that the police don't have the manpower to protect
>> everyone 24 hours a day. Most violent crimes happen very fast. Even if
>> you call the cops, the bad guy will most likely have done his nasty
>> deed and be gone before they show up. People have to protect
>> themselves.
>
>Yup.
>
>>
>> We need some gun control, of course.
>
>Why?
To prevent lunatics like yourself from going around committing mass murder.
>> People should not have access to
>> automatic weapons or artillery.
>
>Why not?
Too much potential damage vs the purported purpose of self-defense. If you
need an automatic weapon for personal defense you are screwed anyway.
>> It helps to remember that the Second
>> Amendment was written in the 18th century, when all the guns were
>> single shot muzzleloaders whose max rate of fire was about 3 rounds
>> per minute.
>
>Yup, let's remember that people could buy and keep state-of-the-art
>weaponry.
And lets also not forget that your conclusion from that statement is assinine.
Bye, troll.
*plonk*
Adam Littman
>
>"Yardpilot" <Yard...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:nBOf9.273458$_91.3...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>I love folk like Black Knight who are unaware that there were multiple shot
>guns used in the Revolution.
Which guns? IIRC by the Civil war it was still only officers that had
revolvers.
Morton Davis
news:<iqounu82pmekrmr6b...@4ax.com>...
> > > kni...@indystart.com (Black Knight) wrote
<594c8e48.02091...@posting.google.com> in talk.politics.guns. :
> >
> > >We need some gun control, of course. People should not have access to
> > >automatic weapons or artillery.
> >
> > Why not? What's wrong with automatic weapons?
>
> Nothing in the hands of soldiers protecting the USA. Their killing
> capacity is too much to give a criminal. Of course, that's my opinion,
> but I'm an NRA member and the NRA also takes that position. There are
> a few states that allow civilians to have them. Arizona did at one
> time.You have to set limits somewhere and that's where I'd set them.
BULLSHIT on you being a NRA member and on your idiot views on automatic
weapons. There are tens of thousands of automatic weapons in American gun
owner's hands right now. Kindly post a list of the crimes committed with
automatic weapons.
>
>
> > >It helps to remember that the Second
> > >Amendment was written in the 18th century, when all the guns were
> > >single shot muzzleloaders whose max rate of fire was about 3 rounds
> > >per minute.
> >
> > And newspapers were printed one page at a time, by hand. Does this
> > mean we should reinvestigate freedom of the press?
>
> Irrelevant. I was talking about the intent of the Founding Fathers,
> which is important when you interpret the Constitution.
>
You would not know the intent of the Founding fathers if it bit you in the
ass.
-*MORT*-
Morton Davis
"Adam Littman" <al...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:alosqr$ar1$5...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
> In article <3D7FE53D...@hers.com>, fla...@his.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >Morton Davis wrote:
> >
> >> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@hers.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3D7FCC87...@hers.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Yardpilot wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > "Morton Davis" <oglet...@oglethorpe.com> wrote in message
> >> > > news:wiJf9.445313$UU1.70980@sccrnsc03...
> >> > > >
> >> > > > How many rounds are in a cannon loaded with nials?
> >> > >
> >> > > One.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks - I forgot to answer that one.
> >> >
> >> > Susan
> >> >
> >>
> >> How many rounds are in a man o' war broadside?
> >
> >I always thought that "broadside" was a *directional* term...?
>
> War ships back then had guns pointing out the sides. Your best position
was
> crossing the enemies "T". You had all your side guns and he had maybe 1,
maybe
> no guns pointing at you. One firing by each gun was a "broadside".
>
> The first turret mounted warship gun was on the Monitor. A Union Ironclad
in
> the Civil War.
>
> Before that, if you wanted to bring guns to bear, you had to turn the
whole
> ship.
>
were smaller cannon that were on pivots that were dierected at the rigging
on men on decks of opposing vessels. The answer: as many as the man o' war
could field.
http://www.nelsonsnavy.co.uk/broadside6.html
The point being that men of means in those times could, and did, own
warships.
-*MORT*-
Robert Frenchu
>Robert Frenchu <TheRi...@toughguy.net> wrote in message news:<iqounu82pmekrmr6b...@4ax.com>...
>> > kni...@indystart.com (Black Knight) wrote <594c8e48.02091...@posting.google.com> in talk.politics.guns. :
>>
>> >We need some gun control, of course. People should not have access to
>> >automatic weapons or artillery.
>>
>> Why not? What's wrong with automatic weapons?
>
>Nothing in the hands of soldiers protecting the USA. Their killing
>capacity is too much to give a criminal.
So how are you going to stop them from getting them- make them
illegal?
> Of course, that's my opinion,
>but I'm an NRA member and the NRA also takes that position.
Really? then it will be real easy for you to cite the NRA saying that
machine guns should be illegal.
>There are
>a few states that allow civilians to have them. Arizona did at one
>time.You have to set limits somewhere and that's where I'd set them.
You seem to be a fountain of knowledge. Name those "few" states.
>> >It helps to remember that the Second
>> >Amendment was written in the 18th century, when all the guns were
>> >single shot muzzleloaders whose max rate of fire was about 3 rounds
>> >per minute.
>>
>> And newspapers were printed one page at a time, by hand. Does this
>> mean we should reinvestigate freedom of the press?
>
>Irrelevant. I was talking about the intent of the Founding Fathers,
>which is important when you interpret the Constitution.
Totally relevant. The FF's wanted citizens to have the same guns as
soldiers- what would be the *point* otherwise?
Adam Littman
The soldiers now have nukes. Want civilians to have _those_ too?
Robert Frenchu
>>Totally relevant. The FF's wanted citizens to have the same guns as
>>soldiers- what would be the *point* otherwise?
>
>The soldiers now have nukes. Want civilians to have _those_ too?
I said "same guns as the soldiers." Was it the two syllable word that
threw you?
Morton Davis
No. Only need a license if you get caught. There are hunbdreds of thousands
of drivers on the roads with no valid license.
>We have a right
> to speak, you still can't yell at the top of your lungs in a quiet
> neighborhood at 3 AM.
You can if yor neighbors are understanding.
>
> No rights are absolute. That is so if for no other reason than that other
> people also have rights.
Their rights end when they infringe on the rights of others.
>
> A proficiency and safety test could be administered in less than an hour.
Ah, yes. Who determines the content of the test?
Sorry. No way. No How. Not just no but FUCK NO.
-*MORT*-
Adam Littman
The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about guns. It says "keep and bear
arms". Last time I checked, nukes were "arms".
Adam Littman
>
>"Adam Littman" <al...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote in message
>news:alot1g$ar1$6...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
>> We have a right to travel, you still need a licence to drive.
>
>No. Only need a license if you get caught. There are hunbdreds of thousands
>of drivers on the roads with no valid license.
That is the stupidest, most pissant argument I have seen today. That's like
saying it is legal to murder someone as long as you don't get caught.
OK, pissant, I will be more specific. You need a license to drive legally?
Happy?
Now, since I don't waste time with pointless hairsplitters...
*plonk*
Robert Frenchu
>In article <l810ou0f1fg2n7pki...@4ax.com>, Robert Frenchu <TheRi...@toughguy.net> wrote:
>>> al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam Littman) wrote
>> <alovmd$h2f$2...@news01.cit.cornell.edu> in talk.politics.guns. :
>>
>>
>>>>Totally relevant. The FF's wanted citizens to have the same guns as
>>>>soldiers- what would be the *point* otherwise?
>>>
>>>The soldiers now have nukes. Want civilians to have _those_ too?
>>
>>I said "same guns as the soldiers." Was it the two syllable word that
>>threw you?
>
>The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about guns. It says "keep and bear
>arms". Last time I checked, nukes were "arms".
Check again.
Susan Cohen
Adam Littman wrote:
> In article <LCOf9.273467$_91.3...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>, "Yardpilot" <Yard...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Susan Cohen" <fla...@hers.com> wrote in message
> >news:3D7F6368...@hers.com...
> >>
> >only law-abiding, sane citizens should
> >> have access to guns.
> >>
> >> We don't need more gun control - we need only to be more effective with
> >the controls already in place. Like
> >> background checks.
> >>
> >> Okay, maybe we also need to treat guns more like cars: you should have to
> >prove you are proficient and safe before
> >> getting a license to operate one.
> >
> >Oh, so you want gun ownership to be treated as a privilege. Interesting.
>
> We have a right to travel, you still need a licence to drive. We have a right
> to speak, you still can't yell at the top of your lungs in a quiet
> neighborhood at 3 AM.
>
> No rights are absolute. That is so if for no other reason than that other
> people also have rights.
>
> A proficiency and safety test could be administered in less than an hour.
Ah, I assumed he knew all this, it being ridiculously obvious, and was making a belligerent implication. I
apologize if I was wrong.
Susan
Susan Cohen
Adam Littman wrote:
> In article <UNTf9.396711$me6.45714@sccrnsc01>, "Morton Davis" <oglet...@oglethorpe.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Adam Littman" <al...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote in message
> >news:alot1g$ar1$6...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
>
> >> We have a right to travel, you still need a licence to drive.
> >
> >No. Only need a license if you get caught. There are hunbdreds of thousands
> >of drivers on the roads with no valid license.
>
> That is the stupidest, most pissant argument I have seen today. That's like
> saying it is legal to murder someone as long as you don't get caught.
>
> OK, pissant, I will be more specific. You need a license to drive legally?
>
> Happy?
>
> Now, since I don't waste time with pointless hairsplitters...
>
> *plonk*
>
The troll was obvious from the "how many rounds" questions.
Susan
Susan Cohen
Robert Frenchu wrote:
I guess that's why we have the terms "nuclear armaments" "nuclear arms race"....
Susan
Black Knight
> > kni...@indystart.com (Black Knight) wrote <594c8e48.02091...@posting.google.com> in talk.politics.guns. :
>
> >Robert Frenchu <TheRi...@toughguy.net> wrote in message news:<iqounu82pmekrmr6b...@4ax.com>...
> >> > kni...@indystart.com (Black Knight) wrote <594c8e48.02091...@posting.google.com> in talk.politics.guns. :
>
> >> >We need some gun control, of course. People should not have access to
> >> >automatic weapons or artillery.
> >>
> >> Why not? What's wrong with automatic weapons?
> >
> >Nothing in the hands of soldiers protecting the USA. Their killing
> >capacity is too much to give a criminal.
>
> So how are you going to stop them from getting them- make them
> illegal?
That will not stop them completely. It will reduce their supply.
>
> > Of course, that's my opinion,
> >but I'm an NRA member and the NRA also takes that position.
>
> Really? then it will be real easy for you to cite the NRA saying that
> machine guns should be illegal.
I didn't say that, you idiot. The NRA recognizes that some states
allow them but does not lobby to protect their ownership. Don't put
words in my mouth, asshole.You got a finger? Call the NRA and ask them
about policy. They have NEVER lobbied to legalize automatic weapons.
>
> >There are
> >a few states that allow civilians to have them. Arizona did at one
> >time.You have to set limits somewhere and that's where I'd set them.
>
> You seem to be a fountain of knowledge. Name those "few" states.
Are you illiterate, fuckhead? I told you Arizona. State laws change
sometimes, you fucking asshole. At one time, Texas allowed them ,but
not anymore.Nevada did at one time, but I'm not sure now. If you want
the info, you arrogant piece of horsedung, use your fucking search
engine. Is that simple enough for you? Do you know what a search
engine is, dumbass?
>
> >> >It helps to remember that the Second
> >> >Amendment was written in the 18th century, when all the guns were
> >> >single shot muzzleloaders whose max rate of fire was about 3 rounds
> >> >per minute.
> >>
> >> And newspapers were printed one page at a time, by hand. Does this
> >> mean we should reinvestigate freedom of the press?
> >
> >Irrelevant. I was talking about the intent of the Founding Fathers,
> >which is important when you interpret the Constitution.
>
> Totally relevant. The FF's wanted citizens to have the same guns as
> soldiers- what would be the *point* otherwise?
The point is on top of your fucking head.
Cite your proof of that statement. Play by your own rules.
Bruno
Robert Frenchu
Is that why we have those terms?
wavoka
"Adam Littman" <al...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:alp5op$olm$2...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
> In article <UNTf9.396711$me6.45714@sccrnsc01>, "Morton Davis"
<oglet...@oglethorpe.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Adam Littman" <al...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote in message
> >news:alot1g$ar1$6...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
>
> >> We have a right to travel, you still need a licence to drive.
> >
> >No. Only need a license if you get caught. There are hunbdreds of
thousands
> >of drivers on the roads with no valid license.
>
> That is the stupidest, most pissant argument I have seen today. That's
like
> saying it is legal to murder someone as long as you don't get caught.
Not at all. Merely pointing out that cars start quite well without a
mystical license.
>
> OK, pissant, I will be more specific. You need a license to drive legally?
Not on private property and, in many communities, not for all vehicles. In
many communities you do not need a license to drive a farm tractor on public
roads.
>
> Happy?
>
> Now, since I don't waste time with pointless hairsplitters...
Yes, I know, lttle things like reality should not intrude on your fantasies.
>
> *plonk*
Ah.... I'm gonna cry. NOT.
>
> --
> ___________
> Adam Littman
Adam LIttle Man how appropriate.
-*MORT*-
Robert Frenchu
>Robert Frenchu <TheRi...@toughguy.net> wrote in message news:<64tvnu0io9lnm55rt...@4ax.com>...
>> > kni...@indystart.com (Black Knight) wrote <594c8e48.02091...@posting.google.com> in talk.politics.guns. :
>>
>> >Robert Frenchu <TheRi...@toughguy.net> wrote in message news:<iqounu82pmekrmr6b...@4ax.com>...
>> >> > kni...@indystart.com (Black Knight) wrote <594c8e48.02091...@posting.google.com> in talk.politics.guns. :
>>
>> >> >We need some gun control, of course. People should not have access to
>> >> >automatic weapons or artillery.
>> >>
>> >> Why not? What's wrong with automatic weapons?
>> >
>> >Nothing in the hands of soldiers protecting the USA. Their killing
>> >capacity is too much to give a criminal.
>>
>> So how are you going to stop them from getting them- make them
>> illegal?
>
>That will not stop them completely. It will reduce their supply.
>>
>> > Of course, that's my opinion,
>> >but I'm an NRA member and the NRA also takes that position.
>>
>> Really? then it will be real easy for you to cite the NRA saying that
>> machine guns should be illegal.
>
>I didn't say that, you idiot.
You said "Their killing capacity is too much to give a criminal" and
"That's my opinion and the NRA also takes that opinion."
Then when I ask you for a cite you insult me. What's up with that?
>The NRA recognizes that some states
>allow them but does not lobby to protect their ownership.
You said that were of the same opinion. Give us a cite, then.
> Don't put
>words in my mouth, asshole.You got a finger? Call the NRA and ask them
>about policy. They have NEVER lobbied to legalize automatic weapons.
You claimed they had an opinion, provide it. If you CAN"T (or won't)
then I'll just assume you're a liar.
>> >There are
>> >a few states that allow civilians to have them. Arizona did at one
>> >time.You have to set limits somewhere and that's where I'd set them.
>>
>> You seem to be a fountain of knowledge. Name those "few" states.
>
>Are you illiterate, fuckhead? I told you Arizona.
That's ONE state. You *do* know the difference between "one" and "a
few" don't you? Name them.
> State laws change
>sometimes, you fucking asshole. At one time, Texas allowed them ,but
>not anymore.Nevada did at one time, but I'm not sure now. If you want
>the info, you arrogant piece of horsedung, use your fucking search
>engine. Is that simple enough for you? Do you know what a search
>engine is, dumbass?
You are the one making the claims, can't you back them up? If you
can't, maybe you'd better stop letting your mouth write checks your
ass can't cash.
>> >> >It helps to remember that the Second
>> >> >Amendment was written in the 18th century, when all the guns were
>> >> >single shot muzzleloaders whose max rate of fire was about 3 rounds
>> >> >per minute.
>> >>
>> >> And newspapers were printed one page at a time, by hand. Does this
>> >> mean we should reinvestigate freedom of the press?
>> >
>> >Irrelevant. I was talking about the intent of the Founding Fathers,
>> >which is important when you interpret the Constitution.
>>
>> Totally relevant. The FF's wanted citizens to have the same guns as
>> soldiers- what would be the *point* otherwise?
>
>The point is on top of your fucking head.
>Cite your proof of that statement. Play by your own rules.
Use a search engine. Play by YOUR own rules, loser.
Cole Firearms Inc.
Frenchu never cites, he just lies.
--
""Sic Semper Tyrannis" - Thus Always with Tyrants - John Wilkes Booth"
"Per ardua nec flectitur nec mutat. Confido,
est voluntas dei, invictus maneo. Addere leci justitiam
deo certavi et vici." - Rev. Shawn Cole, Cole Firearms Inc.
Robert Frenchu aka Sid Viscous aka Dr Jose Mariachi aka Mongolian Bob,
The same person posting under different names.
no one of consequence
] In article <64tvnu0io9lnm55rt...@4ax.com>, Robert Frenchu <TheRi...@toughguy.net> wrote:
]>Totally relevant. The FF's wanted citizens to have the same guns as
]>soldiers- what would be the *point* otherwise?
]
] The soldiers now have nukes. Want civilians to have _those_ too?
Want to stop beating up that strawman?
--
|Patrick Chester wol...@io.com |
|"...could you and your associates arrange that for me, Mr. Morden?" |
|Wittier remarks always come to mind just after sending your article.|
Susan Cohen
wavoka wrote:
> "Adam Littman" <al...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote in message
> news:alp5op$olm$2...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
> > In article <UNTf9.396711$me6.45714@sccrnsc01>, "Morton Davis"
> <oglet...@oglethorpe.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >"Adam Littman" <al...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote in message
> > >news:alot1g$ar1$6...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
> >
> > >> We have a right to travel, you still need a licence to drive.
> > >
> > >No. Only need a license if you get caught. There are hunbdreds of
> thousands
> > >of drivers on the roads with no valid license.
> >
> > That is the stupidest, most pissant argument I have seen today. That's
> like
> > saying it is legal to murder someone as long as you don't get caught.
>
> Not at all.
Yes, the analogy isexact.
> Merely pointing out that cars start quite well without a
> mystical license.
Which, as has been pointed out, DOES NOT MAKE IT LEGAL.
> > OK, pissant, I will be more specific. You need a license to drive legally?
>
> Not on private property and, in many communities, not for all vehicles.
You are now shifting the premise of the argument.
> In
> many communities you do not need a license to drive a farm tractor on public
> roads.
> >
> > Happy?
> >
> > Now, since I don't waste time with pointless hairsplitters...
>
> Yes, I know, lttle things like reality should not intrude on your fantasies.
Or, rather, on yours.
> > *plonk*
>
> Ah.... I'm gonna cry. NOT.
No, you'll do the troll trick ofchasnging your name.
no one of consequence
] In article <LCOf9.273467$_91.3...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>, "Yardpilot" <Yard...@attbi.com> wrote:
]>"Susan Cohen" <fla...@hers.com> wrote in message
]>news:3D7F6368...@hers.com...
] We have a right to travel, you still need a licence to drive. We have a right
] to speak, you still can't yell at the top of your lungs in a quiet
] neighborhood at 3 AM.
Wow, a revenue-building scheme and a limitation on actions, not possession.
Guess what? You can own a firearm, but you aren't allowed to murder people.
Fancy that.
] No rights are absolute. That is so if for no other reason than that other
] people also have rights.
That does not justify prior restraint on people.
] A proficiency and safety test could be administered in less than an hour.
...and end up with something like literacy tests at polling stations.
Applying the same logic to free speech would require all people to be
muzzled until they pass the proficiency test, btw. Or keep people from
getting net access until they could pass a test, which while tempting would
still be wrong.
Adam Littman
>> al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam Littman) wrote
> <alp5kh$olm$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu> in talk.politics.guns. :
>
>>In article <l810ou0f1fg2n7pki...@4ax.com>, Robert Frenchu
> <TheRi...@toughguy.net> wrote:
>>>> al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam Littman) wrote
>>> <alovmd$h2f$2...@news01.cit.cornell.edu> in talk.politics.guns. :
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Totally relevant. The FF's wanted citizens to have the same guns as
>>>>>soldiers- what would be the *point* otherwise?
>>>>
>>>>The soldiers now have nukes. Want civilians to have _those_ too?
>>>
>>>I said "same guns as the soldiers." Was it the two syllable word that
>>>threw you?
>>
>>The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about guns. It says "keep and bear
>>arms". Last time I checked, nukes were "arms".
>
>Check again.
Let's see, yup, nukes are still "arms".
*plonk*
Adam Littman
Never assume that. There are lots of people out there who think that rights
are absolute. Their brains either don't work well enough for them to see that
rights that conflict with each other can't be absolute, or they don't bother
to use them.
There are all too many people whose principle use for their brain is to
prevent daylight from going in one ear and out the other.
Robert Frenchu
>Frenchu never cites, he just lies.
"Reverend" Cole supports fascists on his web site. TRUE
"Reverend" Cole supports contributes to anti-gun groups. TRUE
"Reverend" Cole thought that geese didn't bite until I publicly
humiliated him several times. TRUE
You need the cites on those, Shawn?
Laugh laugh laugh laugh.
Yardpilot
> >
> >
> > Yardpilot wrote:
> >
> > > "Morton Davis" <oglet...@oglethorpe.com> wrote in message
> > > news:wiJf9.445313$UU1.70980@sccrnsc03...
> > > >
> > > > How many rounds are in a cannon loaded with nials?
> > >
> > > One.
> >
> > Thanks - I forgot to answer that one.
> >
> > Susan
> >
>
> How many rounds are in a man o' war broadside?
That depends, of course, on how many guns she carried. (assuming we're
talking ships and not sea creatures)
Yardpilot
> > >
> > > To my mind, this is not the point *nearly* so much as it is the fact
that
> > > have access to guns.
> > >
> > > We don't need more gun control - we need only to be more effective
with
> > the controls already in place. Like
> > > background checks.
> > >
> > > Okay, maybe we also need to treat guns more like cars: you should have
to
> > prove you are proficient and safe before
> > > getting a license to operate one.
> >
> > Oh, so you want gun ownership to be treated as a privilege. Interesting.
>
Sorry, ma'am, but it was an accurate statement based on your post. Gun
ownership, at least in the United States, is NOT a privilege. That is why it
is called the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, not the privilege to keep and
bear arms as the government sees fit.
Yardpilot
"Adam Littman" <al...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:alot1g$ar1$6...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
"Yardpilot" <Yard...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Susan Cohen" <fla...@hers.com> wrote in message
> >news:3D7F6368...@hers.com...
> >>
> >> Black Knight wrote:
> >>
> >> > Christopher Morton <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> >news:<heatnugeij4vi2l9q...@4ax.com>...
> >> > > On 10 Sep 2002 03:13:04 -0700, kni...@indystart.com (Black Knight)
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >I like your sig line about gun control. Very good.Gun control also
> >> > > >disarms the handicapped. It renders defenseless the most
vulnerable
> >> > > >people in society.
> >> > >
> >> > > A considerable number of the pro-gun control people in usenet seem
to
> >> > > have S&M fantasies involving forced submission, either of
themselves
> >> > > or their imagined victims. That's one reason why they hate the
idea
> >> > > of women defending themselves so much. It spoils their domination
> >> > > fantasies.
> >> >
> >> > The hard fact is that the police don't have the manpower to protect
> >> > everyone 24 hours a day. Most violent crimes happen very fast. Even
if
> >> > you call the cops, the bad guy will most likely have done his nasty
> >> > deed and be gone before they show up. People have to protect
> >> > themselves.
> >> >
> >> > Amendment was written in the 18th century, when all the guns were
> >> > single shot muzzleloaders whose max rate of fire was about 3 rounds
> >> > per minute.
> >>
that
> >only law-abiding, sane citizens should
> >> have access to guns.
> >>
> >> We don't need more gun control - we need only to be more effective with
> >the controls already in place. Like
> >> background checks.
> >>
> >> Okay, maybe we also need to treat guns more like cars: you should have
to
> >prove you are proficient and safe before
> >> getting a license to operate one.
> >
> >Oh, so you want gun ownership to be treated as a privilege. Interesting.
>
I don't need a license to travel, or even to drive, for that matter. I need
a license to drive on public roads.
> We have a right
> to speak, you still can't yell at the top of your lungs in a quiet
> neighborhood at 3 AM.
The two do not equate. One is a right, the other is creating a public
nuisance. IOW, the second choice you list interferes with the rights of
others. Also see "due process."
>
> No rights are absolute. That is so if for no other reason than that other
> people also have rights.
Guh, that's why your comment about shouting in the wee hours is screwy. I
have the right to keep and beart arms. That doesn' mean I can just shoot
anyone I want.
>
> A proficiency and safety test could be administered in less than an hour.
Horseshit.
Yardpilot
> In article <UNTf9.396711$me6.45714@sccrnsc01>, "Morton Davis"
<oglet...@oglethorpe.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Adam Littman" <al...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote in message
> >news:alot1g$ar1$6...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
>
> >> We have a right to travel, you still need a licence to drive.
> >
> >No. Only need a license if you get caught. There are hunbdreds of
thousands
> >of drivers on the roads with no valid license.
>
> That is the stupidest, most pissant argument I have seen today. That's
like
> saying it is legal to murder someone as long as you don't get caught.
>
> OK, pissant, I will be more specific. You need a license to drive legally?
Still wrong. You need a license to drive on public roads. Strange as it may
seem to you, there are many places where you don't need a license to drive.
Yardpilot
> In article <nBOf9.273458$_91.3...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Yardpilot" <Yard...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Black Knight" <kni...@indystart.com> wrote in message
> >news:594c8e48.02091...@posting.google.com...
> >> Christopher Morton <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> >news:<heatnugeij4vi2l9q...@4ax.com>...
> >> > On 10 Sep 2002 03:13:04 -0700, kni...@indystart.com (Black Knight)
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >I like your sig line about gun control. Very good.Gun control also
> >> > >disarms the handicapped. It renders defenseless the most vulnerable
> >> > >people in society.
> >> >
> >> > A considerable number of the pro-gun control people in usenet seem to
> >> > have S&M fantasies involving forced submission, either of themselves
> >> > or their imagined victims. That's one reason why they hate the idea
> >> > of women defending themselves so much. It spoils their domination
> >> > fantasies.
> >>
> >> The hard fact is that the police don't have the manpower to protect
> >> everyone 24 hours a day. Most violent crimes happen very fast. Even if
> >> you call the cops, the bad guy will most likely have done his nasty
> >> deed and be gone before they show up. People have to protect
> >> themselves.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> We need some gun control, of course.
> >
>
> To prevent lunatics like yourself from going around committing mass
murder.
Please cite every incident where I have done any such thing.
>
> >> People should not have access to
> >> automatic weapons or artillery.
> >
> >Why not?
>
> Too much potential damage vs the purported purpose of self-defense. If you
> need an automatic weapon for personal defense you are screwed anyway.
Why are you trying to limit the RKBA to self-defense? Artillery can be fun.
A blast, if you will. Automatic weapons rock. For those not into cocaine,
supplying ammo to an automatic weapon is a good way to get rid of surplus
cash.
>
>
> >> It helps to remember that the Second
> >> Amendment was written in the 18th century, when all the guns were
> >> single shot muzzleloaders whose max rate of fire was about 3 rounds
> >> per minute.
> >
> >Yup, let's remember that people could buy and keep state-of-the-art
> >weaponry.
>
> And lets also not forget that your conclusion from that statement is
assinine.
Huh? People at the time could own the state of the art weapons. In fact, the
people generally owned higher quality, more accurate weapons than the
military.
Yardpilot
> In article <l810ou0f1fg2n7pki...@4ax.com>, Robert Frenchu
<TheRi...@toughguy.net> wrote:
> >> al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam Littman) wrote
> > <alovmd$h2f$2...@news01.cit.cornell.edu> in talk.politics.guns. :
> >
> >
> >>>Totally relevant. The FF's wanted citizens to have the same guns as
> >>>soldiers- what would be the *point* otherwise?
> >>
> >>The soldiers now have nukes. Want civilians to have _those_ too?
> >
> >I said "same guns as the soldiers." Was it the two syllable word that
> >threw you?
>
> The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about guns. It says "keep and bear
> arms". Last time I checked, nukes were "arms".
That's a matter of definition. They are classed as weapons of mass
destruction.
Yardpilot
news:<iqounu82pmekrmr6b...@4ax.com>...
> > > kni...@indystart.com (Black Knight) wrote
<594c8e48.02091...@posting.google.com> in talk.politics.guns. :
> >
> > >automatic weapons or artillery.
> >
> > Why not? What's wrong with automatic weapons?
>
> Nothing in the hands of soldiers protecting the USA. Their killing
> capacity is too much to give a criminal.
What does private onwership have with giving guns to criminals?
> Of course, that's my opinion,
> but I'm an NRA member and the NRA also takes that position. There are
> a few states that allow civilians to have them. Arizona did at one
> time.You have to set limits somewhere and that's where I'd set them.
More states "allow" them than don't.
Yardpilot
news:<64tvnu0io9lnm55rt...@4ax.com>...
> > > kni...@indystart.com (Black Knight) wrote
<594c8e48.02091...@posting.google.com> in talk.politics.guns. :
> >
> > >Robert Frenchu <TheRi...@toughguy.net> wrote in message
news:<iqounu82pmekrmr6b...@4ax.com>...
> > >> > kni...@indystart.com (Black Knight) wrote
<594c8e48.02091...@posting.google.com> in talk.politics.guns. :
> >
> > >> >We need some gun control, of course. People should not have access
to
> > >> >automatic weapons or artillery.
> > >>
> > >> Why not? What's wrong with automatic weapons?
> > >
> > >Nothing in the hands of soldiers protecting the USA. Their killing
> > >capacity is too much to give a criminal.
> >
> > So how are you going to stop them from getting them- make them
> > illegal?
>
> That will not stop them completely. It will reduce their supply.
Nonsense. If criminals want them, they can get them or make them. It is easy
to get an illegal one. It is much harder to get a legal one. More expensive,
too.
John A. Stovall
wrote:
Not all nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction, the W54
warhead has/had a yield of only 18tons. That's hardly mass
destruction.
http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/FP/projects/nucwcost/davyc.htm
The BLU-82B has a yield of about 15,000 lbs an is the largest
conventional bomb. So, we have 7.5 tons therefore the W54 is only a
little over twice as powerful.
Nuclear weapons are just another weapon, not magic.
**************************************************************
"One, two, and the Depot RAR-O, I will buy you a sweet Banana.
One, two, and the Depot RAR-O, I will buy you a sweet Banana.
Banana, banana, banana I will buy you a sweet banana.
Shield, spear and knobkerrie, soldiers in war and peace,
In war she fights with bravery, I will buy you a sweet banana.
"Sweet Banana"
Battle hymm of the Rhodesian African Rifles
Kurt Knoll
definitions of course can not be said about America or Israel. Ask
yourself why ?.
Kurt Knoll.
"Yardpilot" <Yard...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Bv5g9.296916$aA.51961@sccrnsc02...
Kurt Knoll
magic.
Kurt Knoll.
=======
"John A. Stovall" <sto...@our-town.com> wrote in message
news:o5p1ouk92c4kb4dmd...@4ax.com...