OT. Orlando gay club killings

[patrickf...@gmail.com]

Just another day in America. Somebody goes bonkers with a gun and kills people indiscriminately. Nothing we can do about that. Just realize all these gun nuts are in militias. The bought politicians say there is nothing that can be done. Expect many more gun deaths over the years...you or your family might even be a gun shot victim but in the US that's A-OK.

I prefer Rodney King...why can't we all just get along?

[darkst...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 3:53:48 PM UTC-7, patrickf...@gmail.com wrote:
> Just another day in America. Somebody goes bonkers with a gun and kills people indiscriminately. Nothing we can do about that. Just realize all these gun nuts are in militias. The bought politicians say there is nothing that can be done. Expect many more gun deaths over the years...you or your family might even be a gun shot victim but in the US that's A-OK.
>
> I prefer Rodney King...why can't we all just get along?

We're too far gone. Someone almost gunned down the LA Pride parade too.

Mike

[BTR1701]

In article <46f020e2-571f-40b4...@googlegroups.com>,

patrickf...@gmail.com wrote:

> Just another day in America. Somebody goes bonkers with a gun and kills
> people indiscriminately. Nothing we can do about that. Just realize all
> these gun nuts are in militias. The bought politicians say there is nothing

> that can be done. Expect many more gun deaths over the years... you or your

> family might even be a gun shot victim but in the US that's A-OK.

Radical Islamist killed 50 gay people.

Give up your gun, random person living in America!



"Don't blame an entire religion!"

"Blame all the gun owners!"

[Zob]

Your disingenuous hyperbole contributes absolutely nothing
constructive to the gun conversation; it only makes you seem
dull-witted and perpetuates the stereotype of a tobacco-chewing
uneducated bubba.

Surely you know very well that no one wants you to "give up your gun."
That's just stupid talk and you know it. Gun control is not about
taking guns away from everyone; it's about stricter laws requiring a
thorough background check and a "cool-down" waiting period in order to
purchase a gun. And banning the use of military style weapons as
Ronald Reagan did. These are just plain common sense things. None
would remove your right to own a gun. But they would save lives. Not
that you care.

The psycho who just committed the worst mass shooting murder in
American history had just bought his assault weapon a few days ago. A
thorough background check would have shown that he had been previously
questioned twice in connection with a terrorist organization. Should
he have been sold an assault weapon? HELL NO!
50 innocent people are needlessly dead and another 53 are injured or
dying because the pro-violence, NRA-loving, macho-big-man wannabes
don't understand that the 2nd amendment does not mean every citizen
possessing military grade assault weapons with no regulation. If it
were they or members of their own family that were gunned down, maybe
then they'd suddenly gain a modicum of common sense.

[Larc]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 07:31:23 -0400, Zob <zob...@yahoo.com> wrote:

| Your disingenuous hyperbole contributes absolutely nothing
| constructive to the gun conversation; it only makes you seem
| dull-witted and perpetuates the stereotype of a tobacco-chewing
| uneducated bubba.
|
| Surely you know very well that no one wants you to "give up your gun."
| That's just stupid talk and you know it. Gun control is not about
| taking guns away from everyone; it's about stricter laws requiring a
| thorough background check and a "cool-down" waiting period in order to
| purchase a gun. And banning the use of military style weapons as
| Ronald Reagan did. These are just plain common sense things. None
| would remove your right to own a gun. But they would save lives. Not
| that you care.
|
| The psycho who just committed the worst mass shooting murder in
| American history had just bought his assault weapon a few days ago. A
| thorough background check would have shown that he had been previously
| questioned twice in connection with a terrorist organization. Should
| he have been sold an assault weapon? HELL NO!
| 50 innocent people are needlessly dead and another 53 are injured or
| dying because the pro-violence, NRA-loving, macho-big-man wannabes
| don't understand that the 2nd amendment does not mean every citizen
| possessing military grade assault weapons with no regulation. If it
| were they or members of their own family that were gunned down, maybe
| then they'd suddenly gain a modicum of common sense.

+1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Larc

[patrickf...@gmail.com]

Very well stated, Zob. However, I doubt if Btr1701's family members were ever gunned down that he'd be impacted. Gun nuts like him lost his humanity years ago.

[Tim Hall]

On 6/13/2016 12:08 PM, Bob Rudd wrote:

> Second Amendment supporters know our right to carry arms and conceal
> carry will always result in lives being saved rather than being lost.
> What occurred was a horrendous act of ISIS terrorism but given Obama's
> inability to protect the national border security...perhaps some lives
> would have been saved if some club attendees had been carrying legal
> concealed weapons.
>
> Typical liberal responses btw....take guns and concealed weapons away
> from Americans. Obama and Hillary share the same message and
> believes. Obama holds the ultimate responsibility for what happened
> due to his immigration policies as well as being insuffienctly
> vigilant for our internal national security.
>
> If more people got permits for concealed carry, we'd have far less
> crime and loss of life.
>

Yeah, sure, someone with a handgun and no law enforcement training is
going to stop someone who walks into a public place spraying everyone
with an assault rifle. That's if they're dumb enough to not do the only
sane thing in that position which is to run.

And gee, if only those 5 year olds had been armed we could have
prevented Sandy Hook.

[The_LA_Flash]

On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 3:53:48 PM UTC-7, patrickf...@gmail.com wrote:

> Just another day in America. Somebody goes bonkers with a gun and kills people indiscriminately. Nothing we can do about that. Just realize all these gun nuts are in militias. The bought politicians say there is nothing that can be done. Expect many more gun deaths over the years...you or your family might even be a gun shot victim but in the US that's A-OK.
>
> I prefer Rodney King...why can't we all just get along?

Well said and in the Rodney King beat-down it was 15 guys with sticks beating on just 1 guy, instead of 1 guy with guns shooting over 100 people...

[patrickf...@gmail.com]

I have to wonder what militia Bob belongs to. I'm sure he belongs to none. I'm also sure Bob has never shot a musket which was used when the consitution was written. Bought NRA people with a lack of humanity and no soul take Bob's side. I view people like Bob as sociopaths or psychopaths. I also believe people like Bob, if his family was murdered from gun violence, would simply say Ho-Hum and celebrate and view the deaths as a financial savings. It's sad that people like Bob are considered American.

[BTR1701]

In article <495tlbpj9bq8m724j...@4ax.com>,

Zob <zob...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 17:35:46 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <46f020e2-571f-40b4...@googlegroups.com>,
> > patrickf...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Just another day in America. Somebody goes bonkers with a gun and kills
> >> people indiscriminately. Nothing we can do about that. Just realize all
> >> these gun nuts are in militias. The bought politicians say there is
> >> nothing
> >> that can be done. Expect many more gun deaths over the years... you or
> >> your
> >> family might even be a gun shot victim but in the US that's A-OK.
> >
> >Radical Islamist killed 50 gay people.
> >
> >Give up your gun, random person living in America!
> >
> >
> >
> >"Don't blame an entire religion!"
> >
> >"Blame all the gun owners!"
>
> Your disingenuous hyperbole contributes absolutely nothing
> constructive to the gun conversation

One of the left's sillier habits is assuming that the main reason they
haven't won an argument is because it hasn't been talked about enough.

> Surely you know very well that no one wants you to "give up your gun."

I know no such thing. I've been at Hillary fundraisers where, when the
media is conveniently (and purposely) excluded, where she's outright
stated that one of her goals as president will be to appoint Supreme
Court justices who will reverse "that awful Heller decision". (That's
the one where the Court ruled firearm ownership to be a fundamental
constitutional right.)

I see Hillz is out there again today calling for a ban on automatic
firearms, as if they weren't already banned for all practical purposes,
and had anything to do with this Orlando incident.

(Nothing someone who obviously doesn't know what she's talking about
setting gun policy for those of us who do.)

As long as I live, I will never understand those who respond to a
terrorist attack on our core way of life by calling for restrictions on
our own liberty.

> That's just stupid talk and you know it. Gun control is not about
> taking guns away from everyone; it's about stricter laws requiring a
> thorough background check

This Orlando guy passed two backgrounds checks for his security job, and
they were more extensive than the ones done at gun stores.

> and a "cool-down" waiting period in order to purchase a gun.

Which is already the law. Even I, a law enforcement officer, can't walk
into a store, hand them some money, and walk out with a gun.

> And banning the use of military style weapons as Ronald Reagan did.

What exactly is "military style"?

You mean the ones that look scary, but have the exact same
capabilities-- no more, no less-- as grandpa's old-fashioned hunting
rifle?

Take the walnut stock off, add a black metal one, a plastic handgrip,
and some iron sights, and you've done nothing to improve its
deadliness-- the "gun" part of the gun never changed-- but now it looks
"scary" and "military".

How does legislating gun aesthetics do anything to address this problem?

> A thorough background check would have shown that he had been previously
> questioned twice in connection with a terrorist organization.

That's not the sort of thing that comes up on a NICs check. The NICs
system doesn't query internal FBI files. It only queries NCIC for
criminal arrests and convictions.

Indeed, denying someone the right to purchase a gun-- which the Supreme
Court ruled is a fundamental constitutional right, don't forget-- merely
for having been questioned by the police would be a gross violation of
due process.

You can't take away someone's constitutional rights just because the
cops asked them a few questions. What if we did that with the right to
vote? Would you be cool with that, too?

> Should he have been sold an assault weapon?

Since as a legal matter, there's no such thing as an "assault weapon",
that would be problematic. That's a propaganda term from the anti-gun
crowd that has no actual practical or legal meaning. Any gun can be an
"assault weapon" if it's used to assault someone. So can a baseball bat.

> the 2nd amendment does not mean every citizen possessing military grade
> assault weapons with no regulation.

That gun was not "military grade". No soldier is issued that kind of gun
since it is severely underpowered for use in a theater of combat.

A guy on an FBI watch list who pledged loyalty to ISIS and killed 50
people, and you and the president say this illustrates the need for gun
control. Unreal.

How about addressing the sick ideology behind the religion that has gays
being tossed to their deaths of cliffs on a regular basis, and which
figured prominently in this guy's motivation? He didn't choose a gay
night club by accident, you know.

[BTR1701]

In article <014e661f-2912-4a7d...@googlegroups.com>,

patrickf...@gmail.com wrote:

> Very well stated, Zob. However, I doubt if Btr1701's family members were
> ever gunned down that he'd be impacted.

I have a sister who is alive today because she was carrying a gun in her
purse when she was attacked.

> Gun nuts like him lost his humanity years ago.

No, I still have a sister I love very much because Americans have a
right to protect themselves.

On the other hand, you seem to lack somewhat in the humanity department
yourself if you feel the need to call anyone who disagrees with your
politics on this issue a "nut".

[BTR1701]

In article <njn5g2$1qd$1...@dont-email.me>, Tim Hall <inv...@invalid.net>
wrote:

> Yeah, sure, someone with a handgun and no law enforcement training is
> going to stop someone who walks into a public place spraying everyone
> with an assault rifle.

Guns that "spray" are already illegal for all practical purposes, champ.

[Tim Hall]

Ok, nit-picking chump.

[Ron]

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 4:36:20 PM UTC-4, Tim Hall wrote:
> On 6/13/2016 12:08 PM, Bob Rudd wrote:

<snip>

> > perhaps some lives
> > would have been saved if some club attendees had been carrying legal
> > concealed weapons.
> >
> > Typical liberal responses btw....take guns and concealed weapons away
> > from Americans. Obama and Hillary share the same message and
> > believes. Obama holds the ultimate responsibility for what happened
> > due to his immigration policies as well as being insuffienctly
> > vigilant for our internal national security.
> >
> > If more people got permits for concealed carry, we'd have far less
> > crime and loss of life.
> >
>
> Yeah, sure, someone with a handgun and no law enforcement training is
> going to stop someone who walks into a public place spraying everyone
> with an assault rifle. That's if they're dumb enough to not do the only
> sane thing in that position which is to run.
>
> And gee, if only those 5 year olds had been armed we could have
> prevented Sandy Hook.

Sorry Tim, I have to tag onto your post. I'm using Google Groups right
now and Rudd's post isn't showing.

Bob, there was an armed cop in the building for security and there wasn't
a damn thing he could do. I'm waiting for his first hand account to come out,
but as of right now all that is being reported is that "he exchanged gunfire with the shooter". That cops handgun was obviously no match for an assault rifle.

Sigh..........

[Giggles]

The cooling off period should be months, not days. And those months should be spent doing the most extensive background check possible along with sanity testing. As usual those that love guns more than people have put on their spin doctor hats and refuse to pray in public for everyone who was at the club and their families. Last I heard, some are still waiting for word on their loved ones that were there. While families are going through the worst pain anyone can go through, the NRA and the gun lovers are creaming their panties with joy that they will be able to brainwash more Barney Fife's into buying AR-15s for their 2 year old so they can kill their 4 year old and their entire neighborhood.


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ar15-gun-used-in-orlando-20160613

The AR-15 "was designed for the United States military to do to enemies of war exactly what it did this morning: kill mass numbers of people with maximum efficiency and ease. That is why the AR-15 has remained the weapon of choice for the United States military for over 50 years," lawyer Josh Koskoff said in a statement. "It is the gold standard for killing the enemy in battle, just as it has become the gold standard for mass murder of innocent civilians."

Semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 were, at one time, banned nationwide. The 1994 federal assault weapons ban prohibited most versions of the rifle from being sold in the U.S. The gun re-entered circulation after Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004. Subsequent efforts to renew the ban, or create other legislation that would limit assault weapons, have been unsuccessful.

Last summer, Wal-Mart — the biggest gun seller in America — announced it would stop selling AR-15s, but as of Monday morning, AR-15 parts and kits were still available on the retailer's website.

Update and correction: This piece has been updated to reflect the name of the AR-15 model used in the shooting, and corrected to reflect fact that the Snapchat footage from the scene of the crime captured more than 20 shots fired in a single nine-second stretch, not a 90-second stretch.

[patrickf...@gmail.com]

Hi Ron:

This is the best discussion on the attack I've heard. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4MC0vZgwfM It's done by Cenk Uyger of TYT.

[Ron]

Thanks Patrick. I will watch it later. I live in Orlando and I've been watching the news almost nonstop since early Sunday morning while it was happening.

I never thought something like this would *ever* happen here. Not to mention the shooting of Christina Grimmie ("The Voice" contestant) on Friday night just 4 miles away from the Pulse.

[BTR1701]

So you want to use dishonest and inaccurate hyperbole to make things sound
"scarier" than they are, but anyone who calls you on it is nitpicking.

Gotcha.

[BTR1701]

Or he just missed.

Look, this whole bit about an assault handgun being "no match" for an
assault rifle is silly. Both guns shoot one round per pull of the trigger.
The cop could send as many rounds down range just as quickly as the shitbag
with the rifle. The rate of fire isn't any different. The rounds fired were
equally powerful. The only advantage a rifle has over a pistol is accuracy
over distance, which is pretty much negated in a dark night club at close
quarters.

[BTR1701]

Giggles <giggle...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ar15-gun-used-in-orlando-20160613
>
> The AR-15 "was designed for the United States military to do to enemies
> of war exactly what it did this morning: kill mass numbers of people with
> maximum efficiency and ease. That is why the AR-15 has remained the
> weapon of choice for the United States military for over 50 years

The military uses a different version of the gun which is far more
powerful.

Pretending that the gun the Orlando shooter had in his hands is the same
one a Navy SEAL uses is dishonest in the extreme.

> Update and correction: This piece has been updated to reflect the name of
> the AR-15 model used in the shooting, and corrected to reflect fact that
> the Snapchat footage from the scene of the crime captured more than 20
> shots fired in a single nine-second stretch

I can fire my pistol at that same rate of fire.

[Ron]

The shooter also had a handgun. We don't know what transpired. That is why I said I will wait for the first hand account from the cop.

According to someone that escaped the club, the asshole was in the club way before anything happened. Said he saw him sitting at the bar earlier that night. How many other times was he there?

I don't want to speculate on anything that happened, but it's possible that
the asshole staged the shooting.

Reports (for what they are worth) are saying that the cop that was there and 2 other cops that arrived after his call for backup forced the asshole into a bathroom after he annihilated the dance floor.

If you look at the floor plan, there are only four exits, and one is behind a bar.

There is an outdoor exit to the patio with a wooden fence which is how a lot of people got out of there (they knocked the fence down).

Floor plan. Well this isn't the floor plan I was gonna post, but it kinda sums up some of what I just wrote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/orlando-shooting/

[Zob]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 22:06:34 -0500, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>Giggles <giggle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ar15-gun-used-in-orlando-20160613
>>
>> The AR-15 "was designed for the United States military to do to enemies
>> of war exactly what it did this morning: kill mass numbers of people with
>> maximum efficiency and ease. That is why the AR-15 has remained the
>> weapon of choice for the United States military for over 50 years
>
>The military uses a different version of the gun which is far more
>powerful.
>
>Pretending that the gun the Orlando shooter had in his hands is the same
>one a Navy SEAL uses is dishonest in the extreme.

Who the fuck cares, you insensitive asshole? You sit there picking
nits while 103 people, real people who had lives and loves and
families are dead, wounded and dying. You care more about your
precious gun than you do human beings. Go to hell.

[patrickf...@gmail.com]

Man, that incident really hits close to home for you. Sadly, something like this can happen in any community. Any one of us could be a victim of gun violence. That would be OK for people like btr1701 and bob rudd. They are just NRA tools.

[BTR1701]

In article <21evlb9oso37rp45j...@4ax.com>,

Zob <zob...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 22:06:34 -0500, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >Giggles <giggle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/everything-you-need-to-know-about
> >> -the-ar15-gun-used-in-orlando-20160613
> >>
> >> The AR-15 "was designed for the United States military to do to enemies
> >> of war exactly what it did this morning: kill mass numbers of people with
> >> maximum efficiency and ease. That is why the AR-15 has remained the
> >> weapon of choice for the United States military for over 50 years
> >
> >The military uses a different version of the gun which is far more
> >powerful.
> >
> >Pretending that the gun the Orlando shooter had in his hands is the same
> >one a Navy SEAL uses is dishonest in the extreme.
>
> Who the fuck cares, you insensitive asshole?

People who don't like to be lied to.

[BTR1701]

In article <21evlb9oso37rp45j...@4ax.com>,
Zob <zob...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 22:06:34 -0500, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >Giggles <giggle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/everything-you-need-to-know-about
> >> -the-ar15-gun-used-in-orlando-20160613
> >>
> >> The AR-15 "was designed for the United States military to do to enemies
> >> of war exactly what it did this morning: kill mass numbers of people with
> >> maximum efficiency and ease. That is why the AR-15 has remained the
> >> weapon of choice for the United States military for over 50 years
> >
> >The military uses a different version of the gun which is far more
> >powerful.
> >
> >Pretending that the gun the Orlando shooter had in his hands is the same
> >one a Navy SEAL uses is dishonest in the extreme.
>
> Who the fuck cares, you insensitive asshole?

I wasn't aware "sensitivity" now required passive acceptance of lies.

So in the wake of this incident, you (and the anti-gun politicians) get
spew all the lies and you want in pursuit of your political agenda, but
it's "insensitive" to respond with facts.

Gotcha.

[BTR1701]

In article <e6bf332c-eb96-453b...@googlegroups.com>,

patrickf...@gmail.com wrote:

> Any one of us could be a victim of gun violence. That would be OK for
> people like btr1701 and bob rudd. They are just NRA tools.

You're the one who is outright lying here. One of us is certainly a
tool, and it ain't me.

[patrickf...@gmail.com]

You are the one that supports the deaths of Americans from gun violence. Of course you are an NRA tool. A guy who shivers in his panties about all the bad guys. I'm sure you'd support all countries being armed with an atomic bomb as that would keep violence to a minimum.

[BTR1701]

In article <2393f6a9-c6fe-4ff9...@googlegroups.com>,

patrickf...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 10:45:41 AM UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <e6bf332c-eb96-453b...@googlegroups.com>,
> > patrickf...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Any one of us could be a victim of gun violence. That would be OK for
> > > people like btr1701 and bob rudd. They are just NRA tools.
> >
> > You're the one who is outright lying here. One of us is certainly a
> > tool, and it ain't me.
>
> You are the one that supports the deaths of Americans from gun violence.

No, I actually don't. That's why you're a liar.

People are allowed to disagree with your politics without "supporting
the deaths of Americans".

[patrickf...@gmail.com]

Why am I lying? You don't support any gun control, the wild west is cool by you. Deaths by guns is an American right by you and your ilk. If one of your family members was shot an killed, you'd simply stock up on more guns.

[BTR1701]

In article <40771e93-b22f-413c...@googlegroups.com>,

patrickf...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 11:28:46 AM UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <2393f6a9-c6fe-4ff9...@googlegroups.com>,
> > patrickf...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 10:45:41 AM UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
> > > > In article <e6bf332c-eb96-453b...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > > patrickf...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Any one of us could be a victim of gun violence. That would be OK for
> > > > > people like btr1701 and bob rudd. They are just NRA tools.
> > > >
> > > > You're the one who is outright lying here. One of us is certainly a
> > > > tool, and it ain't me.
> > >
> > > You are the one that supports the deaths of Americans from gun violence.
> >
> > No, I actually don't. That's why you're a liar.
> >
> > People are allowed to disagree with your politics without "supporting
> > the deaths of Americans".
>
> Why am I lying?

Because I don't.

> You don't support any gun control

Which doesn't equate to "supporting the death of Americans". Even the
most rabid gun control groups have grudgingly admitted to the validity
of the FBI stats that show 300,000+ successful defensive gun uses per
year. That's lives saved.

My own sister is alive today because she had a gun in her purse when she
was attacked. According to you, I should lament that she was allowed to
carry a gun and if that means she'd be dead now, so be it. Small price
to pay for The Agenda, huh?

You support the deaths of Americans.

> If one of your family members was shot an killed, you'd simply stock
> up on more guns.

Considering my family member is alive because she had a gun when it
counted, you're barking up the wrong tree invoking my family, champ.

[patrickf...@gmail.com]

From Time magazine:

His numbers are based on a 1981 poll conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates. It asked 1,228 U.S. voters whether in the previous five years any member of their household had "used a handgun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property." Roughly 4% (about 50 people) said they had done so. Projecting that percentage onto the number of U.S. households in the five years covered by the poll (1976-81), Kleck came up with the estimate that handguns had been used protectively 3,224,880 times, or 645,000 a year. Comparing that with surveys that included rifles and shotguns, he estimated that all types of guns are used defensively about a million times a year.

Is his analysis valid? "I certainly don't feel very comfortable with the way he's used the data," says Hart Research president Geoffrey Garin. While Kleck based his findings on the Hart survey, his analysis of the circumstances under which guns were used came from other studies. Protests Garin: "We don't know anything about the nature of the instances people were reporting." Says William Eastman, president of the California Chiefs of Police Association, about the Kleck conclusions: "It annoys the hell out of me. There's no basis for that data."

Curious...did your sister kill her attacker? Was she raped? Beaten? Did this happen in a ghetto?

I wonder if Trump supports the bombing of Indiana. That's where a potential killer of people in the LA gay pride parade went to slay a large amount of people and was caught. Do you think we should bomb New York because a Muslim born in the US committed the Orlando tragedy? I bet Trump thinks so. Maybe Muslim US citizens should be deported in the US/

[BTR1701]

> There's no basis for that data.

Good thing that's not the data I'm talking about, then.

> Curious...did your sister kill her attacker?

No. But he'll never walk again.

> Was she raped? Beaten? Did this happen in a ghetto?

How is any of that relevant here? Sounds like you just want to do a little
glee dance over my sister's trauma and need the details to really get your
engine revving.

> I wonder if Trump supports the bombing of Indiana. That's where a
> potential killer of people in the LA gay pride parade went to slay a
> large amount of people and was caught.

Actually, he went there to visit his boyfriend and attend the parade. He
just didn't want to give up his guns per the court order from a previous
case and so he dumped them all in his car where he thought they wouldn't be
found when the sheriff came to get them. He subsequently went on his road
trip and arrived out here, had the bad luck to knock on the wrong door in
Santa Monica and got reported as 'suspicious', which resulted in him being
detained and then arrested when the PD found all his guns. Sucks to be him.
He did something stupid and now he's going to spend some significant time
in prison for his bad decisions, but there is no indication he ever had any
intent to "slay a large amount of people".

[patrickf...@gmail.com]

I know nothing of your sister. What she went thru. Who she shot, why she shot. Provide a newspaper link.

You admire strange people. From CNN:
James Wesley Howell is scheduled to hear the charges against him Tuesday at the Los Angeles County Superior Court's Airport Branch and prosecutors will ask that his bail be set at $2 million, the district attorney's office said.
Howell is charged with unlawful possession of an assault weapon, possession of a destructive device on a public street, manufacturing or importing large magazines and carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle.

If convicted, Howell could receive more than nine years in prison, the district attorney's office said.

From ABC
An Indiana man arrested in California over the weekend with three assault rifles had been ordered by a judge in April to give up all his guns, but authorities in his home state said Monday they had not made any surprise checks to confirm he was following the probation requirement.

[BTR1701]

In article <dd52e834-7dff-4e17...@googlegroups.com>,
patrickf...@gmail.com wrote:

> You admire strange people.

And there's another lie.

I'm done with you.

[patrickf...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 6:53:48 PM UTC-4, patrickf...@gmail.com wrote:
> Just another day in America. Somebody goes bonkers with a gun and kills people indiscriminately. Nothing we can do about that. Just realize all these gun nuts are in militias. The bought politicians say there is nothing that can be done. Expect many more gun deaths over the years...you or your family might even be a gun shot victim but in the US that's A-OK.
>
> I prefer Rodney King...why can't we all just get along?

When I first heard this story, I initially thought it was committed by a self loathing gay man. I may have been correct per this link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36QWM_JL-lA Interesting we can be turned against ourselves and that religion is the means.

A link at this site also had vid of 2 pastors celebrating the deaths due to their Christian beliefs. Sometimes Christian evangelicals are disgusting.

[Giggles]

That was my first thought too. His inconsistencies in who he pledges allegiance to also makes me think he is covering up his real reason for the mass murder at a gay bar. Of course ISIS would gladly take credit for it even if it weren't the truth. 49 dead Americans makes them cream their panties. But I think the real reason may be that he was trying to deny that he was gay and thought killing a bunch of gays would somehow make him look straight.

[Zob]

According to the news reports, his first wife claims that he is gay;
she said they were married for 3 months and never had sex. But he
physically abused her until she finally left him. Several men have
also come forward and said that he had been going to Pulse for the
past 10 years as well as having memberships on gay dating websites and
iPhone gay dating apps like Grindr. So there's really not much
question about that. Probably a combination of his strict religion
and parents that condemned gays pushed him off some sort of edge.

But having said that, there are a lot of us gay men who were closeted
and oppressed by our religious beliefs who didn't go out and commit
mass murders.

[Cheri]

"Bob Rudd" wrote in message news:ket3mb1itvoo4r33d...@4ax.com...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 07:09:55 -0700 (PDT), patrickf...@gmail.com

>Man, that incident really hits close to home for you. Sadly, something like
>this can happen in any community. Any one of us could be a victim of gun
>violence. That would be OK for people like btr1701 and bob rudd. They are
>just NRA tools.

You do not know if I belong to the NRA or not. FWIW, neither do you
know if I support its views, in whole or in part as well.
============

We've belonged to the NRA for many, many years, and we're certainly not kooks,
nuts, or tools. I think those kinds of people don't belong to the NRA as a rule.
Like the man said in that Texas shooting years ago, "it wasn't that a bad man
had a gun that made it so tragic, it was that the BAD man had the ONLY gun." The
gun laws need to be much better enforced than they are at times, but the laws
are there. In CA there is a 14 day waiting period, you have to pass a test, and
you have to show in person how to handle the gun, loading, safety etc. after you
pass the background check for handguns. I'm not sure about long guns though, the
waiting period might be less.

Cheri

[BTR1701]

In article <njtf8...@news4.newsguy.com>,

"Cheri" <Che...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> "Bob Rudd" wrote in message
> news:ket3mb1itvoo4r33d...@4ax.com...
>
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 07:09:55 -0700 (PDT), patrickf...@gmail.com
>
> >Man, that incident really hits close to home for you. Sadly, something like
> >this can happen in any community. Any one of us could be a victim of gun
> >violence. That would be OK for people like btr1701 and bob rudd. They are
> >just NRA tools.
>
>
> You do not know if I belong to the NRA or not. FWIW, neither do you
> know if I support its views, in whole or in part as well.
> ============
>
> We've belonged to the NRA for many, many years, and we're certainly not
> kooks, nuts, or tools. I think those kinds of people don't belong to the
> NRA as a rule. Like the man said in that Texas shooting years ago, "it
> wasn't that a bad man had a gun that made it so tragic, it was that the
> BAD man had the ONLY gun."

Logically, if NRA members/gun owners were as violent as anti-gun
advocates claim they are... there would be no anti-gun advocates left.

[Lesmond]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 22:59:42 -0700, Cheri wrote:

>Like the man said in that Texas shooting years ago, "it wasn't that a bad man
>had a gun that made it so tragic, it was that the BAD man had the ONLY gun."

I have been trying to keep quiet about this, but you guys are laughable.
You have NEVER been in a club. It is shoulder to shoulder. It is about
getting more intimate with anyone you would ever want to just so you can
make your way to the bathroom.

If everyone had been armed, everyone would be dead. Have a few hundred
folks shooting back in a dark club...um...there might be a whole fuck load
of people in the way.

I *lived* in clubs.

Gosh, why didn't all those folks just leave when Great White decided to burn
the place down? Why couldn't they just fight fire with fire? They all had
lighters for the encore, I'm sure.




--
Queen of the fucking universe.

[patrickf...@gmail.com]

You stated "If everyone had been armed, everyone would be dead."

How true. I would never want to go to a club where everyone has a gun and is drunk. Recipe for disaster.

I wonder if the gum nuts would support every country in the world having the atomic bomb. Everybody would be protected, right?

[Cheri]

"Lesmond" <les...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:yrfzbaqirevmbaar...@192.168.0.6...

WHOOSH!

Cheri

[Cheri]

<patrickf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:525e2dec-8eab-4c1e...@googlegroups.com...

> On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 6:57:20 AM UTC-4, Lesmond wrote:

>> I have been trying to keep quiet about this, but you guys are laughable.
>> You have NEVER been in a club. It is shoulder to shoulder. It is about
>> getting more intimate with anyone you would ever want to just so you can
>> make your way to the bathroom.
>>
>> If everyone had been armed, everyone would be dead. Have a few hundred
>> folks shooting back in a dark club...um...there might be a whole fuck
>> load
>> of people in the way.
>>
>> I *lived* in clubs.
>>
>> Gosh, why didn't all those folks just leave when Great White decided to
>> burn
>> the place down? Why couldn't they just fight fire with fire? They all
>> had
>> lighters for the encore, I'm sure.

> You stated "If everyone had been armed, everyone would be dead."
>
> How true. I would never want to go to a club where everyone has a gun and
> is drunk. Recipe for disaster.
>
> I wonder if the gum nuts would support every country in the world having
> the atomic bomb. Everybody would be protected, right?

There are "NUTS" in this conversation, but they aren't the people that
support a law abiding citizens right to own a gun. I really don't want to
try to have a rational conversation with those types...so EOD and moving
forward on my end.

Cheri

[BTR1701]

In article <525e2dec-8eab-4c1e...@googlegroups.com>,

patrickf...@gmail.com wrote:

> I wonder if the gum nuts would support every country in the world having the
> atomic bomb.

No, they'd prefer everyone be allowed to keep and bear Juicy Fruit,
though.

[patrickf...@gmail.com]

I've thought a bit about how you feel about guns and the NRA.

When you go hunting for varmints or deer, do you feel the need to have a rifle with a 30, 50, or 100 round clip? If so, you are a shitty shot.

Do you feel the need for people to have assault rifles, high capacity clips, and use ammo that can pierce cop armor?

Do you support unstable or mental issue (crazy) people having guns? If so, why?

If your family members; kids, husband, or parents were murdered by a gun yielding fool would you come to the conclusion they were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time? It can happen to you, anywhere you live in the US, and you know it.

How many guns has the government stripped you of?

Do you support common sense regulation of guns? Do you support common sense regulation of autos?

I hope you know the NRA contributes quite a bit of cash to politicians. especially Republicans. The NRA does not represent gun owners but gun manufacturers. Why is the NRA against common sense?

Do you believe everybody is sane in the US?

Do you think banning a Muslim born in the US makes any sense? Should NY be bombed because the murderer was born there and follow Trump's lead?

Do you feel any sympathy for those families of those that were murdered? Or were you born without a heart and soul?

Do you find over 1,000,000 Americans dead by guns since John Lennon was murdered an acceptable count? Or is your attitude "tough shit, dead people"?

I've never had a gun to protect myself in 64 years. Do you subscribe to the fear promoted by Fox News about your need for guns? Do you fear all Americans? Are Americans a violent, unstable nation of people?

[Zob]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 06:36:49 -0700, "Cheri" <che...@newsguy.com>
wrote:

Will you people PLEASE stop twisting the issue. Nobody is advocating
making a law to take guns away from law abiding citizens. Nobody. And
you know it. Stop saying that. Stop lying!!!!!! Stop parroting
meaningless right-wing talking points. No one -- anyone -- has said
that, either here or in Congress or in the President's office.. Sit
and think for a moment before typing nonsense. I love you Cheri, but
this issue really frosts my buns when people start saying sh*t that
just plain isn't true and the lies get echoed by people as if it's
fact.

The *only* thing that people with common sense are asking for is for
common sense law that,
(a) Would require a thorough background check that would prevent
anyone with a history of violence or who is associated with a known
terrorist organization from legally purchasing a gun, and
(b) A waiting period that would provide time enough for both that
background check to be performed, and for a cool-down period in case
someone wants to buy the gun because their neighbor's kid took a
shortcut through their back yard again.

There is a bill in the Congress right now that would do exactly that,
nothing more, and the Congressional leaders refuse to let it be
brought up for a vote. So much for American Democracy. THey KNOW
they would lose and by a huge margin, so they won't let it be voted
on.

No, passing a law that would prevent mentally ill and violent
criminals and terrorists from legally buying a gun will not stop all
gun violence. Some will still be able to get guns on the street from
the black market. But if even a few lives are saved it will be worth
it. The Orlando shooter bought his gun legally less than a week
before his mass murder. A thorough background check and a waiting
period would have shown that he had twice been investigated for ties
to terrorist organizations and raised red flags when he applied to buy
a semi-automatic collapsible assault rifle that (according to the NRA
video ad) was designed for military use, along with a semi-automatic
handgun. Maybe, just maybe, more than 100 casualties of senseless
violence could have been prevented last weekend.

[Ron]

On 6/15/2016 8:41 PM, Bob Rudd wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 17:24:11 -0700 (PDT), Ron <bigel...@yahoo.com>

> The security guard said he decided to fall back and wait for
> reinforcements rather than directly engage the terrorist. His
> decision, personally made, but not what I would call a heroic one in
> any way. He chose obvious self-preservation compared to attempting
> to use his weapon to save countless lives.

He DID engage the asshole, USED his weapon, and he was OUTGUNNED! And
you are nuts if you think a bunch of drunk armed patrons (with handguns)
would have made any difference in a dark night club, from what was a
surprise attack from a coward that used a rear entrance (supposedly for
employees only) and started taking people out.

<snip>

Music blared and more than 300 people danced and milled about Pulse
nightclub early Sunday as Orlando police officer Adam Gruler searched
the area for a teenager who had gotten into the club with a fake ID.

He couldn't find the kid, so he headed back to the club's parking lot.

That's when the shots rang out.

Those shots signaled the beginning of a three-hour nightmare that ended
with Orlando becoming ground zero for the deadliest shooting in U.S.
history.

Officials and witnesses described the harrowing scene in a massacre that
took the lives of 49 victims and wounded 53 others.

It was just after 2 a.m. Sunday. Gruler ran toward the entrance after
hearing the shots.

He was met by gunman Omar Mateen. Armed with a .223 caliber AR type
rifle and a 9mm semiautomatic pistol, Mateen started exchanging gunfire
with the officer.<-----------Do you see that Bob?

Gruler quickly realized he was outgunned and called for backup. Gruler
retreated and Mateen ran further inside the club.<--------Do you see
that Bob?

Lt. Scott Smith and Sgt. Jeffrey Backhaus arrived a couple minutes later
and rushed into the club. There was another flurry of shots between them
and Mateen. <------ Three cops with guns IN the club.

<snip>

Three armed cops inside the building and all they were able to do was
force him into a bathroom. And one of them was shot in the head. His
kevlar helmet most likely saved his life.

Now, go ahead and post some more BS. You can have the final word (as
always).

[Lesmond]

Oh, so you were just sarcastic when you were agreeing with Bob. Hard to
tell with you.

[Lesmond]

Who has taken a gun away? Oh, how convenient to turn tail and not have to
answer that question.

You really want to be a club with 1,000 people jostling for space where
everyone is armed and most are drinking? I'll fund your experiment if you
go in first.

[Lesmond]

I think a few folks here still consider a night club as one of those genteel
places where Frank Sinatra used to sing and everyone sat at tables after
checking their hats and coats. That's probably around the last time they
were in one.

[BTR1701]

In article <yrfzbaqirevmbaar...@192.168.0.6>,

Go to YouTube and search up videos of post-Katrina cops going
house-to-house and confiscating guns from people.

[BTR1701]

In article <ptg5mb5cgpnv9mivj...@4ax.com>,

Zob <zob...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 06:36:49 -0700, "Cheri" <che...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:

> >There are "NUTS" in this conversation, but they aren't the people that
> >support a law abiding citizens right to own a gun.
>
> Will you people PLEASE stop twisting the issue. Nobody is advocating
> making a law to take guns away from law abiding citizens. Nobody. And
> you know it. Stop saying that. Stop lying!!!!!! Stop parroting
> meaningless right-wing talking points. No one -- anyone -- has said
> that, either here or in Congress or in the President's office.

Hillary has said several times at fundraisers to the 'progressive'
faithful, out of earshot of the media, that if elected, one of her goals
as president will be to appoint Supreme Court justices who will reverse
"that awful Heller decision". (That's the one where the Court ruled
firearm ownership to be a fundamental constitutional right.)

That's pretty damn close to announcing an intent to take away guns as
far as I'm concerned.

> The *only* thing that people with common sense are asking for is for
> common sense law that

> (a) Would require a thorough background check that would prevent
> anyone with a history of violence or who is associated with a known
> terrorist organization from legally purchasing a gun

This Orlando guy would have cleared that hurdle, no problem.

> (b) A waiting period that would provide time enough for both that
> background check to be performed, and for a cool-down period in case
> someone wants to buy the gun because their neighbor's kid took a
> shortcut through their back yard again.

Where in this country can you walk into a gun store and buy a gun
without a waiting period?

And considering this Orlando guy was apparently planning this attack for
weeks, what good would that have done anyway?

> No, passing a law that would prevent mentally ill and violent
> criminals and terrorists from legally buying a gun will not stop all
> gun violence.

And more to the point, it wouldn't have stopped Mateen.

> The Orlando shooter bought his gun legally less than a week
> before his mass murder.

After planning it for weeks. If he had to wait another week, do you
really think he would have "cooled off" and not done it?

> A thorough background check

He passed two thorough background checks, more extensive than the NICs
checks the average person endures at gun shops.

> would have shown that he had twice been investigated for ties
> to terrorist organizations

And he would have ultimately been found not have any ties. In fact, the
FBI just reiterated today that after Mateen's life has been picked apart
and put under a microscope, he still has no known ties to any terrorist
group.

> a semi-automatic collapsible assault rifle that (according to the NRA
> video ad) was designed for military use,

Not the model he had. That was not designed for military use.

[Giggles]

There are people of all sexual orientations, races, and religions who have been royally treated like crap who do not obtain a gun and kill innocent people. They need to do a study to see what some crack and most don't. Those with the potential to crack should not be allowed to own a gun.

[Giggles]

Finally some common sense.

[BTR1701]

In article <b4bb291c-3ef2-47e8...@googlegroups.com>,

And how do you prove this Minority Report-style future crime to a
sufficient degree that it satisfies the 5th Amendment's due process
clause?

(As I take a step back and shake my head that we're seriously debating
punishing people for crimes they haven't even committed yet, but which
some government bureaucrat decides they *might* commit sometime in the
future. Like that power won't ever be abused.)

[Giggles]

The waiting period needs to be months, not days. There needs to be more time for the thorough background check and thorough mental and physical tests to see if you are mentally stable and physically able to handle a gun. If you are scared of your own shadow, you have no business owning a gun. If you are weak and can barely handle a pencil, you have no business owning a gun. If you have ever beaten your wife, you have no business owning a gun. If you have ever contacted ISIS or other hate groups, you have no business owning a gun. If you have a mental illness, you have no business owning a gun. You should not be able to buy a gun off the internet or any other way but through a licensed dealer who puts you through a 3 month waiting period and thorough background check. Enough!

In addition to laws on buying guns, there needs to be major changes in punishment for using guns to commit crimes. Any crime where a gun was present should be life in prison with no chance of parole. Any idiot who leaves a gun within reach of a child should receive life in prison with no chance of parole. Anyone whose gun is stolen should be held responsible for all crimes committed with that gun. Too many gun owners are negligent in keeping their guns locked away from kids and thieves. If you are in the shower fucking your girlfriend, how is that gun on the coffee table where your child is playing protecting you? If you are in bed at 3am, how is that gun in your unlocked vehicle protecting you?

Common sense. We need common sense.

[patrickf...@gmail.com]

I'm astounded. Bush, a Republican, had the police confiscate guns. It's OK to kill kids in Sandy Hook, murder theater goers in CO, kill 50 people in Orlando and you are worried about gun confiscation? When did you lose your humanity? Maybe your neighbors have some need to fear your insanity. Have you recently felt the urge to go ever the edge?

[BTR1701]

In article <8c90123b-06db-470a...@googlegroups.com>,

patrickf...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 6:07:37 PM UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:

> > In article <yrfzbaqirevmbaar...@192.168.0.6>,
> > "Lesmond" <les...@verizon.net> wrote:

> > > Who has taken a gun away?
> >
> > Go to YouTube and search up videos of post-Katrina cops going
> > house-to-house and confiscating guns from people.
>
> I'm astounded. Bush, a Republican, had the police confiscate guns.

Bush was a federal official. He had no authority to order local police
to do anything. They don't work for the president or his branch of
government.

Whatever the locals were doing, they were doing at the behest of state
and local officials, who were under the control of Democrats at the time.

Oops.

> It's OK to kill kids in Sandy Hook, murder theater goers in CO, kill 50
> people in Orlando and you are worried about gun confiscation?

"No one going to confiscate your guns!"

[proof that when given the opportunity, the government will indeed
confiscate guns]

"Okay, so they confiscated guns, but stop worrying about that and think
of the cheeeldrunnn!"

It's like a well-rehearsed script with you people.

[BTR1701]

In article <8c90123b-06db-470a...@googlegroups.com>,
patrickf...@gmail.com wrote:

I apologize for not living up to my word. I said I was done with you
after your last round of outright lies but didn't pay close enough
attention to whom I was replying. I thought I was following up to
Lesmond again and engaged. I hit 'send' before I realized it was your
lying ass.

Mea culpa

[BTR1701]

In article <43d2692f-c9cb-49bc...@googlegroups.com>,

Giggles <giggle...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Any crime where a gun was present should be life in prison with no
> chance of parole. Any idiot who leaves a gun within reach of a child
> should receive life in prison with no chance of parole.

That's gonna put you at odds with the "no more mass incarceration"
folks, which include Hillary and most of the Democratic party.

> Anyone whose gun is stolen should be held responsible for
> all crimes committed with that gun.

That'll require a wholesale reworking of the Constitution and the Bill
of Rights.

I'm walking down the street and someone comes out of the shadows as I
pass and decks me with a tire iron and, while robbing me, finds my
holstered pistol and takes it. He then runs off and kills someone a week
later with it. Cops charge me with capital murder and send me to prison
for life with no parole for having the bad luck to be mugged.

Nope, that doesn't work under our current system of government. I guess
we'll be calling a constitutional convention, then?

[Lesmond]

Yes, I also believe everything I see on Youtube.

Facts, please.

[Lesmond]

>Finally some common sense.

Yeah, don't give me any awards just yet. I don't think more gun control
laws will help. We have a lot and they don't stop someone determined to go
off. Hadn't this guy checked out a couple of times? Where do you draw the
line? When does someone "ping" you as a danger?

And *how do you stop someone* once they have decided to do this?

I also do not think more guns are the answer, unless it becomes required to
pass a test like a driver's license. And yes, I don't have any problem
starting them at ten or whatever. Assume they will eventually be shooting
guns and teach gun safety first and foremost.

I read your post and yeah, you have a lot of ideas, some good, but many of
them are pure emotional reactions and that's where the worst ever laws come
from.

[Lesmond]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:21:44 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:

>
>Hillary has said several times at fundraisers to the 'progressive'
>faithful, out of earshot of the media,

Howsoever did they manage to report it?

that if elected, one of her goals
>as president will be to appoint Supreme Court justices who will reverse
>"that awful Heller decision". (That's the one where the Court ruled
>firearm ownership to be a fundamental constitutional right.)

Yeah, and Trump is gonna get Mexico to build a wall.

Have you heard of politicians? The only suckers are the ones who believe
anything any of them say.

[Lesmond]

But how do you determine that? Must we all undergo psychological testing?
Sociopaths are awfully good liars. Do we check the entire family history
for mental illness? Do we turn over our hard drives so they can check to
see if we have ever typed in the word
"ISIS"?

http://www.avclub.com/article/archer-drops-isis-name-suddenly-finds-itself-bu
nch-210378

[Ron]

By Monday morning people were posting "false flag" videos of the
shootings at Pulse.

You can go to YouTube and see "false flag" videos about every mass
shooting in the US.

Hell, even 911 was a "false flag". Our own government brought those
buildings down. A LOT of tinfoil hat wearers out there.

[Lesmond]

Just give me the backdoor to the iPhones. I know you have it.

[Lesmond]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:31:58 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:

>In article <43d2692f-c9cb-49bc...@googlegroups.com>,
> Giggles <giggle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Any crime where a gun was present should be life in prison with no
>> chance of parole. Any idiot who leaves a gun within reach of a child
>> should receive life in prison with no chance of parole.
>
>That's gonna put you at odds with the "no more mass incarceration"
>folks, which include Hillary and most of the Democratic party.

I hate piggybacking and apologize to you both. But Giggles, I was wondering
what your definition of a "child" is. Because where I grew up boys went out
hunting on their own around age twelve. And they certainly knew what they
were doing. Well, I guess. No one ever got shot. And they were allowed to
bring their guns to school on the first day of deer season.

[Lesmond]

Well, that's what I mean. I can make a movie, too. Why should I believe
this one? BTR can be very rational a lot of the time. But sometimes he
comes up this shit and I don't get it. At least if he could back it up.

[Ron]

On 6/16/2016 10:00 PM, Lesmond wrote:
>
> Yeah, and Trump is gonna get Mexico to build a wall.

That is hilarious!

[BTR1701]

In article <yrfzbaqirevmbaar...@192.168.0.6>,
"Lesmond" <les...@verizon.net> wrote:

42

Don't tell anyone.

[BTR1701]

In article <yrfzbaqirevmbaar...@192.168.0.6>,
"Lesmond" <les...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:21:44 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:
>
> >
> >Hillary has said several times at fundraisers to the 'progressive'
> >faithful, out of earshot of the media,
>
> Howsoever did they manage to report it?

They didn't. I was there.

[BTR1701]

In article <yrfzbaqirevmbaar...@192.168.0.6>,
"Lesmond" <les...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:43:42 -0700 (PDT), Giggles wrote:

> >Finally some common sense.
>
> Yeah, don't give me any awards just yet. I don't think more gun control
> laws will help. We have a lot and they don't stop someone determined to go
> off.

More to the point, France's gun control laws are much more draconian
than ours, they still had the same thing happen to them.

[BTR1701]

So what... you think those videos are CGI-Hollywood fakes?

Or that they paid a bunch of actors to go down to a flooded disaster
area and pretend to be cops and residents and staged the entire thing?

> Facts, please.

If actual video of New Orleans PD and Orleans Parish Sheriff deputies
confiscating guns from citizens aren't facts enough for you, then you've
rigged the game so that no proof will ever be good enough.

But here's an article about it, anyway. Though I'm sure you'll dismiss
it as "made up" or "faked", since the actual videos of it happening
aren't even good enough for you.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/24/a-decade-later-remember-new-orleans-gun
-confiscation-can-and-has-happened-in-america/

I'd go dig up the court decision that held the city in violation of
citizens' constitutional rights months after the fact, but I'm sure
you'd dismiss the judge in the case as untrustworthy or something as
well.

What's important to note here is that this was during a time when there
was *no* police or emergency response. City services were non-existent.
All the anti-gun folks who always say, "You don't need a gun, just call
the police" have nothing but crickets when you point out a situation
like post-Katrina where there are no police to call. What do you do then
when the thugs are running wild in the streets, looting, assaulting,
raping, or worse? Hide under your bed and hope they don't find you?

No, that's precisely when you need a gun most, and this case shows that
that's also precisely when the government is most concerned about you
having one, and during a time when resources were strained beyond the
breaking point and citizens were literally dying in the streets, they
still managed to break off a significant amount of manpower to start
confiscating guns from people who hadn't done anything wrong.

And how did the cops know who had a gun and where to find them? Why
those handy gun registration lists that they're forcing everyone onto.
Funny how the people who always claimed those lists were nothing but a
roadmap to confiscation were dismissed as paranoid fruitcakes until
that's exactly what the lists were used for.

[Giggles]

Since they are calling it an "accidental" shooting when a 17 year old thinks it would be cool to take a selfie with the gun and kills his sister, I'd say anyone under 92. If law enforcement thinks a 17 year old doesn't know any better, then law enforcement is not old enough to possess a gun either. Anyone 13 and older should get life in prison, and so should the gun owner. Anyone under 13, the owner should get life in prison and mandatory counseling for the child.

[Lesmond]

"I don't need a cite because it's true."

[Giggles]

Doing nothing isn't working. In fact it's making things worse. Maybe we should just hand everyone at the funny farm a gun so they can kill us all and be done with it.

[Lesmond]

;)

cc: all

[Lesmond]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:11:58 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:

>In article <yrfzbaqirevmbaar...@192.168.0.6>,
> "Lesmond" <les...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:06:33 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>> >In article <yrfzbaqirevmbaar...@192.168.0.6>,
>> > "Lesmond" <les...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 06:36:49 -0700, Cheri wrote:
>
>> >> >There are "NUTS" in this conversation, but they aren't the people that
>> >> >support a law abiding citizens right to own a gun. I really don't want to
>> >> >try to have a rational conversation with those types...so EOD and moving
>> >> >forward on my end.
>> >>
>> >> Who has taken a gun away?
>> >
>> >Go to YouTube and search up videos of post-Katrina cops going
>> >house-to-house and confiscating guns from people.
>>
>> Yes, I also believe everything I see on Youtube.
>
>So what... you think those videos are CGI-Hollywood fakes?
>
>Or that they paid a bunch of actors to go down to a flooded disaster
>area and pretend to be cops and residents and staged the entire thing?

How am I supposed to know?

>
>> Facts, please.
>
>If actual video of New Orleans PD and Orleans Parish Sheriff deputies
>confiscating guns from citizens aren't facts enough for you, then you've
>rigged the game so that no proof will ever be good enough.

I would like some documentation that what I am watching is authentic video.
Minus that documentation, I might as well be watching Blair Witch. Which
must have been true because why would anyone take the time to stage that?

>
>But here's an article about it, anyway. Though I'm sure you'll dismiss
>it as "made up" or "faked", since the actual videos of it happening
>aren't even good enough for you.
>
>http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/24/a-decade-later-remember-new-orleans-gun
>-confiscation-can-and-has-happened-in-america/

Thank you. It would be far more helpful if the link wasn't broken.
Probably my fault. Anyone sum it up for me impartially? Oops. Forgot
where I was.

>
>I'd go dig up the court decision that held the city in violation of
>citizens' constitutional rights months after the fact, but I'm sure
>you'd dismiss the judge in the case as untrustworthy or something as
>well.

Um, no, that's exactly what I am asking for. Why is the one thing that can
prove your side the one thing that you sorta mighta get around to sometime?
I think you know I'm mostly reasonable and I extend that same courtesy to
you.

>
>What's important to note here is that this was during a time when there
>was *no* police or emergency response. City services were non-existent.
>All the anti-gun folks who always say, "You don't need a gun, just call
>the police" have nothing but crickets when you point out a situation
>like post-Katrina where there are no police to call. What do you do then
>when the thugs are running wild in the streets, looting, assaulting,
>raping, or worse? Hide under your bed and hope they don't find you?

Except we were talking about Orlando. Until you brought up Katrina and have
still not established your facts. You have some goodwill stored up here.

[Lesmond]

All right. I respect you for being anti-gun. I'm not sure how practical I
find the argument unless someone decides that steel shall no longer exist.

[Lesmond]

So we need to do "something" as long as it's not "nothing"? That's how ten
year old girls get placed for life on the sex
registry:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/14/when-kids-are-accused-of-sex-cri
mes

Someone had to do something, fast! So it became law. Read her story, I
dare you. And let's not even count the thousands of folks who got caught by
a cop peeing outside. Sexual predators for life. Because people cannot
seperate their emotions from facts.

That makes very, very bad laws. And we're about to see a shit load of them
again.

Kids already go to jail for a butter knife their mom accidentally packed in
their lunch. Or biting their Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun. Wow. Maybe
that's the kid that turned out to be the gunman in Orlando.

Please tell me your simple plan again? The one that will keep us all safe?

We cannot enforce the laws we have. Tell me how more will help.

[Zob]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:00:54 -0400 (EDT), "Lesmond"
<les...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:21:44 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>>
>>Hillary has said several times at fundraisers to the 'progressive'
>>faithful, out of earshot of the media,
>
>Howsoever did they manage to report it?
>
> that if elected, one of her goals
>>as president will be to appoint Supreme Court justices who will reverse
>>"that awful Heller decision". (That's the one where the Court ruled
>>firearm ownership to be a fundamental constitutional right.)

And thank God for it! The Heller decisions WAS wrong.
The 2nd amendment very clearly states that the purpose of the right to
bear arms is so that citizens can be part of a "well-regulated
militia." It doesn't say anything about bubbas having a right to own
a gun in order to shoot a black kid who takes a shortcut through their
neighborhood, or some whack job having a right to own guns so he can
shoot all the kids and teachers at an elementary school or another to
have semi automatic weapons so he can mass murder and wound 100+
people in a crowded dance club.
"Well-regulated militia" means just that. Why do these chuckleheads
only see the "right to bear arms" part and completely go blind when it
comes to the "well-regulated militia" part? Selective reading
comprehension. The 2nd amendment is about trained, regulated
organized militia owning guns to help fight off a foreign invasion.
Period. That was the original intent in 1789. Obviously. Heller WAS
wrong.

[BTR1701]

Oh, for gawd's sake.

> >But here's an article about it, anyway. Though I'm sure you'll dismiss
> >it as "made up" or "faked", since the actual videos of it happening
> >aren't even good enough for you.
> >
> >http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/24/a-decade-later-remember-new-orleans-gun
> >-confiscation-can-and-has-happened-in-america/
>
> Thank you. It would be far more helpful if the link wasn't broken.

Works just fine for me, on multiple devices.

> >I'd go dig up the court decision that held the city in violation of
> >citizens' constitutional rights months after the fact, but I'm sure
> >you'd dismiss the judge in the case as untrustworthy or something as
> >well.
>
> Um, no, that's exactly what I am asking for. Why is the one thing that can
> prove your side the one thing that you sorta mighta get around to sometime?

You didn't say it was the one thing you'd accept as proof. All you've
done up till now is stubbornly deny all the actual proof.

> >What's important to note here is that this was during a time when there
> >was *no* police or emergency response. City services were non-existent.
> >All the anti-gun folks who always say, "You don't need a gun, just call
> >the police" have nothing but crickets when you point out a situation
> >like post-Katrina where there are no police to call. What do you do then
> >when the thugs are running wild in the streets, looting, assaulting,
> >raping, or worse? Hide under your bed and hope they don't find you?
>
> Except we were talking about Orlando.

No, at this point we were responding to your assertion that no one's
trying to take guns away from people.

That's simply not true. There's a very determined part of our
government, at all levels, that wants to do exactly that and will do
exactly that given the opportunity, which accounts for what the anti-gun
people deride as irrational intransigence against "common sense" gun
control.

The fact of the matter is there will never be a point where the anti-gun
crowd says, "Okay, that's enough gun control. We don't need anymore."
Utopia will always just be one more gun restriction out of reach.

> Until you brought up Katrina and have still not established your facts.

Yes, I have. You're just sticking your fingers in your ear like a
5-year-old and chanting la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you.

[BTR1701]

In article <yrfzbaqirevmbaar...@192.168.0.6>,
"Lesmond" <les...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 19:52:22 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:
>
> >In article <yrfzbaqirevmbaar...@192.168.0.6>,
> > "Lesmond" <les...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:21:44 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Hillary has said several times at fundraisers to the 'progressive'
> >> >faithful, out of earshot of the media,
> >>
> >> Howsoever did they manage to report it?
> >
> >They didn't. I was there.
>
> "I don't need a cite because it's true."

I am the cite. I witnessed it. It's what's called direct evidence in a
court of law.

[Zob]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:12:05 -0700 (PDT), patrickf...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 6:07:37 PM UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <yrfzbaqirevmbaar...@192.168.0.6>,
>> "Lesmond" <les...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>

>> > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 06:36:49 -0700, Cheri wrote:
>> >
>> > >

>> > ><patrickf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > >news:525e2dec-8eab-4c1e...@googlegroups.com...
>> > >> On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 6:57:20 AM UTC-4, Lesmond wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>> I have been trying to keep quiet about this, but you guys are laughable.
>> > >>> You have NEVER been in a club. It is shoulder to shoulder. It is about
>> > >>> getting more intimate with anyone you would ever want to just so you can
>> > >>> make your way to the bathroom.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> If everyone had been armed, everyone would be dead. Have a few hundred
>> > >>> folks shooting back in a dark club...um...there might be a whole fuck
>> > >>> load
>> > >>> of people in the way.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I *lived* in clubs.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Gosh, why didn't all those folks just leave when Great White decided to
>> > >>> burn
>> > >>> the place down? Why couldn't they just fight fire with fire? They all
>> > >>> had
>> > >>> lighters for the encore, I'm sure.
>> > >
>> > >> You stated "If everyone had been armed, everyone would be dead."
>> > >>
>> > >> How true. I would never want to go to a club where everyone has a gun and
>> > >> is drunk. Recipe for disaster.
>> > >>
>> > >> I wonder if the gum nuts would support every country in the world having
>> > >> the atomic bomb. Everybody would be protected, right?
>> > >

>> > >There are "NUTS" in this conversation, but they aren't the people that
>> > >support a law abiding citizens right to own a gun. I really don't want to
>> > >try to have a rational conversation with those types...so EOD and moving
>> > >forward on my end.
>> >
>> > Who has taken a gun away?
>>
>> Go to YouTube and search up videos of post-Katrina cops going
>> house-to-house and confiscating guns from people.

OMG, it's true!!!

http://i.imgur.com/IqJtn56.jpg


>I'm astounded. Bush, a Republican, had the police confiscate guns. It's OK to kill kids in Sandy Hook, murder theater goers in CO, kill 50 people in Orlando and you are worried about gun confiscation? When did you lose your humanity? Maybe your neighbors have some need to fear your insanity. Have you recently felt the urge to go ever the edge?

[Zob]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 23:45:58 -0400 (EDT), "Lesmond"

Doesn't matter that you can't reach the "Daily Caller" website, an
ultra-right wing crackpot conspiracy theory internet site that makes
Glenn Beck look liberal. I don't know why anyone would possibly think
there could be misinformation published there though. <eyeroll>

[BTR1701]

In article <yrfzbaqirevmbaar...@192.168.0.6>,

"Lesmond" <les...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:46:13 -0700 (PDT), Giggles wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 9:19:55 PM UTC-5, Lesmond wrote:

> >> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:42:12 -0700 (PDT), Giggles wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 9:30:07 PM UTC-5, Zob wrote:
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> But having said that, there are a lot of us gay men who were closeted
> >> >> and oppressed by our religious beliefs who didn't go out and commit
> >> >> mass murders.
> >> >
> >> >There are people of all sexual orientations, races, and religions who
> >> >have been royally treated like crap who do not obtain a gun and kill
> >> >innocent people. They need to do a study to see what some crack and most
> >> >don't. Those with the potential to crack should not be allowed to own a
> >> >gun.
> >>
> >> But how do you determine that? Must we all undergo psychological testing?
> >> Sociopaths are awfully good liars. Do we check the entire family history
> >> for mental illness? Do we turn over our hard drives so they can check to
> >> see if we have ever typed in the word "ISIS"?

> >Doing nothing isn't working. In fact it's making things worse. Maybe we
> >should just hand everyone at the funny farm a gun so they can kill us all
> >and be done with it.
>
> So we need to do "something" as long as it's not "nothing"? That's how ten
> year old girls get placed for life on the sex registry:
>
> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/14/when-kids-are-accused-of-sex-cri
> mes
>
> Someone had to do something, fast! So it became law. Read her story, I
> dare you. And let's not even count the thousands of folks who got caught by
> a cop peeing outside. Sexual predators for life. Because people cannot
> seperate their emotions from facts.

Or more relevant-- the approximately 70,000 people who are currently on
the no-fly list by mistake, but have no recourse, no way to prove their
innocence (as if you should even have to do that in America in the first
place).

I remember reading about a guy from some midwest state (maybe Ohio or
Indiana) who went on vacation to Hawaii with his family and ended up on
the no-fly list. I can't remember if the TSA just failed to catch him on
the way there, or he was added to the list after he got to the island.
Regardless, when he showed up at the airport with his wife and kids to
go home, he was told he was on the no-fly list and he couldn't get on a
plane and he was basically stranded in Hawaii. It's not like a could
rent a car or take a train back to Ohio. The government told him his
only option** was to book passage on a ship, which takes about two weeks
to make the journey, and even then when it dropped him off on the West
Coast, he'd still have to rent a car and drive cross-country to Ohio or
Indiana or wherever he was from. Of course, he was one of those 70,000
who was on the list by mistake because his name was similar to some
douchebag who really is an evildoer.

There is *no* due process whatsoever involved with being put on the
no-fly list. The government puts you on it, never even tells you they've
done it, let alone why, and you have no opportunity to challenge it, nor
does the government have to prove or justify its decision. You can't
even find out which agency put you on the list.

There are also hundreds, possibly thousands, of people who are on
terrorist and no-fly lists because some relative of theirs, no matter
how distant, is suspected of being a terrorist or knows people who are
terrorists. So not only does the government not have to prove the case
against the suspect, it can just throw the whole extended family on the
list who *aren't* suspected of anything, just to be sure.

People have lost jobs, careers, and homes because they were put on these
lists for no reason-- sometimes just due to a typo-- and if their job
requires frequent air travel, and they can't do it anymore, they get
fired. Again, no recourse. No appeal. No ability to say, "Hey, you made
a mistake here, how do we get it fixed?"

Even Senator Ted Kennedy found himself unable to fly when he arrived at
the airport one day and was told he was on the no-fly list. Of course,
being a member of the treasured elite, it only took him a few weeks to
get things cleared up. Think about that. A senior senator, one of the
most influential government officials we had at the time, and it took
him and his staff not minutes, not hours, not days, but a few *weeks* to
get his case cleared up. If it took Kennedy weeks, what hope does Joe
Citizen have in the face of that kind of bureaucratic opacity and
intransigence?

And it's on this that people like Hillary Clinton want to base stripping
constitutional rights and liberties?

They Left turns themselves into pretzels trying to distance these Muslim
killers from Islam and defend "all peaceful Muslims", but at the same
time they're willing to allow some guy in the bowels of the Hoover
building to put any Muslim he likes on the terrorist list and/or the
no-fly list and make their lives a living hell based on nothing more
than his own unreviewable "suspicion".



**Does the no-fly list apply to private charters and private aircraft,
too? If Hawaii Dad had the dough, could he have chartered a private
plane to fly him back? I don't know the answer to that.

[Zob]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 13:43:49 -0400 (EDT), "Lesmond"
<les...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 13:00:36 -0400, Ron wrote:
>
>>On 6/15/2016 8:41 PM, Bob Rudd wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 17:24:11 -0700 (PDT), Ron <bigel...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 4:36:20 PM UTC-4, Tim Hall wrote:
>>>>> On 6/13/2016 12:08 PM, Bob Rudd wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> perhaps some lives would have been saved if some club attendees
>>>>>> had been carrying legal concealed weapons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Typical liberal responses btw....take guns and concealed
>>>>>> weapons away from Americans. Obama and Hillary share the same
>>>>>> message and believes. Obama holds the ultimate responsibility
>>>>>> for what happened due to his immigration policies as well as
>>>>>> being insuffienctly vigilant for our internal national
>>>>>> security.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If more people got permits for concealed carry, we'd have far
>>>>>> less crime and loss of life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, sure, someone with a handgun and no law enforcement
>>>>> training is going to stop someone who walks into a public place
>>>>> spraying everyone with an assault rifle. That's if they're dumb
>>>>> enough to not do the only sane thing in that position which is to
>>>>> run.
>>>>>
>>>>> And gee, if only those 5 year olds had been armed we could have
>>>>> prevented Sandy Hook.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry Tim, I have to tag onto your post. I'm using Google Groups
>>>> right now and Rudd's post isn't showing.
>>>>
>>>> Bob, there was an armed cop in the building for security and there
>>>> wasn't a damn thing he could do. I'm waiting for his first hand
>>>> account to come out, but as of right now all that is being reported
>>>> is that "he exchanged gunfire with the shooter". That cops handgun
>>>> was obviously no match for an assault rifle.
>>>>
>>>> Sigh..........
>>>>
>>>
>>> The security guard said he decided to fall back and wait for
>>> reinforcements rather than directly engage the terrorist. His
>>> decision, personally made, but not what I would call a heroic one in
>>> any way. He chose obvious self-preservation compared to attempting
>>> to use his weapon to save countless lives.
>>
>>He DID engage the asshole, USED his weapon, and he was OUTGUNNED! And
>>you are nuts if you think a bunch of drunk armed patrons (with handguns)
>>would have made any difference in a dark night club,
>
>I think a few folks here still consider a night club as one of those genteel
>places where Frank Sinatra used to sing and everyone sat at tables after
>checking their hats and coats. That's probably around the last time they
>were in one.

Right. And this one was packed even more than most on this particular
night. It's a fairly small club, and there were over 300 people there
packed in shoulder to shoulder on the dance floor for a special "Latin
Night."

[Ron]

On 6/17/2016 12:53 AM, Zob wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:00:54 -0400 (EDT), "Lesmond"
> <les...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:21:44 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hillary has said several times at fundraisers to the 'progressive'
>>> faithful, out of earshot of the media,
>>
>> Howsoever did they manage to report it?
>>
>> that if elected, one of her goals
>>> as president will be to appoint Supreme Court justices who will reverse
>>> "that awful Heller decision". (That's the one where the Court ruled
>>> firearm ownership to be a fundamental constitutional right.)
>
> And thank God for it! The Heller decisions WAS wrong.
> The 2nd amendment very clearly states that the purpose of the right to
> bear arms is so that citizens can be part of a "well-regulated
> militia." It doesn't say anything about bubbas having a right to own
> a gun in order to shoot a black kid who takes a shortcut through their
> neighborhood,

Okay, I'm gonna snip this right here to ask you a question.

Who are you talking about? What "bubba" and what "black kid"?

[Ron]

+1

[Ryan]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 21:39:46 -0400 (EDT), "Lesmond"
<les...@verizon.net> wrote:

>
>Yes, I also believe everything I see on Youtube.
>

>Facts, please.

This is priceless. Lesmond posts some bullshit rumor about Prince's
death being due to AIDS after he quit his meds due to some whacko
religion. Then she claims that these rumors about Prince have been
going on for many years with respect to him having AIDS. I must have
missed the links to support her bullshit assertion.

And she accuses others of posting bullshit asking for facts. Can you
say projection? Can you say sociopath?

And to those who don't think that the progressive's aim is not
disarmament our commander in chief said that we should have common
sense gun control laws and gave as example Australia. They confiscated
all the guns from citizens in Australia.

I know there are those who hate Howard Stern but below is a you tube
clip where Howard offers his opinion about the administrations
reaction to Orlando. I completely agree with him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1l3ADfeFF8

Ryan

-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------

2006 American Idol Bragging Rights Champion

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Zob]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 19:01:58 -0700 (PDT), Ron <bigel...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 9:19:51 PM UTC-4, patrickf...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Hi Ron:
>>
>> This is the best discussion on the attack I've heard. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4MC0vZgwfM It's done by Cenk Uyger of TYT.
>
>Thanks Patrick. I will watch it later. I live in Orlando and I've been watching the news almost nonstop since early Sunday morning while it was happening.
>
>I never thought something like this would *ever* happen here. Not to mention the shooting of Christina Grimmie ("The Voice" contestant) on Friday night just 4 miles away from the Pulse.

I empathize with how traumatic this is for you Ron, living right there
in Orlando. I was living here in Massachusetts when the Boston
Marathon bombing took place. And while it made national news, people
outside the state really couldn't understand what it felt like when
the manhunt was on for the bombers to be ordered to stay off the
roads, stay in our homes and keep our doors locked. It's practically
all that we saw and heard for days, maybe weeks. When these things hit
close to home the reality is more stark than it is for those halfway
across the country watching on TV. They/we might sympathize, but
we're not really experiencing the horror of this mass murder in the
same way as you locals are in Orlando.

[Ryan]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:15:28 -0400 (EDT), "Lesmond"
<les...@verizon.net> wrote:

>Sociopaths are awfully good liars.

OMG! The mother of ALL self referential posts:-)

[BTR1701]

In article <nqv6mb58417iv3ihh...@4ax.com>,

Zob <zob...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:00:54 -0400 (EDT), "Lesmond"
> <les...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:21:44 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Hillary has said several times at fundraisers to the 'progressive'
> >>faithful, out of earshot of the media,
> >
> >Howsoever did they manage to report it?
> >
> > that if elected, one of her goals
> >>as president will be to appoint Supreme Court justices who will reverse
> >>"that awful Heller decision". (That's the one where the Court ruled
> >>firearm ownership to be a fundamental constitutional right.)
>
> And thank God for it! The Heller decisions WAS wrong.

So according to you, only the military should have guns. But no one
wants to take anyone's guns.

Gotcha.

> The 2nd amendment very clearly states that the purpose of the right to
> bear arms is so that citizens can be part of a "well-regulated
> militia."

> "Well-regulated militia" means just that. Why do these chuckleheads
> only see the "right to bear arms" part and completely go blind when it
> comes to the "well-regulated militia" part? Selective reading
> comprehension. The 2nd amendment is about trained, regulated
> organized militia owning guns to help fight off a foreign invasion.
> Period.

And the right to an abortion isn't in the Constitution anywhere, Mr.
Literalist.

Oh, but that's "different", right?

> That was the original intent in 1789.

I wonder what the original intent was in 1789 regarding abortion?

[BTR1701]

In article <d317mblnb8rm61bco...@4ax.com>,

How does the New York Times work for you, champ? Gonna eyeroll that one,
too? How far is this denial thing you've got going gonna stretch?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/us/nationalspecial/police-begin-seizing
-guns-of-civilians.html

NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 8 - Local police officers began confiscating weapons
from civilians in preparation for a forced evacuation of the last
holdouts still living here, as President Bush steeled the nation for the
grisly scenes of recovering the dead that will unfold in coming days.

Mr. Compass, the police superintendent, said that after a week of near
anarchy in the city, no civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to have
pistols, shotguns, or other firearms of any kind. "Only law enforcement
are allowed to have weapons," he said.

That order apparently does not apply to the hundreds of security guards
whom businesses and some wealthy individuals have hired to protect their
property. The guards, who are civilians working for private security
firms like Blackwater, are openly carrying M-16s and other assault
rifles.

Mr. Compass said that he was aware of the private guards but that the
police had no plans to make them give up their weapons.

[BTR1701]

In article <yrfzbaqirevmbaar...@192.168.0.6>,
"Lesmond" <les...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:11:58 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:

> >But here's an article about it, anyway. Though I'm sure you'll dismiss
> >it as "made up" or "faked", since the actual videos of it happening
> >aren't even good enough for you.
> >
> >http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/24/a-decade-later-remember-new-orleans-gun
> >-confiscation-can-and-has-happened-in-america/
>
> Thank you. It would be far more helpful if the link wasn't broken.
> Probably my fault. Anyone sum it up for me impartially? Oops. Forgot
> where I was.

Controversy arose over a September 8 city-wide order by New Orleans
Police Superintendent Eddie Compass to local police, U.S. Army National
Guard soldiers, and Deputy U.S. Marshals to confiscate all civilian-held
firearms. "No one will be able to be armed," Compass said. "Guns will be
taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns." Seizures were
carried out without warrant, and in some cases with excessive force; one
instance captured on film involved 58-year-old New Orleans resident
Patricia Konie. Konie stayed behind, in her well provisioned home, and
had an old revolver for protection. A group of police entered the house,
and when she refused to surrender her revolver, she was tackled and it
was removed by force. Konie's shoulder was fractured, and she was taken
into police custody for failing to surrender her firearm.

Angered citizens, backed by the National Rifle Association and other
organizations, filed protests over the constitutionality of such an
order and the difficulty in tracking seizures, as paperwork was rarely
filed during the searches. Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle
Association, defended the right of affected citizens to retain firearms,
saying that, "What we ve seen in Louisiana - the breakdown of law and
order in the aftermath of disaster - is exactly the kind of situation
where the 2nd Amendment was intended to allow citizens to protect
themselves." The searches received little news coverage, though reaction
from groups such as the NRA, the 2nd Amendment Foundation, and Gun
Owners of America was immediate and heated, and a lawsuit was filed
September 22 by the NRA and SAF on behalf of two firearm owners whose
firearms were seized. On September 23, the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana issued a restraining order to bar further
firearms confiscations.

After refusing to admit that it had any seized firearms, the city
revealed in mid-March that it did have a cache of some 1000 firearms
seized after the hurricane; this disclosure came after the NRA filed a
motion in court to hold the city in contempt for failure to comply with
the U.S. District Court's earlier order to return all seized firearms.
On April 14, 2006, it was announced that the city will begin to return
seized firearms, however as of early 2008, many firearms were still in
police possession, and the matter was still in court. The matter was
finally settled in favor of the NRA in October 2008. Per the agreement,
the city was required to relax the strict proof of ownership
requirements previously used, and was to release firearms to their
owners with an affidavit claiming ownership and a background check to
verify that the owner is legally able to possess a firearm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurrica
ne_Katrina

[Patrick Finucane]

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 9:25:35 PM UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <8c90123b-06db-470a...@googlegroups.com>,

> patrickf...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 6:07:37 PM UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
>

> > > In article <yrfzbaqirevmbaar...@192.168.0.6>,
> > > "Lesmond" <les...@verizon.net> wrote:
>

> > > > Who has taken a gun away?
> > >
> > > Go to YouTube and search up videos of post-Katrina cops going
> > > house-to-house and confiscating guns from people.
> >

> > I'm astounded. Bush, a Republican, had the police confiscate guns.
>

> Bush was a federal official. He had no authority to order local police
> to do anything. They don't work for the president or his branch of
> government.
>
> Whatever the locals were doing, they were doing at the behest of state
> and local officials, who were under the control of Democrats at the time.
>
> Oops.

>
> > It's OK to kill kids in Sandy Hook, murder theater goers in CO, kill 50
> > people in Orlando and you are worried about gun confiscation?
>

> "No one going to confiscate your guns!"
>
> [proof that when given the opportunity, the government will indeed
> confiscate guns]
>
> "Okay, so they confiscated guns, but stop worrying about that and think
> of the cheeeldrunnn!"
>
> It's like a well-rehearsed script with you people.

Not sure why Bush had guns confiscated. katrina was a disaster/ Perhaps whites down there saying how they'd kill any blacks they saw in their plantation neighborhood.

I'll assume you did not live in NO at the time and your guns were not confiscated.

Regarding gun control. People want common sense regulations. That's beyond your comprehension.

[Patrick Finucane]

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 9:27:29 PM UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <8c90123b-06db-470a...@googlegroups.com>,
> patrickf...@gmail.com wrote:
>

> I apologize for not living up to my word. I said I was done with you
> after your last round of outright lies but didn't pay close enough
> attention to whom I was replying. I thought I was following up to
> Lesmond again and engaged. I hit 'send' before I realized it was your
> lying ass.
>
> Mea culpa

That's OK When I see a post from you, I wonder what the person BTR1701, that lacks humanity, has to say. I wonder how sad his/her life is, the lack of quality. Basically, I pity somebody like you.

[Lesmond]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 19:35:57 -1000, Ryan wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 21:39:46 -0400 (EDT), "Lesmond"
><les...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Yes, I also believe everything I see on Youtube.
>>
>>Facts, please.
>
>This is priceless. Lesmond posts some bullshit rumor about Prince's
>death being due to AIDS after he quit his meds due to some whacko
>religion. Then she claims that these rumors about Prince have been
>going on for many years with respect to him having AIDS. I must have
>missed the links to support her bullshit assertion.

And I admitted at the time it was a rumor. I didn't post some YouTube video
as "proof".

You gotta get over me, man. It's never going to work out between us.

But I have missed you.

[Lesmond]

Thank you. I have also done my own research. Yeah, the cops tried, but it
seems they didn't do very well. And it seems to be the local police, no
Federal involvement. So the cops overstepped their bounds. Nice try,
though.

[Lesmond]

Exactly. Poorly thought out laws designed to simply get politicians elected
that do no more than criminalize perfectly innocent people.