Waffle House shooting gun: an AR-15, of course

[duke]

Everyone who owns an AR-15 fantasizes about shooting people.

[max headroom]

In news:I8pDC.20220$z83....@fx19.iad,
Rudy Canoza <duckdu...@cox.net> typed:

> Everyone who owns an AR-15 fantasizes about shooting people.

No, Rudy, just you.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:57:57 -0700, duke <duckdu...@cox.net>
wrote:

>Everyone who owns an AR-15 fantasizes about shooting people.

You better stay inside, then, Rudy!

LOL

[Ed Huntress]

What's your fantasy about them, max? Putting more holes in the target
before it runs away? Fending off a gopher attack? Putting a dozen
holes in a whitetail?

--
Ed Huntress

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

There are a lot of legal uses.


--
That's Karma


*Rumination*
Comey tells you Hillary violated the law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ghph_361wa0#t=99

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 15:38:01 -0400, #BeamMeUpScotty
<Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:

>On 04/23/2018 03:21 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 11:12:38 -0700, "max headroom"
>> <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In news:I8pDC.20220$z83....@fx19.iad,
>>> Rudy Canoza <duckdu...@cox.net> typed:
>>>
>>>> Everyone who owns an AR-15 fantasizes about shooting people.
>>>
>>> No, Rudy, just you.
>>
>> What's your fantasy about them, max? Putting more holes in the target
>> before it runs away? Fending off a gopher attack? Putting a dozen
>> holes in a whitetail?
>>
>
>There are a lot of legal uses.

Sure. Gunner uses a .25 ACP Raven to shoot new holes in his belt. Who
knows what possibilities are out there?

--
Ed Huntress

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

On 04/23/2018 03:21 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

There are a lot of legal uses.

Remember in the book "To Kill Mockingbird" when Atticus Finch shot the
dog that was rabid. Because he was the better marksman. ;)

--
That's Karma


*Rumination*

163 - Liberals say we can't ban all foreign Muslims from being American,
but we can ban all Americans from owning guns....? How does that work?

[duke]

On 4/23/2018 11:12 AM, max headroom wrote:
> In news:I8pDC.20220$z83....@fx19.iad,

> duke wrote:
>
>> Everyone who owns an AR-15 fantasizes about shooting people.
>

> No, just you.


I don't own an AR-15. I don't fantasize about shooting anyone. You do.

[Rudy Canoza]

LOL!

[David R. Birch]

On 4/23/2018 2:21 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

> What's your fantasy about them, max? Putting more holes in the target
> before it runs away? Fending off a gopher attack? Putting a dozen
> holes in a whitetail?

I have fantasies about our govt trusting its citizens and my being able
to trust the govt. Because I know they're fantasies, I own an AR.

David


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[David R. Birch]

I own an AR-15. I don't fantasize about shooting anyone. You are the
only one fantasizing about shooting someone.

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 16:08:54 -0400, #BeamMeUpScotty
<Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:

>On 04/23/2018 03:21 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 11:12:38 -0700, "max headroom"
>> <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In news:I8pDC.20220$z83....@fx19.iad,
>>> Rudy Canoza <duckdu...@cox.net> typed:
>>>
>>>> Everyone who owns an AR-15 fantasizes about shooting people.
>>>
>>> No, Rudy, just you.
>>
>> What's your fantasy about them, max? Putting more holes in the target
>> before it runs away? Fending off a gopher attack? Putting a dozen
>> holes in a whitetail?
>>
>
>There are a lot of legal uses.
>
>Remember in the book "To Kill Mockingbird" when Atticus Finch shot the
>dog that was rabid. Because he was the better marksman. ;)

Right. If you can't shoot worth a shit, there's always spray-and-pray.

It's interesting that the Remington Model 10, the first really
successful semiautomatic rifle, came out in 1906, and Pennsylvania
outlawed semiautos for hunting in 1907. And that was with a fixed,
5-shot magazine.

I went through PA's Safe Hunter program in 1960, and the disdain the
instructors (all NRA certified) had for semiautos was palpable. I
remember one who talked about the "tyros" from Philadelphia shooting
up the woods if semiautos were allowed.

They had good sense. I think a lot of good sense has gone out the
window.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 15:34:15 -0500, "David R. Birch"
<dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:

>On 4/23/2018 2:21 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>> What's your fantasy about them, max? Putting more holes in the target
>> before it runs away? Fending off a gopher attack? Putting a dozen
>> holes in a whitetail?
>
>I have fantasies about our govt trusting its citizens and my being able
>to trust the govt. Because I know they're fantasies, I own an AR.

Which springs back to Rudy's point that you're fantasizing about
shooting people...in this case, people from the government.

--
Ed Huntress


>
>David

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 15:36:17 -0500, "David R. Birch"
<dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:

>On 4/23/2018 3:11 PM, duke wrote:
>> On 4/23/2018 11:12 AM, max headroom wrote:
>>> In news:I8pDC.20220$z83....@fx19.iad,
>>> duke wrote:
>>>
>>>> Everyone who owns an AR-15 fantasizes about shooting people.
>>>
>>> No, just you.
>>
>>
>> I don't own an AR-15.  I don't fantasize about shooting anyone.  You do.
>
>
>I own an AR-15. I don't fantasize about shooting anyone. You are the
>only one fantasizing about shooting someone.

But you just told us you have one because you don't trust the
government. What are you planning to do, hit them over the head with
it?

Rudy's right. It's not everyone, but there's a deep vein of
people-shooting fantasy in many of the people who buy them.

--
Ed Huntress

[duke]

On 4/23/2018 1:34 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
> On 4/23/2018 2:21 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>> What's your fantasy about them, max? Putting more holes in the target
>> before it runs away? Fending off a gopher attack? Putting a dozen
>> holes in a whitetail?
>
> I have fantasies about our govt trusting its citizens and my being able
> to trust the govt. Because I know they're fantasies, I own an AR.

And fantasize about shooting people. Every AR-15 owner does.

You don't have a right to own just whatever arms you wish.

[duke]

On 4/23/2018 1:36 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
> On 4/23/2018 3:11 PM, duke wrote:
>> On 4/23/2018 11:12 AM, max headroom wrote:
>>> In news:I8pDC.20220$z83....@fx19.iad,
>>> duke wrote:
>>>
>>>> Everyone who owns an AR-15 fantasizes about shooting people.
>>>
>>> No, just you.
>>
>>
>> I don't own an AR-15.  I don't fantasize about shooting anyone.  You do.
>
>
> I own an AR-15.  I don't fantasize about shooting anyone.

Of course you do.

[duke]

On 4/23/2018 1:43 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 15:36:17 -0500, "David R. Birch"
> <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/23/2018 3:11 PM, duke wrote:
>>> On 4/23/2018 11:12 AM, max headroom wrote:
>>>> In news:I8pDC.20220$z83....@fx19.iad,
>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Everyone who owns an AR-15 fantasizes about shooting people.
>>>>
>>>> No, just you.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't own an AR-15.  I don't fantasize about shooting anyone.  You do.
>>
>>
>> I own an AR-15. I don't fantasize about shooting anyone. You are the
>> only one fantasizing about shooting someone.
>
> But you just told us you have one because you don't trust the
> government. What are you planning to do, hit them over the head with
> it?
>
> Rudy's right. It's not everyone, but there's a deep vein of
> people-shooting fantasy in many of the people who buy them.

It may not even be that they fantasize about going on some justifiable
rampage and hunting down "leftists", as Mark Wieber does. Rather, they
fantasize about hordes of "leftists" or other bad people such as
jack-booted government agents coming after them, and they'll have "no
choice" but to mow them down with an AR-15. They definitely fantasize
about shooting people with their AR-15s.

[max headroom]

In news:I5rDC.17045$7H4....@fx12.iad,
Rudy Canoza <duckdu...@cox.net> typed:

> On 4/23/2018 11:12 AM, max headroom wrote:

>> In news:I8pDC.20220$z83....@fx19.iad, Rudy Canoza <duckdu...@cox.net> typed:

>>> Everyone who owns an AR-15 fantasizes about shooting people.

>> No, Rudy, just you.

> I don't own an AR-15....

Felons can't.

> ... I don't fantasize about shooting anyone....

Whipping their asses in fast-food parking lots is your fantasy.

> You do.

Keep your day job. Carnak.

[cbuod⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛7d3c]

Big Brother is ready. Bring it on, punk. Be ready to shit your pants:

<https://www.google.com/search?q=Waco+Siege+guns+and+tanks&source=lnms&tbm=isch>

[Winston_Smith]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:57:57 -0700, duke wrote:

>Everyone who owns an AR-15 fantasizes about shooting people.

The best reason I can think of to buy one is to piss of Hillary and
whatever similar gun grabbers come along in her wake of disaster. If
you never shoot it, that would be worth the money. Schumer can look at
the sales numbers and rant another rant on his way to obscurity.
___
"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage
or working class flat is the symbol of democracy.
It is our job to see that it stays there."
-- George Orwell

[Red Prepper]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 15:21:06 -0400, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
> What's your fantasy about them, max? Putting more holes in the
target
> before it runs away? Fending off a gopher attack? Putting a dozen
> holes in a whitetail?


> --

> Ed Cuntdress

Is this another segue of your where you tell us about your gay sex
fantasies again in your fuscia cunt dress? I hope not.

[Red Prepper]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 15:34:15 -0500, "David R. Birch"
<dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
> On 4/23/2018 2:21 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:


> > What's your fantasy about them, max? Putting more holes in the
target
> > before it runs away? Fending off a gopher attack? Putting a dozen
> > holes in a whitetail?


> I have fantasies about our govt trusting its citizens and my being
able
> to trust the govt. Because I know they're fantasies, I own an AR.

The cunt in a dress has fantasies of finding gay sex while prancing
in our newsgroup wearing his daddy's hand me down cunt dress.

[Red Prepper]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 16:43:22 -0400, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
> Rudy's right. It's not everyone, but there's a deep vein of
> people-shooting fantasy in many of the people who buy them.


> --

> Ed Cuntdress

It's no fantasy that you will be the first one to take one between
the eyes while taking one up your ass when the SHTF.

[Buzz Forward]

On 4/23/2018 6:10 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:57:57 -0700, duke wrote:
>
>> Everyone who owns an AR-15 fantasizes about shooting people.
>

> The best reason I can think of to buy one is to piss of [sic] Hillary and

You want to shoot people. Got it.

[slate_leeper]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:57:57 -0700, duke <duckdu...@cox.net>
wrote:

>Everyone who owns an AR-15 fantasizes about shooting people.

Please provide a credible source for that assertion. Pipe dreams don't
count.




--
Someone who thinks logically provides
a nice contrast to the real world.
(Anonymous)

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:57:57 -0700, duke <duckdu...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Everyone who owns an AR-15 fantasizes about shooting people.

I know people with AR-15's and their gun has never killed anyone, is it
a defective gun since it did do as you suggest and kill someone?

Should they sue the manufacturer since their gun that was only made to
kill people has NOT killed anyone?

In fact the number of AR-15's that murdered anyone is pretty small....

--
That's Karma


*Rumination*

127 - *The main point of the 2nd amendment is that* "the security of a
free state" relies on the militia and the militia relies on the RIGHT of
the people to keep and bear arms. And that right is secured by "shall
NOT be infringed".

[UYSua⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛OPr4]

#BeamMeUpScotty wrote on 4/24/2018 12:09 PM:
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:57:57 -0700, duke <duckdu...@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Everyone who owns an AR-15 fantasizes about shooting people.
> I know people with AR-15's and their gun has never killed anyone, is it
> a defective gun since it did do as you suggest and kill someone?

Give them time.

> Should they sue the manufacturer since their gun that was only made to
> kill people has NOT killed anyone?

Give them time. Their mental illness will fester and they will start
hearing voices to tell them to.

> In fact the number of AR-15's that murdered anyone is pretty small....

The number of trains that had run over anyone is pretty small. Why don't
you go jump in front of a speeding train, and do the society a favour?

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:09:36 -0400, #BeamMeUpScotty
<Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:

>
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:57:57 -0700, duke <duckdu...@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Everyone who owns an AR-15 fantasizes about shooting people.
>

>I know people with AR-15's and their gun has never killed anyone...

Oh my God, an AR-15 that has never killed anyone! Imagaine that! d8-)

>... is it a defective gun since it did do as you suggest and kill someone?

No, dear BMUS, It's probably OK. It could kill a dozen of them any
time yo want.

>
>Should they sue the manufacturer since their gun that was only made to
>kill people has NOT killed anyone?
>
>In fact the number of AR-15's that murdered anyone is pretty small....

And the number of people who really care -- the parents, children,
husbands, wives, etc. of the ones who were murdered -- can't be more
than a few thousand. You can overwhelm their votes in any election.

And you probably will.

--
Ed Huntress

[Winston_Smith]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 14:30:21 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

>No, dear BMUS, It's probably OK. It could kill a dozen of them any
>time yo want.
>

>>In fact the number of AR-15's that murdered anyone is pretty small....
>
>And the number of people who really care -- the parents, children,
>husbands, wives, etc. of the ones who were murdered -- can't be more
>than a few thousand. You can overwhelm their votes in any election.

Are you willing to say all the same things about the van that just
killed 10 people in Toronto? Or the truck in France some time ago. Can
we have your support getting vans and trucks outlawed?

Hand carts are so much safer, don't you think? As long as you don't
hitch a horse to it, of course.

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 11:48:48 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 14:30:21 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>>No, dear BMUS, It's probably OK. It could kill a dozen of them any
>>time yo want.
>>
>>>In fact the number of AR-15's that murdered anyone is pretty small....
>>
>>And the number of people who really care -- the parents, children,
>>husbands, wives, etc. of the ones who were murdered -- can't be more
>>than a few thousand. You can overwhelm their votes in any election.
>
>Are you willing to say all the same things about the van that just
>killed 10 people in Toronto? Or the truck in France some time ago. Can
>we have your support getting vans and trucks outlawed?

Yes, I would say exactly the same things: You can overwhelm the votes
of those who would want to ban trucks in any election.

[benj]

Your "progressive" dream!

Tell them, Huntress, that AR15 shootings by Manchurian candidates are
going to continue until sensible action like the repeal of the Bill of
Rights is taken by a progressive Congress. It's certain.

[benj]

On 4/24/2018 2:56 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 11:48:48 -0700, Winston_Smith
> <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 14:30:21 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>>> No, dear BMUS, It's probably OK. It could kill a dozen of them any
>>> time yo want.
>>>
>>>> In fact the number of AR-15's that murdered anyone is pretty small....
>>>
>>> And the number of people who really care -- the parents, children,
>>> husbands, wives, etc. of the ones who were murdered -- can't be more
>>> than a few thousand. You can overwhelm their votes in any election.
>>
>> Are you willing to say all the same things about the van that just
>> killed 10 people in Toronto? Or the truck in France some time ago. Can
>> we have your support getting vans and trucks outlawed?
>
> Yes, I would say exactly the same things: You can overwhelm the votes
> of those who would want to ban trucks in any election.

Which is exactly the OPPOSITE of what he said before, that he is calling
"exactly the same things". But hey we are talking to a lying lib here.

Point is simple. Owning an AR15 is a protected right that needs to be
repealed. But there is no right to drive a Van so it has no political
importance and those deaths can be safely ignored.

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 16:57:23 -0400, benj <be...@nobody.net> wrote:

>On 4/24/2018 2:56 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 11:48:48 -0700, Winston_Smith
>> <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 14:30:21 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, dear BMUS, It's probably OK. It could kill a dozen of them any
>>>> time yo want.
>>>>
>>>>> In fact the number of AR-15's that murdered anyone is pretty small....
>>>>
>>>> And the number of people who really care -- the parents, children,
>>>> husbands, wives, etc. of the ones who were murdered -- can't be more
>>>> than a few thousand. You can overwhelm their votes in any election.
>>>
>>> Are you willing to say all the same things about the van that just
>>> killed 10 people in Toronto? Or the truck in France some time ago. Can
>>> we have your support getting vans and trucks outlawed?
>>
>> Yes, I would say exactly the same things: You can overwhelm the votes
>> of those who would want to ban trucks in any election.
>
>Which is exactly the OPPOSITE of what he said before, that he is calling
>"exactly the same things". But hey we are talking to a lying lib here.

Hey, moron, pay attention. Look at the quotes above. I said EXACTLY
THE SAME THING in both circumstances: You can overwhelm any voters
that would ban either guns or trucks. Same thing. Exactly. Get it?

Dyslexic, are you?

>
>Point is simple. Owning an AR15 is a protected right that needs to be
>repealed.

Who said that? Let's see the quote.

>But there is no right to drive a Van so it has no political
>importance and those deaths can be safely ignored.

Who commented on that? Cite.

You have a hell of a lot of noise running between your ears, benj.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 16:52:03 -0400, benj <be...@nobody.net> wrote:

>On 4/24/2018 2:30 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:09:36 -0400, #BeamMeUpScotty
>> <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:57:57 -0700, duke <duckdu...@cox.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Everyone who owns an AR-15 fantasizes about shooting people.
>>>
>>> I know people with AR-15's and their gun has never killed anyone...
>>
>> Oh my God, an AR-15 that has never killed anyone! Imagaine that! d8-)
>>
>>> ... is it a defective gun since it did do as you suggest and kill someone?
>>
>> No, dear BMUS, It's probably OK. It could kill a dozen of them any
>> time yo want.
>>
>>>
>>> Should they sue the manufacturer since their gun that was only made to
>>> kill people has NOT killed anyone?
>>>
>>> In fact the number of AR-15's that murdered anyone is pretty small....
>>
>> And the number of people who really care -- the parents, children,
>> husbands, wives, etc. of the ones who were murdered -- can't be more
>> than a few thousand. You can overwhelm their votes in any election.
>>
>> And you probably will.
>>
>Your "progressive" dream!

My "progressive dream" of what? That BMUS and his ilk can overwhelm
the votes of those who want to ban ARs -- like the parents of the
Sandy Hook kids? Do you disagree -- in other words, do you think
they'll ban them?

Are you actually reading these posts you THINK you're reading, or is
there too much blood in your eyes to see the words?

Shape up, benj. You aren't going to get anywhere if you keep
misreading the posts you're responding to.

>
>Tell them, Huntress, that AR15 shootings by Manchurian candidates are

>going to continue...

WTF is that supposed to mean? Get a grip.

> until sensible action like the repeal of the Bill of
>Rights is taken by a progressive Congress. It's certain.

You're fucking nuts.

--
Ed Huntress

[rbowman]

On 04/24/2018 10:29 AM, UYSua⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛OPr4
wrote:

> #BeamMeUpScotty wrote on 4/24/2018 12:09 PM:
>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:57:57 -0700, duke <duckdu...@cox.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Everyone who owns an AR-15 fantasizes about shooting people.
>> I know people with AR-15's and their gun has never killed anyone, is it
>> a defective gun since it did do as you suggest and kill someone?
>
> Give them time.

I fired one round through an AR a few years ago. It seemed like a
polite, well-mannered rifle but it wasn't my cup of tea.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

That's why Democrats want to get rid of the electoral college isn't it?

--
That's Karma


*Rumination*

119 - The illegals have to come here by following the laws that created
America, otherwise they're destroying the America that they came here
for, aren't they? Democrats immigration policy is a paradox.

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 12:50:34 -0400, in talk.politics.guns
#BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:

>That's why Democrats want to get rid of the electoral college isn't it?

If you like loonish candidates, then you *love* the US primary and
electoral system because it almost guarantees off-the-wall loons.

I'm not too upset over the Donald because he isn't any more
dysfunctional than a Hillary presidency would have been... my question
is: why did we have to choose between two loons?

Jones

--
Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.

[47XDp⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛B6q2]

Because the US is a duopoly, you silly.

You are given the illusion of making a choice, but both candidates are
vetted by the Deep State.

It is a two-horse race. Big Brother places his bet on both horses to
make sure he always wins.

[Ed Huntress]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 12:50:34 -0400, #BeamMeUpScotty

<Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:

>On 04/24/2018 02:30 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:09:36 -0400, #BeamMeUpScotty
>> <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:57:57 -0700, duke <duckdu...@cox.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Everyone who owns an AR-15 fantasizes about shooting people.
>>>
>>> I know people with AR-15's and their gun has never killed anyone...
>>
>> Oh my God, an AR-15 that has never killed anyone! Imagaine that! d8-)
>>
>>> ... is it a defective gun since it did do as you suggest and kill someone?
>>
>> No, dear BMUS, It's probably OK. It could kill a dozen of them any
>> time yo want.
>>
>>>
>>> Should they sue the manufacturer since their gun that was only made to
>>> kill people has NOT killed anyone?
>>>
>>> In fact the number of AR-15's that murdered anyone is pretty small....
>>
>> And the number of people who really care -- the parents, children,
>> husbands, wives, etc. of the ones who were murdered -- can't be more
>> than a few thousand. You can overwhelm their votes in any election.
>>
>> And you probably will.
>>
>That's why Democrats want to get rid of the electoral college isn't it?

I believe the reasons they'd like to do away with it was expressed by
Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson:

[Hamilton, Federalist #22, speaking of the Senate but it applies to
the Electoral College as well]

"Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation
conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal
weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or
New York; and to Delaware an equal voice in the national deliberations
with Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina. Its operation
contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which
requires that the sense of the majority should prevail."

[Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817]

"THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF REPUBLICANISM IS THAT THE LEX MAJORIS PARTIS
(THE LAW OF THE MAJORITY) IS THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF EVERY SOCIETY OF
INDIVIDUALS OF EQUAL RIGHTS; to consider the will of the society
enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is
the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is
thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but
that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism."

However:

[Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800]

"The voice of the majority decides. For the lex majoris partis is the
law of all councils, elections, etc., where not otherwise expressly
provided."

Fortunately for Jefferson, the method for counting electors WAS
"otherwise expressly provided." Without the 3/5 rule for slaves, he
never would have been President.

One would have to be a cynic that his view was shaped by nis need for
extra votes to win the office...umm...maybe...

--
Ed Huntress

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

If you wanted a real Candidate why didn't you get one that the FBI
wasn't investigating?

Or a better question is why was the FBI/DOJ secretly spying on TRUMP
where there were no crimes and yet they didn't even care about Hillary
who was being investigated openly for stealing classified documents that
were common knowledge where there was actual hard evidence of the crime.

Had Democrats been willing to stand up for the law rather than
Politically corrupt they could have given us at least one candidate that
wasn't being investigated.

The irony is that it all backfired on Democrats when Hillary/Obama were
the ones that actually did commit crimes, and TRUMP was the victim of a
crime as it turns out.

--
That's Karma


*Rumination*

139 - Those that seek mediocrity won't win in a contest that rewards
excellence.

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 10:36:41 -0400, in talk.politics.guns
#BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:

>If you wanted a real Candidate why didn't you get one that the FBI
>wasn't investigating?
>
>Or a better question is why was the FBI/DOJ secretly spying on TRUMP
>where there were no crimes and yet they didn't even care about Hillary
>who was being investigated openly for stealing classified documents that
>were common knowledge where there was actual hard evidence of the crime.
>
>Had Democrats been willing to stand up for the law rather than
>Politically corrupt they could have given us at least one candidate that
>wasn't being investigated.
>
>The irony is that it all backfired on Democrats when Hillary/Obama were
>the ones that actually did commit crimes, and TRUMP was the victim of a
>crime as it turns out.

Oh, gad! Another big conspiracy, I'm sure. You do *not* live under
the microscope of a presidential campaign and fail to be investigated.
Isn't the Donald "being investigated"? (Did Carter have any scandals?
I don't recall any.)

Part of having a functional democracy is a mutual tolerance for the
views of the other side. We may disagree vehemently; however, when we
ascribe criminal behavior to a simple political position, our
democracy is in danger. It is my belief that the United States could
easily implode politically.