Typical Kike on Gun Control

[Stephen Springer]

In Europe, where out of a population of around 500 million (compared to
the USA, of 300 million), there are around only 2,000 gun homicides per
year (compared to the USA with around 12,000 gun homicides - per the
DOJ). There are very strict gun control laws. In France, for example,
there's a max purchase rate of one gun per month, with an upper limit of
(if I recall correctly) of 5 guns. BEFORE you even are allowed to own a
gun, you are CAREFULLY screened for mental illness AND have to take a 6
month long certification class and test, with an annual re-test and
registration. No surprise- only the dedicated gun enthusiasts sign-up,
keeping the number of guns in the public low, and gun violence low.

That's what I support- this makes certain that mental illness is
screened for, and excellent training required. Who's on board?

BTW: The same week that Sandyhook happened, in China, a man entered a
school with a knife, and injured 22 kids. Guess what? They're all alive.

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

So the jew-bastard is basically saying it's better to shank school
children and not light them up.

[Mark Zacharias]

"Stephen Springer" <kimc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:kkkm4t$imv$1...@dont-email.me...

What part of, "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

BTW I never understood anti-semitism. I've heard the stories, I know the
history, I just don't really get it.

The poster who referenced "kike" in the subject is a moron.

Mark Z.

[Bucky Breeder]

Mark Zacharias broadcast via the internets:

> "Stephen Springer" <kimc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:kkkm4t$imv$1...@dont-email.me...
>> In Europe, where out of a population of around 500 million (compared to
>> the USA, of 300 million), there are around only 2,000 gun homicides per
>> year (compared to the USA with around 12,000 gun homicides - per the
>> DOJ). There are very strict gun control laws. In France, for example,
>> there's a max purchase rate of one gun per month, with an upper limit
>> of (if I recall correctly) of 5 guns. BEFORE you even are allowed to
>> own a gun, you are CAREFULLY screened for mental illness AND have to
>> take a 6 month long certification class and test, with an annual
>> re-test and registration. No surprise- only the dedicated gun
>> enthusiasts sign-up, keeping the number of guns in the public low, and
>> gun violence low.
>>
>> That's what I support- this makes certain that mental illness is
>> screened for, and excellent training required. Who's on board?

If "mental-illness" = "morons", then the most recent 2 mass-shootings
were done with firearms obtained legally by 3rd party "enablers"...
would you rather they use pressure-cookers, like the Boston Moron?

>>
>> BTW: The same week that Sandyhook happened, in China, a man entered a
>> school with a knife, and injured 22 kids. Guess what? They're all
>> alive.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> So the jew-bastard is basically saying it's better to shank school
>> children and not light them up.
>
>
> What part of, "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

Really... even what is in place now is "infringement".

The only people who should be regulated are those that have previously
had their civil-rights removed or suspended for criminal behavior or for
their own safety and protection - like suicide patients...

>
> BTW I never understood anti-semitism. I've heard the stories, I know the
> history, I just don't really get it.
>
> The poster who referenced "kike" in the subject is a moron.
>
> Mark Z.

It could have been merely a spell-checker error... Which would make the
spell-checker the "moron", now wouldn't it?

The poster probably just meant "jew-tard" but darned spell-checkers...
They're probably controlled by the Jews, just like the rest of the
entertainment and news industries.

I like the Jew-tards... My lawyer is one. So is my agent.

HTH.

--

I AM Bucky Breeder, (*(^; and FYI :
Of course God loves *everybody* equally...
He's just got a really strange sense of humor.

Like when He gave the USA the 2nd Amendment...
Yay, good one, God. Thank you for that.

[Plai...@yawhoo.com]

We are already beyond 'shall not be infringed'. There are a variety
of fully automatic firearms which can only be purchased with a special
permit. There are other 'arms' which are totally outlawed.

The real question is "Do you want to go on record as suggesting ypur
desire to own the latest tarted up plastic firearm is more importamt
than the lives of 20 children?"

PlainBill

[k...@attt.bizz]

Wow! Just *WOW*. The ignorance is simply amazing.

[tuinkabouter]

I heard the news about the bombs in Boston.

Is the pro arms lobby now say every good man should own a bomb?

[Trevor Wilson]

On 4/17/2013 10:19 AM, Mark Zacharias wrote:
> "Stephen Springer" <kimc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:kkkm4t$imv$1...@dont-email.me...
>> In Europe, where out of a population of around 500 million (compared
>> to the USA, of 300 million), there are around only 2,000 gun homicides
>> per year (compared to the USA with around 12,000 gun homicides - per
>> the DOJ). There are very strict gun control laws. In France, for
>> example, there's a max purchase rate of one gun per month, with an
>> upper limit of (if I recall correctly) of 5 guns. BEFORE you even are
>> allowed to own a gun, you are CAREFULLY screened for mental illness
>> AND have to take a 6 month long certification class and test, with an
>> annual re-test and registration. No surprise- only the dedicated gun
>> enthusiasts sign-up, keeping the number of guns in the public low, and
>> gun violence low.
>>
>> That's what I support- this makes certain that mental illness is
>> screened for, and excellent training required. Who's on board?
>>
>> BTW: The same week that Sandyhook happened, in China, a man entered a
>> school with a knife, and injured 22 kids. Guess what? They're all alive.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> So the jew-bastard is basically saying it's better to shank school
>> children and not light them up.
>
>
> What part of, "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

**What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.
* At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
* At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
* At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
* At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.

>
> BTW I never understood anti-semitism. I've heard the stories, I know the
> history, I just don't really get it.
>
> The poster who referenced "kike" in the subject is a moron.

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Don Kelly]

Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of their
country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
providing fresh meat was also rather important).
What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem earlier)- or
for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone innocent
gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons that
can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't infringe
on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun owners
but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in dismay at
what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and lived
with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
based on ??


Don

[Michael A. Terrell]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> **Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
> gutless politicians they have in their pocket.

Of course, you are a well known loon.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Don Kelly wrote:
>
> On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >
> > **What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.
> >
> > Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:
> >
> > * At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
> > * At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
> > bow and arrow.
> > * At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
> > * At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
> > * At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
> > * At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.
> >

Guns aren't the problem, and it only takes a second or two to change a
magazine, so the size doesn't make any difference if no one is shooting
back. The problem is that sleazy lawyers got 'rights' for the mentally
ill to be on the streets. A gun is a tool, and doesn't kill by itself.
It takes an unstable person or criminal who places no value on human
life to use one to maim or kill in cold blood.

People like 'Trevor' are responsible for creating 'Gun free zones'
which are the perfect targets for shooting sprees where no one will
shoot back. He is down under, and has no business spouting off about
gun control in the US.

[Trevor Wilson]

**If pointing out the abject stupidity of US gun control laws (such as
they are), by using logic, reason and common-sense, makes me a "loon",
then I guess you have some serious problems in dealing with plain English.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

**The US's problem is that the NRA has subverted their political system.
A miniscule 4 million members of the NRA, effectively dictate gun
control laws (and other, related laws) in the US. The NRA acts first and
formost in the interests of the firearms industry. They have no interest
in public safety. Their sole interests lie in pushing firearms and
ammunition sales accross the US. Any politician who stands up to the NRA
will cop a vicious, expensive and extended campaign of denigration.
Since the NRA is not, officially, a political organisation (although it
operates within the political sphere), it is exempt from many of the
constraints that political organisations must operate within.

That US citizens seem to accept this evil organisation within their
midst, is difficult to understand. Many Americans appear to have been
comprehensively brainwashed. Perhaps it is their education system? I
don't know. Either way, one day the bulk of the US population will 'wake
up and smell the coffee' and the NRA will be brought to it's knees.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Charles]

Thought I was on a repair forum.

Sorry.

[k...@attt.bizz]

The question is "what's it to you?" Are you really that lonesome that
you have to troll? You really need a life.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 4/20/2013 8:50 AM, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 08:05:21 +1000, Trevor Wilson
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On 4/20/2013 2:22 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>
>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> **Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
>>>> gutless politicians they have in their pocket.
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course, you are a well known loon.
>>>
>>
>> **If pointing out the abject stupidity of US gun control laws (such as
>> they are), by using logic, reason and common-sense, makes me a "loon",
>> then I guess you have some serious problems in dealing with plain English.
>
> The question is "what's it to you?"

**It's a public forum, idiot. Everyone else in the Western, developed
world looks at the US situation WRT gun control and considers the
situation tragic and sad. It seems that many Americans cannot see this fact.

Are you really that lonesome that
> you have to troll?

**Pointing out the evil that lies within the political framework of the
US, is not trolling. It is pointing out the truth.

You really need a life.
>

**If you have something of value to add, then do so. If you can defend
the NRA, then do so (good luck with that). Otherwise, fuck off.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[MrTallyman]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:36:29 +1000, Trevor Wilson
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>On 4/17/2013 10:19 AM, Mark Zacharias wrote:
>>
>> What part of, "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
>
>**What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.

When we actually get to regulate the FOP PIG nation we have, I'll
agree. Untill then, THEY are the last gang we have to worry about.
you not knowing that is also part of the problem.

>
>Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:
>
>* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.

More utter stupidity. They were written to insure a right to protect
one's self from ANY enemy. It has nothing to do with how easily the
protection device can be utilized.

Can you really be that fucking retarded?

>* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
>bow and arrow.

I'll bring back unrifled morning duels any time dipshit. Let divine
intervention decide. You would eat a ball.

>* At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.

More 100% unrelated horseshit.

>* At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.

Uh... no... The document was to govern a country where that was NOT in
place any longer, you stupid bastard. We had just beat them and ousted
them.

>* At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.

Yeah, and if they had one just one more fight, YOU might never have
been born. A goddamned shame, if you ask me. You sully the human gene
pool.

>* At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.

More 100% unrelated total horseshit.

>>
>> BTW I never understood anti-semitism. I've heard the stories, I know the
>> history, I just don't really get it.
>>
>> The poster who referenced "kike" in the subject is a moron.
>
>**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
>gutless politicians they have in their pocket.

If we banned all guns here now. The only ones who WOULD STILL HAVE
THEM would be the criminals, you absolute fucking retard.

REGARDLESS of what you might like to see be the texture of society, we
live in a harsh, cruel world, and just because it never bit you in the
ass, only means that you are clueless about the need, much less that any
"stoppage" would only result in a better armed criminal element. AND NO
LAWS will EVER stop the types of idiots who pull this stupid shit.


So, you are only about as lost as anyone claiming to be a man can get.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 4/20/2013 3:53 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
> Who the fuck posted this shit to all these groups? The OP didn't even
> cite who the "kike" is.
>
> Newsgroups:
> sci.electronics.repair,24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.sports.football.pro.sd-chargers,alt.engineering.electrical,rec.audio.car

>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:
>

> Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written in the United States. If some
> Aussie has a problem with it, just don't come here and you'll be just
> fine.
>
> I really don't understand why people that are outside of the US think
> they are allowed to opine on the 2nd. I don't tell you what kind of
> boomerang you can carry.

**We call it: 'Freedom of speech'. An interesting concept you should
learn about.

Stupid septic.



--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

On 4/20/2013 4:23 PM, G. Morgan wrote:

> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> **The US's problem is that the NRA has subverted their political system.
>> A miniscule 4 million members of the NRA, effectively dictate gun
>> control laws (and other, related laws) in the US. The NRA acts first and
>> formost in the interests of the firearms industry. They have no interest
>> in public safety. Their sole interests lie in pushing firearms and
>> ammunition sales accross the US. Any politician who stands up to the NRA
>> will cop a vicious, expensive and extended campaign of denigration.
>> Since the NRA is not, officially, a political organisation (although it
>> operates within the political sphere), it is exempt from many of the
>> constraints that political organisations must operate within.
>>
>> That US citizens seem to accept this evil organisation within their
>> midst, is difficult to understand. Many Americans appear to have been
>> comprehensively brainwashed. Perhaps it is their education system? I
>> don't know. Either way, one day the bulk of the US population will 'wake
>> up and smell the coffee' and the NRA will be brought to it's knees.
>

> If you don't live here, and never been here; you don't know what the fuck
> you're talking about.

**Then I DO know exactly what I am talking about. Feel free to pose a
logical argument, rather than engaging in pointless rhetoric.


How dare you sit there from the comfort of your
> chair and insult our educational system.

**_I_ don't need to insult your education system. Here is an example
that does that all on it's own:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education_in_the_United_States

Kinda says it all, really.


The PC you are using was
> invented by Americans, as well as the means you are using to deliver your
> (ill informed) message.

**I never suggested that ALL Americans were stupid. Just a VERY large
number of them. At least 4 million, anyway.

>
> "Their {NRA's} sole interests lie in pushing firearms and ammunition
> sales accross [sic] the US" <--- What a crock of shit, mate.

**Again, the facts are just that:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerogers/2013/02/01/nra-winning-the-influence-battle-over-gun-control/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/16/how-the-nra-influences-congress-in-6-charts/




>
> You really don't know *what* the NRA does, do you?

**I know what the NRA _CLAIMS_ to do. I also know what the NRA's main
aim is. That aim has nothing to do with shooting safety, gun owner's
education and other crap. It's main aim to ensure that more guns are
sold. It is (now) an industry lobby organisation, first and foremost.


And before you ask,
> no - I'm not a member. If you'd like the truth, ask an American.

**I have. There are a surprisingly large number who are heartily sick of
the political meddling perpetrated by the NRA.


There
> is no telling what garbage you read/watch in the media down there, they
> have been brainwashing you apparently.

**I read local AND US media. I also read scholarly documents (both for
and against) on the issue. I even have a copy of John Lott Jnr's (or is
that Mary Rosh's - I get confused) book on one of my shelves. Do you?
What do you read on the issue?


If you don't know something, it's
> best not to comment and look like the fool you do right now. Geeze...

**Feel free to place a cogent argument.

We'll wait.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

**Which is why good, strong, sane, homogeneous gun control laws make a
great deal of good sense. Something that does not exist in the US.

>
> People like 'Trevor' are responsible for creating 'Gun free zones'
> which are the perfect targets for shooting sprees where no one will
> shoot back. He is down under, and has no business spouting off about
> gun control in the US.
>

**Sure I have. I get to say whatever I wish (within limits). I have
freedom of speech, despite what you would wish.

"Gun free zones". Gotta love that old NRA gobbledegook. You have been
comprehensively brainwashed.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[soup]

Stephen Springer wrote:

> So the jew-bastard is basically saying it's better to shank school
> children and not light them up.

I don't really know what you mean by "light them up"
But better stabbed and alive than shot and dead. Of course it would be
better if they were left alone.

Oh and BTW what has religion got to do with it?

[soup]

G. Morgan wrote:

> Very few Americans get involved with politics outside of the US,

Bwahawahawahawahawa <wheeze> wahawahawahawaha !

[soup]

MrTallyman wrote:

> We had just beat them and ousted them.

We? OIC, you personally and the FRENCH.

[BurfordTJustice]

"soup" <cheezs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kku6rt$gl3$2...@dont-email.me...

--
Apparently you have no clue on how to stab someone.
Clue: They die very painfully .....

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 15:04:51 +0100, soup <cheezs...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> G. Morgan wrote:
>
>> Very few Americans get involved with politics outside of the US,
>
>Bwahawahawahawahawa <wheeze> wahawahawahawaha !

They're coming to take you away...

[k...@attt.bizz]

Right. Strong gun law: Every action has an equal and opposite
reaction.

Gun control: Killing what you aim at.

>> People like 'Trevor' are responsible for creating 'Gun free zones'
>> which are the perfect targets for shooting sprees where no one will
>> shoot back. He is down under, and has no business spouting off about
>> gun control in the US.
>>
>
>**Sure I have. I get to say whatever I wish (within limits). I have
>freedom of speech, despite what you would wish.

Yes, even the idiots have "freedom of speech". Unfortunately, they're
all too free with their mouths.

>"Gun free zones". Gotta love that old NRA gobbledegook. You have been
>comprehensively brainwashed.

You're completely clueless but we all knew that. If the facts
disagree with your puny world view, the facts are evil. Typical
leftist moron.

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:54:49 +1000, Trevor Wilson
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>On 4/20/2013 4:23 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> **The US's problem is that the NRA has subverted their political system.
>>> A miniscule 4 million members of the NRA, effectively dictate gun
>>> control laws (and other, related laws) in the US. The NRA acts first and
>>> formost in the interests of the firearms industry. They have no interest
>>> in public safety. Their sole interests lie in pushing firearms and
>>> ammunition sales accross the US. Any politician who stands up to the NRA
>>> will cop a vicious, expensive and extended campaign of denigration.
>>> Since the NRA is not, officially, a political organisation (although it
>>> operates within the political sphere), it is exempt from many of the
>>> constraints that political organisations must operate within.
>>>
>>> That US citizens seem to accept this evil organisation within their
>>> midst, is difficult to understand. Many Americans appear to have been
>>> comprehensively brainwashed. Perhaps it is their education system? I
>>> don't know. Either way, one day the bulk of the US population will 'wake
>>> up and smell the coffee' and the NRA will be brought to it's knees.
>>
>> If you don't live here, and never been here; you don't know what the fuck
>> you're talking about.
>
>**Then I DO know exactly what I am talking about.

You wouldn't know logic if it hit you in the face. Obviously.

>Feel free to pose a
>logical argument, rather than engaging in pointless rhetoric.

You're certainly free to, sure. However you haven't yet.

BTW, we're also free to laugh at your inane arguments and lack of
logic.

> How dare you sit there from the comfort of your
>> chair and insult our educational system.
>
>**_I_ don't need to insult your education system. Here is an example
>that does that all on it's own:

But you did anyway. Without the first clue.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education_in_the_United_States
>
>Kinda says it all, really.

More absurd logic. Wiki taken as evidence. ...to be expected.

> The PC you are using was
>> invented by Americans, as well as the means you are using to deliver your
>> (ill informed) message.
>
>**I never suggested that ALL Americans were stupid. Just a VERY large
>number of them. At least 4 million, anyway.

Of >300 million, I'd love it if that were true.

>> "Their {NRA's} sole interests lie in pushing firearms and ammunition
>> sales accross [sic] the US" <--- What a crock of shit, mate.
>
>**Again, the facts are just that:

Bullshit.

>http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerogers/2013/02/01/nra-winning-the-influence-battle-over-gun-control/
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/16/how-the-nra-influences-congress-in-6-charts/
>

You really are a dummy.

>
>>
>> You really don't know *what* the NRA does, do you?
>
>**I know what the NRA _CLAIMS_ to do. I also know what the NRA's main
>aim is. That aim has nothing to do with shooting safety, gun owner's
>education and other crap. It's main aim to ensure that more guns are
>sold. It is (now) an industry lobby organisation, first and foremost.

No, you obviously don't.

> And before you ask,
>> no - I'm not a member. If you'd like the truth, ask an American.
>
>**I have. There are a surprisingly large number who are heartily sick of
>the political meddling perpetrated by the NRA.
>
>
> There
>> is no telling what garbage you read/watch in the media down there, they
>> have been brainwashing you apparently.
>
>**I read local AND US media. I also read scholarly documents (both for
>and against) on the issue. I even have a copy of John Lott Jnr's (or is
>that Mary Rosh's - I get confused) book on one of my shelves. Do you?
>What do you read on the issue?

Have you read John Lott's book? No, I didn't think so.

>
> If you don't know something, it's
>> best not to comment and look like the fool you do right now. Geeze...
>
>**Feel free to place a cogent argument.

>We'll wait.

After you...

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 08:59:49 +1000, Trevor Wilson

<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>On 4/20/2013 8:50 AM, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 08:05:21 +1000, Trevor Wilson
>> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/20/2013 2:22 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> **Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
>>>>> gutless politicians they have in their pocket.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course, you are a well known loon.
>>>>
>>>
>>> **If pointing out the abject stupidity of US gun control laws (such as
>>> they are), by using logic, reason and common-sense, makes me a "loon",
>>> then I guess you have some serious problems in dealing with plain English.
>>
>> The question is "what's it to you?"
>
>
>**It's a public forum, idiot. Everyone else in the Western, developed
>world looks at the US situation WRT gun control and considers the
>situation tragic and sad. It seems that many Americans cannot see this fact.

Troll, look at the groups you included. Only trolls and Uncle Joe are
so indiscriminate with shotguns.

> Are you really that lonesome that
>> you have to troll?
>
>
>**Pointing out the evil that lies within the political framework of the
>US, is not trolling. It is pointing out the truth.

You aren't. You're a lefty, liar, and troll; the lowest forms of life
on the planet.

> You really need a life.
>>
>
>**If you have something of value to add, then do so. If you can defend
>the NRA, then do so (good luck with that). Otherwise, fuck off.

I'm responding to your bullshit. You started the lies, idiot.

[k...@attt.bizz]

You really are that stupid, aren't you?

>Stupid septic.

Why do you keep changing your nym, troll?

[Ramsman]

On 20/04/2013 07:06, G. Morgan wrote:

> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
>> People like 'Trevor' are responsible for creating 'Gun free zones'
>> which are the perfect targets for shooting sprees where no one will
>> shoot back. He is down under, and has no business spouting off about
>> gun control in the US.
>

> I just told him the same thing.
>
> I also get tired of Eurotrash bad-mouthing our Constitution. For
> Chrissakes, they still have queens, prince's, princesses, and kings
> ruling over the moral majority (or would that be the majorities'
> morals?).
>

Please provide a list of European countries where royalty rules.

> Very few Americans get involved with politics outside of the US, yet the
> whole world has a fucking opinion on *our* politics and law. If they
> can't vote here, they need to STFU about it. [g][r][i][n]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


--
Peter

[Mark Zacharias]

<k...@attt.bizz> wrote in message
news:crc5n8hfl29cbr1sq...@4ax.com...

I don't care to even read all the posts on this subject. The arguments have
been made and re-made for decades.
The U.S. Constitution is purposely designed so that short-term political
frenzy or emotion will be tempered by a slow-moving, methodical process of
amendment.
If the gun-grabbers think they have the political mojo to repeal the second
amendment, I say "knock yourself out". Go for it.
What a lot of people do not realize (or care about) is that ultimately, the
only thing that guarantees our First Amendment is in fact the Second
Amendment.

By the way, I'm not really a gun nut. I don't think someone needs an AR-15
to dispatch Bambi.

But the "slippery slope" is real.

Mark Z.

[k...@attt.bizz]

You're free to kilefile the thread, dummy.

>The U.S. Constitution is purposely designed so that short-term political
>frenzy or emotion will be tempered by a slow-moving, methodical process of
>amendment.

Correct. That's hardly the MO of the left, however.

>If the gun-grabbers think they have the political mojo to repeal the second
>amendment, I say "knock yourself out". Go for it.

+1

However, their plan, as always, is to get their way by fiat. "Never
let a crisis go to waste."

>What a lot of people do not realize (or care about) is that ultimately, the
>only thing that guarantees our First Amendment is in fact the Second
>Amendment.

You'll never get a lefty to accept that truism.

>By the way, I'm not really a gun nut. I don't think someone needs an AR-15
>to dispatch Bambi.

What YOU think and "need" are irrelevant, as is any reference to
"Bambi" (real or imagined).

>But the "slippery slope" is real.

It is, indeed.

[Trevor Wilson]

**I will ask the question you failed to answer previously:

What part of:

"...well regulated militia..." do you not understand?

> The U.S. Constitution is purposely designed so that short-term political
> frenzy or emotion will be tempered by a slow-moving, methodical process
> of amendment.

**And I will repeat:

The 2nd Amendment was written:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.
* At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
* At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
* At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
* At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.

The 2nd Amendment is now several hundred years out of date. It was
written by slave owners and those fearful of wild animals, dangerous
indigenous people, angry slaves and a vicious colonial power. NONE of
which exists in the US today (in any significance).

You need to ask yourself what the US founding fathers would have made of
the weapons easily available on the streets and sporting goods stores of
the US today. Might they have added some additional conditions to the
2nd Amendment?

> If the gun-grabbers think they have the political mojo to repeal the
> second amendment,

**What are "gun-grabbers"? Please be precise in your definition. I can
find no reference in the usual places.

I say "knock yourself out". Go for it.
> What a lot of people do not realize (or care about) is that ultimately,
> the only thing that guarantees our First Amendment is in fact the Second
> Amendment.

**Bullshit. Here in Australia, we have no such thing as the 2nd
Amendment. Ownership of firearms is strictly and rigorously controlled
by the Federal and state governments. Indeed, when the last major
alterations were made of firearms laws, the Federal government that
pushed the states to adopt those laws, was returned to office THREE more
times (same Prime Minister). Such was the popularity of those laws, that
approximately 95% of the population supported those laws.

BTW: We also have freedom of speech. We are also free to travel anywhere
on the planet. Something US citizens are not free to do (legally).

>
> By the way, I'm not really a gun nut. I don't think someone needs an
> AR-15 to dispatch Bambi.
>
> But the "slippery slope" is real.

**Sure. Look at how the NRA has subverted US politics. A mere 4 million
Americans get to dictate how the other 300 million have to live.

Time for a change.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 10:13:05 +1000, Trevor Wilson

Obviously:

1) You don't know.
2) English is not your first language.
3) You've never held a logical thought in your tiny mind.

>> The U.S. Constitution is purposely designed so that short-term political
>> frenzy or emotion will be tempered by a slow-moving, methodical process
>> of amendment.
>
>**And I will repeat:
>
>The 2nd Amendment was written:
>
>* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
>* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
>bow and arrow.
>* At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
>* At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
>* At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
>* At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.

All irrelevant. There are still bad guys. There are still bad
governments. There are still bad guys in charge of bad governments.
There is still the Constitution.

>The 2nd Amendment is now several hundred years out of date. It was
>written by slave owners and those fearful of wild animals, dangerous
>indigenous people, angry slaves and a vicious colonial power. NONE of
>which exists in the US today (in any significance).

Irrelevant and illogical.

>You need to ask yourself what the US founding fathers would have made of
>the weapons easily available on the streets and sporting goods stores of
>the US today. Might they have added some additional conditions to the
>2nd Amendment?

Also irrelevant but like many Americans, they would have owned
several. Obviously.

>> If the gun-grabbers think they have the political mojo to repeal the
>> second amendment,
>
>**What are "gun-grabbers"? Please be precise in your definition. I can
>find no reference in the usual places.

You really don't have to prove how dumb you are. We got it already.

>
> I say "knock yourself out". Go for it.
>> What a lot of people do not realize (or care about) is that ultimately,
>> the only thing that guarantees our First Amendment is in fact the Second
>> Amendment.
>
>**Bullshit. Here in Australia, we have no such thing as the 2nd
>Amendment. Ownership of firearms is strictly and rigorously controlled
>by the Federal and state governments. Indeed, when the last major
>alterations were made of firearms laws, the Federal government that
>pushed the states to adopt those laws, was returned to office THREE more
>times (same Prime Minister). Such was the popularity of those laws, that
>approximately 95% of the population supported those laws.

You really don't get it. We don't give a shit what you do in
Australia, Ron Reaugh.

>BTW: We also have freedom of speech. We are also free to travel anywhere
>on the planet. Something US citizens are not free to do (legally).

You're not free to defend yourselves. Without that freedom you none.

>> By the way, I'm not really a gun nut. I don't think someone needs an
>> AR-15 to dispatch Bambi.
>>
>> But the "slippery slope" is real.
>
>**Sure. Look at how the NRA has subverted US politics. A mere 4 million
>Americans get to dictate how the other 300 million have to live.

Laughable logic, as usual, Ron Reaugh.

>Time for a change.

So change *YOUR* shit hole, Ron Reaugh.

[Michael Moroney]

Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> writes:

>**And I will repeat:

>The 2nd Amendment was written:

>* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
>* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
>bow and arrow.

So, I take it that you believe the Freedom of Speech clause in the First
Amendment only applies to speaking from atop a soapbox at the local park
(no voice amplification), handwritten letters and documents/newspapers/
books printed using a screw press. It does not apply to radio, television,
modern high speed printing presses, the Internet or anything involving
amplification, electronics or any other technology developed since the
late 1700s?

[Roger Blake]

On 2013-04-21, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> "...well regulated militia..." do you not understand?

"Well regulated" at the time the Constitution was written meant "well
practiced" or "well trained." Perhaps in Australia it is different,
but here in the U.S. one of the most fundamental axioms of law is that
the intent of the lawmaker is the force and effect of the law. You do
not get to change that effect simply because the popular use of a word
or phrase changes over time.

> Time for a change.

Hard to argue with that. Experts and world leaders throughout history
agree with you. Idi Amin, Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler,
Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung, Kim Jung-Il, Musmammar Qaddafi, and others have
found central regulation and strict control over firearm ownership to
be quite effective in implementing their respective societies.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Trevor Wilson]

**And there's the rub: Freedom of speech also applies to instructions on
bomb-building, preparation of toxins and other substances, paedophile
materials, along with fear-mongering and hate-inciting materials.

If you want to see the limits of free speech, watch a free to air US TV
broadcast sometime.

The facts are simple enough: Freedom of speech is not as free as you
might think. Censorship applies in almost every nation. Including the US.

Same deal with the 2nd Amendment. It does not apply to all US citizens
and to all firearms. There are limits. Every other Western, developed
nation employs limits that do not go as far as they do in most US
jurisdictions.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Roger Blake]

On 2013-04-21, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> "...well regulated militia..." do you not understand?

Additionally, in the U.S. the "militia" did (and still does) include
every able-bodied man.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 4/21/2013 12:35 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2013-04-21, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> "...well regulated militia..." do you not understand?
>
> "Well regulated" at the time the Constitution was written meant "well
> practiced" or "well trained."

**No. That is what YOU think it means. Either way, at the time the 2nd
Amendment was written, their was no official US armed forces. There is
now. And, it is the most formidable armed force on the planet. A
citizen's militia is now unnecessary.

Perhaps in Australia it is different,
> but here in the U.S. one of the most fundamental axioms of law is that
> the intent of the lawmaker is the force and effect of the law. You do
> not get to change that effect simply because the popular use of a word
> or phrase changes over time.

**Indeed. Which is why the 2nd Amendment is more tha 100 years overdue
for change.

>
>> Time for a change.
>
> Hard to argue with that. Experts and world leaders throughout history
> agree with you. Idi Amin, Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler,
> Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung, Kim Jung-Il, Musmammar Qaddafi, and others have
> found central regulation and strict control over firearm ownership to
> be quite effective in implementing their respective societies.

**That old chestnut. I'll bite.

List the SPECIFIC changes made to firearms laws by your cited people.
I'll start by explaining that it was the Weimar Republic that brought in
strict gun control laws. Hitler eased those laws considerably. To the
point where 10 year old children were armed to the teeth, with no adult
supervision. Just ask any US service people who entered Germany close to
the end of WWII. Many US army people were shot at by young children.

Anyway, let's see the rest of the list.



--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Roger Blake]

On 2013-04-21, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> **No. That is what YOU think it means. Either way, at the time the 2nd

Wrong. For example, see:

http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

> Amendment was written, their was no official US armed forces. There is
> now. And, it is the most formidable armed force on the planet. A
> citizen's militia is now unnecessary.

Irrelevant.

> **Indeed. Which is why the 2nd Amendment is more tha 100 years overdue
> for change.

I disagree.

> **That old chestnut. I'll bite.

History shows us clearly that governmens are not to be trusted.

> List the SPECIFIC changes made to firearms laws by your cited people.

Look them up yourself.

[Oldus Fartus]

Roger Blake used his keyboard to write :

> On 2013-04-21, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> "...well regulated militia..." do you not understand?
>
> "Well regulated" at the time the Constitution was written meant "well
> practiced" or "well trained." Perhaps in Australia it is different,
> but here in the U.S. one of the most fundamental axioms of law is that
> the intent of the lawmaker is the force and effect of the law. You do
> not get to change that effect simply because the popular use of a word
> or phrase changes over time.
>

I agree - so perhaps this is as good a time as any to look at the
intent of the lawmakers when drawing up the 2nd Amendment, and
attitudes at the time.

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “Whenever governments mean to
invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to
destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
(spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of
Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.)

President James Madison: “…to support the Constitution, which is the
cement of the Union, as well in its limitations as in its authorities;
to respect the rights and authorities reserved to the States and to the
people as equally incorporated with and essential to the success of the
general system;… to keep within the requisite limits a standing
military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is
the firmest bulwark of republics – that without standing armies their
liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe;…” – President
James Madison, First Inaugural address, Saturday, March 4, 1809.

James Madison: “As the greatest danger to liberty is from large
standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision
for a good militia.” (notes of debates in the 1787 Federal Convention)

Based on contemporary writings, I would suggest that the 2nd Amendment
was directly referring to the arming of the militia, and *not* the
public generally.

GM and some of the other posters are correct though, it is a matter for
Americans decide.

> Time for a change.
>
> Hard to argue with that. Experts and world leaders throughout history
> agree with you. Idi Amin, Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler,
> Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung, Kim Jung-Il, Musmammar Qaddafi, and others have
> found central regulation and strict control over firearm ownership to
> be quite effective in implementing their respective societies.

You were making sense up until that paragraph.

--
Cheers
Oldus Fartus

[Roger Blake]

Also see:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

You will be hard pressed to find anything from the U.S. founders that
supports your position.

[UCLAN]

On 4/20/2013 6:41 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:

>> * At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
>> * At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
>> bow and arrow.
>
> So, I take it that you believe the Freedom of Speech clause in the First
> Amendment only applies to speaking from atop a soapbox at the local park
> (no voice amplification), handwritten letters and documents/newspapers/
> books printed using a screw press. It does not apply to radio, television,
> modern high speed printing presses, the Internet or anything involving
> amplification, electronics or any other technology developed since the
> late 1700s?

I'll assume from the above that you believe that assault weapons are
protected by the Second Amendment. If so, where do you draw the line?
Bazookas? Grenade launchers? A tank parked in my front yard?

[soup]

Mark Zacharias wrote:

> I don't care to even read all the posts on this subject.

Or snip, apparently.

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:23:06 -0700, UCLAN <UC...@invalid.net> wrote:

>On 4/20/2013 6:41 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>>> * At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
>>> * At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
>>> bow and arrow.
>>
>> So, I take it that you believe the Freedom of Speech clause in the First
>> Amendment only applies to speaking from atop a soapbox at the local park
>> (no voice amplification), handwritten letters and documents/newspapers/
>> books printed using a screw press. It does not apply to radio, television,
>> modern high speed printing presses, the Internet or anything involving
>> amplification, electronics or any other technology developed since the
>> late 1700s?
>
>I'll assume from the above that you believe that assault weapons are
>protected by the Second Amendment.

Define "assault weapon". (this ought to be good for a laugh)

> If so, where do you draw the line?

The line is pretty bright, should you care to actually take a few
moments to educate yourself rather than spout the typical leftist
nonsense.

>Bazookas? Grenade launchers? A tank parked in my front yard?

Again, you show your complete ignorance of the subject which you rant
on about.

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 02:35:09 +0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
<rogb...@iname.invalid> wrote:

>On 2013-04-21, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> "...well regulated militia..." do you not understand?
>
>"Well regulated" at the time the Constitution was written meant "well
>practiced" or "well trained." Perhaps in Australia it is different,
>but here in the U.S. one of the most fundamental axioms of law is that
>the intent of the lawmaker is the force and effect of the law. You do
>not get to change that effect simply because the popular use of a word
>or phrase changes over time.

Correct, but the larger point here is that only one who is completely
ignorant of both logic and the English language can believe that a
subordinate clause in any way modifies the independent clause.

>> Time for a change.
>
>Hard to argue with that. Experts and world leaders throughout history
>agree with you. Idi Amin, Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler,
>Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung, Kim Jung-Il, Musmammar Qaddafi, and others have
>found central regulation and strict control over firearm ownership to
>be quite effective in implementing their respective societies.

If the moron Aussie believes that it's time to change the US
Constitution, the instructions are self-contained. (Hint: he has no
clue and clearly impotent in the matter)

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 02:59:40 +0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
<rogb...@iname.invalid> wrote:

>On 2013-04-21, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> "...well regulated militia..." do you not understand?
>
>Additionally, in the U.S. the "militia" did (and still does) include
>every able-bodied man.

There are exceptions (e.g. those holding federal elected positions,
though it could be argued that they're under the "able-bodied"
exemption above ;).

[Michael Moroney]

Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> writes:

>On 4/21/2013 11:41 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> writes:
>>
>>> **And I will repeat:
>>
>>> The 2nd Amendment was written:
>>
>>> * At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
>>> * At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
>>> bow and arrow.
>>
>> So, I take it that you believe the Freedom of Speech clause in the First
>> Amendment only applies to speaking from atop a soapbox at the local park
>> (no voice amplification), handwritten letters and documents/newspapers/
>> books printed using a screw press. It does not apply to radio, television,
>> modern high speed printing presses, the Internet or anything involving
>> amplification, electronics or any other technology developed since the
>> late 1700s?
>>

>**And there's the rub: Freedom of speech also applies to instructions on
>bomb-building, preparation of toxins and other substances, paedophile
>materials, along with fear-mongering and hate-inciting materials.

That's not the point. If the 2nd only applies to the technology of the
time of its passage (inaccurate muskets) then, to be consistent, the 1st
can only apply to the technology of the time of its passage. Meaning only
handwritten text, newspapers printed with a screw press and yelling from
atop a box at a street corner.

[Michael Moroney]

UCLAN <UC...@invalid.net> writes:

>I'll assume from the above that you believe that assault weapons are
>protected by the Second Amendment. If so, where do you draw the line?
>Bazookas? Grenade launchers? A tank parked in my front yard?

Depends on your definition of "assault weapons". Do you mean what the
military and gun industry calls "assault weapons"? Or what the media and
anti-gun activists call "assault weapons"?

[Ramsman]

On 20/04/2013 20:45, Ramsman wrote:
> On 20/04/2013 07:06, G. Morgan wrote:
>> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>
>>> People like 'Trevor' are responsible for creating 'Gun free zones'
>>> which are the perfect targets for shooting sprees where no one will
>>> shoot back. He is down under, and has no business spouting off about
>>> gun control in the US.
>>
>> I just told him the same thing.
>>
>> I also get tired of Eurotrash bad-mouthing our Constitution. For
>> Chrissakes, they still have queens, prince's, princesses, and kings
>> ruling over the moral majority (or would that be the majorities'
>> morals?).
>>
>
> Please provide a list of European countries where royalty rules.
>

If you're going to make statements like that with no evidence to back
them up, it doesn't do much for what little credibility you do have.

Ranting is no substitute for reasoned argument.

Once again, please tell use where these countries are that are ruled by
a royal family.

>> Very few Americans get involved with politics outside of the US, yet the
>> whole world has a fucking opinion on *our* politics and law. If they
>> can't vote here, they need to STFU about it. [g][r][i][n]
>>
>>

Very few Americans know anything about anything outside the US.


--
Peter

[UCLAN]

On 4/21/2013 7:42 AM, k...@attt.bizz wrote:

>> I'll assume from the above that you believe that assault weapons are
>> protected by the Second Amendment.
>
> Define "assault weapon". (this ought to be good for a laugh)
>
>> If so, where do you draw the line?
>
> The line is pretty bright, should you care to actually take a few
> moments to educate yourself rather than spout the typical leftist
> nonsense.
>
>> Bazookas? Grenade launchers? A tank parked in my front yard?
>
> Again, you show your complete ignorance of the subject which you rant
> on about.

Typical non-answer. Lots of rhetoric, but not even an attempt at an
answer to a simple question. Figures...

[UCLAN]

Nice evasion tactic. I'll repeat the pertinent part of the question.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> On 4/20/2013 2:22 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >
> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >>
> >> **Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
> >> gutless politicians they have in their pocket.
> >
> >
> > Of course, you are a well known loon.
> >
>
> **If pointing out the abject stupidity of US gun control laws (such as
> they are), by using logic, reason and common-sense, makes me a "loon",
> then I guess you have some serious problems in dealing with plain English.

Why is that it everyone who post from down under is insane? Of
course, 'rageaudio' tells everyone that you are just an opinionated ass.

[Michael A. Terrell]

"G. Morgan" wrote:
>
> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> > People like 'Trevor' are responsible for creating 'Gun free zones'
> >which are the perfect targets for shooting sprees where no one will
> >shoot back. He is down under, and has no business spouting off about
> >gun control in the US.
>
> I just told him the same thing.
>
> I also get tired of Eurotrash bad-mouthing our Constitution. For
> Chrissakes, they still have queens, prince's, princesses, and kings
> ruling over the moral majority (or would that be the majorities'
> morals?).
>

> Very few Americans get involved with politics outside of the US, yet the
> whole world has a fucking opinion on *our* politics and law. If they
> can't vote here, they need to STFU about it. [g][r][i][n]

That's because they have very few rights, and would get locked up or
executed if they mouthed off about their queers, err, Queens.

[Michael A. Terrell]

k...@attt.bizz wrote:
>
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 15:04:51 +0100, soup <cheezs...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:

>
> > G. Morgan wrote:
> >
> >> Very few Americans get involved with politics outside of the US,
> >

> >Bwahawahawahawahawa <wheeze> wahawahawahawaha !
>
> They're coming to take you away...


They did, but he chewed a hole in their butterfly net.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >
> > Guns aren't the problem, and it only takes a second or two to change a
> > magazine, so the size doesn't make any difference if no one is shooting
> > back. The problem is that sleazy lawyers got 'rights' for the mentally
> > ill to be on the streets. A gun is a tool, and doesn't kill by itself.
> > It takes an unstable person or criminal who places no value on human
> > life to use one to maim or kill in cold blood.
>
> **Which is why good, strong, sane, homogeneous gun control laws make a
> great deal of good sense. Something that does not exist in the US.


You're just afraid that if they locked up everyone who was violent &
insane in the United States, it would spread to your worthless hellhole.

[Michael A. Terrell]

k...@attt.bizz wrote:
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> >"Gun free zones". Gotta love that old NRA gobbledegook. You have been
> >comprehensively brainwashed.
>
> You're completely clueless but we all knew that. If the facts
> disagree with your puny world view, the facts are evil. Typical
> leftist moron.


he thinks the US government should confiscate all the guns and murder
anyone who resists, like their government did to the man that inspired
the 'Crocodile Dundee' character.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Mark Zacharias wrote:
>
> By the way, I'm not really a gun nut. I don't think someone needs an AR-15
> to dispatch Bambi.

Even if Bambi is an evil $ insane liberal who builds bombs? ;-)

[Michael A. Terrell]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> **And there's the rub: Freedom of speech also applies to instructions on
> bomb-building, preparation of toxins and other substances, paedophile
> materials, along with fear-mongering and hate-inciting materials.

So, you're a drug making, bomb building pedophile? That's no
surprise.

[Michael A. Terrell]

There are quite a few tanks in private collectors hands. I've heard
that a Russian built MIG is also in a private plane collectors hands.
There are people who build and fire cannons. A bazooka is long
obsolete. It was replaced with the LAW. Any weapon, short of a nuke
that any government has, can be built in a decent metal shop.


Have you ever read the oath that the US military takes? It includes
'To defend the United States from enemies, foreign & domestic'.
The 'Well Regulated Militia', also has that charge.

[Michael A. Terrell]

The media thinks a water pistol that holds more than two ounces of
water is an assault weapon. They consider a BB gun or Air Rifle and
assault weapon because they are liberal fools who all flunked out of
'burger College.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Let him come to the US and start knocking on doors to demand that
people give him their guns & ammo. Make sure he doesn't understand
"Stand your ground" or "Castle Law".

[Michael A. Terrell]

Charles wrote:
>
> Thought I was on a repair forum.
>
> Sorry.


We know you're sorry. You are also ignorant or maybe stupid, in that
you can't read headers, or filter out cross posted threads.

[k...@attt.bizz]

Another lying lefty raises his head above the swamp scum.

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 16:19:58 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>UCLAN wrote:
>>
>> On 4/20/2013 6:41 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>
>> >> * At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
>> >> * At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
>> >> bow and arrow.
>> >
>> > So, I take it that you believe the Freedom of Speech clause in the First
>> > Amendment only applies to speaking from atop a soapbox at the local park
>> > (no voice amplification), handwritten letters and documents/newspapers/
>> > books printed using a screw press. It does not apply to radio, television,
>> > modern high speed printing presses, the Internet or anything involving
>> > amplification, electronics or any other technology developed since the
>> > late 1700s?
>>
>> I'll assume from the above that you believe that assault weapons are
>> protected by the Second Amendment. If so, where do you draw the line?
>> Bazookas? Grenade launchers? A tank parked in my front yard?
>
>
> There are quite a few tanks in private collectors hands. I've heard
>that a Russian built MIG is also in a private plane collectors hands.

Yes, and several US fighters are in private hands, also. I've seen
several MiGs and a few F86s at shows. I believe there is also an F104
Starfighter in private hands. They're pretty rare but with the cost
of ownership, that's really not surprising.

>There are people who build and fire cannons. A bazooka is long
>obsolete. It was replaced with the LAW. Any weapon, short of a nuke
>that any government has, can be built in a decent metal shop.

Perfectly legally, too. One must have a license to own them, however
(and they can't be sold, if manufactured in the past several decades).

> Have you ever read the oath that the US military takes? It includes
>'To defend the United States from enemies, foreign & domestic'.
> The 'Well Regulated Militia', also has that charge.

Quite true, but facts will never penetrate the leftist's skull.

[k...@attt.bizz]

You mean like Obama's pals, Bill and Bernadine?

[Michael A. Terrell]

They are milled out of titanium. :(

[Michael A. Terrell]

Where Bambi goes, nothing grows.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Really? Got any recent evidence to prove that (WRT to the British
Monarch)?


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

On 4/22/2013 6:08 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> k...@attt.bizz wrote:
>>
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> "Gun free zones". Gotta love that old NRA gobbledegook. You have been
>>> comprehensively brainwashed.
>>
>> You're completely clueless but we all knew that. If the facts
>> disagree with your puny world view, the facts are evil. Typical
>> leftist moron.
>
>
> he thinks the US government should confiscate all the guns and murder
> anyone who resists,

**Like any rabid NRA supporter, who is incapable of forming an
individual thought, YOU have no idea what I think.

like their government did to the man that inspired
> the 'Crocodile Dundee' character.
>

**What did the "government" do to the man?

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

**Sad, but true. So much power in the hands of so many ignorant people.
George W Bush is a prime example. A hugely ignorant man, who did much
damage to the planet.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

On 4/22/2013 5:59 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>> On 4/20/2013 2:22 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>
>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> **Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
>>>> gutless politicians they have in their pocket.
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course, you are a well known loon.
>>>
>>
>> **If pointing out the abject stupidity of US gun control laws (such as
>> they are), by using logic, reason and common-sense, makes me a "loon",
>> then I guess you have some serious problems in dealing with plain English.
>
>
> Why is that it everyone who post from down under is insane?

**What makes you think that everyone from Australia is insane? What
makes you think that a person who posts common-sense, logic and reason,

is insane?


Of
> course, 'rageaudio' tells everyone that you are just an opinionated ass.
>

**Again: Post some facts to back your abject stupidity and we'll listen
to what you have to say.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

On 4/21/2013 1:53 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2013-04-21, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>> **No. That is what YOU think it means. Either way, at the time the 2nd
>
> Wrong. For example, see:
>
> http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

**Liek I said: What YOU think is irrelevant.


>
>> Amendment was written, their was no official US armed forces. There is
>> now. And, it is the most formidable armed force on the planet. A
>> citizen's militia is now unnecessary.
>
> Irrelevant.

**Highly relevant.

>
>> **Indeed. Which is why the 2nd Amendment is more tha 100 years overdue
>> for change.
>
> I disagree.

**Why?

>
>> **That old chestnut. I'll bite.
>
> History shows us clearly that governmens are not to be trusted.
>
>> List the SPECIFIC changes made to firearms laws by your cited people.
>
> Look them up yourself.

**I accept your inability to prove your point.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

**I should add that, despite your peculiar insanity, I do not regard ALL
Americans as ignorant, gun loving morons. I reserve those sorts of
comments solely for NRA supporters and George W Bush voters. The other
150 million Americans may well be decent, intelligent people.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

On 4/22/2013 1:31 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> writes:
>
>> On 4/21/2013 11:41 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> writes:
>>>
>>>> **And I will repeat:
>>>
>>>> The 2nd Amendment was written:

>>>
>>>> * At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
>>>> * At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
>>>> bow and arrow.
>>>
>>> So, I take it that you believe the Freedom of Speech clause in the First
>>> Amendment only applies to speaking from atop a soapbox at the local park
>>> (no voice amplification), handwritten letters and documents/newspapers/
>>> books printed using a screw press. It does not apply to radio, television,
>>> modern high speed printing presses, the Internet or anything involving
>>> amplification, electronics or any other technology developed since the
>>> late 1700s?
>>>
>

>> **And there's the rub: Freedom of speech also applies to instructions on
>> bomb-building, preparation of toxins and other substances, paedophile
>> materials, along with fear-mongering and hate-inciting materials.
>

> That's not the point. If the 2nd only applies to the technology of the
> time of its passage (inaccurate muskets) then, to be consistent, the 1st
> can only apply to the technology of the time of its passage. Meaning only
> handwritten text, newspapers printed with a screw press and yelling from
> atop a box at a street corner.
>

**Precisely. You may care to note that, despite the 1st Amendment, truly
free speech does not exist in the US.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

**You are one ignorant cunt.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[UCLAN]

Still no answer. I figured as much. Just another right-wing circle jerk.

Carry on. Don't hurt yourself.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> **Like any rabid NRA supporter, who is incapable of forming an
> individual thought, YOU have no idea what I think.

The problem is that you don't think, and you never will. I don't
belong to the NRA, and I never have. I am a US Army Veteran who
believes in all of our amendments, including the Second Amendment. You
harp about free speech, yet try to deny that right to others.

[Michael A. Terrell]

yawn........................................................................................................................................................................................................

[Michael A. Terrell]

You can't stand the truth, so you proudly display your stupidity.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> On 4/21/2013 1:53 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
> > On 2013-04-21, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> >> **No. That is what YOU think it means. Either way, at the time the 2nd
> >
> > Wrong. For example, see:
> >
> > http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
>
> **Liek I said: What YOU think is irrelevant.

So much for your claim of Freedom of Speech.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> **What makes you think that everyone from Australia is insane? What
> makes you think that a person who posts common-sense, logic and reason,
> is insane?

You're just like Phil Allison, and Bill Sloman. The three of you
give Australia a black eye on Usenet. I rarely see anyone else posting
from Oz.

[Michael A. Terrell]

You have no clue who I support, so you just act like a monkey and
fling your shit.

[k...@attt.bizz]

Idiot. What does "outside the US" have to do with the US
Constitution?

[k...@attt.bizz]

You're a liar, but we all already knew that.

[k...@attt.bizz]

A perfect example of your best reasoned argument.

[k...@attt.bizz]

You got your answer. Though it is unfortunate that you're too stupid
to understand it, it's not my problem.

>Carry on. Don't hurt yourself.

Brainless twit.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 4/22/2013 11:40 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>> **Like any rabid NRA supporter, who is incapable of forming an
>> individual thought, YOU have no idea what I think.
>
>
>
> The problem is that you don't think, and you never will.

**First you claim to know what I think, then you claim that I don't
think. You don't know what I think.

I don't
> belong to the NRA, and I never have.

**Doesn't matter. You parrot their words.

I am a US Army Veteran who
> believes in all of our amendments, including the Second Amendment.

**Really?

You "believe in" the 18th Amendment?
You "belive in" the 21st Amendment?

Which is it?

You
> harp about free speech, yet try to deny that right to others.
>

**Do I? When did I do that?

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

**You are an NRA supporter. Regardless of your membership status. Your
words betray you. NRA supporters are idiots. Evil idiots.

so you just act like a monkey and
> fling your shit.
>

**No. I deal in facts.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 07:32:06 +1000, Trevor Wilson
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>On 4/22/2013 11:40 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>> **Like any rabid NRA supporter, who is incapable of forming an
>>> individual thought, YOU have no idea what I think.
>>
>>
>>
>> The problem is that you don't think, and you never will.
>
>
>**First you claim to know what I think, then you claim that I don't
>think. You don't know what I think.

You just proved you can't read or think.

>
> I don't
>> belong to the NRA, and I never have.
>
>
>**Doesn't matter. You parrot their words.

Because the NRA spoke the truth doesn't change the fact that it is the
truth.

> I am a US Army Veteran who
>> believes in all of our amendments, including the Second Amendment.
>
>
>**Really?
>
>You "believe in" the 18th Amendment?
>You "belive in" the 21st Amendment?
>
>Which is it?

Idiot. Learn something about the Constitution.

> You
>> harp about free speech, yet try to deny that right to others.
>>
>
>**Do I? When did I do that?

Many times, moron.

[k...@attt.bizz]

Wow! Now *THAT'S* FUNNY!

[tm]

<k...@attt.bizz> wrote in message
news:l3fbn8prb1877gb1q...@4ax.com...

Jeez, is it something in the water?

I am the NRA!

[Roger Blake]

On 2013-04-22, k...@attt.bizz <k...@attt.bizz> wrote:
> Idiot. Learn something about the Constitution.

It's not worth the time and effort to get into pissing matches with
that kind of idiotic statist. I would just put a few counter facts out
there and let him continue to put his foot in his mouth.

First of all, he's not even in the U.S. so by definition has nothing
meaningful to say about the Constitution. He keeps making reference
to "the rest of the Western civilized world" or words to that
effect, and clearly does not realize that the U.S. was intentionally
designed to be different than the rest of the world. We are not
supposed to be like Europe, or for that matter like Australia.

Trevor clearly does not believe in the natural right to self-defense
that so many of the U.S. founders spoke of and enshrined in the
2nd Amendment, and instead wants to trust government, an institution
historically bathed in the blood of innocents. He thinks that the
2nd Amendment is "outdated" because the "situation has changed"
since the 18th century, not understanding that the Bill of Rights
addresses issues related to fundamental human nature which does
*not* change.

He appears to think that the repressive regimes that butchered so
many people were *not* dealing with unarmed/disarmed populations.
(So for example in his mind apparently the millions of Ukranians
that were starved to death by Stalin as secret policemen raided
their villages, stole their harvests, and took all the food in
their homes were permitted to have guns.) History shows us many
examples of what happens to helpless, unarmed populations in the
face of tyrannical governments, and that any government no matter
how "englightened" can turn tyrannical. Instead of taking note of
these obvious warnings, the moron demands to be told the specific
legislation that was used to disarm people! What a maroon!!

When dealing with private-sector thugs and criminals Trevor seems to
think that the police are going to be able to provide protection.
That is a bad joke. What would he do if he were in the U.S. and
a band of armed Obama voters broke into his house wanting his stuff
and his blood? All the police can do is make out the report and
try to catch the perps after the fact, while any surviving family
attends the funeral.

You are never going to convince a guy like that of anything, he is
beyond hope. All you can really do is post some counter information
so that people new to the debate, or on the fence, can see that he
and those like him are in the wrong.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:41:07 -0500, G. Morgan
<seal...@osama-is-dead.net> wrote:

>Trevor Wilson wrote:
>

>>On 4/20/2013 3:53 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
>>> Who the fuck posted this shit to all these groups? The OP didn't even
>>> cite who the "kike" is.
>>>
>>> Newsgroups:
>>> sci.electronics.repair,24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.sports.football.pro.sd-chargers,alt.engineering.electrical,rec.audio.car
>>>
>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:
>>>
>>> Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written in the United States. If some
>>> Aussie has a problem with it, just don't come here and you'll be just
>>> fine.
>>>
>>> I really don't understand why people that are outside of the US think
>>> they are allowed to opine on the 2nd. I don't tell you what kind of
>>> boomerang you can carry.
>>
>>**We call it: 'Freedom of speech'. An interesting concept you should
>>learn about.
>
>Freedom of speech? Your diversion noted.
>
>That's not the crux of the issue, it's about why anyone outside of the US
>thinks they can opine on our laws and make statements like "time to
>change". No... You don't live here and that means you don't get to vote
>on it. It's not a human rights issue, so the international community has
>no say.
>
>>Stupid septic.
>
>Nice sig.

What would you expect from Ron Reaugh? It *is* him.

[BuckWheat]

"G. Morgan" <seal...@osama-is-dead.net> wrote in message
news:d27dn8lrvmp5idhrc...@Osama-is-dead.net...

--

How is that successful computer business going? Must be slow today
as you have time for usenet. How are your debts coming?