As the election approaches...

10 views
Skip to first unread message

George Graves

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 1:47:34 PM10/25/04
to
... I wish to make my position clear. Bush is better than Kerry, and
Bush is not good enough to actually vote for.

Usually, I get to this point in an election year and I just wish for it
to all be over for another four years. This time, the aftermath of this
election promises to be nastier than the election itself, I'm afraid. If
Bush wins, the election will be in contention for months, maybe years,
because the crybaby Democrats are going to be such poor losers that they
are going to challenge any result that does NOT result in a Kerry
victory. This is unfortunate, because such a result will shake this
country to its very core and will give much pleasure to our enemies and
perhaps present them with an opportunity to hit us hard.

OTOH, if Kerry is elected, I suspect that Bush & Co., will just fade
quietly away. So from that standpoint, perhaps it's better for the
country in the long run for Kerry to win. At least we'll be spared the
promised endless lawsuits that will ensue if Kerry loses. OTOH, Kerry's
presidency promises to be worse than Jimmy Carter's. Never has a
presidential candidate had so few ideas or a less commanding presence.
When he gets in, look for more Presidential edicts than even Clinton
produced and wishy-washy positions on just about everything. Nothing
will get done domestically, the war will go from bad to worse, and the
terrorists will feel empowered by the weak president, so look for more
and worse attacks by Al Qaeda.

It's going to be an interesting four years.

Mark my words.

--
George Graves
------------------

Every guy owes himself at least one Ferrari before he dies

Lloyd Parsons

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 1:56:56 PM10/25/04
to
In article
<gmgravesnos-DE7B...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:

You're ignoring the hordes of lawyers from both sides that are just
sitting there waiting for the election results.

I think that unless one or the other wins decisively, we are in for
some nasty shit!

To say that the dems are the only ones is to ignore all news....

John Dorn

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 2:05:08 PM10/25/04
to
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:

at this point, it's pretty unlikely bush will win, so don't be so glum.
kerry at least has intelligence and give him a year or so and he
actually could be a great president. he already has a better presence
than either clinton or bush when they first got into office, so if
anything he will improve. clinton was considered a redneck his first few
months if you remember. now he does pretty well in speaking. bush is
better too, but his detour into drugs and drinking have clearly left
their mark.

i don't think the election will be that close, the undercurrent is
waaaay in favor of getting bush out of office no matter what the overall
opinion of kerry may be.

MuahMan

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 2:34:54 PM10/25/04
to

"George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gmgravesnos-DE7B...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...

Consider them marked! ;)

It's allready starting down here in Palm Beach County. They have lawyers
from both parties sitting and watching the proccess..... they started an
Early Voter program and it's being troublesome allready. The second you hear
the word "Lawyer" you know it's about to get all fucked up. In fact short of
another Civil War the eradication of all lawyers would be the second best
thing for this country. There is allready massive election fraud in Palm
Beach County and Miami/Dade County. They have found several thousand people
who registered and voted numerous times. (All for Kerry so far... not say
there aren't voter frauds in the Repbulican ranks but it's probably far
less). The Govenor and GWB's brother has threathened to take drastic
measures which of course gets the stupid Democrats in a tizze. No way this
election is settled on election day here, no way, not one chance. This
election will be decided by lawyers again. FL will solve their election by
litigation and I predict Ohio will also take it to court.
Lets be honest, Bush is 200 to 300% better than Kerry. Kerry is a straight
socialist and to be honest if he got hit by a bus today I would throw a
party. That said Bush is a pinko liberal bastard too, the only real
difference I can see between the two is that one will double my taxes and
start nationalizing health car (egads so scary!!!!) the other will do
nothing for the next four years. In my estimation a goverment doing nothing
is better than a goverment trying to do something and failing everytime.

The things that bugs me so much about the Democrats is their belief that the
government wants to help them, and that it is capable of helping them. Have
they learned nothing? Have they not read any history books? What do you
think is simpler to do run an election where there are only two maybe three
options on a ballot or run a nationwide healthcare business with 300 million
members? This goverment cannot even run a legtimate election when all you
need is a few people with a fucking calculator. Somehow how these geniuses
are going to be responsible for my health care. LOL...... Problem is when
they fuck the paper work up and you get a leg amputated instead of
colonscopy you won't be able to sue the shit out of Uncle Same. Wake the
fuck up you fucking idiots. Government has NO incentive to help you and does
not want to. They want your money and then they want you in front of the
boob tube taking prescriptions meds!!!!!

Fuck it gets me so angry. Any government body bigger than County is out of
touch with it's constituents and utterly useless! FUCK ALL YOU LIBERALS!

Jason McNorton

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 2:44:02 PM10/25/04
to
In article <nospam-C64966....@typhoon3.uswest.net>,
nos...@dorne.com says...

Guess you're missing the polls showing Bush is on average 5 points
ahead... The leftwing is PISSED still that they lost 2000, and yes
that's a big undercurrent.

I don't know how it'll end up, but I'll sure miss the 2nd amendment when
kerry comes in and attempts to ban guns as much as possible. If he gets
in, that'll really hurt so bad.

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 2:48:36 PM10/25/04
to
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:56:56 GMT, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydp...@spamac.com> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

Which Republican issued a statement like Eric Holder did?
"If every vote is allowed to be cast, and if every vote is counted,
John Kerry will be president within a day of that election."

I can't recall any Republican saying on national tv that the only
acceptable result of the election is for Bush to be the winner.


--
"The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies."
French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin

MuahMan

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 2:49:28 PM10/25/04
to

"Jason McNorton" <jm...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1be70572...@news-40.giganews.com...

What's really gonna hurt is when you Kerry takes your legal guns, you get
shot by a criminal who didn't listen to Kerry's law, then you get carted off
to a national health care hospital, you receive care from the lowest bidder
but he takes out your spleen instead of the bullet, you can't afford to go
to a real doctor because Kerry raised your taxes so high and you die. Kerry
gets your entire estate because it's worth more than 200k. Your remaining
loved ones die from starvation as Kerry's daugther gets a new porsche with
your inheritance.


Phil Earnhardt

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 2:39:51 PM10/25/04
to
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:56:56 GMT, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydp...@spamac.com> wrote:

>You're ignoring the hordes of lawyers from both sides that are just
>sitting there waiting for the election results.

There was plenty of dubious stuff that happened in 2000 that the
Republicans could have pursued. I believe it was Missouri or Illinois.
They did not. And there was a famous case where Nixon clearly could
have quibbled about the results (1964?) again, I believe, in Illinois.
He did not.

Unless the Republicans pull an Al Gore in this election, I see no
reason to believe that their actions are purely defensive.

>I think that unless one or the other wins decisively, we are in for
>some nasty shit!

I don't know. Only one party has decided to start "preepmtive"
protests about the election.

>To say that the dems are the only ones is to ignore all news....

What news?

--phil

Lloyd Parsons

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 3:08:05 PM10/25/04
to
In article <qiiqn09vms6d9c8ss...@4ax.com>, Mayor of
R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:

That's nice rhetoric, but it doesn't change the fact of the hordes of
lawyers waiting. Words are nice, actions are nicer.

Do you really think that we won't see some really nasty shit happen
before this election day is over? I sure expect it, and I expect it
regardless of who wins.

Jason McNorton

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 3:12:21 PM10/25/04
to
In article <251020041407446803%lloydp...@spamac.com>,
lloydp...@spamac.com says...

It depends.

New Gallup Bush 51 Kerry 46 LV. Bush 49 Kerry 47 RV

The last week Gallup poll is usually pretty accurate for the final
results. Barring some unscene disaster, Bush should win by a few
points. I wish it would be by 5 pts at least, so there wouldn't even be
a hint of legal crap. It'll probably be within 3 though, so there will
be likely problems. I know if Bush loses, even closely, he'll concede
that night.

If kerry loses by less than 3 pts, I bet he won't concede for a long
time and try to drag it out.

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 3:16:25 PM10/25/04
to
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:08:05 GMT, Lloyd Parsons

And I'm sure we'll see plenty of action from the DNC's lawyers.

>
>Do you really think that we won't see some really nasty shit happen
>before this election day is over?

We've already seen plenty. Union apes physically attacking elderly
women working at Republican headquarters around the country at the
behest of the DNC, Democrats shooting at Republican headquarters
around the country, Democrats vandalizing Bush-Cheney signs. etc.

> I sure expect it, and I expect it regardless of who wins.

The DNC has already issued orders to start screaming voter
intimidation whether or not any has taken place. Where is the
equivalent of that from the Republicans?

Snit

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 3:26:20 PM10/25/04
to
"George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote in post
gmgravesnos-DE7B...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com on 10/25/04
10:47 AM:

Your words are marked... but not believed. Seems much of what you say is
based on conjecture and guess work, if not just blind hope. Take the after
math of the election - if it is close, *both* sides have their lawyers
ready.

Look at the last election - based on the full recount of Florida, Bush
lost... and yet he still went to court. The fact that he was able to get
away with such shenanigans has set a very, very dangerous precedent for the
country. There should have been as accurate of a count as possible - and if
an accurate count was not possible, a repeat election.


--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)


Lloyd Parsons

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 3:40:30 PM10/25/04
to
In article <MPG.1be70c133...@news-40.giganews.com>, Jason
McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:

I don't know what about Bush's performance makes you think he would
concede quickly. About the only way that would happen is for Rove to
croak and Cheney to lose his voice.

Oxford

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 3:48:19 PM10/25/04
to
Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:

> It depends.
>
> New Gallup Bush 51 Kerry 46 LV. Bush 49 Kerry 47 RV
>
> The last week Gallup poll is usually pretty accurate for the final
> results. Barring some unscene disaster, Bush should win by a few
> points. I wish it would be by 5 pts at least, so there wouldn't even be
> a hint of legal crap. It'll probably be within 3 though, so there will
> be likely problems. I know if Bush loses, even closely, he'll concede
> that night.
>
> If kerry loses by less than 3 pts, I bet he won't concede for a long
> time and try to drag it out.

Jason, jason... Those are NATIONAL POLLS.. they don't matter...

Only the polls in a few battle ground states matter at this point...
please understand this. The race is very tight... at 1% or two... there
is no 5% swing left.

Look at the REAL numbers...

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 3:49:15 PM10/25/04
to
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:40:30 GMT, Lloyd Parsons

And Lloyd actually wonders why anyone would think that Democrats are a
bunch of low class whiners.

Lloyd Parsons

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 3:52:42 PM10/25/04
to
In article <c7mqn09qe85frqhti...@4ax.com>, Mayor of
R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:

I was wrong, Cheney could keep his voice, but if he breaks his arm it
would be difficult for him to stick it up Bush's ass to animate him!
;-)

Oxford

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 3:51:31 PM10/25/04
to
Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:

> I don't know how it'll end up, but I'll sure miss the 2nd amendment when
> kerry comes in and attempts to ban guns as much as possible. If he gets
> in, that'll really hurt so bad.

???? Kerry isn't for banning guns, sounds like you haven't been
following the race very closely.... is that a gun in his hands?

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/sportsmen/

Oxford

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 4:05:27 PM10/25/04
to
"MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The things that bugs me so much about the Democrats is their belief that the
> government wants to help them, and that it is capable of helping them. Have
> they learned nothing? Have they not read any history books? What do you
> think is simpler to do run an election where there are only two maybe three
> options on a ballot or run a nationwide healthcare business with 300 million
> members? This goverment cannot even run a legtimate election when all you
> need is a few people with a fucking calculator. Somehow how these geniuses
> are going to be responsible for my health care. LOL...... Problem is when
> they fuck the paper work up and you get a leg amputated instead of
> colonscopy you won't be able to sue the shit out of Uncle Same. Wake the
> fuck up you fucking idiots. Government has NO incentive to help you and does
> not want to. They want your money and then they want you in front of the
> boob tube taking prescriptions meds!!!!!
>
> Fuck it gets me so angry. Any government body bigger than County is out of
> touch with it's constituents and utterly useless! FUCK ALL YOU LIBERALS!

muahman, i think much of your problem is you have your stereotypes
wrong. i've NEVER met a democrat that felt the government should help
him or her. you've got it backwards on that.

a nationwide health care program wouldn't be run by the government, it
would be run by blue cross blue shield, pacifica, humana... like
anything else... again, you've got to backwards...

i agree about the election stuff... there should be "1" standard
national ballot, done electronically with paper reciept and web based
TRACKING like a fedex box. it's a mess as is stands...

actually the government has gotten bigger under Bush... again, you have
it mixed up... please read up on these subjects...

thanks!

oxford

-

Peter Hayes

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 4:37:50 PM10/25/04
to
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> ... I wish to make my position clear. Bush is better than Kerry, and
> Bush is not good enough to actually vote for.
>
> Usually, I get to this point in an election year and I just wish for it
> to all be over for another four years. This time, the aftermath of this
> election promises to be nastier than the election itself, I'm afraid. If
> Bush wins, the election will be in contention for months, maybe years,
> because the crybaby Democrats are going to be such poor losers that they
> are going to challenge any result that does NOT result in a Kerry
> victory. This is unfortunate, because such a result will shake this
> country to its very core and will give much pleasure to our enemies and
> perhaps present them with an opportunity to hit us hard.

That is a direct result of the voting system.

Putting a cross on a piece of paper is unambiguous in 99.999%+ of cases.
The number of spoilt papers in a UK election is usually 10-30 in a
constituency of 50,000 voters. Electronic voting is a disaster, open to
fraud especially without a backup paper trail as in Florida, and the US
is about to reap the reward.

Also - change the electoral system, popular vote only. Do away with this
archaic Electoral College system that harks back a couple of hundred
years when delegates rode on horseback to Washington.

> OTOH, if Kerry is elected, I suspect that Bush & Co., will just fade
> quietly away. So from that standpoint, perhaps it's better for the
> country in the long run for Kerry to win. At least we'll be spared the
> promised endless lawsuits that will ensue if Kerry loses. OTOH, Kerry's
> presidency promises to be worse than Jimmy Carter's. Never has a
> presidential candidate had so few ideas or a less commanding presence.

Kerry is growing in leaps and bounds, while Bush looks tired and devoid
of new ideas, just rehashing the same old "Don't change the Commander in
Chief during a war" mantra.

Since the so-called "War on Terror" is open ended, what happens in 2008
when Bush has to stand down, assuming he is even re-elected? Will he
enact amentments to the Patriot Act to "defer" elections during wartime?

> When

"When". Yeup... :)

> he gets in, look for more Presidential edicts than even Clinton
> produced and wishy-washy positions on just about everything. Nothing
> will get done domestically, the war will go from bad to worse, and the
> terrorists will feel empowered by the weak president, so look for more
> and worse attacks by Al Qaeda.

Bush's Iraq policy, such as it is, is going nowhere, that much is
obvious. What's needed is a new approach, and that can only come from a
new man at the helm.

> It's going to be an interesting four years.
>
> Mark my words.

Ancient Chinese curse - may you live in interesting times.

--

Peter

Mike Zulauf

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 4:37:12 PM10/25/04
to

> This time, the aftermath of this
> election promises to be nastier than the election itself, I'm afraid. If
> Bush wins, the election will be in contention for months, maybe years,
> because the crybaby Democrats are going to be such poor losers that they
> are going to challenge any result that does NOT result in a Kerry
> victory.

You're stoned if you think that the republicans won't use any and every
method they can think of to get their boy in office. Just look at all
of the cynical, questionable, and even plainly illegal things they've
done already.

Not that I think the democrats are much better in this respect.

Hope for a blowout. . .

Mike

--
Mike Zulauf
mazu...@met.utah.edu

C Lund

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 4:48:56 PM10/25/04
to

> OTOH, if Kerry is elected, I suspect that Bush & Co., will just fade
> quietly away. So from that standpoint, perhaps it's better for the
> country in the long run for Kerry to win. At least we'll be spared the
> promised endless lawsuits that will ensue if Kerry loses.

Instead we'll see Kerry bogged down in endless lawsuits about blowjobs
or some similarly trivial issue. Frankly, the crybaby Republicans
didn't exactly show good sportsmanship over losing the White House to
Clinton. Thus Kenneth Starr.

> OTOH, Kerry's
> presidency promises to be worse than Jimmy Carter's. Never has a
> presidential candidate had so few ideas or a less commanding presence.

You think bush has any ideas at all? Or a commanding presence?

> When he gets in, look for more Presidential edicts than even Clinton
> produced and wishy-washy positions on just about everything. Nothing
> will get done domestically,

Hmm.. I keep reading that bush has spent more time on vacation than
any other president before him. Is that true?

> the war will go from bad to worse,

That will happen no matter who's in the White House. Mind you, if it
weren't for those idiots currently in charge, you wouldn't even be in
that war.

> and the
> terrorists will feel empowered by the weak president, so look for more
> and worse attacks by Al Qaeda.

There will be more attacks from Al Qaeda no matter who's in the White
House. However, bush is the best recruitment officer Al Qaeda ever
had. They'd miss him if he left.

Oh, and how do you feel about the Iranian endorsement for bush?

--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund

Snit

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 4:58:26 PM10/25/04
to
"C Lund" <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote in post
clund-2E5D5A....@amstwist00.chello.com on 10/25/04 1:48 PM:

> In article
> <gmgravesnos-DE7B...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> OTOH, if Kerry is elected, I suspect that Bush & Co., will just fade
>> quietly away. So from that standpoint, perhaps it's better for the
>> country in the long run for Kerry to win. At least we'll be spared the
>> promised endless lawsuits that will ensue if Kerry loses.
>
> Instead we'll see Kerry bogged down in endless lawsuits about blowjobs
> or some similarly trivial issue. Frankly, the crybaby Republicans
> didn't exactly show good sportsmanship over losing the White House to
> Clinton. Thus Kenneth Starr.

Hey, wait - not only did Clinton have an affair (perhaps the first president
in history to do so), but, gasp! he *lied* about it.

Do I support or excuse his lying - of course not... it was wrong. Do I keep
that wrong in perspective - I do... it is irrelevant to his job as
president, though perhaps relevant to the sexual harassment charges against
him.... charges that suddenly went away when he left the White House. No
political motivation there!


>
>> OTOH, Kerry's
>> presidency promises to be worse than Jimmy Carter's. Never has a
>> presidential candidate had so few ideas or a less commanding presence.
>
> You think bush has any ideas at all? Or a commanding presence?

LOL... Bush has ideas... bomb Iraq... chew... bomb Iraq... chew... bomb
Iraq... yes... must bomb Iraq... hmmm, there was something else.... oh, to
hell with it... just bomb Iraq.... HELP, I'M CHOKING!


>
>> When he gets in, look for more Presidential edicts than even Clinton
>> produced and wishy-washy positions on just about everything. Nothing
>> will get done domestically,
>
> Hmm.. I keep reading that bush has spent more time on vacation than
> any other president before him. Is that true?

Well, they were "working vacations". :)


>
>> the war will go from bad to worse,
>
> That will happen no matter who's in the White House. Mind you, if it
> weren't for those idiots currently in charge, you wouldn't even be in
> that war.

Well, the war would be very different... the US would be going after the
people that are attacked us.


>
>> and the
>> terrorists will feel empowered by the weak president, so look for more
>> and worse attacks by Al Qaeda.
>
> There will be more attacks from Al Qaeda no matter who's in the White
> House. However, bush is the best recruitment officer Al Qaeda ever
> had. They'd miss him if he left.
>
> Oh, and how do you feel about the Iranian endorsement for bush?

--

Jason McNorton

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 5:23:54 PM10/25/04
to
In article <7Pcfd.10$L12....@news.uswest.net>, cs...@mac.com says...

Yeah, he'll keep $10k snob trap shotguns around, but his voting history
is of banning as much as he possibly can. His hunting excursions is the
laughing stock of the hunter/firearms crowd.

George Graves

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 5:43:51 PM10/25/04
to
In article <BDA2B702.D3B2%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:

Right......

George Graves

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 5:42:28 PM10/25/04
to
In article <clund-2E5D5A....@amstwist00.chello.com>,
C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:

I don't like Bush. I don't care WHO endorses him or not.

George Graves

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 5:47:47 PM10/25/04
to
In article <1gm8e0s.2s8hz0ofmeqjN%pe...@seahaze.demon.co.uk>,
pe...@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter Hayes) wrote:

Obvious. The only question is where will we find him? There's no "new
man" running. Just another power crazy politician without even a CLUE as
to what's going on.


>
> > It's going to be an interesting four years.
> >
> > Mark my words.
>
> Ancient Chinese curse - may you live in interesting times.

--

George Graves

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 5:57:09 PM10/25/04
to
In article <BDA2A16C.D228%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:

Let's talk about this is two years, I'll bet I'm at least 90% correct.


> Seems much of what you say is
> based on conjecture and guess work, if not just blind hope. Take the after
> math of the election - if it is close, *both* sides have their lawyers
> ready.

But so far, only one has admitted it.


>
> Look at the last election - based on the full recount of Florida, Bush
> lost... and yet he still went to court. The fact that he was able to get
> away with such shenanigans has set a very, very dangerous precedent for the
> country. There should have been as accurate of a count as possible - and if
> an accurate count was not possible, a repeat election.

Here's the problem. Your "based on the full recount of Florida, Bush
lost... " depends upon who you ask. Most experts agree that based on a
full account Bush won. OTOH, when the count gets this close, what went
on in Florida is of little consequence because the numbers were already
so close as to be well within the statistical margin for error. That
means that either way, the margin for error is greater than the
difference in the count. That makes many states' results suspect,
Including a number that narrowly went for Algore, so it was not just
Florida. And it's not that cut-and-dry. A new election was what was
needed, but I see why they didn't do it. There was no guarantee that the
results of a second election wouldn't mirror the first.

Oxford

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 6:00:10 PM10/25/04
to
Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:

> > http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/sportsmen/
>
> Yeah, he'll keep $10k snob trap shotguns around, but his voting history
> is of banning as much as he possibly can. His hunting excursions is the
> laughing stock of the hunter/firearms crowd.

Jason, your a TOTAL idiot.

Kerry has never said or voted for such things, you just have been
brainwashed. Is he against assault rifles, sure, EVERY reasonable person
is, except maybe a tiny few in the Bush administration.

Come on, Jason... THINK a little before you post again.

George Graves

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 5:59:57 PM10/25/04
to
In article <XFbfd.199098$as2.1...@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
"MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Amen!

George Graves

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 6:02:08 PM10/25/04
to
In article <BTbfd.199157$as2.1...@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
"MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Sounds like Democrats all right!

Jason McNorton

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 6:06:08 PM10/25/04
to
In article <gmgravesnos-B7A1B7.14570125102004@newssvr14-
ext.news.prodigy.com>, gmgra...@pacbell.net says...

The popular vote is simply used for guiding the state legislature for
selecting which electors to send to DC. True Bush won all the recounts,
and even the projected ones by the media, but within that margin of
error it's really up to the state.

The state sent Bush ones. QED.

George Graves

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 6:05:47 PM10/25/04
to
In article <fghqn0936ru17or1e...@4ax.com>,
Phil Earnhardt <p...@dim.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:56:56 GMT, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydp...@spamac.com> wrote:
>
> >You're ignoring the hordes of lawyers from both sides that are just
> >sitting there waiting for the election results.
>
> There was plenty of dubious stuff that happened in 2000 that the
> Republicans could have pursued. I believe it was Missouri or Illinois.
> They did not. And there was a famous case where Nixon clearly could
> have quibbled about the results (1964?) again, I believe, in Illinois.
> He did not.

1960, actually, but you are correct, it was Illinois, Cook County
(Chicago) in fact.

> Unless the Republicans pull an Al Gore in this election, I see no
> reason to believe that their actions are purely defensive.
>
> >I think that unless one or the other wins decisively, we are in for
> >some nasty shit!

Kerry has stated that even if Bush wins decisively, he will challenge
every state that went for Bush in court. Sounds like a mess to me.


>
> I don't know. Only one party has decided to start "preepmtive"
> protests about the election.


Yeah. Guess who?

Jason McNorton

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 6:08:18 PM10/25/04
to
In article <KHefd.23$L12....@news.uswest.net>, cs...@mac.com says...

> Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/sportsmen/
> >
> > Yeah, he'll keep $10k snob trap shotguns around, but his voting history
> > is of banning as much as he possibly can. His hunting excursions is the
> > laughing stock of the hunter/firearms crowd.
>
> Jason, your a TOTAL idiot.

It's 'you're'.


> Kerry has never said or voted for such things, you just have been
> brainwashed. Is he against assault rifles, sure, EVERY reasonable person
> is, except maybe a tiny few in the Bush administration.
>
> Come on, Jason... THINK a little before you post again.

Assault rifles are select fire and have been regulated since 1934.
Therefore, it's not an issue right? Or do you mean 'assault weapon'.
How do you define those, btw? There is no legal term now for it
anymore.

'Assault weapon' is literally anything a politician decides it is. It's
totally arbitrary. Go educate on this subject before you mouth off son.

Mike Zulauf

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 6:11:19 PM10/25/04
to
In article
<gmgravesnos-9D0E...@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Kerry has stated that even if Bush wins decisively, he will challenge
> every state that went for Bush in court. Sounds like a mess to me.

Reference?

Mike Zulauf

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 6:13:11 PM10/25/04
to
In article
<gmgravesnos-B7A1...@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> A new election was what was
> needed, but I see why they didn't do it. There was no guarantee that the
> results of a second election wouldn't mirror the first.

If it was done as a run-off, with only the top two on the ballot, it
seems pretty likely that the result would have been different.

Phil Earnhardt

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 7:16:36 PM10/25/04
to
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:05:47 GMT, George Graves
<gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>> >I think that unless one or the other wins decisively, we are in for
>> >some nasty shit!
>
>Kerry has stated that even if Bush wins decisively, he will challenge
>every state that went for Bush in court. Sounds like a mess to me.

You know, Senator John Kerry may ultimately precipitate a revolt
against the lawyers in America. In the long run, that might be a good
thing.

--phil

GreyCloud

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 9:40:37 PM10/25/04
to

Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> In article
> <gmgravesnos-DE7B...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,

> You're ignoring the hordes of lawyers from both sides that are just
> sitting there waiting for the election results.
>

And 99% of the lawyers give the rest a bad name.

> I think that unless one or the other wins decisively, we are in for
> some nasty shit!
>

> To say that the dems are the only ones is to ignore all news....

I'm glad I live way out in the country.

--
---------------------------------
Th3 G0ld3n Yrs Sux0r

George Graves

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 9:39:30 PM10/25/04
to
In article <mazulauf-1FB8B7...@nntp0.pdx.net>,
Mike Zulauf <mazu...@met.utah.edu> wrote:

> In article
> <gmgravesnos-9D0E...@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Kerry has stated that even if Bush wins decisively, he will challenge
> > every state that went for Bush in court. Sounds like a mess to me.
>
> Reference?
>
> Mike

Edwards. last week's 'Meet the Press.'

David Fritzinger

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 10:35:44 PM10/25/04
to
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<qiiqn09vms6d9c8ss...@4ax.com>...

> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:56:56 GMT, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydp...@spamac.com> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
> >In article
> ><gmgravesnos-DE7B...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> >I think that unless one or the other wins decisively, we are in for
> >some nasty shit!
> >
> >To say that the dems are the only ones is to ignore all news....
>
> Which Republican issued a statement like Eric Holder did?
> "If every vote is allowed to be cast, and if every vote is counted,
> John Kerry will be president within a day of that election."
>
> I can't recall any Republican saying on national tv that the only
> acceptable result of the election is for Bush to be the winner.

Your problem, Mayor, is that you appear to have a severe reading
comprehension disorder. Your take on what Holder said is nothing like
what he actually said. What he said is, if it is a fair election,
Kerry will be the winner. Which is quite different than your take on
what he said.

--
Dave Fritzinger

Oxford

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 10:37:09 PM10/25/04
to
Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:

> > Jason, your a TOTAL idiot.
>
> It's 'you're'.

yeah, egg on face... i get to typing too fast to notice...

> > Kerry has never said or voted for such things, you just have been
> > brainwashed. Is he against assault rifles, sure, EVERY reasonable person
> > is, except maybe a tiny few in the Bush administration.
> >
> > Come on, Jason... THINK a little before you post again.
>
> Assault rifles are select fire and have been regulated since 1934.
> Therefore, it's not an issue right? Or do you mean 'assault weapon'.
> How do you define those, btw? There is no legal term now for it
> anymore.
>
> 'Assault weapon' is literally anything a politician decides it is. It's
> totally arbitrary. Go educate on this subject before you mouth off son.

Look... I, nor anyone needs fancy "definitions" of what kills quickly...
Assault Rifle, or Assault Weapon... it makes no difference, sounds like
you want all "Assaults" to be legal...

Look, guns are tools of the weak. They are nothing more than extensions
of the fist. If you are angry, get some help but don't bore us with your
worn out argument that we need "guns" to be protected.

Jason McNorton

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 11:40:42 PM10/25/04
to
In article <pLifd.588$L12....@news.uswest.net>, cs...@mac.com says...

Well then you just want to ban guns. I happen to support freedom and
the rights of the constitution. And sticking 'assault' on something
doesn't make it evil.

So basically, you have no idea what it is you want banned, but you just
want them banned real good.

Talk about idiocy.

Snit

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 11:56:10 PM10/25/04
to
"Jason McNorton" <jm...@comcast.net> wrote in post
MPG.1be78330c...@news-40.giganews.com on 10/25/04 8:40 PM:

Would you have a problem with my stockpiling anthrax, nuclear bombs, and
other arms in my basement?

The question is *not* should we limit arms - the question is where should
the limit be.

Jason McNorton

unread,
Oct 26, 2004, 12:03:42 AM10/26/04
to
In article <BDA318EA.D561%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID says...

Sure.

> The question is *not* should we limit arms - the question is where should
> the limit be.

That stuff would be considered 'Any of Weapon' by the BATFE. Those are
highly regulated.

Since firearms are protected by the 2nd, the stuff your talking about
does not apply. I know you'll drag the 'gun=nuke' argument on until
eternity, but it's so much nonsense. If you get confused, re-read what
I just wrote until you get it.

Snit

unread,
Oct 26, 2004, 12:27:36 AM10/26/04
to
"Jason McNorton" <jm...@comcast.net> wrote in post
MPG.1be788927...@news-40.giganews.com on 10/25/04 9:03 PM:

You mean you would limit my arms! Don't you believe in the second
amendment?


>
>> The question is *not* should we limit arms - the question is where should
>> the limit be.
>
> That stuff would be considered 'Any of Weapon' by the BATFE. Those are
> highly regulated.

Sure, but when did they get the right to go against the second amendment?

Are you suggesting they should be able to regulate fire arms?


>
> Since firearms are protected by the 2nd, the stuff your talking about
> does not apply.

The second amendment talks about "arms". If you want to know more about
what may have been meant by that word, look at the writings of the founding
fathers - they clearly use the word "arms" to mean weapons other than
firearms. Look, for example, at the Federalist Papers:

The word "arms" shows up in several of the Federalist Papers. It is used in
reference to military arms as well as personal arms. They even refer to
"British arms", "arms and arts of foreign nations", and "arms of the
republic". Arms were clearly not just firearms, though that is a common
misconception tossed around on this topic.

> I know you'll drag the 'gun=nuke' argument on until eternity, but it's so much
> nonsense.

Just because guns and nukes are both arms, that does not mean that guns and
nukes are the same. See if this helps:
_.----------.
,-'' `--.
,' `.
,' ,-----. ,-----. `.
/ / \ / \ \
; / \ / \ :
| ( ) ( ) |
: \ Guns / \ Nukes / ;
\ \ / \ / /
`. `-----' `-----' ,'
`. ,'
`--. Arms _.-'
`----------''

While that may look, at first, to be an alien head, it is a Venn diagram.

> If you get confused, re-read what I just wrote until you get it.

I get it - you are erroneously equating "arms" with "firearms".

So, do I get my nukes or do we agree that arms should be limited?

Jason McNorton

unread,
Oct 26, 2004, 12:58:08 AM10/26/04
to
In article <BDA32048.D56A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,

And there's limits to free speech too doofus. Your all or nothing
insanity is sooo tiring.

> >> The question is *not* should we limit arms - the question is where should
> >> the limit be.
> >
> > That stuff would be considered 'Any of Weapon' by the BATFE. Those are
> > highly regulated.
>
> Sure, but when did they get the right to go against the second amendment?

Again, the 2nd refers to small arms. Look at the damn Federalist papers
for the definitions. Anything more powerful is considered ordnance.


> Are you suggesting they should be able to regulate fire arms?

In some ways yes. Like with free speech, obviously. It's not 100% or
0%.

Duh.

Except that in the constitution it's ordnance and arms. nukes don't fit
in the same catagory whatsoever has arms.



> > If you get confused, re-read what I just wrote until you get it.
>
> I get it - you are erroneously equating "arms" with "firearms".
>
> So, do I get my nukes or do we agree that arms should be limited?

They are limited. Machine guns are restricted and hard to get.
Anything beyond the semi-auto needs higher regulation. Even semi-auto
needs background checks and so on, which I'm not against. I'm ok with
needing licensing with concealed carry, but they must be 'shall issue'
types.

So, now we've cleared that up. Will you tell me where you stand on it?
Don't repeat 'nukes=guns'. Don't talk about anthrax. Where do you
personally stand on firearms? Do you differ from what I say in the
above paragraph? If so, why? And please stay ON TOPIC here, no nukes
or VX gas nonsense.

I bet you can't do it.

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
Oct 26, 2004, 1:10:11 AM10/26/04
to
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 23:58:08 -0500, Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net>

chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article <BDA32048.D56A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,

Not so fast there, Jason. Up until the turn of the 20th century it was
not uncommon for the private yachts of the ultra-rich to be outfitted
with some type of cannon.

--
"The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies."
French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin

Jason McNorton

unread,
Oct 26, 2004, 1:14:05 AM10/26/04
to
In article <tumrn0hfrml4mks43...@4ax.com>,
ev5...@hotmail.com says...

I'm not exactly sure where the line needs to be drawn. But I know semi-
autos have been around for a really long time, and there's no need for
banning them. Machine guns don't need to be banned either, and aren't
in most states. Just very heavily regulated to the point you have to be
very rich to get them.

Of course, on the black market you can get one for quite cheap.

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
Oct 26, 2004, 1:27:49 AM10/26/04
to
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:14:05 -0500, Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net>

I've never figured out why machine guns need to be treated any
differently than any other type of firearm. They were only heavily
regulated in the 30's in a failed attempt to keep the criminals from
outgunningthe cops.
What we need to do is to make the punishment so severe for comitting a
crime with any type of weapon that it becomes less likely to happen.
I'm all for handing out death sentences with very limited amounts and
types of possible appeals for that sort of thing.

Mike Zulauf

unread,
Oct 26, 2004, 1:57:40 AM10/26/04
to
In article
<gmgravesnos-43D4...@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article <mazulauf-1FB8B7...@nntp0.pdx.net>,
> Mike Zulauf <mazu...@met.utah.edu> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <gmgravesnos-9D0E...@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> > George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Kerry has stated that even if Bush wins decisively, he will challenge
> > > every state that went for Bush in court. Sounds like a mess to me.
> >
> > Reference?
> >
> > Mike
>
> Edwards. last week's 'Meet the Press.'

I'm afraid I don't believe you (you have a history of posting similar
unsubstantiated claims). I've tried to find references to this online,
and I can't.

Got any links to transcripts, etc?

Mike

ps - I could be pedantic, and say that Edwards isn't Kerry. But it's
close enough for me - assuming you can back up your claim.

--
Mike Zulauf
mazu...@met.utah.edu

Oxford

unread,
Oct 26, 2004, 2:02:25 AM10/26/04
to
Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:

> > Look, guns are tools of the weak. They are nothing more than extensions
> > of the fist. If you are angry, get some help but don't bore us with your
> > worn out argument that we need "guns" to be protected.
>
> Well then you just want to ban guns. I happen to support freedom and
> the rights of the constitution. And sticking 'assault' on something
> doesn't make it evil.

Nah, I'm not out to ban them, just take models that have no purpose
outside of hunting out of the mix. I've always thought making it illegal
to have a gun that is less than 30 inches, 6 pounds would be a crime,
punishable by death. That would clear up "the embarrassing problem"
America has with guns pretty quick.

> So basically, you have no idea what it is you want banned, but you just
> want them banned real good.

Nah, I understand it's a tough issue, I respect people that use them
properly... but to have 40,000 people killed every year is completely
crazy. Canada doesn't have this problem, no country in europe does,
Japan certainly doesn't... only... 3rd world countries... and "us"...

Jason... you are on the wrong side... so sad, so sad...

Jason McNorton

unread,
Oct 26, 2004, 2:13:06 AM10/26/04
to
In article <SLlfd.597$L12.1...@news.uswest.net>, cs...@mac.com says...

> Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Look, guns are tools of the weak. They are nothing more than extensions
> > > of the fist. If you are angry, get some help but don't bore us with your
> > > worn out argument that we need "guns" to be protected.
> >
> > Well then you just want to ban guns. I happen to support freedom and
> > the rights of the constitution. And sticking 'assault' on something
> > doesn't make it evil.
>
> Nah, I'm not out to ban them, just take models that have no purpose
> outside of hunting out of the mix. I've always thought making it illegal
> to have a gun that is less than 30 inches, 6 pounds would be a crime,
> punishable by death. That would clear up "the embarrassing problem"
> America has with guns pretty quick.

Where the hell are you from?

In the USA, we still have this thing called 'freedoms'.

Also, the 2nd is not about hunting.

> > So basically, you have no idea what it is you want banned, but you just
> > want them banned real good.
>
> Nah, I understand it's a tough issue, I respect people that use them
> properly... but to have 40,000 people killed every year is completely
> crazy. Canada doesn't have this problem, no country in europe does,
> Japan certainly doesn't... only... 3rd world countries... and "us"...
>
> Jason... you are on the wrong side... so sad, so sad...

Stfu idiot. You don't know anything about this subject. A lot more
crimes are stopped with guns. The number is closer to 30,000 and over
half are suicides. 15 thousand gun murders out of 275 million is not
very bad. And the utility of them cleary overcomes the negatives.

You are the one who is wrong 'oxford'. Goodbye now, you're completely
incapable of understanding basic human rights and freedoms, and that's
something that utterly sickens me.

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
Oct 26, 2004, 2:14:31 AM10/26/04
to
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:02:25 -0600, Oxford <cs...@mac.com> chose to

bless us with the following wisdom:

>Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:


>
>> > Look, guns are tools of the weak. They are nothing more than extensions
>> > of the fist. If you are angry, get some help but don't bore us with your
>> > worn out argument that we need "guns" to be protected.
>>
>> Well then you just want to ban guns. I happen to support freedom and
>> the rights of the constitution. And sticking 'assault' on something
>> doesn't make it evil.
>
>Nah, I'm not out to ban them, just take models that have no purpose
>outside of hunting out of the mix.

The Second Amendment isn't in place to preserve hunting.



> I've always thought making it illegal to have a gun that is less than 30 inches, 6 pounds would be a crime,
>punishable by death.

Of course we wouldn't want to do anything like punish actual criminals
who use guns or anything.

> That would clear up "the embarrassing problem" America has with guns pretty quick.

America has no 'embarrassing problem' with guns.

>> So basically, you have no idea what it is you want banned, but you just
>> want them banned real good.
>
>Nah, I understand it's a tough issue, I respect people that use them
>properly... but to have 40,000 people killed every year is completely
>crazy.

Never mind that ~60% of them are suicides.

> Canada doesn't have this problem, no country in europe does,
>Japan certainly doesn't... only... 3rd world countries... and "us"...
>
>Jason... you are on the wrong side... so sad, so sad...

No you are sadly misinformed. America is far from the most violent
country in the civilized world.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

Jason McNorton

unread,
Oct 26, 2004, 2:16:27 AM10/26/04
to
In article <SLlfd.597$L12.1...@news.uswest.net>, cs...@mac.com says...

Also, take a good look at this. This is the 'model' of gun banning..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?
xml=/news/2004/10/22/ncrime22.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/22/ixhome.html

"A different set of recorded crime figures showed that gun crime
continued to rise. In the 12 months to June last year there were 10,280
offences. In the year to June this year, the figure rose to 10,590 -
more than double the rate in 1997 when Labour came to power."

That's an awful lot for a much smaller country. And the rest of their
non-gun crimes are far worse than the USA's.

So if you ban guns, you still have rampant crime, gun crime too. Plus
you've made it impossible for people to defend themselves.

Really accomplishes a lot doesn't it. Oh wait, it's more feelgood
liberal hippie nonsense that doesn't even work in theory.

George Graves

unread,
Oct 26, 2004, 3:05:59 AM10/26/04
to
In article <pLifd.588$L12....@news.uswest.net>, Oxford <cs...@mac.com>
wrote:

Hmmm. You don't seem to understand gun ownership too well. Most gun
owners don't own and like guns for their defensive (or even their
offensive) potential. Most people own guns because they are often
beautiful pieces of well-made machinery, and they are fun to shoot,
and/or they are weapons designed for hunting as many Americans like to
hunt. I'm not real surprised that you misunderstand gun ownership, most
anti-gun liberals are in the same boat. They simply don't understand or
they misunderstand (often intentionally) the motives of the gun crowd.

Oxford

unread,
Oct 26, 2004, 4:55:28 AM10/26/04
to
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> > Look, guns are tools of the weak. They are nothing more than extensions
> > of the fist. If you are angry, get some help but don't bore us with your
> > worn out argument that we need "guns" to be protected.
>
> Hmmm. You don't seem to understand gun ownership too well. Most gun
> owners don't own and like guns for their defensive (or even their
> offensive) potential. Most people own guns because they are often
> beautiful pieces of well-made machinery, and they are fun to shoot,
> and/or they are weapons designed for hunting as many Americans like to
> hunt. I'm not real surprised that you misunderstand gun ownership, most
> anti-gun liberals are in the same boat. They simply don't understand or
> they misunderstand (often intentionally) the motives of the gun crowd.

nope, i understand the issue quite well, i look at numbers of "humans"
killed each year in the US, Japan, Canada, Europe. Then base those
"facts" on current gun use and ownership in the US.

You are simply trying to skirt the issue and explain away all these
murders as "it wasn't my gun" so it's "okay"... problem is... it's a
huge emotional, and $$$ drain to our society... for little gain...

Maybe cut off 1 joint of "any finger you choose" if your "gun" is used
to harm another human. That would be fair and quickly solve the problem
without much harm to anyone.

We need to get realistic, not pander to the responsible gun owners. This
way, they would have nothing to worry about, and the problem would be
solved, basically "overnight"... and pretty cheaply.

Or...

Do the eBay thing and have public feedback on every gun owner, you get 3
negatives, and your gun is taken away for life. This would put the
public fully in charge of the decision, the police fully in charge of
enforcing the "feedback law"...

I'll always remember an exchange student that stayed with us years ago.
He was from somewhere in Wales. And I guess if you get caught "drinking
and driving" you have your license taken away for "life"...

Ah, the value of good ideas... :)

Oxford

unread,
Oct 26, 2004, 5:11:33 AM10/26/04
to
Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:

> > Jason... you are on the wrong side... so sad, so sad...
>
> Also, take a good look at this. This is the 'model' of gun banning..
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?
> xml=/news/2004/10/22/ncrime22.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/22/ixhome.html

Yeah, I love the part:

"3,000 offences of aggression and violence, from spitting and threats to
murder by bullet".

The real numbers show less people are "murdered by bullet" in a year
than go down in a week in the US. sad, so sad...

> "A different set of recorded crime figures showed that gun crime
> continued to rise. In the 12 months to June last year there were 10,280
> offences. In the year to June this year, the figure rose to 10,590 -
> more than double the rate in 1997 when Labour came to power."

Sure, but those weren't murders... I guess that's the crux, in Europe
there are some gun crimes, but in the US there are actual gun deaths.
and LOTS of them.

> That's an awful lot for a much smaller country. And the rest of their
> non-gun crimes are far worse than the USA's.
>
> So if you ban guns, you still have rampant crime, gun crime too. Plus
> you've made it impossible for people to defend themselves.

I'm not for banning guns... I just want people that own them to be
responsible and pay with a part of their body if their gun is used
inappropriately.

> Really accomplishes a lot doesn't it. Oh wait, it's more feelgood
> liberal hippie nonsense that doesn't even work in theory.

There is nothing "hippy" about being smart...

Here's some facts for you to look over.

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

Only Brazil, N. Ireland, Estonia are less safe than the US, all the
other MAJOR countries have far less gun crime. England as you pointed
out... is .11, far far far lower than the US at 3.72.

You are fighting the wrong fight, so sad, so sad...

Just think of the bigger picture... what if Lincoln hadn't been shot, or
JFK, or Reagan, or the Pope or John Lennon, on and on...

I'm just saying Guns cause a lot of pain for little gain....

And you seem blind to it all.

oxford

-

Jason McNorton

unread,
Oct 26, 2004, 5:23:07 AM10/26/04
to
In article <axofd.1$g82...@news.uswest.net>, cs...@mac.com says...

They cause a lot more gain than pain, in my opinion. You can not
uninvent guns. Banning them just leads to criminals only having them.

The US is a violent country for reasons other than gun rights. That's
the crux of it all.

I'm very much for throwing the book at and executing murderers,
regardless of what method they use.

Again, there's a lot of DUI deaths out there. By your logic of banning
the tools criminals use, both booze and cars would have to be banned.

I have a lot of guns, and I have a carry permit. I have it to protect
my life. People get carjacked and worse around cities here. It's a
violent nutty culture, mostly due to immigration and minorities, sorry
to say. Homogenious places like Japan or how Europe used to be have
less problems with that. Europe's crime rate is skyrocketing of course,
due to a combination of harsh anti-defense laws and increased
immigration.


BTW, think of all the famous people we'd have alive if it weren't for
cars or planes. JFK Jr, Princess Diana, James Dean, and on and on.
Your appeal to emotion, suggesting if guns just didn't exist things
would be wonderful, doesn't work.

Oxford

unread,
Oct 26, 2004, 5:33:13 AM10/26/04
to
Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Where the hell are you from?

I'm from the States, don't worry...


>
> In the USA, we still have this thing called 'freedoms'.

Yes, and this gives people more "freedom" to walk around in full safety.


>
> Also, the 2nd is not about hunting.

And I never said it did...

> > > So basically, you have no idea what it is you want banned, but you just
> > > want them banned real good.
> >
> > Nah, I understand it's a tough issue, I respect people that use them
> > properly... but to have 40,000 people killed every year is completely
> > crazy. Canada doesn't have this problem, no country in europe does,
> > Japan certainly doesn't... only... 3rd world countries... and "us"...
> >
> > Jason... you are on the wrong side... so sad, so sad...
>
> Stfu idiot. You don't know anything about this subject. A lot more
> crimes are stopped with guns. The number is closer to 30,000 and over
> half are suicides. 15 thousand gun murders out of 275 million is not
> very bad. And the utility of them cleary overcomes the negatives.

Jason... Are you even thinking???

Suicides by Guns are still problems with Guns, not Suicides.

15,000 thousand when it could be Zero is not something to take lightly.

It's still the highest BY FAR of any developed Country.

What utility do they serve in a modern society? Sport is the ONLY one.
The rest is fear trying to fend fear...

> You are the one who is wrong 'oxford'. Goodbye now, you're completely
> incapable of understanding basic human rights and freedoms, and that's
> something that utterly sickens me.

Actually, I have you in a tailspin since you can rationally come up with
any reason for a Gun to be owned... Outside of hunting of course.

It seems you weren't raised well enough to think matters through... Come
on Jason... show us a reason why anyone needs a Gun, I'll places bets
you can't.

:)

oxford

-

Oxford

unread,
Oct 26, 2004, 5:32:59 AM10/26/04