"Criminals of the world, good times await in baghdad by the bay!"
WillBrink
Movement To Ban Firearms In San Francisco
By Carolyn Tyler
Nov. 2 - When you go to the polls one week from today, state
propositions aren't the only measures some voters face. There are local
issues as well. In San Francisco, voters will decide whether to try to
ban guns in the city.
Pat Barsetti owns a Smith and Wesson.
Pat Barsetti, gun owner: "This has always given me a sense of
protection."
She would be forced to give up her gun if Proposition H passes.
Four San Francisco supervisors put the measure on the ballot. It
prohibits "residents from possessing handguns" in the city and bans "the
manufacture, distribution, sale and transfer of firearms and ammunition"
in the city.
Chris Daly is the chief sponsor, motivated in part by the shooting death
of 15-year-old Scharod Fleming outside a Tenderloin YMCA last year.
Chris Daly, San Francisco supervisor: "If we can get handguns, some of
the handguns out of the hands of some of the criminals, then we'll make
a small dent in some of the homicides and that is the intent of this
legislation."
Guy Smith monitors and writes about gun control nationwide. He says
Washington, D.C. and Chicago have bans and they don't work.
Guy Smith, gun expert: "Washington, D.C. has been the homicide capitol
of America for 14 of the last 15 years."
But in Bayview Hunters Point, a neighborhood plagued with violence,
Shawn Richard has founded a group called brothers against guns. He
thinks Prop H could make a difference.
Shawn Richard, Brothers Against Guns: "Uzis or Mac 10s, stuff like that
is being used on the streets of San Francisco that are only supposed to
be used for the war. How are they getting in here? So I'm supportive of
this ban on these guns."
The San Francisco Police Officers Association isn't. Cops say the bad
guys will always have weapons, ordinary citizens will be vulnerable.
Gary Delagnes, Police Officers Association: "To basically send a message
to every criminal in San Francisco that 'hey, if I'm a burglar or a
robber and I want to climb in somebody's window, I'm pretty self assured
there won't be a weapon in there."
Prop H allows police to carry weapons, but only while on duty. This
retired officer worries about what might happen in an emergency, like a
major earthquake.
Larry Barsetti, Coalition Against Prohibition: "A good percentage of our
officers still live outside the city and those who live here will be
disarmed. It makes absolutely no sense."
If voters okay the ban, it would take effect in January and residents
would have another 90 days after that to turn in their guns. Keep in
mind, opponents are already planning a legal challenge if the measure
passes.
--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
OmManiPadmeOmelet
<WillBrink*NOSPAM*-CE85B5.113...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
> Chris Daly is the chief sponsor, motivated in part by the shooting death
> of 15-year-old Scharod Fleming outside a Tenderloin YMCA last year.
> Chris Daly, San Francisco supervisor: "If we can get handguns, some of
> the handguns out of the hands of some of the criminals, then we'll make
> a small dent in some of the homicides and that is the intent of this
> legislation."
Yeah right...
The criminals are going to give up their guns if they are outlawed.
On what planet?
--
Om.
"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson
WillBrink
OmManiPadmeOmelet <Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote:
> In article
> <WillBrink*NOSPAM*-CE85B5.113...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Chris Daly is the chief sponsor, motivated in part by the shooting death
> > of 15-year-old Scharod Fleming outside a Tenderloin YMCA last year.
> > Chris Daly, San Francisco supervisor: "If we can get handguns, some of
> > the handguns out of the hands of some of the criminals, then we'll make
> > a small dent in some of the homicides and that is the intent of this
> > legislation."
>
> Yeah right...
> The criminals are going to give up their guns if they are outlawed.
>
> On what planet?
Not this one!
OmManiPadmeOmelet
<WillBrink*NOSPAM*-22C23A.121...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
Tell me Will, how can ANYbody be that naive?
If we are made weaponless against criminals, crime will INCREASE not
decrease! And we will be helpless against it if we disarm!
A gun in the hand is worth more than two cops on the phone.......
WillBrink
OmManiPadmeOmelet <Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote:
> In article
> <WillBrink*NOSPAM*-22C23A.121...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <Omelet-6C05A5....@corp.supernews.com>,
> > OmManiPadmeOmelet <Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <WillBrink*NOSPAM*-CE85B5.113...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> > > WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Chris Daly is the chief sponsor, motivated in part by the shooting
> > > > death
> > > > of 15-year-old Scharod Fleming outside a Tenderloin YMCA last year.
> > > > Chris Daly, San Francisco supervisor: "If we can get handguns, some of
> > > > the handguns out of the hands of some of the criminals, then we'll make
> > > > a small dent in some of the homicides and that is the intent of this
> > > > legislation."
> > >
> > > Yeah right...
> > > The criminals are going to give up their guns if they are outlawed.
> > >
> > > On what planet?
> >
> > Not this one!
>
> Tell me Will, how can ANYbody be that naive?
No idea. Considering how great it's worked for DC and chicago...not!
> If we are made weaponless against criminals, crime will INCREASE not
> decrease!
So far, that's exactly what we see.
> And we will be helpless against it if we disarm!
That's what history shows us and data confirms.
> A gun in the hand is worth more than two cops on the phone.......
" have yet to hear anyone afflicted with the "gun control" disability
dial 9-1-1 and specify, "Now please be sure to send the kind of cops who
are disarmed. If you can't do that, we'd rather you not send anyone at
all to stop the men who are holding my daughter at knifepoint, because
in this household we don't believe that guns ever solve anything."
-VIN SUPRYNOWICZq
David Cohen
"WillBrink" <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote
> OmManiPadmeOmelet <Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote:
>> WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
>> > OmManiPadmeOmelet <Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote:
>> > > WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
>> > > > Chris Daly is the chief sponsor, motivated in part by the shooting
>> > > > death
>> > > > of 15-year-old Scharod Fleming outside a Tenderloin YMCA last year.
>> > > > Chris Daly, San Francisco supervisor: "If we can get handguns, some
>> > > > of
>> > > > the handguns out of the hands of some of the criminals, then we'll
>> > > > make
>> > > > a small dent in some of the homicides and that is the intent of
>> > > > this
>> > > > legislation."
>> > >
>> > > Yeah right...
>> > > The criminals are going to give up their guns if they are outlawed.
>> > >
>> > > On what planet?
>> >
>> > Not this one!
>>
>> Tell me Will, how can ANYbody be that naive?
>
> No idea. Considering how great it's worked for DC and chicago...not!
The mindless followers may be naive, but I do NOT believe that the leaders
of the anti-gun movement are. They are completely aware of the consequences
of their actions, and attempted actions. It is but a small part of a larger
world view.
David
OmManiPadmeOmelet
"David Cohen" <sammi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
God David. That just made me nauseous... :-(
What exactly are you saying?
TheEarlOfBillRodgers
<Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote:
>Tell me Will, how can ANYbody be that naive?
>If we are made weaponless against criminals, crime will INCREASE not
>decrease! And we will be helpless against it if we disarm!
>
>A gun in the hand is worth more than two cops on the phone.......
This is basically crap Om. You cannot simply shoot criminals in
america. This whole arguement of "we need guns to defend ourselves
against criminals" is just ridiculous.
WillBrink
"David Cohen" <sammi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Of that I have no doubt. The aim is to take away guns from honest
people, and they admit that all the time. They don't feel facts are
important to that goal.
>
> David
ATP*
"WillBrink" <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote in message
news:WillBrink*NOSPAM*-CE85B5.113...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>
>
> Movement To Ban Firearms In San Francisco
>
> By Carolyn Tyler
>
> But in Bayview Hunters Point, a neighborhood plagued with violence,
> Shawn Richard has founded a group called brothers against guns. He
> thinks Prop H could make a difference.
He misspelled Prep
David Cohen
"OmManiPadmeOmelet" <Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote
I did not know that was His name.
> That just made me nauseous... :-(
No, that's from too much spinach, Popeye.
> What exactly are you saying?
"The mindless followers may be naive, but I do NOT believe that the leaders
OmManiPadmeOmelet
TheEarlOfBillRodgers <TheEarlOfB...@comcast.com> wrote:
I pity you dude.
I really do......
OmManiPadmeOmelet
<WillBrink*NOSPAM*-9B4EAB.162...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
"Don't confuse me with the facts. I've already made up my mind".
So say clueless fools.
OmManiPadmeOmelet
"David Cohen" <sammi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Okay, Yahweh. (or however you spell it? YVHV I think? Can't remember
some of my hebrew mythology at the moment, sorry!)
>
> > That just made me nauseous... :-(
>
> No, that's from too much spinach, Popeye.
Too much grilled chicken breast more likely. <G>
>
> > What exactly are you saying?
>
> "The mindless followers may be naive, but I do NOT believe that the leaders
> of the anti-gun movement are. They are completely aware of the consequences
> of their actions, and attempted actions. It is but a small part of a larger
> world view."
>
> David
>
You sound like a conspiracist.
That's scaring me Cohen!
You are one of the more sane people on this list.
If you believe this, there must be something to it.
And here I was thinking that they all just had low IQ's.......
/.';[-9=0';
<Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote:
>I pity you dude.
>
>I really do......
Why? Do you really think someone will kick in my door, and shoot me?
There's just as good a chance I'll shoot my teenage daughter in the
middle of the night, thinking she's a burgular.
OmManiPadmeOmelet
Only if you are really, really stupid. ;-)
Take a gun safety course. And do a recto-cranial inversion exercize.
Please...
David Cohen
"OmManiPadmeOmelet" <Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote
> "David Cohen" <sammi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "OmManiPadmeOmelet" <Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote
>> > "David Cohen" <sammi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "The mindless followers may be naive, but I do NOT believe that the
>> leaders
>> of the anti-gun movement are. They are completely aware of the
>> consequences
>> of their actions, and attempted actions. It is but a small part of a
>> larger
>> world view."
>
Even paranoid people can have real enemies.
> That's scaring me Cohen!
I've heard that before.
Dating can be difficult.
> You are one of the more sane people on this list.
> If you believe this, there must be something to it.
Think about the side of all the diverse, seemingly unrelated, issues, that
the typical gun banner falls on: ban guns, radical environmentalism, one
world government/United Nations, unilateral disarmament, socialistic control
of the means of production, unrestricted abortion, secularism, etcetera.
It would be very difficult to enforce this world view on a reluctant, armed,
citizenry.
Step One: ban guns.
David
>
> And here I was thinking that they all just had low IQ's.......
The followers do. The leaders are very, very, intelligent. THAT should scare
you.
David
OmManiPadmeOmelet
"David Cohen" <sammi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "OmManiPadmeOmelet" <Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote
> > "David Cohen" <sammi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> "OmManiPadmeOmelet" <Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote
> >> > "David Cohen" <sammi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> "The mindless followers may be naive, but I do NOT believe that the
> >> leaders
> >> of the anti-gun movement are. They are completely aware of the
> >> consequences
> >> of their actions, and attempted actions. It is but a small part of a
> >> larger
> >> world view."
> >
> > You sound like a conspiracist.
>
> Even paranoid people can have real enemies.
If you think they are out to get you, they probably are? ;-)
>
> > That's scaring me Cohen!
>
> I've heard that before.
Reality sux.
>
> Dating can be difficult.
>
> > You are one of the more sane people on this list.
> > If you believe this, there must be something to it.
>
> Think about the side of all the diverse, seemingly unrelated, issues, that
> the typical gun banner falls on: ban guns, radical environmentalism, one
> world government/United Nations, unilateral disarmament, socialistic control
> of the means of production, unrestricted abortion, secularism, etcetera.
>
> It would be very difficult to enforce this world view on a reluctant, armed,
> citizenry.
>
> Step One: ban guns.
>
> David
> >
> > And here I was thinking that they all just had low IQ's.......
>
> The followers do. The leaders are very, very, intelligent. THAT should scare
> you.
>
> David
>
>
Good point...
And I've been laughed at for pursuing private purchases?????
Saxet shows are your freind......
/.';[-9=0';
<Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote:
>Take a gun safety course.
Again, why? I am perfectly capable of defending myself and my family
without a gun, and I have no paranoia that makes me afraid of some
imaginary boogeyman coming to get me. Hence I have no use for a gun.
I'm sure you already know the stats on accidental shootings, both
children playing with guns, and gun owners who shoot loved ones
thinking they're intruders. Guns are far more dangerous to your own
family, than to some would-be intruder.
You can say "that'll never happen to me, I took a gun safety course",
but the fact is, when you hear a noise at 3am that you perceive to be
a possible intruder, you are groggy, half asleep, and not thinking
rationally as you are now (Hanscum and JMW never think clearly, so
they are excluded from that) there's a good chance you'll shoot your
housemate, or family member by accident. Nevermind the number of "gun
cleaning" accidents, or suicides that occur because a gun is handy.
/.';[-9=0';
<sammi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>It would be very difficult to enforce this world view on a reluctant, armed,
>citizenry.
So you advocate shooting people who try to enforce laws? Thank you for
enfocing everything I perceive to be wrong with people who own guns.
If there's a law you don't like, instead of voting, you'll rise up and
bare arms. Very good Cohen, you just showed what a grade A arsehole
you are.
David Cohen
This means our date tomorrow night for dinner and hot sweaty sex is off,
doesn't it? Damn!
David
<-],/.,/=-:@nowhere.com >
<sammi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>This means our date tomorrow night for dinner and hot sweaty sex is off,
>doesn't it? Damn!
Well, as long as you don't sneak into my house in the middle of the
night, unannounced, and risk getting shot, I guess we're still on.
WillBrink
OmManiPadmeOmelet <Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote:
> >
> > Of that I have no doubt. The aim is to take away guns from honest
> > people, and they admit that all the time. They don't feel facts are
> > important to that goal.
> >
>
> "Don't confuse me with the facts. I've already made up my mind".
>
> So say clueless fools.
The lesson of history as that people don't learn it.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws
make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they
serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides,
for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed
man." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and
punishment - (1764).
OmManiPadmeOmelet
"/.';[-9=0';" <"?".,/=-:@nowhere.com> wrote:
Darwin awards.
Cleansing of the gene pool.......
Cheers!
OmManiPadmeOmelet
"/.';[-9=0';" <"?".,/=-:@nowhere.com> wrote:
No. He is not.
You are totally missing the undercurrents.
The larger picture......
Do you say "Baaaa-aaaaa" when you wake up in the morning Bill?
OmManiPadmeOmelet
<WillBrink*NOSPAM*-CB5BD3.094...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <Omelet-0F5911....@corp.supernews.com>,
> OmManiPadmeOmelet <Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Of that I have no doubt. The aim is to take away guns from honest
> > > people, and they admit that all the time. They don't feel facts are
> > > important to that goal.
> > >
> >
> > "Don't confuse me with the facts. I've already made up my mind".
> >
> > So say clueless fools.
>
>
> The lesson of history as that people don't learn it.
Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. ;-)
>
> "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither
> inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws
> make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they
> serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides,
> for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed
> man." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and
> punishment - (1764).
Great quote!
I know the majority of the police in our town encourage CHL's. They are
happy to see them, and more than happy to host the classes, and
qualifying is done at the police range.
TheBillRodgers
<Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote:
>Darwin awards.
>Cleansing of the gene pool.......
So that's how you respond when faced with facts?
Oh well...
TheBillRodgers
<Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote:
>No. He is not.
>You are totally missing the undercurrents.
>The larger picture......
No matter how you look at his arguement, it says he advocates guns
when faced with an action or law he dislikes.
WillBrink
OmManiPadmeOmelet <Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote:
> In article
> <WillBrink*NOSPAM*-CB5BD3.094...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <Omelet-0F5911....@corp.supernews.com>,
> > OmManiPadmeOmelet <Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > Of that I have no doubt. The aim is to take away guns from honest
> > > > people, and they admit that all the time. They don't feel facts are
> > > > important to that goal.
> > > >
> > >
> > > "Don't confuse me with the facts. I've already made up my mind".
> > >
> > > So say clueless fools.
> >
> >
> > The lesson of history as that people don't learn it.
>
> Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. ;-)
Of course.
>
> >
> > "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither
> > inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws
> > make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they
> > serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides,
> > for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed
> > man." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and
> > punishment - (1764).
>
> Great quote!
I got tons of them.
>
> I know the majority of the police in our town encourage CHL's.
Most cops in most towns feel that way.
> They are
> happy to see them, and more than happy to host the classes, and
> qualifying is done at the police range.
It's also been shown that where there is higher CCW cop deaths actually
go down.
[The Journal of Law and Economics, vol. XLIV (October 2001)]
© 2001 by The University of Chicago.
THE IMPACT OF GUN LAWS ON POLICE DEATHS*
DAVID B. MUSTARD
University of Georgia
ABSTRACT
This paper uses state-level data from 198496 to examine how
right-to-carry laws and waiting periods affect the felonious deaths of
police. Some people oppose concealed weapons carry laws because they
believe these laws jeopardize law enforcement officials, who risk their
lives to protect the citizenry. This paper strongly rejects this
contention. States that allowed law-abiding citizens to carry concealed
weapons had a slightly higher likelihood of having a felonious police
death and slightly higher police death rates prior to the law. After
enactment of the right-to-carry laws, states exhibit a reduced
likelihood of having a felonious police death rate and slightly lower
rates of police deaths. States that implement waiting periods have
slightly lower felonious police death rates both before and after the
law. Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons does not
endanger the lives of officers and may help reduce their risk of being
killed.
OmManiPadmeOmelet
TheBillRodgers <TheBill...@noComcast.net> wrote:
We both seem to have a different view of what the "facts" actually are.
I will agree to simply disagree with you.
I feel safer and more secure knowing I can defend myself, with deadly
force if necessary. My finger stays OFF the trigger too until I see my
target. It's very, very unlikely that I'll be shooting my housemate.
We've both been armed for years and it's never happened.
You say you can defend your family without a gun. If someone breaks into
your house with a gun, (or even a knife or club) may I as how you plan
to defend yourself and them? Unless you are a hell of a martial artist
and very fast, a gun is a lot more practical.
OmManiPadmeOmelet
TheBillRodgers <TheBill...@noComcast.net> wrote:
Like I said, you are missing the larger picture.
Open your mind...
John Black
Ome...@brokenegz.com says...
> A gun in the hand is worth more than two cops on the phone.......
Great quote.
John Black
John Black
@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net says...
Another great quote.
John Black
WillBrink
John Black <jbl...@texas.net> wrote:
I prefer a gun in each hand and a cop on the phone!
>
> John Black
WillBrink
John Black <jbl...@texas.net> wrote:
History is full of them:
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which
Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where)
the governments are afraid to trust the people with
arms. ---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.
WillBrink
OmManiPadmeOmelet <Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote:
> In article <ghtum192dmg99srgv...@4ax.com>,
> TheBillRodgers <TheBill...@noComcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:14:16 -0600, OmManiPadmeOmelet
> > <Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote:
> >
> > >No. He is not.
> > >You are totally missing the undercurrents.
> > >The larger picture......
> >
> > No matter how you look at his arguement, it says he advocates guns
> > when faced with an action or law he dislikes.
>
> Like I said, you are missing the larger picture.
> Open your mind...
You have to have a working mind to open, which I would hope by now you
would see he lacks. Stop feeding the trolls.
OmManiPadmeOmelet
<WillBrink*NOSPAM*-85C459.112...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
Seriously cool......
TheBillRodgers
<Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote:
>I feel safer and more secure knowing I can defend myself, with deadly
>force if necessary. My finger stays OFF the trigger too until I see my
>target. It's very, very unlikely that I'll be shooting my housemate.
>We've both been armed for years and it's never happened.
>
All well and good because right now as you type that, you are wide
awake. However this could change at 3am when you're not so awake.
Although since you work nights, make that 3pm.
>You say you can defend your family without a gun. If someone breaks into
>your house with a gun, (or even a knife or club) may I as how you plan
>to defend yourself and them? Unless you are a hell of a martial artist
>and very fast, a gun is a lot more practical.
First I have my knowledge of my home as an advantage, I know it in the
dark, and that is a strategic advantsge. Next go here
http://photobucket.com/albums/a253/Bagpip/?start=20
And go to the second page. See the claymore my grandson is playing
with? Notice it's far taller than him? I've practiced with this for
years. It's weight and length make it hard to yield effectively
without practice. Combined with MA's, that, and my knowledge of my own
home, I doubt there's any type of intrusion I couldn't handle.
TheBillRodgers
<Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote:
>Like I said, you are missing the larger picture.
>Open your mind...
You just keep saying that without explaining yourself. I have no idea
what you are eluding too, unless it's the idiotic arguement that our
own government will go berserk on us, and we'll need guns against
ourselves. That's just paranoid BS.
OmManiPadmeOmelet
John Black <jbl...@texas.net> wrote:
Thanks!
Here are the rest of them:
Remember at night shoot low. Frank
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 21:33:55 -0800
FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than two cops on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns: It's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7." Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. TheUnited StatesConstitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and liberals.
15. Know guns, know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control
them.
22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we have, don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
26. ".. A government of the people, by the people, for the people..."
OmManiPadmeOmelet
<WillBrink*NOSPAM*-44F7D7.171...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <MPG.1dd96e39f...@news.chi.sbcglobal.net>,
> John Black <jbl...@texas.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <Omelet-802082....@corp.supernews.com>,
> > Ome...@brokenegz.com says...
> > > A gun in the hand is worth more than two cops on the phone.......
> >
> > Great quote.
>
> I prefer a gun in each hand and a cop on the phone!
>
Works for me. ;-)
I'm lucky. We have a REALLY great 911 response.
Last time I had to call the police, they were here in less than 10
minutes. Two guys were beating the crap out of each other across the
street from my house at 2am. The dogs woke me up.
Good dogs!
OmManiPadmeOmelet
<WillBrink*NOSPAM*-9A8A61.171...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
Sorry... ;-)
I tend to pity fools.
It's one of my failings......
OmManiPadmeOmelet
TheBillRodgers <TheBill...@noComcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:25:02 -0600, OmManiPadmeOmelet
> <Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote:
>
> >I feel safer and more secure knowing I can defend myself, with deadly
> >force if necessary. My finger stays OFF the trigger too until I see my
> >target. It's very, very unlikely that I'll be shooting my housemate.
> >We've both been armed for years and it's never happened.
> >
>
> All well and good because right now as you type that, you are wide
> awake. However this could change at 3am when you're not so awake.
> Although since you work nights, make that 3pm.
If I have to grab my gun, I'll be on an adrenaline high.
I assure you I'll be anything but groggy. ;-)
>
> >You say you can defend your family without a gun. If someone breaks into
> >your house with a gun, (or even a knife or club) may I as how you plan
> >to defend yourself and them? Unless you are a hell of a martial artist
> >and very fast, a gun is a lot more practical.
>
> First I have my knowledge of my home as an advantage, I know it in the
> dark, and that is a strategic advantsge. Next go here
> http://photobucket.com/albums/a253/Bagpip/?start=20
> And go to the second page. See the claymore my grandson is playing
> with? Notice it's far taller than him? I've practiced with this for
> years. It's weight and length make it hard to yield effectively
> without practice. Combined with MA's, that, and my knowledge of my own
> home, I doubt there's any type of intrusion I couldn't handle.
>
A sword is no match for a gun.
Ever watch Indiana Jones?
TheBillRodgers
I guess when I came here and saw a bunch of macho weightlifters were
so afraid they needed guns, it caught me off guard. I mean if you are
physically superior to most of the population, WTF are you afraid of?
I guess the old saying about weightlifters "compensating" is true.
TheBillRodgers
<Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote:
>A sword is no match for a gun.
It is in the dark, with "home court" advantage.
Charles
<WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
>In article <MPG.1dd96e39f...@news.chi.sbcglobal.net>,
> John Black <jbl...@texas.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <Omelet-802082....@corp.supernews.com>,
>> Ome...@brokenegz.com says...
>> > A gun in the hand is worth more than two cops on the phone.......
>>
>> Great quote.
>
>I prefer a gun in each hand and a cop on the phone!
How are you going to hold the 'phone if you have a gun in each hand
Wild Bill?
OmManiPadmeOmelet
TheBillRodgers <TheBill...@noComcast.net> wrote:
See you in the Obituaries.......
TheBillRodgers
<Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote:
>See you in the Obituaries.......
Never happen, I live in a safe place.
David Cohen
"Charles" <cha...@spc.com> wrote
> WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
>> John Black <jbl...@texas.net> wrote:
>>> Ome...@brokenegz.com says...
>>> > A gun in the hand is worth more than two cops on the phone.......
>>>
>>> Great quote.
>>
>>I prefer a gun in each hand and a cop on the phone!
>
> How are you going to hold the 'phone if you have a gun in each hand
> Wild Bill?
Penis phone. It's all the rage over here. Don't you have them over there?
They only require four inc...oh, sorry...never mind.
David
Lee Michaels
"David Cohen" <sammi...@earthlink.net> wrote >
On account of the extremely poor eyesight of most penises.
WillBrink
OmManiPadmeOmelet <Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote:
> In article
> <WillBrink*NOSPAM*-44F7D7.171...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <MPG.1dd96e39f...@news.chi.sbcglobal.net>,
> > John Black <jbl...@texas.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <Omelet-802082....@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > Ome...@brokenegz.com says...
> > > > A gun in the hand is worth more than two cops on the phone.......
> > >
> > > Great quote.
> >
> > I prefer a gun in each hand and a cop on the phone!
> >
>
> Works for me. ;-)
>
> I'm lucky. We have a REALLY great 911 response.
Though I have never had to call 911 here, I suspect the response time
would be very fast. It's a wealthy area with a high cop ratio.
> Last time I had to call the police, they were here in less than 10
> minutes. Two guys were beating the crap out of each other across the
> street from my house at 2am. The dogs woke me up.
Did the cops get them?
>
> Good dogs!
WillBrink
OmManiPadmeOmelet <Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote:
> In article
> <WillBrink*NOSPAM*-9A8A61.171...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <Omelet-25AE2C....@corp.supernews.com>,
> > OmManiPadmeOmelet <Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <ghtum192dmg99srgv...@4ax.com>,
> > > TheBillRodgers <TheBill...@noComcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:14:16 -0600, OmManiPadmeOmelet
> > > > <Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >No. He is not.
> > > > >You are totally missing the undercurrents.
> > > > >The larger picture......
> > > >
> > > > No matter how you look at his arguement, it says he advocates guns
> > > > when faced with an action or law he dislikes.
> > >
> > > Like I said, you are missing the larger picture.
> > > Open your mind...
> >
> > You have to have a working mind to open, which I would hope by now you
> > would see he lacks. Stop feeding the trolls.
>
> Sorry... ;-)
> I tend to pity fools.
> It's one of my failings......
Clearly.
TheBillRodgers
<WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
>> Sorry... ;-)
>> I tend to pity fools.
>> It's one of my failings......
>
>Clearly.
You know I've rethought my position. You are both asswipes. It's
either "see it my way, or you are a retrd of a fool".
John Black
Ome...@brokenegz.com says...
> 4. Gun control is not about guns: It's about control.
I think Ted Nugent said "Gun control is the ability to put two bullets
through the same hole".
John Black
OmManiPadmeOmelet
David Cohen
"John Black" <jbl...@texas.net> wrote
> Ome...@brokenegz.com says...
>> 4. Gun control is not about guns: It's about control.
>
> I think Ted Nugent said "Gun control is the ability to put two bullets
> through the same hole".
Of course, Ted would want to follow up with a broadhead arrow though the
hole, as well.
David
WillBrink
Does this prove that in modern times registration can = confiscation,
even in a country that supposedly guarantees its citizens the right to
bear arms? Yes it does.
Will following the only two cities who have tried this only to have the
highest crime rates in the nation alter SF零 crime rate? Will be
interesting to see, assuming it does not get overturned in the courts.
_______________________________________
San Francisco Voters Approve Handgun Ban
By LOUISE CHU
The Associated Press
Wednesday, November 9, 2005; 6:27 AM
SAN FRANCISCO -- Voters approved ballot measures to ban handguns in San
Francisco and urge the city's public high schools and college campuses
to keep out military recruiters.
The gun ban prohibits the manufacture and sale of all firearms and
ammunition in the city, and makes it illegal for residents to keep
handguns in their homes or businesses.
Only two other major U.S. cities _ Washington and Chicago _ have
implemented such sweeping handgun bans.
With all precincts reporting early Wednesday, 58 percent of voters
backed the proposed gun ban while 42 percent opposed it.
Although law enforcement, security guards and others who require weapons
for work are exempt from the measure, current handgun owners would have
to surrender their firearms by April.
A coalition led by the National Rifle Association has said it plans to
challenge the initiative in court, arguing that cities do not have the
authority to regulate firearms under California law.
The military recruitment initiative won with 60 percent in favor and 40
percent against.
The measure, dubbed "College Not Combat," opposes the presence of
military recruiters at public high schools and colleges. However, it
would not ban the armed forces from seeking enlistees at city campuses,
since that would put schools at risk of losing federal funding.
It encourages city officials and university administrators to exclude
recruiters and create scholarships and training programs that would
reduce the military's appeal to young adults.
"We now have the moral weight of the city behind us, and it's definitely
a valuable asset to have in our corner," said Bob Matthews, an activist
for the proposition.
OmManiPadmeOmelet
<WillBrink*NOSPAM*-73B33E.110...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
Wait 'till the institute the draft again.
Then it won't matter anymore.
And don't think it's not going to happen......