FIREARM PHILOSOPHY 101...A REFRESHER COURSE
cold blue steel
Please study and remember, there will be a test later!!
a. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
b. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
c. Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface.
d. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
e. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
f. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
g. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
h. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
i. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
j. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.
k. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand.
l. The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the
others.
m. 64,999,987 firearm owners killed no one yesterday.
n. Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians.
o. Know guns, Know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.
p. You don't shoot to kill; You shoot to stay alive.
q. 911 - government sponsored Dial a Prayer.
r. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
s. Criminals love gun control - it makes their jobs safer.
t. If Guns cause Crime, then Matches cause Arson.
u. Only a government that is afraid of it's citizens try to
control and disarm them.
v. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
w. Enforce the "gun control laws" in place; don't make more.
x. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create
slaves.
y. The American Revolution would never have happened with Gun
Control.
z. "....a government by the people, for the people....."
Mark A. Gonzales
Mark
'99 Civic Si
cold blue steel <guno...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.145ad3208...@news.qwest.net...
Subic Sailor
"cold blue steel" <guno...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.145ad3208...@news.qwest.net...
> To all
>
> Please study and remember, there will be a test later!!
>
> a. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
> b. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
> c. Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface.
> d. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
> e. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
> f. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
> g. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
> h. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
> i. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
> j. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.
Unless you're black, female, etc., etc.
> k. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand.
> l. The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the
> others.
> m. 64,999,987 firearm owners killed no one yesterday.
Criminals are firearm owners too!!
> n. Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians.
> o. Know guns, Know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.
> p. You don't shoot to kill; You shoot to stay alive.
> q. 911 - government sponsored Dial a Prayer.
> r. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
> s. Criminals love gun control - it makes their jobs safer.
> t. If Guns cause Crime, then Matches cause Arson.
> u. Only a government that is afraid of it's citizens try to
> control and disarm them.
> v. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
> w. Enforce the "gun control laws" in place; don't make more.
> x. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create
> slaves.
Now I understand what the Civil War was about.
Myk
steel) wrote:
>To all
>
>Please study and remember, there will be a test later!!
>
> a. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
> b. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
True in more cases than I want to think about..
> c. Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface.
> d. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
> e. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
Can you imagine the expression on the guy who was about to assault
you? After all, 85% of all armed confrontations take place in less
than 12'...
> f. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
I like this one!
> g. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
> h. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
> i. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
> j. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.
> k. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand.
> l. The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the
> others.
> m. 64,999,987 firearm owners killed no one yesterday.
> n. Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians.
> o. Know guns, Know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.
> p. You don't shoot to kill; You shoot to stay alive.
> q. 911 - government sponsored Dial a Prayer.
Again all to appropriate from.. 1/3rd the officers needed spread way
to thin and if you are in the outskirts of the county..
> r. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
True!! It doesn't take a firearm to kill. Last domestic that I dealt
with ended with a screwdriver in someones lung.
> s. Criminals love gun control - it makes their jobs safer.
How far down did the crime rate drop in Texas within the first 3
months they offered the concealed weapons permits? It is still down
how much farther still? Coincidence? I think not!
> t. If Guns cause Crime, then Matches cause Arson.
Same basic idea as F.
> u. Only a government that is afraid of it's citizens try to
> control and disarm them.
Look around the globe and see what happens to the unarmed citizens
within the last few weeks alone.
> v. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
> w. Enforce the "gun control laws" in place; don't make more.
> x. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create
> slaves.
> y. The American Revolution would never have happened with Gun
> Control.
> z. "....a government by the people, for the people....."
_____________________________________________
The "Big Bang Theory":
First there is nothing...
Then it explodes!?!?
Well, there went that theory..
Bill S.
A: What does this have to due with Mustangs?
B: Why bother to post something like this in a hit and run fashion, as
you have never posted under this user name in the past, but seem to like
to stir the pot?
CobraJet
<bil...@optonline.net> wrote:
> First answer me two simple questions:
If he won't I will.
>
>
> A: What does this have to due with Mustangs?
Plenty. If we lose our right to bear arms and I catch some
motherfucker stealing my Mustang, I'm gonna have to blow his empty head
off with a Super Soaker. Or hack him to pieces with a machete. Or cave
in his ribcage with a brick. All of those take too much time, and I'd
have to listen to him whine and complain while he's dying. One quick
pop and I can get back to watching TV. Time enough to clean up the
remains during the local news broadcast.
>
> B: Why bother to post something like this in a hit and run fashion, as
> you have never posted under this user name in the past, but seem to like
> to stir the pot?
Imagine that! Stirring the pot in RAMFM! Oh oh oh say it ain't so.
Not here. Never happen. Off-topic? Perish the friggin thought.
If there is anyone here who thinks we should all give up our guns
then I just say, "RIDE A BIKE, 'CUZ CARS KILL MORE PEOPLE THAN GUNS,
YOU DUMBSHIT!!" Smoke a number and take a drive, it'll all make sense
at some point.
CobraJet
P.S. Bill, you misspelled "Mustang" in your subject line. Please
study and remember; M-U-S-T-A-N-G. There will be a test later.
Bill S.
Bill S.
Felix Da Kat
>
> Criminals are firearm owners too!!
just leaves the criminals with the guns, right? Now whos in trouble? We are,
because the only thing well have to battle against the uzis and glocks are
spitwads and peashooters.
Nothin Personal towards you my fellow stanger, merely stating my opinion. I
respect yours, and i hope you will respect mine.
Godspeed,
Felix
CobraJet
<bil...@optonline.net> wrote:
> Done on purpose to make fun out of the original posters theorem
There's nothing wrong with his list. How does a spelling error make
"fun" of the right to bear arms?
CobraJet
Subic Sailor
"Felix Da Kat" <n70...@caraudio.com> wrote in message
news:UesI5.25$f02.2...@news1.i1.net...
> > > m. 64,999,987 firearm owners killed no one yesterday.
> >
> > Criminals are firearm owners too!!
If they take em away from us, that
> just leaves the criminals with the guns, right?
Wrong. A large majority, if not most criminals obtain their weapons from an
unlawful source, such as breaking into YOUR house and stealing YOUR gun.
Without YOUR gun to steal that would be one less gun for the crooks.
Now whos in trouble? We are,
> because the only thing well have to battle against the uzis and glocks are
> spitwads and peashooters.
Like anything else, laws can't change action by merely being passed. The
truth is even a gun owner isn't in a postion to use his gun when it may be
needed and often times when they do try they end up jeopardizing other
people's lives.
> Nothin Personal towards you my fellow stanger, merely stating my opinion.
Ditto.
I
> respect yours, and i hope you will respect mine.
This I can do, although I can't say the same about a few others here.
>
> Godspeed,
>
> Felix
>
Subic
Bill S.
however, he obviously could not read in the first place, as he did not
place the contents in to a news group where it could be discussed on
topic. My playing with the spelling was to make light of the fact that
it had nothing to do with mustangs, just like the rest of this thread at
this time.....Next...............
Yours in Fords,
Bill S.
Larry Hepinstall
cold blue steel <guno...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.145ad3208...@news.qwest.net...
> To all
>
> Please study and remember, there will be a test later!!
>
> a. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
> b. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
> c. Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface.
> d. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
> e. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
> f. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
> g. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
> h. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
> i. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
> j. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.
> k. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand.
> l. The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the
> others.
> m. 64,999,987 firearm owners killed no one yesterday.
> n. Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians.
> o. Know guns, Know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.
> p. You don't shoot to kill; You shoot to stay alive.
> q. 911 - government sponsored Dial a Prayer.
> r. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
> s. Criminals love gun control - it makes their jobs safer.
> t. If Guns cause Crime, then Matches cause Arson.
> u. Only a government that is afraid of it's citizens try to
> control and disarm them.
Max Wedge
cold blue steel wrote:
> To all
>
> u. Only a government that is afraid of it's citizens try to
> control and disarm them.
And Algore is shaking like a wet dog. With all the "suicides"
surrounding Bill Clinton, Algore better keep a keen idea on who is
behind him.
Myk
"Et tu Brutus?"
CobraJet
<bil...@optonline.net> wrote:
> The fundamental right to bear arms is written in to the constitution,
> however, he obviously could not read in the first place, as he did not
> place the contents in to a news group where it could be discussed on
> topic. My playing with the spelling was to make light of the fact that
> it had nothing to do with mustangs, just like the rest of this thread at
> this time.....Next...............
You are ignoring a major fact about this group. There is a large
constituency that wants to keep it an open forum, without focusing on
just Mustangs. There was a majority vote to put some guidelines into
the FAQ, but as far as I know that dead-ended (correct me if I'm
wrong). Thus, you and the others who complain about off-topic posts are
in fact the minority, and are wasting your own time trying to squelch
the noise while so many continue to jump in the fray.
It's time for you to be a leader by example. For years I have
watched you waste bandwidth chastising trolls and spammers. Your time
and knowledge of Mustangs IS more valuable than that, isn't it? Ignore
them (realize that most people cannot see the spam posts you reply to
because they have better feeds than you) and implore the "veterans" of
this group to do the same. New posters tend to imitate what they see,
right?
Make no mistake. ANY group needs a leader, whether a newsgroup or a
country. A benevolent monarch gets more done than a fascist dictator.
You up to the challenge?
In the meantime, here's some CJ Troll short-circuit comebacks:
Troll: Mustwangs are JUNK! Camaros ROOL!
CJ: You're right. But we like to learn how to work on cars, so we
buy ones that break down. You can't learn on a perfect car like a
Camaro, can you? (Yes or no, Troll is screwed).
Troll: My friend says to buy a Sayonara GT, but I've heard the
Mustang may be better. Can you guys help?
CJ: It is unanimous in this Mustang newsgroup that you should buy
the Sayonara GT. Stickers adhere to the paint job better. Plus, one
less Mustang for you, one more Mustang for us.
Troll: My Honda makes more horsepower per cubic inch than your
Mustang.
CJ: Well, my cat can outrun me on foot, but I can still drop-kick it
over the fence when it's sleeping. So what's your point?
Troll: You guys flamed me for driving fast on the street and hurt my
feelings.
CJ: We're sorry. Please forgive us. Would you be so kind as to give
us something *else* to flame you for instead? Hugs and Kisses, RAMFM.
Troll: You have the right to bear arms.
CJ: In the summer, I have the right to bare legs, too. Hell, I even
take my shirt and shorts off sometimes. I got pics. Ya want 'em? Write
me at CJ...@hotmale.com.
See, Bill, it's easy. Or you can just reply with "Level One Troll:
Ignore". You know that one, don't you? Have a nice week.
CobraJet
>
>
> Yours in Fords,
>
> Bill S.
>
>
>
> CobraJet wrote:
> >
> > In article <39F22B4F...@optonline.net>, Bill S.
> > <bil...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Done on purpose to make fun out of the original posters theorem
Damn, I was SURE you were going to blame it on too much, or not
enough, coffee. I lose.
Nicodemus Telrenner
--
"...in the end,
it is not to die,
it is to die well..."
. "Did you ever notice when you're driving,
anyone going slower than you is an idiot and everyone going faster than you
is a maniac?"
"Society is safer (and a lot more polite) when the criminals don't know
who's armed."
ICQ 20086998
> u. Only a government that is afraid of it's citizens try to
> control and disarm them.
Nicodemus Telrenner
--
"...in the end,
it is not to die,
it is to die well..."
. "Did you ever notice when you're driving,
anyone going slower than you is an idiot and everyone going faster than you
is a maniac?"
"Society is safer (and a lot more polite) when the criminals don't know
who's armed."
ICQ 20086998
"Subic Sailor" <sub...@home.com_nospam> wrote in message
news:AwaI5.342644$i5.51...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
>
> "cold blue steel" <guno...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.145ad3208...@news.qwest.net...
> > To all
> >
> > Please study and remember, there will be a test later!!
> >
> > a. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
> > b. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
> > c. Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface.
> > d. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
> > e. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
> > f. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
> > g. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
> > h. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
> > i. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
> > j. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.
>
> Unless you're black, female, etc., etc.
>
>
> > k. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand.
> > l. The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the
> > others.
> > m. 64,999,987 firearm owners killed no one yesterday.
>
> Criminals are firearm owners too!!
> '
WRONG!! Criminals are ILLEGAL owners. He was implying LEGAL ownership.
Criminals are jsut that, CRIMINALS.
Nicodemus Telrenner
--
"...in the end,
it is not to die,
it is to die well..."
. "Did you ever notice when you're driving,
anyone going slower than you is an idiot and everyone going faster than you
is a maniac?"
"Society is safer (and a lot more polite) when the criminals don't know
who's armed."
ICQ 20086998
"Subic Sailor" <sub...@home.com_nospam> wrote in message
news:qwDI5.346576$i5.53...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
>
> "Felix Da Kat" <n70...@caraudio.com> wrote in message
> news:UesI5.25$f02.2...@news1.i1.net...
> > > > m. 64,999,987 firearm owners killed no one yesterday.
> > >
> > > Criminals are firearm owners too!!
> > exactly why we should have firearms.
>
>
> If they take em away from us, that
> > just leaves the criminals with the guns, right?
>
> Wrong. A large majority, if not most criminals obtain their weapons from
an
> unlawful source, such as breaking into YOUR house and stealing YOUR gun.
> Without YOUR gun to steal that would be one less gun for the crooks.
>
WRONG!! They get it often from black market sources. Msot responsible gun
owners never ahve thier gun sto0len
Nicodemus Telrenner
guns are the problem. :-)
--
"...in the end,
it is not to die,
it is to die well..."
. "Did you ever notice when you're driving,
anyone going slower than you is an idiot and everyone going faster than you
is a maniac?"
"Society is safer (and a lot more polite) when the criminals don't know
who's armed."
ICQ 20086998
"Subic Sailor" <sub...@home.com_nospam> wrote in message
news:qwDI5.346576$i5.53...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
>
> "Felix Da Kat" <n70...@caraudio.com> wrote in message
> news:UesI5.25$f02.2...@news1.i1.net...
> > > > m. 64,999,987 firearm owners killed no one yesterday.
> > >
> > > Criminals are firearm owners too!!
> > exactly why we should have firearms.
>
>
> If they take em away from us, that
> > just leaves the criminals with the guns, right?
>
> Wrong. A large majority, if not most criminals obtain their weapons from
an
> unlawful source, such as breaking into YOUR house and stealing YOUR gun.
> Without YOUR gun to steal that would be one less gun for the crooks.
>
CobraJet
Sailor <sub...@home.com_nospam> wrote:
> CJ, tell us how you really feel. ;)
I really feel that RAMFM will never dig itself out.
>
>
> Subic
>
>
>
> "CobraJet" <sn...@pit.com> wrote in message
> news:221020001829301566%sn...@pit.com...
Subic Sailor
"AZGuy" <jim...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:jg07vskkt6hdevfaf...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 15:15:34 GMT, "Subic Sailor"
> <sub...@home.com_nospam> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Felix Da Kat" <n70...@caraudio.com> wrote in message
> >news:UesI5.25$f02.2...@news1.i1.net...
> >> >
> >> > Criminals are firearm owners too!!
> >
> >
> >If they take em away from us, that
> >> just leaves the criminals with the guns, right?
> >
> >Wrong. A large majority, if not most criminals obtain their weapons from
an
> >unlawful source, such as breaking into YOUR house and stealing YOUR gun.
> >Without YOUR gun to steal that would be one less gun for the crooks.
> >
>
> to own a car!!! Are you ready to turn your Mustang in Comrade?
Comrade? Maybe we should call you camrade for trying to equate gun
ownership with cars. Cars aren't stolen for the most part with the intent
to commit a crime or kill with. Guns are. Cars can be bought by almost
anyone with no BG check, gun can't. I could go on but your comparison of
cars to guns is adolescent at best.
> > Now whos in trouble? We are,
> >> because the only thing well have to battle against the uzis and glocks
are
> >> spitwads and peashooters.
> >
> >Like anything else, laws can't change action by merely being passed. The
> >truth is even a gun owner isn't in a postion to use his gun when it may
be
> >needed and often times when they do try they end up jeopardizing other
> >people's lives.
> >
>
> Statistics prove otherwise. Far more cases of crime are prevented
> then are caused by non-criminal citizen's with guns.
Show me the stats you're refering to.
> >
> >> Nothin Personal towards you my fellow stanger, merely stating my
opinion.
> >
> >Ditto.
> >
> >
> >I
> >> respect yours, and i hope you will respect mine.
> >
> >This I can do, although I can't say the same about a few others here.
> >
> >>
> >> Godspeed,
> >>
> >> Felix
> >>
> >
> >Subic
> >
> >
>
>
> Jim
> '88 LX 5.0
> '99 GT 35th Anniversery Edition - Silver
> Mods to date - Relocated trunk release to drivers side, shortened throttle
cable.
Ralph Snart
AZGuy <jim...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:jg07vskkt6hdevfaf...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 15:15:34 GMT, "Subic Sailor"
> <sub...@home.com_nospam> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Felix Da Kat" <n70...@caraudio.com> wrote in message
> >news:UesI5.25$f02.2...@news1.i1.net...
> >> >
> >> > Criminals are firearm owners too!!
> >
> >
> >If they take em away from us, that
> >> just leaves the criminals with the guns, right?
> >
> >Wrong. A large majority, if not most criminals obtain their weapons from
an
> >unlawful source, such as breaking into YOUR house and stealing YOUR gun.
> >Without YOUR gun to steal that would be one less gun for the crooks.
> >
>
> Brilliant. So we could eliminate all car theft by making it illegal
> to own a car!!! Are you ready to turn your Mustang in Comrade?
>
Like most Liberals, Subic thinks that a goverment law will protect the
citizens. When that fails, instead of punishing the lawbreakers (such as
rapist, murderers. professional politicians, anybody involved with the
Clinton administration), infringing on ther rights of the citizens is the
only way to go. Like it or not, the same Constitution that allows Larry
Flynt to profit from the 1st Amendment also allows the law abiding public to
own firearms. I am fortunate enough to live in a state that allows
Concealed Carry Permits, of which protected my cripple wife (advanced
multiple sclerosis) and myself from some Yo! Yo! Boyz in da Hood who wanted
our jeep and God knows what else. Liberals like Fienstein, Gore, Clinton
and Subic (all of whom don't have to live with the possiblity of having to
defend themselves) will take my guns out of my cold, dead fingers.
EAA .380
Beretta FS 96 .40
S&W .357
Mossberg 12ga
Colt 1911 .45
'67 Mustang Convertible
'99 Grand Cherokee Limited
Subic Sailor
Subic Sailor
"Ralph Snart" <rsn...@logicsouth.com> wrote in message
news:uqMI5.30891$YX4.1...@news2.giganews.com...
>
> AZGuy <jim...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:jg07vskkt6hdevfaf...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 15:15:34 GMT, "Subic Sailor"
> > <sub...@home.com_nospam> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Felix Da Kat" <n70...@caraudio.com> wrote in message
> > >news:UesI5.25$f02.2...@news1.i1.net...
> > >> > > m. 64,999,987 firearm owners killed no one yesterday.
> > >> >
> > >> > Criminals are firearm owners too!!
> > >> exactly why we should have firearms.
> > >
> > >
> > >If they take em away from us, that
> > >> just leaves the criminals with the guns, right?
> > >
> > >Wrong. A large majority, if not most criminals obtain their weapons
from
> an
> > >unlawful source, such as breaking into YOUR house and stealing YOUR
gun.
> > >Without YOUR gun to steal that would be one less gun for the crooks.
> > >
> >
> > Brilliant. So we could eliminate all car theft by making it illegal
> > to own a car!!! Are you ready to turn your Mustang in Comrade?
> >
>
> Like most Liberals,
First off you're an ASSumptive idiot to ASSume that I'm a liberal based
soley on ONE view.
Subic thinks that a goverment law will protect the
> citizens.
Here you're attempting to put words in my mouth, a piss poor job at that. I
know better than that.
When that fails, instead of punishing the lawbreakers (such as
> rapist, murderers. professional politicians, anybody involved with the
> Clinton administration), infringing on ther rights of the citizens is the
> only way to go.
You're not biased against Clinton and his cronies are you?
Like it or not, the same Constitution that allows Larry
> Flynt to profit from the 1st Amendment also allows the law abiding public
to
> own firearms.
The first honest statement from you.
The very same constitution that has been changed over 20 times to correct
flaws.
I am fortunate enough to live in a state that allows
> Concealed Carry Permits,
As long as guns are legal I'm all for this as long as every citizen has the
same right.
of which protected my cripple wife (advanced
> multiple sclerosis) and myself from some Yo! Yo! Boyz in da Hood who
wanted
> our jeep and God knows what else.
Why not do this...just give up the wallet, watch, Jeep or whatever else the
crook wants? Is it worth your life or someone elses, the crook excepted, to
try to keep it? Those are all material and can be replaced whereas your
life can't.
If you don't value your life, then how can you expect anyone else to value
it?
Liberals like Fienstein, Gore, Clinton
> and Subic (all of whom don't have to live with the possiblity of having to
> defend themselves) will take my guns out of my cold, dead fingers.
Odds are that you'd be dead if I, or a common crook, came at you with a gun
before you'd have a chance to use yours. Those are the facts. Your
machismo would leave your crippled wife a widow. Is that what you really
want for you and your loved ones? Of course not, but your NG machismo won't
let you say that.
Again you've attempted to paste me a liberal based soley on my stand on one
subject. Tisk tisk.
Subic Sailor
"Nicodemus Telrenner" <spect...@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:39f39...@oracle.zianet.com...
Subic Sailor
> > > k. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand.
> > > l. The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the
> > > others.
> > > m. 64,999,987 firearm owners killed no one yesterday.
> >
> > Criminals are firearm owners too!!
> WRONG!! Criminals are ILLEGAL owners.
You just contradicted yourself. You tell me I'm wrong for saying criminals
are firearm owners too, then you call them illegal owners. An owner is an
owner. :)
He was implying LEGAL ownership.
> Criminals are jsut that, CRIMINALS.
Not all criminals steal their guns or obtain them through illegal methods.
Many buy them and use them in the commision of a crime of passion or other
impulsive act.
Subic Sailor
> "...in the end,
> it is not to die,
> it is to die well..."
>
> . "Did you ever notice when you're driving,
> anyone going slower than you is an idiot and everyone going faster than
you
> is a maniac?"
>
> "Society is safer (and a lot more polite) when the criminals don't know
> who's armed."
> ICQ 20086998
> "Subic Sailor" <sub...@home.com_nospam> wrote in message
> news:qwDI5.346576$i5.53...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
> >
> > > >
> > > > Criminals are firearm owners too!!
> >
> >
> > If they take em away from us, that
> > > just leaves the criminals with the guns, right?
> >
> > Wrong. A large majority, if not most criminals obtain their weapons
from
> an
> > unlawful source, such as breaking into YOUR house and stealing YOUR gun.
> > Without YOUR gun to steal that would be one less gun for the crooks.
> >
>
Again you are wrong. I never implied that most guns are stolen from private
owners, although they are one source.
They get it often from black market sources.
True. Some black market guns are also stolen from legitimate owners.
Msot responsible gun
> owners never ahve thier gun sto0len
I agree with the understanding that most is a simple majority.
Ironrod
political group was among the first to push for gun control?
Subic Sailor
> Remember the Newspaper columnist, Carl Rowan? He used to write about
> how bad guns were and how they should be registered. Then he was
> arrested for using his Unregistered gun to prevent being attacked in
> his home. Seems he was all for taking away guns from others but still
> wanted one for himself.
>
> Then there is Rosie O'assholeDonald who is against guns but who's
> security guards applied for CCW permits to better protect her.
Is she an asshole because her view differs from yours? That'd be quite
childish if it's the case.
Or is she an asshole because she's a hypocrite?
> Another hypocrite.
Debo Sakai
>
RAMFM was, at one time, out of this pit? I don't believe it, not for
one second.
---
Debo Sakai (de...@ramfm.org)
www.geocities.com/aleax.rm/
Boycotting Excessive Motorsports, Carparts.com,
and NAMotorsports.
Bill S.
what the future will bring.
Enjoy the day....
Yours In Fords,
Bill S.
CobraJet wrote:
>
> In article <5TNI5.348397$i5.53...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>, Subic
> Sailor <sub...@home.com_nospam> wrote:
>
> > CJ, tell us how you really feel. ;)
>
dwight
> In article <5TNI5.348397$i5.53...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>, Subic
> Sailor <sub...@home.com_nospam> wrote:
>
>
Jeez. I hope not.
dwight
Myk
<sub...@home.com_nospam> wrote:
>Comrade? Maybe we should call you camrade for trying to equate gun
>ownership with cars. Cars aren't stolen for the most part with the intent
>to commit a crime or kill with. Guns are. Cars can be bought by almost
>anyone with no BG check, gun can't. I could go on but your comparison of
>cars to guns is adolescent at best.
Actually you would be surprised how many cars are stolen with the
specific intent to commit a crime! Many burglaries, drive bys, and
business smash and grabs take place in stolen vehicles. If something
goes wrong they dump it with little worry of it being tracked back to
them.
Subic Sailor
time around.
"Myk" <miat...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:39f4c5e3...@news-server.tampabay.rr.com...
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 00:41:20 GMT, "Subic Sailor"
> <sub...@home.com_nospam> wrote:
>
> >Comrade? Maybe we should call you camrade for trying to equate gun
> >ownership with cars. Cars aren't stolen for the most part with the
intent
> >to commit a crime or kill with. Guns are. Cars can be bought by almost
> >anyone with no BG check, gun can't. I could go on but your comparison of
> >cars to guns is adolescent at best.
>
MAC 10 45 40
courses of action. 1) Buy up as many firearms as possible. 2) Learn how to
build Sten Guns 3) Violent revolution, take the power back from the ruling
elite. 4) Buy a Mustang.news:39f378cd...@news-server.tampabay.rr.com...
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 18:17:31 GMT, Max Wedge
> <windsorf...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >cold blue steel wrote:
> >
> >> To all
> >>
> >> control and disarm them.
> >
> >surrounding Bill Clinton, Algore better keep a keen idea on who is
> >behind him.
>
> "Et tu Brutus?"
>
>
>
Ironrod
might judge people by the crowd they hang with so can you judge the validity
of an issue by the sponsors who support it.
So again I pose the question, Who were the first proponents of gun control?
Stephan Rose
> truth is even a gun owner isn't in a postion to use his gun when it may be
> needed and often times when they do try they end up jeopardizing other
> people's lives.
Actually you are in a position to use your gun.
If somebody breaks into your house.
And you feel your life, or the life of anybody else in the house is
in danger...you may shoot.
--
Stephan
2000 Mustang 3.8L V6
5-Speed
Bosh Platinum +4
Pro 5.0 Shifter
Laser Red
Soon to come:
3.73 Gears
Independant Rear Suspension
Posi
Ironrod
the answer, or if they do they don't want to be painted with the same brush.
The answer to my question is; the Ku Klux Klan. Seems they thought it a bit
unsporting when some farmer took exception to a bunch of morons wearing bed
sheets burning crosses in his front yard.
As for those of you who think he should have called the sheriff, assuming he
had a phone, instead of popping off a few rounds, remember at the time this
incident occurred many members of Law enforcement were active members in the
Klan.
Some more food for thought: The police are not under any obligation to put
their butts on the line to save yours. While we would like to think of all
our men in blue as heroes under the skin. They too have wives and family
same as the rest of us. We all got better things to do than get killed and
if they think that might happen to them they might not get to the scene of
the crime as expeditiously we would prefer.
As for the reason there is a 2nd amendment at all, crime prevention isn't
it! If you read the first paragraph of "The Declaration of Independence",
the one that begins with " We hold these truths self evident..." you will
shortly come across a sentence stating the real purpose of government and
the GOD GIVEN right of the people governed to alter or abolish altogether
governments that failed to fulfill on that purpose.
The founding fathers had a very real deep seated fear of the Monster they
might be creating which is why their first attempt, "The Articles of
Confederation", failed. It was too weak and had no power to enforce its
will. (The same as the common man would be today if he could not bear arms!)
The Federal Government we have now had to be strong in order to enforce
peace at home and adequately represent the combined interest of ALL its
member states. But the founding fathers knew first hand that power tends to
corrupt so they intended that the final say in these things remain with the
people. They knew from bitter experience that Laws are little more than
just fancy words on paper without the means to enforce them. So they
insured as best they could that the PEOPLE will always have access to the
tools necessary to insure that the Federal Government will always bow to the
will of the governed.
Question: During the Second World War why didn't Germany invade
Switzerland?
Philip
>Switzerland?
Because Switzerland made themselves neutral and useful..and the mountains
posed a small problem..
Joe Cargal
<sub...@home.com_nospam> wrote:
>> Brilliant. So we could eliminate all car theft by making it illegal
>> to own a car!!! Are you ready to turn your Mustang in Comrade?
>
>Comrade? Maybe we should call you camrade for trying to equate gun
>ownership with cars. Cars aren't stolen for the most part with the intent
>to commit a crime or kill with. Guns are. Cars can be bought by almost
>anyone with no BG check, gun can't. I could go on but your comparison of
>cars to guns is adolescent at best.
Uh, Subic, when someone *steals* a car they have committed a crime.
I see that Subic does not live in a large city. Stolen cars were the
#1 way to commit crimes when I lived in Atlanta, and it most likely
remains that way (c.f. other large cities as well). A lawfully owned
weapon, properly used, will dispatch someone using a stolen weapon any
day of the week. Subic, I respect your implicit opinion that you do
not need to own a firearm, but many own at least one, for various
reasons.
<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
1987 Kawasaki Ninja 1000R - currently undergoing resurrection
joe dot cargal at home dot com
Subic Sailor
"Joe Cargal" <he...@there.net> wrote in message news:3a0d7244.8582521@news...
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 00:41:20 GMT, "Subic Sailor"
> <sub...@home.com_nospam> wrote:
>
> >> Brilliant. So we could eliminate all car theft by making it illegal
> >> to own a car!!! Are you ready to turn your Mustang in Comrade?
> >
> >Comrade? Maybe we should call you camrade for trying to equate gun
> >ownership with cars. Cars aren't stolen for the most part with the
intent
> >to commit a crime or kill with. Guns are. Cars can be bought by almost
> >anyone with no BG check, gun can't. I could go on but your comparison of
> >cars to guns is adolescent at best.
>
That's a given.
>
> I see that Subic does not live in a large city.
SF Bay Area and formerly Los Angeles.
Stolen cars were the
> #1 way to commit crimes when I lived in Atlanta, and it most likely
> remains that way (c.f. other large cities as well).
A lawfully owned
> weapon, properly used, will dispatch someone using a stolen weapon any
> day of the week.
True enough, but the odds are that your own weapon will be used against you,
at least in residential crimes like burglary, before you have a chance to
use it. A lawfully owned weapon still doesn't differenciate between good
and bad. The bullets are just as deadly to a little child, your family or
those of others as it is the crooks.
Subic, I respect your implicit opinion that you do
> not need to own a firearm, but many own at least one, for various
> reasons.
Many have their own weapons used against them at one time or another.
>
<---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Chaz
Subic Sailor wrote:
>
> "Joe Cargal" <he...@there.net> wrote in message news:3a0d7244.8582521@news...
> > On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 00:41:20 GMT, "Subic Sailor"
> > <sub...@home.com_nospam> wrote:
> >
> > >> Brilliant. So we could eliminate all car theft by making it illegal
> > >> to own a car!!! Are you ready to turn your Mustang in Comrade?
> > >
> > >Comrade? Maybe we should call you camrade for trying to equate gun
> > >ownership with cars. Cars aren't stolen for the most part with the
> intent
> > >to commit a crime or kill with. Guns are. Cars can be bought by almost
> > >anyone with no BG check, gun can't. I could go on but your comparison of
> > >cars to guns is adolescent at best.
Guns are stolen because they are easily converted to cash, and are
transportable. A 9mm pistol is worth more than many cars when sold.
> >
> > Uh, Subic, when someone *steals* a car they have committed a crime.
>
> That's a given.
>
> >
> > I see that Subic does not live in a large city.
>
> SF Bay Area and formerly Los Angeles.
>
> Stolen cars were the
> > #1 way to commit crimes when I lived in Atlanta, and it most likely
> > remains that way (c.f. other large cities as well).
>
> A lawfully owned
> > weapon, properly used, will dispatch someone using a stolen weapon any
> > day of the week.
>
> True enough, but the odds are that your own weapon will be used against you,
> at least in residential crimes like burglary, before you have a chance to
> use it. A lawfully owned weapon still doesn't differenciate between good
> and bad. The bullets are just as deadly to a little child, your family or
> those of others as it is the crooks.
On a list where we debate the difference between milliseconds on race
times, and HP differences for using K&N vs paper filters, a cite here
would be good. And NOT Kellerman, please. Also, please control for
variables such as gun owner prior arrests, and participation in criminal activities.
I believe you will quickly find that this (the odds statement) is an
urban myth.
>
> Subic, I respect your implicit opinion that you do
> > not need to own a firearm, but many own at least one, for various
> > reasons.
>
> Many have their own weapons used against them at one time or another.
Again, a cite here would be beneficial. Or a qualification of the word
"many." Some do have their weapons used against them. But various peer
reviewed and published studies (Lott, Mustard; Kleck) have shown that
individual uses of firearms prevent crime to the users.
-Chaz
Jeffrey J. Potoff
Erik Chaz wrote:
>
> Subic Sailor wrote:
> > Many have their own weapons used against them at one time or another.
>
> Again, a cite here would be beneficial. Or a qualification of the word
> "many." Some do have their weapons used against them. But various peer
> reviewed and published studies (Lott, Mustard; Kleck) have shown that
> individual uses of firearms prevent crime to the users.
For a firearm to be able to prevent crime, the owner would have to be
expecting a crime to occur. Do you pack heat everytime you go to work,
or the grocery store? How is your firearm going to protect you if you
don't carry it at all times?
Jeff
Erik Chaz
Excellent point. Slight rewording here: For a firearm to be used to
prevent crime it has to be accessible.
If CCW is permitted in your state, then you can legally carry at
(almost) all times. Regardless, individuals choose to carry when the
risk factor is high enough. We are capable of determining when a risk
factor is high enough to warrant carrying a weapon (and dealing with the
weight, bulk, etc.).
Having a firearm accessible in a home is much easier, and allows one to
be prepared for any home based attack. I don't know what the risk
factor is for homr versus out and about. Probably heavily predicated on
where you live, work and play. If you deliver pizzas to high crime
areas, you might want a firearm in your car. If you live in a ground
floor apartment in a dicey neighborhood, you may want to have a firearm
accessible in both your bedroom and your living room.
Deciding when to carry in various situations is left up to the user (and
the local laws). And you are right, the firearm won't protect me ever.
I will protect myself through the use of the applicable tool. My
firearm is not going to leap to my hand and suddenly fire. It has to be
in reach and with ammunition accessible for me to be able to use it.
Cheers,
chaz
Felix Da Kat
be ready at all times. you shouldnt be paranoid, but you should be prepared.
in todays society, about the only thing criminals are scared of now _is_
someone with a gun.
regards,
Felix Da Kat
92 2.3 lx
not much here...
just a few mods to get her tires spinning
<snip snip>
WindsorFox
>
> Erik Chaz wrote:
>
>> Subic Sailor wrote:
>
>
>>> Many have their own weapons used against them at one time or another.
>>
>> Again, a cite here would be beneficial. Or a qualification of the word
>> "many." Some do have their weapons used against them. But various peer
>> reviewed and published studies (Lott, Mustard; Kleck) have shown that
>> individual uses of firearms prevent crime to the users.
>
>
> For a firearm to be able to prevent crime, the owner would have to be
> expecting a crime to occur. Do you pack heat everytime you go to work,
> or the grocery store? How is your firearm going to protect you if you
> don't carry it at all times?
>
> Jeff
Yes.
--
"Shut her down Mr. Scott, she's suckin' mud..."
"The frozen North will hatch a flightless bird, who will spread his
wings and dominate the Earth.
He will cause an empire by the sea to fall, to the astonishment and
delight of all."
Ralph Snart
my wife and me once at the Columbia mall from some Yo! Yo! Boyz in da Hood
types who attempted a carjacking. I will say that there is now one less
felon on the face of this earth. My CWP, don't leave home without it!
Felix Da Kat <