the gun show loophole causes all the mayhem!

[calim...@gmx.de]

How terrible, about 1 to 3 percent of all guns are sold at gun shows. The minor part of them under circumstances which don't need background checks. So about 0.5 or 1 percent of gun buyers aren't checked!

And STILL they are responsible for most mass murder shootings in the USA!
The rest is killed by fully-automatc assault rifles with silencers!

All that only because the NRA pays to the GOP almost 1 percent of what Tom Steyer pays to the DemocRats!!!



Max

[MBDunc]

I do not care about politics ... and especially foreign politics...

But I really did not understand this post. Was something OK or not or was something extra OK or not. Who had responsibility for most mass murder shootings? What this NRA paying to GOP 1% really means or not?

.mikko

[calim...@gmx.de]

Well, ask Jimmy Kimmel or Hillary Clinton.


Max

[MBDunc]

So...even you did not understand what you wrote?

.mikko

[calim...@gmx.de]

I just repeated what Kimmel and Clinton said.
Gun show loopholes and silencers should have been banned and the Vegas shooting would not have happened. Why else would they have brought that up?


Max

[MBDunc]

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 2:05:10 AM UTC+3, calim...@gmx.de wrote:
> I just repeated what Kimmel and Clinton said.

That was never clear. And why repeat without additional substance anyway?

.mikko

[calim...@gmx.de]

Ask Kimmel and Clinton for substance.



















Just kidding!


Max

[bob]

i don't like guns.

but i warned you about kimmel not being honest.

silencers had nothing to do with when the murderer was caught,
silencers are there to prevent hearing loss for those firing often,
and won't prevent weapon fire from being heard by people (like police)
in the vicinity.

bob

[bob]

statitician who argued for gun control rethinks it after research.
i'm not saying 1 way or the other.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/21900/statistician-who-championed-stringent-gun-control-hank-berrien#exit-modal

bob

[TT]

You sound like you're onto something - you just don't know what!

[Whisper]

If I was king of USA I'd ban all guns & execute anybody caught with a
gun, no excuses accepted. I'd give 1 year moratorium for everyone to
get rid of the guns they have, & after that the rolling executions will
commence. There are > 300 million people in USA, so killing a few
million cunts (granted there will be some innocent collateral damage) is
not a big deal in the scheme of things. Anyone who doesn't like it can
leave the country or be prepared to die if caught with a gun in their
possession.





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

[The Iceberg]

This would be quite amusing and a good test of the 2nd amendment, you'd prob get entire country towns that refused to give their guns up and try to fight back and you'd have to send the Apache's in to sort them out!

[Whisper]

On 5/10/2017 11:14 PM, The Iceberg wrote:
> This would be quite amusing and a good test of the 2nd amendment, you'd prob get entire country towns that refused to give their guns up and try to fight back and you'd have to send the Apache's in to sort them out!
>

And really I'd have no problem carrying out the executions. They can't
say they weren't given fair warning as they had 1 year moratorium. I'd
take their resistance as a request to die/suicide. Win/win.

[Whisper]

On 5/10/2017 11:22 PM, Whisper wrote:
> On 5/10/2017 11:14 PM, The Iceberg wrote:
>> This would be quite amusing and a good test of the 2nd amendment,
>> you'd prob get entire country towns that refused to give their guns up
>> and try to fight back and you'd have to send the Apache's in to sort
>> them out!
>>
>
> And really I'd have no problem carrying out the executions.  They can't
> say they weren't given fair warning as they had 1 year moratorium.  I'd
> take their resistance as a request to die/suicide.  Win/win.
>
>

To make it almost foolproof I'd also execute anyone selling guns after
the 1 year moratorium, so no more gunshops, selling guns on ebay etc.

Imo there would be a relatively small number willing to die if they
couldn't have guns - maybe 1 million at most? In the great scheme of
things that's a tiny price to pay for creating a much safer USA no?

You comply - or you die. That's a catchy phrase no?

[reilloc]

On 10/5/2017 7:00 AM, Whisper wrote:
>
> If I was king of USA I'd ban all guns & execute anybody caught with a
> gun, no excuses accepted.  I'd give 1 year moratorium for everyone to
> get rid of the guns they have, & after that the rolling executions will
> commence.  There are > 300 million people in USA, so killing a few
> million cunts (granted there will be some innocent collateral damage) is
> not a big deal in the scheme of things.  Anyone who doesn't like it can
> leave the country or be prepared to die if caught with a gun in their
> possession.

In other words, you're the reason the Second Amendment exists and the
best example of why it ought to stay in place.

I know you don't understand any of this.

LNC

[*skriptis]

Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> Wrote in message:

It seems brutal but moratorium is fine.


--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[jdeluise]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 23:00:27 +1100, Whisper wrote:

> If I was king of USA I'd ban all guns & execute anybody caught with a
> gun, no excuses accepted.

But owning a gun does not imply having used it for any criminal offense.
Unlike, say, someone who maliciously kicks their dog for being annoying?
Perhaps said people should have their Achilles tendon sliced with a big
aussie knife and be left in a ditch 100 miles into the bush to fend for
themselves?

[calim...@gmx.de]

This degenerate Hillary knows that.


Max

[calim...@gmx.de]

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 2:00:36 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:
> On 5/10/2017 10:05 AM, calim...@gmx.de wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 12:40:49 AM UTC+2, MBDunc wrote:
> >> On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 1:24:51 AM UTC+3, calim...@gmx.de wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 12:08:12 AM UTC+2, MBDunc wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 12:53:38 AM UTC+3, calim...@gmx.de wrote:
> >>>>> How terrible, about 1 to 3 percent of all guns are sold at gun shows. The minor part of them under circumstances which don't need background checks. So about 0.5 or 1 percent of gun buyers aren't checked!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And STILL they are responsible for most mass murder shootings in the USA!
> >>>>> The rest is killed by fully-automatc assault rifles with silencers!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All that only because the NRA pays to the GOP almost 1 percent of what Tom Steyer pays to the DemocRats!!!
> >>>>
> >>>> I do not care about politics ... and especially foreign politics...
> >>>>
> >>>> But I really did not understand this post. Was something OK or not or was something extra OK or not. Who had responsibility for most mass murder shootings? What this NRA paying to GOP 1% really means or not?
> >>>>
> >>>> .mikko
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Well, ask Jimmy Kimmel or Hillary Clinton.
> >>
> >> So...even you did not understand what you wrote?
> >>
> >> .mikko
> >
> >
> > I just repeated what Kimmel and Clinton said.
> > Gun show loopholes and silencers should have been banned and the Vegas shooting would not have happened. Why else would they have brought that up?
> >
> >
> > Max
> >
>
> If I was king of USA I'd ban all guns & execute anybody caught with a

> gun, no excuses accepted. ...


The Nazi solution. Would work in Australia, too.

But not in the USA. You wouldn't live more than a few weeks as such a king there. Thankfully.


Max

[bob]

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 23:00:27 +1100, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

in a theoretical world, if there were no guns nobody could get shot.
but the USA is a different culture than AUS or Europe, really is.

in a realistic world, if gun ownership was illegal, all law abiding
citizens would turn them in cause the "law says so." but we have a
very very large # of criminals that wouldn't, and those are the ones
we least want to have the only guns.

if there were a way to rid everybody of the guns, i'd say fine by me.

bob

[Whisper]

I do understand it. It's kinda retarded to be in fear of the govt no?
Do you really think the 2nd amendment will save you if they want to kill
you? You really have zero chance of survival no matter what weapons you
have. I don't mean low chance, but actually zero. Get a clue.

[Whisper]

On 6/10/2017 4:53 AM, jdeluise wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 23:00:27 +1100, Whisper wrote:
>
>> If I was king of USA I'd ban all guns & execute anybody caught with a
>> gun, no excuses accepted.
>
> But owning a gun does not imply having used it for any criminal offense.

But *everyone* having access to a gun is simply wrong. Simply owning a
gun should be a criminal offense imo, as should selling/trading guns.

> Unlike, say, someone who maliciously kicks their dog for being annoying?
> Perhaps said people should have their Achilles tendon sliced with a big
> aussie knife and be left in a ditch 100 miles into the bush to fend for
> themselves?
>

What do you see as the downside of banning guns? There are some sure,
but they are overwhelmed by the benefits.

You need food/water to survive, you don't need a gun. If someone wanted
to kill you they could do it easy no matter what weapons you have.

[Whisper]

We banned guns & live in paradise.

Japan banned guns & they have 6 gun deaths per year v 33,000 in USA.

>
> But not in the USA. You wouldn't live more than a few weeks as such a king there. Thankfully.
>
>

Not in USA as it's fucked, but in Japan/Russia/North Korea it would be easy.

[undecided]

>
>
>
> >>>
> >>
> >> If I was king of USA I'd ban all guns & execute anybody caught with a
> >> gun, no excuses accepted. ...
> >
> >
> > The Nazi solution. Would work in Australia, too.
>
> We banned guns & live in paradise.
>
> Japan banned guns & they have 6 gun deaths per year v 33,000 in USA.
>
>
> >
> > But not in the USA. You wouldn't live more than a few weeks as such a king there. Thankfully.
> >
> >
>
>
> Not in USA as it's fucked, but in Japan/Russia/North Korea it would be easy.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com

Wait a minute, I am Australia has banned drugs too, right? Are drugs available? Why do you think guns are not available?

[jdeluise]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 16:52:12 -0700, undecided wrote:

>
> Wait a minute, I am Australia has banned drugs too, right? Are drugs
> available? Why do you think guns are not available?

In some parts of Austrlia you have to pay for a time-limited permit to
have a picnic in the park. The place seems like a nanny state if you ask
me.

[bob]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 19:17:19 +1100, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

i don't think anybody realistically believes that owning a gun would
give them a chance against a rogue gov't, but it's ingrained in the
culture that it's "a right" to own one. the gun issue really is one
prickly pear in the USA.

i read an article from an aussie retired cop that said crime,
specifically gun related homocide rates, have skyrocketed since the
gov't buyback. is this true? i'd like to see some stats.

bob