Chicago Mayor blames "guns".
wis...@yahoo.com
Methinks the Mayor is full of shit. Chicago suffers from
an overabundance of negroes.
ted
Vito
| Methinks the Mayor is full of shit. Chicago suffers from
| an overabundance of negroes.
|
criminals for over 100 years. Its government forbids guns to honest
citizens in order to protect its criminals - just like Washington DC, NYC
and other criminal sanctuaries. Such cities have an 'overabundance' of
negros only because an overabundence of negros are criminals and thus flock
to these sanctuaries.
The mayor simply knows where his bread is buttered.
BTW our president comes from the same political environment .....
Straightarrow
> http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/10/chicago-mayor-daley-blames-fort-h...
>
> Methinks the Mayor is full of shit. Chicago suffers from
> an overabundance of negroes.
>
> ted
We can see the results of banning guns in Washington D.C. The nigga's
are shooting each other at a record pace. All the gun ban accomplished
was to make the city a target rich environment.
S'mee
I forgot you are as fucked in the head as those little closet faggots
like teddy, marty and K boy.
S'mee
heh, they don't mention alll the white trash wasitng each
other...wouldn't look good in the news. Oh and fuck you dirt bag. A
dead racist makes good compost...even those white sheeted obese shit
bags or the meth smokers like you.
Straightarrow
> On Nov 11, 6:45 am, Straightarrow <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 11, 6:57 am, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > >http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/10/chicago-mayor-daley-blames-fort-h...
>
> > > Methinks the Mayor is full of shit. Chicago suffers from
> > > an overabundance of negroes.
>
> > > ted
>
> > We can see the results of banning guns in Washington D.C. The nigga's
> > are shooting each other at a record pace. All the gun ban accomplished
> > was to make the city a target rich environment.
>
> heh, they don't mention alll the white trash wasitng each
> other...wouldn't look good in the news.
the uneffectiveness of banning guns.
Oh and fuck you dirt bag. A
> dead racist makes good compost...even those white sheeted obese shit
> bags or the meth smokers like you.
Dead racist?? Is that a threat or a promise??
.p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com
><wis...@yahoo.com> wrote|
>| Methinks the Mayor is full of shit. Chicago suffers from
>| an overabundance of negroes.
>|
>Naw, you have cause and effect reversed. Chicago has been a haven for
>criminals for over 100 years.
These days, it exports it's overflow to Washington DC.
> Its government forbids guns to honest
>citizens in order to protect its criminals - just like Washington DC, NYC
>and other criminal sanctuaries. Such cities have an 'overabundance' of
>negros only because an overabundence of negros are criminals and thus flock
>to these sanctuaries.
>
>The mayor simply knows where his bread is buttered.
>BTW our president comes from the same political environment .....
>
--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
www.theanimalrescuesite.com/
Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo online at www.pmilligan.net/palm/
Free 'People finder' program now at www.pmilligan.net/finder.htm
martin
You still eating those Black skanks?
Martin
Lookout
Welcome to my filter ted.
Benj
Hell, you can see the results in Chicago! It's simple. You can do it
yourself right on the Internet. Go look up a map of the hundreds of
murders in Chicago. And then compare it to maps of the ethnic
distribution of neighborhoods there. Amazingly the two maps exactly
coincide. Which means that the solution to "preventing" Chicago
murders is disarming the people who live in the neighborhoods where
murders are NOT happening.
Vito
[ I forgot you are as fucked in the head as those little closet faggots
[ like teddy, marty and K boy.
Naw, but you did forget to say "Sir!".
Day
a kind of urban concentration camp system for all the unfit. All that is
needed now is legalized recreational drugs so that the women will be too
unfit to breed. Lace crystal meth and crack with birth control. End of
problem.
edi...@netpath.net
than others, and why does Chicago top that list?
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/08/04/where-is-your-townhall/ is
the all-states, continually-updated calendar of "town halls."
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
Patriot Games
<steven...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 11, 6:45�am, Straightarrow <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 11, 6:57�am, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/10/chicago-mayor-daley-blames-fort-h...
>> > Methinks the Mayor is full of shit. Chicago suffers from
>> > an overabundance of negroes.
>> are shooting each other at a record pace. All the gun ban accomplished
>> was to make the city a target rich environment.
>heh, they don't mention alll the white trash wasitng each
>other...wouldn't look good in the news.
You're obviously a nigger.
Why don't you calm down, go have a banana, and try to explain this:
Murder Victims by Race, 2007
White 6,948 49%
Black 7,316 51%
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_01.html
Murder Offenders by Race, 2007
White 5,278 45%
Black 6,463 55%
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_03.html
White: 77.1%
Black: 12.9%
http://censtats.census.gov/data/US/01000.pdf
Can YOU explain how come it is that ONLY 13% of the population is
Negros yet MORE THAN HALF OF ALL MURDERS ARE BY NIGGERS!?!?!?!
Straightarrow
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:36:06 -0800 (PST), "S'mee"
>
> >On Nov 11, 6:45 am, Straightarrow <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 11, 6:57 am, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/10/chicago-mayor-daley-blames-fort-h...
> >> > Methinks the Mayor is full of shit. Chicago suffers from
> >> > an overabundance of negroes.
> >> We can see the results of banning guns in Washington D.C. The nigga's
> >> are shooting each other at a record pace. All the gun ban accomplished
> >> was to make the city a target rich environment.
> >heh, they don't mention alll the white trash wasitng each
> >other...wouldn't look good in the news.
>
> You're obviously a nigger.
>
> Why don't you calm down, go have a banana, and try to explain this:
>
> Murder Victims by Race, 2007
> White 6,948 49%
>
> Murder Offenders by Race, 2007
> White 5,278 45%
>
> White: 77.1%
> Black: 12.9%http://censtats.census.gov/data/US/01000.pdf
>
> Can YOU explain how come it is that ONLY 13% of the population is
> Negros yet MORE THAN HALF OF ALL MURDERS ARE BY NIGGERS!?!?!?!
It's all Bush's fault. There.
Lookout
>On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:32:38 -0600, Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>Might as well put me on that filter too!
>I agree with Ted. There's lots of crazy blacks in Chicago with guns.
No one is denying that.
>Maybe they will shoot you next.
I don't live in Chicago.
The problem is a lack of gun and gun owner control.
climber
> http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/10/chicago-mayor-daley-blames-fort-h...
>
> an overabundance of negroes.
>
> ted
South Africa, when it was White ruled, developed an aerosol
deliverable compound
of cholera and tularemia. Infections in tandem are lethal to all.
climber
Vito
| The problem is a lack of gun and gun owner control.
If that were true there would be less crime where there is stricter control.
Statistics show just the opposite.
But phobia trumps fact.
Vito
| Would you rather they dispersed to your towns?
No problem. The threat from armed victims modifies behavior.
Straightarrow
Surrrrre they did.(wink-nudge-wink) Who did they use it on the african
heathens that raped their wives and daughters,slaughtered their cattle
and pillaged their farms?? Now the world wants us to feel sorry for
the poor starving negoes because they're starving to death. I say fuck
the sons of bitches. Let em' starve.
Straightarrow
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:11:34 -0600, Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:42:02 -0500, her...@comic.stp wrote:
>
>
> >>>>Methinks the Mayor is full of shit. Chicago suffers from
> >>>>an overabundance of negroes.
>
> >>>>ted
>
> >>>Welcome to my filter ted.
>
> >>Might as well put me on that filter too!
> >>I agree with Ted. There's lots of crazy blacks in Chicago with guns.
>
> >No one is denying that.
>
> >>Maybe they will shoot you next.
>
> >I don't live in Chicago.
>
> >The problem is a lack of gun and gun owner control.
>
> Here a good description of the guns. Link follows.
>
> A zip is in fact a homemade firearm. As a cop of 28 years, I can tell
> you that it is in fact NOT illegal (at least here in Florida). What is
> illegal is to do so in PR states (Peoples Republic of .......). There
> is no federal statute prohibiting the manufacture of a firearm for
> your own use (short of making a sawed off shotgun or a machine gun).
> BUT, that being said. you had best know what you are building here.
> The pressures involved in an internal explosion ( cartridge being
> ignited) are astounding. Your hands, eyes, and life are at risk. I
> made one once with my neighbors when I was 12. Fired a .22 short in
> it. Used an car antennae for a barrel. Was hearing birds tweaking in
> my ears for a week afterwards. I was lucky and quit while I was ahead
> of the game. the barrel split and acted like a grenade. Ask your dad
> to buy you a .22 and have him take you out to the woods to practice
> (or a nearby range). Use caution: it is highly addictive.
>
> Zip guns are junk, but, useful in making sure that gangbangers don't
> reach a ripe-old age.
>
> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061116163500AAzg9uX
>
> If the bad guys don't have guns they will find other ways to kill. An
> ice pick will do nicely.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
A little black gunpowder(easily home made) stuffed in a section of
iron pipe with a handfull of nails or marbles will do a nice job in a
crowded building. If you don't beleive me just axk Bill Ayers.
S'mee
> "S'mee" <stevenkei...@hotmail.com> wrote
> [ I forgot you are as fucked in the head as those little closet faggots
> [ like teddy, marty and K boy.
>
> Naw, but you did forget to say "Sir!".
Nope, you work a nice corner with lots of customers for your
"services". Now that the fleet is in shouldn't you be out 'working'?
S'mee
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:32:38 -0600, Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >>Methinks the Mayor is full of shit. Chicago suffers from
> >>an overabundance of negroes.
>
> >>ted
>
> >Welcome to my filter ted.
>
> I agree with Ted. There's lots of crazy blacks in Chicago with guns.
Even MORE crazy white trash...ought to kill them off to then I
suppose. We'll put YOU against the wall first. You idiots are all the
same, no real desire to SOLVE a problem. Eliminate welfare of all
kinds and the problems you don't like solve themselves...I've more
white criminals to deal with than anything else, meth smoking, crack
dealing heroin addicts the lot of YOU.
S'mee
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:42:02 -0500, her...@comic.stp wrote:
>
> >>>Methinks the Mayor is full of shit. Chicago suffers from
> >>>an overabundance of negroes.
>
> >>>ted
>
> >>Welcome to my filter ted.
>
> >Might as well put me on that filter too!
> >I agree with Ted. There's lots of crazy blacks in Chicago with guns.
>
> No one is denying that.
>
> >Maybe they will shoot you next.
>
> I don't live in Chicago.
>
You are so full of SHIT it's pathetic. You sound like the socialists
running america these days. Only gun control NEEDED is for full auto
weapons. Other than that, carry it concealed, open carry all should be
legal across the board. BUT first you have to recind the socialist
laws like welfare.
But you haven't spine enough to favour an intellignet solution, after
all you are nothing but a stinking socialist...just like the marxist/
leninists and the national socialist democrats.
SO just leave the country and move back to europe where your kind
belongs, in a socialist police state.
S'mee
Cite and PROVE it bitch. Next you'll claim the us NEVER deployed
biological weapons against americans...go ahead say they didn't. BUT
I'll strike before you can type....you'd be a lying sack of communist
shit. which judging by your posts you are you damned 5th columnist
commie baby raping bastard.
Lookout
There are. Look at military installations.
It won't work at the state level as you can just go to the next state
and buy what you want. We need NATIONAL laws that are enforced.
Lookout
>On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:11:34 -0600, Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:42:02 -0500, her...@comic.stp wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:32:38 -0600, Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:57:55 -0700, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/10/chicago-mayor-daley-blames-fort-hood-on-americas-love-of-guns/
>>>>>
>>>>>Methinks the Mayor is full of shit. Chicago suffers from
>>>>>an overabundance of negroes.
>>>>>
>>>>>ted
>>>>
>>>>Welcome to my filter ted.
>>>
>>>Might as well put me on that filter too!
>>>I agree with Ted. There's lots of crazy blacks in Chicago with guns.
>>
>>No one is denying that.
>>
>>>Maybe they will shoot you next.
>>
>>I don't live in Chicago.
>>
>>The problem is a lack of gun and gun owner control.
>
>The trouble is gang bangers with guns! Take my gun then only the crook
>will have a gun! You ever heard of a zip gun?
>A zip gun will kill as quick as a store bought gun.
So whites don't murder?
Try again.
Lookout
<steven...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 11, 3:11�pm, Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:42:02 -0500, her...@comic.stp wrote:
>> >On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:32:38 -0600, Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com>
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >>On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:57:55 -0700, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >>>http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/10/chicago-mayor-daley-blames-fort-h...
>>
>> >>>Methinks the Mayor is full of shit. Chicago suffers from
>> >>>an overabundance of negroes.
>>
>> >>>ted
>>
>> >>Welcome to my filter ted.
>>
>> >Might as well put me on that filter too!
>> >I agree with Ted. There's lots of crazy blacks in Chicago with guns.
>>
>> No one is denying that.
>>
>> >Maybe they will shoot you next.
>>
>> I don't live in Chicago.
>>
>> The problem is a lack of gun and gun owner control.- Hide quoted text -
>
>You are so full of SHIT it's pathetic. You sound like the socialists
>running america these days. Only gun control NEEDED is for full auto
>weapons. Other than that, carry it concealed, open carry all should be
>legal across the board. BUT first you have to recind the socialist
>laws like welfare.
Until the other day strict gun and gun owner control has worked just
fine on military installations. The proof is there. You can't ignore
it.
>But you haven't spine enough to favour an intellignet solution, after
>all you are nothing but a stinking socialist...just like the marxist/
>leninists and the national socialist democrats.
Nope. You're lying again.
>SO just leave the country and move back to europe where your kind
>belongs, in a socialist police state.
Nah...YOU may run when confronted with an idiot but I don't.
Stephan Rothstein
Yeah, look at the recent incident at Ft. Hood and tell me again how well
that works. And there have been a lot of other crimes on base also. Note
their police forces are about as proportional in size as similarly sized
cities. On a more serious note though, your logic about not working at
the state level would fail because it is even easier to just go off base
and get any guns you want.
The example of a military base having a lower crime rate actually proves
that gun control is not related to crime nearly as much as other
factors. Lots of gun guys on base and they own their own weapons also.
That is in addition to the closely controlled military weapons.
So, what is the primary factor that would explain the lower crime rate
(and I agree it is lower in general)? I would look at the fact that the
base has a select population as the primary example. It is not the
general public, but a group of people that have been mostly screened and
many of whom have had discipline instilled through military training.
The use of the UCMJ instead of the civil laws might also be a factor.
The fact that the military can, and does, control the civilian
dependents by taking action against the military sponsor also may be a
significant factor.
I would say that this might be an area that is deserving of further
study, but the conclusion is probably going to indicate that the
presence or lack of guns is not nearly as big a factor as the select
population and the justice system overall. It makes the comparison
useless for the debate or could work against the gun control side. We
definitely need some reforms in our civilian criminal justice system,
though I would not suggest implementing a military type system for the
whole country.
Steve Rothstein
Long Ranger
--
Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go
mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one
--Charles Mackay
"Lookout" <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b78nf5tnuc9g5g89o...@4ax.com...
It won't work at the state level because every man, woman and child will not
subject themselves to the strict chain of command that governs the military.
We will not subjugate ourselves to a neighborhood drill sergeant, or an
entry gate into our communities where we have to salute our way in etc.
THAT is the difference between military controls and civilian life.
Manipulation of your behavior and whereabouts is much easier in the military
under controlled circumstances. Liberals in general don't seem to realize
that those sorts of conditions are exactly what they are asking for when
they seek to control everyone's lives through laws for the "benefit" of
everyone.
Benj
> Until the other day strict gun and gun owner control has worked just
> fine on military installations. The proof is there. You can't ignore
> it.
The proof is in the massacre! Obviously, gun control claimed a bunch
more victims. As Lenin noticed, an armed man can shoot 100 unarmed
men. Worked on the Virginia Tech campus (a gun-free zone) and worked
on a military base too. They had to wait for local police to come and
disable the killer. Gosh that was REALLY "preventing" shootings wasn't
it?
The only proof that I see is that you were born without a brain. Don't
worry though, I hear there are lots of liberal media who will hire you
as a propagan...er...journalist.
Benj
> There are. Look at military installations.
> It won't work at the state level as you can just go to the next state
> and buy what you want. We need NATIONAL laws that are enforced.
Nope won't work there either, "lookout". People will just have the
flood of "immigrants" from mexico import a flod of guns along with
themselves. Nope, you are right. The only thing that will prevent gun
crime would be a world-wide fascist police state. THEN, nobody will
have anyplace to go! You are a genius!
Vito
| If the bad guys don't have guns they will find other ways to kill. An
| ice pick will do nicely.
As any prison guard will attest ... <g>
Vito
There you go again. If most people here read something they don't like they
attack it using facts and logic. Unable to do that, you resort to personal
attacks. It just makes you look childish. Grow up.
Straightarrow
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:33:31 -0800 (PST), Straightarrow
>
> - Show quoted text -
The blacks were too lazy and stupid to have the first clue how to run
a farm and produce their own food. The world raised hell because
whites were controlling South Africa. The whites had been their for
over 500 years. Now that apartheid was abolished and the country is
run by blacks it's Zimbabwe #2. Fuckem'. They can all starve to death.
Straightarrow
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:30:18 -0500, her...@comic.stp wrote:
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:42:02 -0500, her...@comic.stp wrote:
>
>
> >>>>>Methinks the Mayor is full of shit. Chicago suffers from
> >>>>>an overabundance of negroes.
>
> >>>>>ted
>
> >>>>Welcome to my filter ted.
>
> >>>Might as well put me on that filter too!
> >>>I agree with Ted. There's lots of crazy blacks in Chicago with guns.
>
> >>No one is denying that.
>
> >>>Maybe they will shoot you next.
>
> >>I don't live in Chicago.
>
> >>The problem is a lack of gun and gun owner control.
>
> >The trouble is gang bangers with guns! Take my gun then only the crook
> >will have a gun! You ever heard of a zip gun?
> >A zip gun will kill as quick as a store bought gun.
>
> So whites don't murder?
>
> - Show quoted text -
Who said that you fucking idiot?? Can't you comprehend statistics??
Fucking braindead Obobot !!
Lookout
wrote:
>On Nov 12, 12:49�am, Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Until the other day strict gun and gun owner control has worked just
>> fine on military installations. The proof is there. You can't ignore
>> it.
>
>The proof is in the massacre!
ONE massacre...as opposed to how many in the US year?
>Obviously, gun control claimed a bunch more victims.
Wrong. A lack of gun control allows "a bunch" more victims every year
in the US
As Lenin noticed, an armed man can shoot 100 unarmed
>men.
Asinine example.
Worked on the Virginia Tech campus (a gun-free zone) and worked
>on a military base too. They had to wait for local police to come and
>disable the killer. Gosh that was REALLY "preventing" shootings wasn't
>it?
And how many killings take place on college campuses and military
installations as compared to on the streets every day. You lose that
argument every time.
>
>The only proof that I see is that you were born without a brain.
And when you don't have a logical argument you insult. Just like you
learned in 4th grade..and you've never grownup
Lookout
<sroth...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Lookout wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:09:31 -0500, "Vito" <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Lookout" <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> | The problem is a lack of gun and gun owner control.
>>>
>>> If that were true there would be less crime where there is stricter control.
>>> Statistics show just the opposite.
>>> But phobia trumps fact.
>>>
>> There are. Look at military installations.
>> It won't work at the state level as you can just go to the next state
>> and buy what you want. We need NATIONAL laws that are enforced.
>
>Yeah, look at the recent incident at Ft. Hood and tell me again how well
>that works.
ONE incident. Shall we look at murders in the US?
>And there have been a lot of other crimes on base also. Note
>their police forces are about as proportional in size as similarly sized
>cities.
Cite?
> On a more serious note though, your logic about not working at
>the state level would fail because it is even easier to just go off base
>and get any guns you want.
>
>The example of a military base having a lower crime rate actually proves
>that gun control is not related to crime nearly as much as other
>factors. Lots of gun guys on base and they own their own weapons also.
>That is in addition to the closely controlled military weapons.
And their is almost no crime on bases. I was in for 9 years and that's
a fact. Almost no crime what so ever.
>So, what is the primary factor that would explain the lower crime rate
>(and I agree it is lower in general)? I would look at the fact that the
>base has a select population as the primary example. It is not the
>general public, but a group of people that have been mostly screened and
>many of whom have had discipline instilled through military training.
>The use of the UCMJ instead of the civil laws might also be a factor.
>The fact that the military can, and does, control the civilian
>dependents by taking action against the military sponsor also may be a
>significant factor.
>
>I would say that this might be an area that is deserving of further
>study, but the conclusion is probably going to indicate that the
>presence or lack of guns is not nearly as big a factor as the select
>population and the justice system overall. It makes the comparison
>useless for the debate or could work against the gun control side. We
>definitely need some reforms in our civilian criminal justice system,
>though I would not suggest implementing a military type system for the
>whole country.
>
>Steve Rothstein
It's not a lack of guns..you're missing the point. There are a lot of
US military personnel who won their own weapons. The fact is that they
are locked up in a secure place AWAY FROM THE OWNER when not in use.
This stops crimes of passion such as a fight with a spouse. It's OWN
CONTOL as much as gun control IMHO.
ALL hand guns should be licensed
ALL hand guns owner should be registered AFTER proper training and
screening
Simple and no one is being deprived of a gun.
Lookout
wrote:
>On Nov 12, 12:46�am, Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> There are. Look at military installations.
>> It won't work at the state level as you can just go to the next state
>> and buy what you want. We need NATIONAL laws that are enforced.
>
>Nope won't work there either, "lookout". People will just have the
>flood of "immigrants" from mexico import a flod of guns along with
>themselves.
And I think the borders should be closed.
Oopps..there goes my "liberal" title again
Lookout
Another google-groups nym shifting troll.
You're a fucking idiot and that's why you have to keep changing names.
Lookout
<hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Oh..and welcome to my filter
Lookout
>On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:32:10 -0600, Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:47:17 -0800 (PST), Benj <bja...@iwaynet.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Nov 12, 12:49�am, Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Until the other day strict gun and gun owner control has worked just
>>>> fine on military installations. The proof is there. You can't ignore
>>>> it.
>>>
>>>The proof is in the massacre!
>>
>>ONE massacre...as opposed to how many in the US year?
>>
>>>Obviously, gun control claimed a bunch more victims.
>>
>>Wrong. A lack of gun control allows "a bunch" more victims every year
>>in the US
>>
>>
>
>Gun laws take the gun from the law bidding citizen.
Bullshit. You're lying.
>The gang banger will never turn that gun in. You should know that.
I never said they would. EVERY crime committed with a gun should get
you 5 years. No if, ands or buts. Second time gives you life.
End of problem.
Lookout
>On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:32:10 -0600, Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:47:17 -0800 (PST), Benj <bja...@iwaynet.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Nov 12, 12:49�am, Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Until the other day strict gun and gun owner control has worked just
>>>> fine on military installations. The proof is there. You can't ignore
>>>> it.
>>>
>>>The proof is in the massacre!
>>
>>ONE massacre...as opposed to how many in the US year?
>>
>>>Obviously, gun control claimed a bunch more victims.
>>
>>Wrong. A lack of gun control allows "a bunch" more victims every year
>>in the US
>>
>>
>
>So! If there's no guns people will not be killing each other?
Who said no guns?
>Man they will find a way! When I was a little kid it was the ice pick that was
>used.
Where did you live where there were attacks with ice picks?
> I can make a zip-gun using black powder. Even if I have to make
>the B/P myself. I can kill a person using a rolled up newspaper. Want
>to out law newspapers?I can make a shank out of almost anything!
>A gun is only as dangerous as the nut pulling the trigger! Cars kill
>more people a year then guns. I don't drive so lets out law cars!
Stupid examples.
RD (The Sandman)
news:20dlf5t3h14kv8ct2...@4ax.com:
> http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/10/chicago-mayor-daley-blames-fort-hoo
> d-on-americas-love-of-guns/
>
> Methinks the Mayor is full of shit. Chicago suffers from
> an overabundance of negroes.
Actually, it suffers from "urbanitis".....a cultural, demographic, socio-
economic soup.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
RD (The Sandman)
news:s51mf5dia7si8856r...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:36:06 -0800 (PST), "S'mee"
> <steven...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Nov 11, 6:45�am, Straightarrow <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 11, 6:57�am, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> >http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/10/chicago-mayor-daley-blames-fort-
>>> >h...
>>> > Methinks the Mayor is full of shit. Chicago suffers from
>>> > an overabundance of negroes.
>>> We can see the results of banning guns in Washington D.C. The
>>> nigga's are shooting each other at a record pace. All the gun ban
>>> accomplished was to make the city a target rich environment.
>>heh, they don't mention alll the white trash wasitng each
>>other...wouldn't look good in the news.
>
> You're obviously a nigger.
>
> Why don't you calm down, go have a banana, and try to explain this:
>
> Murder Victims by Race, 2007
> White 6,948 49%
> Black 7,316 51%
> http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrt
> able_01.html
>
> Murder Offenders by Race, 2007
> White 5,278 45%
> Black 6,463 55%
> http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrt
> able_03.html
>
> White: 77.1%
> Black: 12.9%
> http://censtats.census.gov/data/US/01000.pdf
>
> Can YOU explain how come it is that ONLY 13% of the population is
> Negros yet MORE THAN HALF OF ALL MURDERS ARE BY NIGGERS!?!?!?!
>
>
All that shows is that those who are quick to produce statistics rarely
understand them.
Berry Oakley
Advertising what a coward you are... again?
You DO know that you could just IGNORE somebody, instead of your way, by
advertising the fact that you have no spine, and to use supposed
SOFTWARE to "filter? somebody?
Damn! And I thought the rocks in my garden were dumb!
Vito
| So! If there's no guns people will not be killing each other? Man they
| will find a way! When I was a little kid it was the ice pick that was
| the B/P myself. I can kill a person using a rolled up newspaper. Want
| to out law newspapers?I can make a shank out of almost anything!
| A gun is only as dangerous as the nut pulling the trigger! Cars kill
| more people a year then guns. I don't drive so lets out law cars!
|
Drop it man, you'r right but you are arguing against irrational phobia.
Someone said that the real test of madness is doing the same thing over and
over ever expecting a different result. Many US jurisdictions have tried
keeping guns off the streets. In every case, criminals kept using guns
whilst honest citizens were disarmed and, in every case, the crime rate
rose. For the last several decades there has been a return to normalcy with
"shall issue" permits available to all citizens that meet basic
qualifications. Predictably, crime has dropped dramatically. Crime remains
high only in jurisdictions that have retained anti-gun laws. Given these
facts only a psycho would argue for more restrictive laws ... and you are
wasting your breath arguing with psychos. Their "voices" tell them .....
Vito
| ..... EVERY crime committed with a gun should get
| you 5 years. No if, ands or buts. ...
Actually there is exactly such a federal law on the books, lobbied in by
none other than NRA. It worked extremely well when it was enforced in
Richmond, Va. The problem is that local prosecutors use it to plea bargain
convictions on lesser crimes. In an ideal world, an armed robber would get
X years for robbery then another five for using a gun - once he is
convicted. In our world prosecutors would rather play golf than work to get
convictions. So the same armed robber gets offeres a sweetheart sentence
for the robbery and the federal charge is dropped to get him to plead. Why?
Think about it. How many police, prosecutors and judges would we need if
there was no crime. It is their nightmare!
RM v2.0
> US military personnel who won their own weapons. The fact is that they
> are locked up in a secure place AWAY FROM THE OWNER when not in use.
> This stops crimes of passion such as a fight with a spouse. It's OWN
> CONTOL as much as gun control IMHO.
> ALL hand guns should be licensed
> ALL hand guns owner should be registered AFTER proper training and
> screening
>
> Simple and no one is being deprived of a gun.
Ok, how are you going to get the criminals to do that? Nasan was trained and
screened.
RM v2.0
>
>>Maybe they will shoot you next.
>
> I don't live in Chicago.
>
What a dumbass statement. THEY ARE BANNED! How much more control can you
get?
RM v2.0
Not closed but locked down tighter.
RD (The Sandman)
news:4afc51b4$0$5096$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
> "Lookout" <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote
>| ..... EVERY crime committed with a gun should get
>| you 5 years. No if, ands or buts. ...
>
> Actually there is exactly such a federal law on the books, lobbied in
> by none other than NRA. It worked extremely well when it was enforced
> in Richmond, Va.
Project Exile.
The problem is that local prosecutors use it to plea
> bargain convictions on lesser crimes. In an ideal world, an armed
> robber would get X years for robbery then another five for using a gun
> - once he is convicted. In our world prosecutors would rather play
> golf than work to get convictions. So the same armed robber gets
> offeres a sweetheart sentence for the robbery and the federal charge
> is dropped to get him to plead. Why? Think about it. How many
> police, prosecutors and judges would we need if there was no crime.
> It is their nightmare!
>
>
>
--
Patriot Games
<hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 11, 12:42�pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:36:06 -0800 (PST), "S'mee"
>> <stevenkei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 11, 6:45�am, Straightarrow <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Nov 11, 6:57�am, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> >http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/10/chicago-mayor-daley-blames-fort-h...
>> >> > Methinks the Mayor is full of shit. Chicago suffers from
>> >> > an overabundance of negroes.
>> >> We can see the results of banning guns in Washington D.C. The nigga's
>> >> are shooting each other at a record pace. All the gun ban accomplished
>> >> was to make the city a target rich environment.
>> >heh, they don't mention alll the white trash wasitng each
>> >other...wouldn't look good in the news.
>> You're obviously a nigger.
>> Why don't you calm down, go have a banana, and try to explain this:
>> Murder Victims by Race, 2007
>> White 6,948 49%
>> Murder Offenders by Race, 2007
>> White 5,278 45%
>> White: 77.1%
>> Black: 12.9%http://censtats.census.gov/data/US/01000.pdf
>> Can YOU explain how come it is that ONLY 13% of the population is
>> Negros yet MORE THAN HALF OF ALL MURDERS ARE BY NIGGERS!?!?!?!
Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!
Patriot Games
Is THAT your explanation?
Don't you at least want to ADMIT COMPLICITY since you are a
mostly-liberal, mostly DemocRAT-voting person?
Don't you want to at least APOLOGIZE for contributing to the complete
niggerization of Urban America?
And let's be completely honest. It was YOUR complicit DemocRAT voting
that ALLOWED DemocRATs to get away with the total niggerization of
Urban America which THEN allowed DemocRATs to use NIGGER CRIME
statistics to represent ALL of America and paved the way for the
Assualt Weapon Ban.
So, when YOU say "All that shows is that those who are quick to
produce statistics rarely understand them" WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION you
are really HOPING THOSE FACTS WILL BE IGNORED.
Obviously you CAN'T explain those FACTS or you WOULD have explained
those FACTS.
Jim Alder
> Benj <bja...@iwaynet.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 12, 12:49�am, Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Until the other day strict gun and gun owner control has worked just
>>> fine on military installations. The proof is there. You can't ignore
>>> it.
>>
>>The proof is in the massacre!
>
> ONE massacre...as opposed to how many in the US year?
Were there any this year?
>>Obviously, gun control claimed a bunch more victims.
>
> Wrong. A lack of gun control allows "a bunch" more victims every year
> in the US
Nope. Too much gun control killed them, too.
> As Lenin noticed, an armed man can shoot 100 unarmed
>>men.
>
> Asinine example.
Tell it to Lenin.
>> Worked on the Virginia Tech campus (a gun-free zone) and worked
>>on a military base too. They had to wait for local police to come and
>>disable the killer. Gosh that was REALLY "preventing" shootings wasn't
>>it?
>
> And how many killings take place on college campuses and military
> installations as compared to on the streets every day. You lose that
> argument every time.
Only when you get to name yourself referee. Colleges and military bases
hardly compare to the great unwashed on the streets. Drug conflicts and
robberies are uncommon on campus and military base.
>>The only proof that I see is that you were born without a brain.
>
> And when you don't have a logical argument you insult. Just like you
> learned in 4th grade..and you've never grownup
>
>> Don't
>>worry though, I hear there are lots of liberal media who will hire you
>>as a propagan...er...journalist.
Now THAT is an insult.
--
So, how's that whole "hopey - changey"
thing working out for you so far?
Lookout
<AllmanB...@bass.gov> wrote:
>Lookout wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:30:25 -0800 (PST), Straightarrow
>> <hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Oh..and welcome to my filter
>
>Advertising what a coward you are... again?
>
>You DO know that you could just IGNORE somebody, instead of your way, by
>advertising the fact that you have no spine, and to use supposed
>SOFTWARE to "filter? somebody?
Nah..nothing to do with spine. I chose to ignore people for a variety
of reason. I'm being polite. Is that a problem?
Or do you claim to know what I'm thinking?
Lookout
><her...@comic.stp> wrote
>| So! If there's no guns people will not be killing each other? Man they
>| will find a way! When I was a little kid it was the ice pick that was
>| used. I can make a zip-gun using black powder. Even if I have to make
>| the B/P myself. I can kill a person using a rolled up newspaper. Want
>| to out law newspapers?I can make a shank out of almost anything!
>| A gun is only as dangerous as the nut pulling the trigger! Cars kill
>| more people a year then guns. I don't drive so lets out law cars!
>|
>
>Drop it man, you'r right but you are arguing against irrational phobia.
>
>Someone said that the real test of madness is doing the same thing over and
>over ever expecting a different result. Many US jurisdictions have tried
>keeping guns off the streets.
It needs to be a FEDERAL move and not local. Can you understand that?
Lookout
Lookout
wrote:
>> It's not a lack of guns..you're missing the point. There are a lot of
Stupid question.
Lookout
wrote:
>
A klaus nym shift. Welcome to my filter.
Berry Oakley
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:57:18 -0500, Berry Oakley
> <AllmanB...@bass.gov> wrote:
>
>
>>Lookout wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:30:25 -0800 (PST), Straightarrow
>>><hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Oh..and welcome to my filter
>>
>>Advertising what a coward you are... again?
>>
>>You DO know that you could just IGNORE somebody, instead of your way, by
>>advertising the fact that you have no spine, and to use supposed
>>SOFTWARE to "filter? somebody?
>
>
> Nah..nothing to do with spine.
Bingo!
You.. lack one!
> I chose to ignore people for a variety
> of reason. I'm being polite. Is that a problem?
You advertised that you would ignore him, instead of just doing it.
You cowered and ran away.
> Or do you claim to know what I'm thinking?
Yes, I do have that ability.
Berry Oakley
More RUNNING AWAY with a "filter?"
RD (The Sandman)
Liberal, yes.....Democrat...absolutely not.
Keep in mind that one must look into the data to understand it. Why is
the data, the way it is. It isn't a racial or ethnic trait. It has to
do with urban environments, lack of opportunity, culture, etc..
The Daring Dufas
It worked in Nazi Germany, it should work here.
TDD
RD (The Sandman)
news:Xns9CC199D0DFD93...@216.196.97.142:
> Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Benj <bja...@iwaynet.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Nov 12, 12:49�am, Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Until the other day strict gun and gun owner control has worked
>>>> just fine on military installations. The proof is there. You can't
>>>> ignore it.
>>>
>>>The proof is in the massacre!
>>
>> ONE massacre...as opposed to how many in the US year?
>
> Were there any this year?
>
>>>Obviously, gun control claimed a bunch more victims.
>>
>> Wrong. A lack of gun control allows "a bunch" more victims every year
>> in the US
>
> Nope. Too much gun control killed them, too.
Exactomundo!! Bans and laws can have a bad effect as much as they could
ever have a good one.
>> As Lenin noticed, an armed man can shoot 100 unarmed
>>>men.
>>
>> Asinine example.
>
> Tell it to Lenin.
I believe Lenin said that an armed man can *control* 100 unarmed ones.
That would be via the threat of shooting, not the killing of the 100 men
itself.
>>> Worked on the Virginia Tech campus (a gun-free zone) and worked
>>>on a military base too. They had to wait for local police to come and
>>>disable the killer. Gosh that was REALLY "preventing" shootings
>>>wasn't it?
>>
>> And how many killings take place on college campuses and military
>> installations as compared to on the streets every day. You lose that
>> argument every time.
>
> Only when you get to name yourself referee. Colleges and military
> bases
> hardly compare to the great unwashed on the streets.
Bingo!
> Drug conflicts
> and robberies are uncommon on campus and military base.
Yet, in a large majority of the homicides (80%, IIRC) at least one of the
parties is involved in either drug or gang activity.
D. Staples
and you are an idiot, so whats your point?
bob
sroth...@earthlink.net says...
>
> Lookout wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:09:31 -0500, "Vito" <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Lookout" <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> | The problem is a lack of gun and gun owner control.
> >>
> >> Statistics show just the opposite.
> >> But phobia trumps fact.
> > There are. Look at military installations.
> > It won't work at the state level as you can just go to the next state
> > and buy what you want. We need NATIONAL laws that are enforced.
>
> that works. And there have been a lot of other crimes on base also. Note
> their police forces are about as proportional in size as similarly sized
> cities. On a more serious note though, your logic about not working at
> the state level would fail because it is even easier to just go off base
> and get any guns you want.
>
> The example of a military base having a lower crime rate actually proves
> that gun control is not related to crime nearly as much as other
> factors. Lots of gun guys on base and they own their own weapons also.
> That is in addition to the closely controlled military weapons.
>
> So, what is the primary factor that would explain the lower crime rate
> (and I agree it is lower in general)? I would look at the fact that the
> base has a select population as the primary example. It is not the
> general public, but a group of people that have been mostly screened and
> many of whom have had discipline instilled through military training.
> The use of the UCMJ instead of the civil laws might also be a factor.
> The fact that the military can, and does, control the civilian
> dependents by taking action against the military sponsor also may be a
> significant factor.
>
> I would say that this might be an area that is deserving of further
> study, but the conclusion is probably going to indicate that the
> presence or lack of guns is not nearly as big a factor as the select
> population and the justice system overall. It makes the comparison
> useless for the debate or could work against the gun control side. We
> definitely need some reforms in our civilian criminal justice system,
> though I would not suggest implementing a military type system for the
> whole country.
>
> Steve Rothstein
As you said, crime is not non-existent on military bases. An officer
friend of mine living on base had his and his wife's bicycles stolen a
while back.
--
Without the 2nd Amendment, the others are just suggestions.
Lookout
wrote:
>Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Benj <bja...@iwaynet.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Nov 12, 12:49�am, Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Until the other day strict gun and gun owner control has worked just
>>>> fine on military installations. The proof is there. You can't ignore
>>>> it.
>>>
>>>The proof is in the massacre!
>>
>> ONE massacre...as opposed to how many in the US year?
>
> Were there any this year?
Depends on what you call a massacre I guess. No doubt what ever I list
you'll claim wasn't a massacre.
>
>>>Obviously, gun control claimed a bunch more victims.
>>
>> Wrong. A lack of gun control allows "a bunch" more victims every year
>> in the US
>
> Nope. Too much gun control killed them, too.
Wrong again.
>
>> As Lenin noticed, an armed man can shoot 100 unarmed
>>>men.
>>
>> Asinine example.
>
> Tell it to Lenin.
>
>>> Worked on the Virginia Tech campus (a gun-free zone) and worked
>>>on a military base too. They had to wait for local police to come and
>>>disable the killer. Gosh that was REALLY "preventing" shootings wasn't
>>>it?
>>
>> And how many killings take place on college campuses and military
>> installations as compared to on the streets every day. You lose that
>> argument every time.
>
> Only when you get to name yourself referee. Colleges and military bases
>hardly compare to the great unwashed on the streets. Drug conflicts and
>robberies are uncommon on campus and military base.
Bullshit. When I was in there were tons of drugs on post. I can show
you pics of me in front of a pile of coke in the barracks. On the
walls there are centerfolds from High Times Magazine. You don't know
what you're talking about because you never served and you never went
to college.
Lookout
This isn't Germany. Stupid example.
Lookout
wrote:
I never said "non-existent". You're lying. Especially now with the
lower standards for enlistment due to the bush's worthless personal
war.
Vito
| It needs to be a FEDERAL move and not local. Can you understand that?
|
RM v2.0
>>> And I think the borders should be closed.
>>>
>>> Oopps..there goes my "liberal" title again
>>
>>Not closed but locked down tighter.
>>
> A klaus nym shift. Welcome to my filter.
Ahh, I have been on this Nym for years. Who the hell is klaus?
RM v2.0
>>>>>Nope won't work there either, "lookout". People will just have the
>>>>>flood of "immigrants" from mexico import a flod of guns along with
>>>>>themselves.
>>>>
>>>>And I think the borders should be closed.
>>>>
>>>>Oopps..there goes my "liberal" title again
>>>
>>>Not closed but locked down tighter.
>>
>> A klaus nym shift. Welcome to my filter.
>
>
> More RUNNING AWAY with a "filter?"
>
long time, under this nym.
Jim Alder
> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>> Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Until the other day strict gun and gun owner control has worked just
>>>>> fine on military installations. The proof is there. You can't ignore
>>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>>The proof is in the massacre!
>>>
>>> ONE massacre...as opposed to how many in the US year?
>>
>> Were there any this year?
>
> Depends on what you call a massacre I guess.
�noun
1. the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human
beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or
plunder.
2. a general slaughter, as of persons or animals: the massacre of millions
during the war.
> No doubt what ever I list
> you'll claim wasn't a massacre.
So I'll put you down for a "no" there?
>>>>Obviously, gun control claimed a bunch more victims.
>>>
>>> Wrong. A lack of gun control allows "a bunch" more victims every year
>>> in the US
>>
>> Nope. Too much gun control killed them, too.
>
> Wrong again.
Nope, sorry. You're wrong. Too much gun control killed them.
>>> As Lenin noticed, an armed man can shoot 100 unarmed
>>>>men.
>>>
>>> Asinine example.
>>
>> Tell it to Lenin.
>>
>>>> Worked on the Virginia Tech campus (a gun-free zone) and worked
>>>>on a military base too. They had to wait for local police to come and
>>>>disable the killer. Gosh that was REALLY "preventing" shootings wasn't
>>>>it?
>>>
>>> And how many killings take place on college campuses and military
>>> installations as compared to on the streets every day. You lose that
>>> argument every time.
>>
>> Only when you get to name yourself referee. Colleges and military bases
>> hardly compare to the great unwashed on the streets. Drug conflicts and
>> robberies are uncommon on campus and military base.
>
> Bullshit. When I was in there were tons of drugs on post. I can show
> you pics of me in front of a pile of coke in the barracks.
That explains your brain damage, but it doesn't disprove my point. During
your time in the service when you weren't stoned on your ass, did you notice
any gangs violently competing for drug territory? Any soldiers committing
armed robberies for fun and profit?
> On the
> walls there are centerfolds from High Times Magazine. You don't know
> what you're talking about because you never served and you never went
> to college.
Oh, the irony! Telling me I don't know what I'm talking about, then
telling me my life's history in the same sentence!! ROTFLMAO!!!!
>>>>The only proof that I see is that you were born without a brain.
>>>
>>> And when you don't have a logical argument you insult. Just like you
>>> learned in 4th grade..and you've never grownup
>>>
>>>> Don't
>>>>worry though, I hear there are lots of liberal media who will hire you
>>>>as a propagan...er...journalist.
>>
>> Now THAT is an insult.
--
Lookout
Federal..as in nation wide.
Idiot.
Lookout
wrote:
>Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>> Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Until the other day strict gun and gun owner control has worked just
>>>>>> fine on military installations. The proof is there. You can't ignore
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>>The proof is in the massacre!
>>>>
>>>> ONE massacre...as opposed to how many in the US year?
>>>
>>> Were there any this year?
>>
>> Depends on what you call a massacre I guess.
>
>�noun
>1. the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human
>beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or
>plunder.
>2. a general slaughter, as of persons or animals: the massacre of millions
>during the war.
There is a killing of 3 or more people every month in the US. So it
does happen more often OFF post.
>
>> No doubt what ever I list
>> you'll claim wasn't a massacre.
>
> So I'll put you down for a "no" there?
Wrong again.
>
>>>>>Obviously, gun control claimed a bunch more victims.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. A lack of gun control allows "a bunch" more victims every year
>>>> in the US
>>>
>>> Nope. Too much gun control killed them, too.
>>
>> Wrong again.
>
> Nope, sorry. You're wrong. Too much gun control killed them.
More gun control on post, less killings. The numbers don't lie.
>
>>>> As Lenin noticed, an armed man can shoot 100 unarmed
>>>>>men.
>>>>
>>>> Asinine example.
>>>
>>> Tell it to Lenin.
>>>
>>>>> Worked on the Virginia Tech campus (a gun-free zone) and worked
>>>>>on a military base too. They had to wait for local police to come and
>>>>>disable the killer. Gosh that was REALLY "preventing" shootings wasn't
>>>>>it?
>>>>
>>>> And how many killings take place on college campuses and military
>>>> installations as compared to on the streets every day. You lose that
>>>> argument every time.
>>>
>>> Only when you get to name yourself referee. Colleges and military bases
>>> hardly compare to the great unwashed on the streets. Drug conflicts and
>>> robberies are uncommon on campus and military base.
>>
>> Bullshit. When I was in there were tons of drugs on post. I can show
>> you pics of me in front of a pile of coke in the barracks.
>
> That explains your brain damage, but it doesn't disprove my point. During
>your time in the service when you weren't stoned on your ass, did you notice
>any gangs violently competing for drug territory? Any soldiers committing
>armed robberies for fun and profit?
Now you bring gangs into it? You keep changing the equation when I
shoot you down. Lets go back to your original statement:
>Only when you get to name yourself referee. Colleges and military bases
> hardly compare to the great unwashed on the streets. Drug conflicts and
> robberies are uncommon on campus and military base.
Nothing about gangs there. Keep it on topic and stop throwing in new
variables.
>> On the
>> walls there are centerfolds from High Times Magazine. You don't know
>> what you're talking about because you never served and you never went
>> to college.
>
> Oh, the irony! Telling me I don't know what I'm talking about, then
>telling me my life's history in the same sentence!! ROTFLMAO!!!!
More nonsense.
>>>>>The only proof that I see is that you were born without a brain.
>>>>
>>>> And when you don't have a logical argument you insult. Just like you
>>>> learned in 4th grade..and you've never grownup
>>>>
>>>>> Don't
>>>>>worry though, I hear there are lots of liberal media who will hire you
>>>>>as a propagan...er...journalist.
>>>
>>> Now THAT is an insult.
So how's that bush\cheney thing working out?
Jim Alder
> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>>> Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Until the other day strict gun and gun owner control has worked just
>>>>>>> fine on military installations. The proof is there. You can't ignore
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The proof is in the massacre!
>>>>>
>>>>> ONE massacre...as opposed to how many in the US year?
>>>>
>>>> Were there any this year?
>>>
>>> Depends on what you call a massacre I guess.
>>
>>�noun
>>1. the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human
>>beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or
>>plunder. 2. a general slaughter, as of persons or animals: the massacre of
>>millions during the war.
>
> There is a killing of 3 or more people every month in the US. So it
> does happen more often OFF post.
What happened last month, for example? A robbery, or a murder-suicide of a
family doesn't really count since they aren't indiscriminate.
>>> No doubt what ever I list you'll claim wasn't a massacre.
>>
>> So I'll put you down for a "no" there?
>
> Wrong again.
Not so far,
>>>>>>Obviously, gun control claimed a bunch more victims.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong. A lack of gun control allows "a bunch" more victims every year
>>>>> in the US
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Too much gun control killed them, too.
>>>
>>> Wrong again.
>>
>> Nope, sorry. You're wrong. Too much gun control killed them.
>
> More gun control on post, less killings. The numbers don't lie.
No, but liars do.
>>>>> As Lenin noticed, an armed man can shoot 100 unarmed
>>>>>>men.
>>>>>
>>>>> Asinine example.
>>>>
>>>> Tell it to Lenin.
>>>>
>>>>>> Worked on the Virginia Tech campus (a gun-free zone) and worked
>>>>>>on a military base too. They had to wait for local police to come and
>>>>>>disable the killer. Gosh that was REALLY "preventing" shootings wasn't
it?
>>>>>
>>>>> And how many killings take place on college campuses and military
>>>>> installations as compared to on the streets every day. You lose that
>>>>> argument every time.
>>>>
>>>> Only when you get to name yourself referee. Colleges and military bases
>>>> hardly compare to the great unwashed on the streets. Drug conflicts and
>>>> robberies are uncommon on campus and military base.
>>>
>>> Bullshit. When I was in there were tons of drugs on post. I can show you
>>> pics of me in front of a pile of coke in the barracks.
>>
>> That explains your brain damage, but it doesn't disprove my point.
During
>>your time in the service when you weren't stoned on your ass, did you notice
>>any gangs violently competing for drug territory? Any soldiers committing
>>armed robberies for fun and profit?
>
> Now you bring gangs into it?
Who do you think is killing each other in these drug wars? Second
lieutenants?
> You keep changing the equation when I
> shoot you down.
I didn't change anything and you sure as hell haven't shot anything down.
Gangs and other punks are a big part of the great unwashed I was talking
about.
> Lets go back to your original statement:
>>Only when you get to name yourself referee. Colleges and military bases
>> hardly compare to the great unwashed on the streets. Drug conflicts and
>> robberies are uncommon on campus and military base.
>
> Nothing about gangs there. Keep it on topic and stop throwing in new
> variables.
>
>>> On the
>>> walls there are centerfolds from High Times Magazine. You don't know
>>> what you're talking about because you never served and you never went
>>> to college.
>>
>> Oh, the irony! Telling me I don't know what I'm talking about, then
>> telling me my life's history in the same sentence!! ROTFLMAO!!!!
>
> More nonsense.
My point exactly. You claim I never served and never went to college?
Prove it or admit it is YOU that doesn't know what he's talking about. GET IT
NOW?
>>>>>>The only proof that I see is that you were born without a brain.
>>>>>
>>>>> And when you don't have a logical argument you insult. Just like you
>>>>> learned in 4th grade..and you've never grownup
>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't
>>>>>>worry though, I hear there are lots of liberal media who will hire you
>>>>>>as a propagan...er...journalist.
>>>>
>>>> Now THAT is an insult.
>
> So how's that bush\cheney thing working out?
It's over. Get over it and start apologizing for your boy.
Stephan Rothstein
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:05:54 -0600, Stephan Rothstein
> <sroth...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Lookout wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Lookout" <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>> If that were true there would be less crime where there is stricter control.
>>>> Statistics show just the opposite.
>>>> But phobia trumps fact.
>>>>
>>> There are. Look at military installations.
>>> It won't work at the state level as you can just go to the next state
>>> and buy what you want. We need NATIONAL laws that are enforced.
>> Yeah, look at the recent incident at Ft. Hood and tell me again how well
>> that works.
>
>
>> And there have been a lot of other crimes on base also. Note
>> their police forces are about as proportional in size as similarly sized
>> cities.
>
You were an MP, weren't you? I could be wrong since that is an
assumption from you and your wife having met while you were at
McClellan. How many people were in your unit? How big was the base?
My experience was that the police staffing ratio was over the national
average of 1 per 2500, much as it is in small towns. Luling, where I
live now has 14 officers for a population of 6000. Walter Reed had 50
officers for a population of around 5000 permanent party, 1500 patients,
and 2500 civilian daytime workers. Leavenworth had about 70 MP's for a
permanent party of about 3000 and a TDY to the school of 1000 students.
They averaged around 4 family members for each person, but over half
lived off-base. This does not count the 1000 MP's assigned to the DB for
the 1600 inmates.
>
>> On a more serious note though, your logic about not working at
>> the state level would fail because it is even easier to just go off base
>> and get any guns you want.
>>
>> The example of a military base having a lower crime rate actually proves
>> that gun control is not related to crime nearly as much as other
>> factors. Lots of gun guys on base and they own their own weapons also.
>> That is in addition to the closely controlled military weapons.
>
> And their is almost no crime on bases. I was in for 9 years and that's
> a fact. Almost no crime what so ever.
That is funny. I was an MP for 8 years, only 2 of which were guarding
all those military prisoners at the USDB. Must have been quite a bit of
crime to cram 1600 prisoners into one facility. And that was just the
felonies. The misdemeanors were kept in local stockades. The Navy
enlisted felons were also kept at their own prison in Portsmouth.
While I was on patrol at three different bases, we handled calls for
crimes almost every day
>
>> So, what is the primary factor that would explain the lower crime rate
>> (and I agree it is lower in general)? I would look at the fact that the
>> base has a select population as the primary example. It is not the
>> general public, but a group of people that have been mostly screened and
>> many of whom have had discipline instilled through military training.
>> The use of the UCMJ instead of the civil laws might also be a factor.
>> The fact that the military can, and does, control the civilian
>> dependents by taking action against the military sponsor also may be a
>> significant factor.
>>
>> I would say that this might be an area that is deserving of further
>> study, but the conclusion is probably going to indicate that the
>> presence or lack of guns is not nearly as big a factor as the select
>> population and the justice system overall. It makes the comparison
>> useless for the debate or could work against the gun control side. We
>> definitely need some reforms in our civilian criminal justice system,
>> though I would not suggest implementing a military type system for the
>> whole country.
>>
>> Steve Rothstein
>
> It's not a lack of guns..you're missing the point. There are a lot of
> US military personnel who won their own weapons. The fact is that they
> are locked up in a secure place AWAY FROM THE OWNER when not in use.
> This stops crimes of passion such as a fight with a spouse. It's OWN
> CONTOL as much as gun control IMHO.
You missed the point. All those who had the guns locked up lived in
barracks. There were not nearly as many crimes of passion there, since
there were NO families to have domestic disturbance calls with. The
people living in housing had their guns in the house also.
If the crime rate is lower, it was not do to the availability or lack of
availability of guns. The factor of the selected population is probably
much more to be credited.
Of course, you recognize this when you admit it is not gun control but
owner control. Are your really saying you want the full military
discipline and justice system applied to everyone in the US?
> ALL hand guns should be licensed
> ALL hand guns owner should be registered AFTER proper training and
> screening
>
> Simple and no one is being deprived of a gun.
And it does absolutely nothing to reduce crimes of passion that you seem
to worry about. The guns are still with the owners in their houses.
Steve Rothstein
ne...@millions.com
<sroth...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Luling! Luling, Texas? Town has the greatest barbecue house in the
USA! And Luling has a great history, especially, the history of the
railroad that runs right along in front of the barbecue house.
DCI
bob
mrLo...@yahoo.com says...
Excuse me, but what are you blabbering about? I was replying to Steve,
not you.
Benj
> And how many killings take place on college campuses and military
> installations as compared to on the streets every day. You lose that
> argument every time.
If "I lose that argument" then why do your kind use it every chance
you get to try to institute Lenin's idea of "men control" Since most
killings are by blacks and Hispanics, why aren't you working hard to
put the old Jim Crow gun bans back in place? Oh that's right. You
want a police state for EVERYONE not just criminal minorities.
> >The only proof that I see is that you were born without a brain.
>
> And when you don't have a logical argument you insult. Just like you
> learned in 4th grade..and you've never grownup
Sorry Bub. Anyone WITH a brain can obviously see that this was simply
a statement of fact. It's not an insult. We truly desire for you to
have medical help with your condition. Let's hope we get socialized
"single payer" health "insurance" soon. With a little help you may
even no longer be affected by "gun rays".
Benj
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:57:59 -0500, her...@comic.stp wrote:
> >On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:32:10 -0600, Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com>
> >The gang banger will never turn that gun in. You should know that.
>
> I never said they would. EVERY crime committed with a gun should get
> you 5 years. No if, ands or buts. Second time gives you life.
>
> End of problem.
Sorry, impractical stooopid idea. Jails are full now. Who is going to
cover the cost of keeping all those minorities in jail forever?
Obviously a simple well-orchestrated genocide is the answer. Will help
cure the overpopulation problem too.
Benj
> > No one is denying that.
>
> >>Maybe they will shoot you next.
>
> > I don't live in Chicago.
>
> > The problem is a lack of gun and gun owner control..
>
> What a dumbass statement. THEY ARE BANNED! How much more control can you
> get?
No, you don't get it. Guns give off horrible rays that make ordinary
liberals start killing each other. So even if guns are totally banned
in Chicago, gun rays pour over the border from neighboring suburbs and
states creating the high murder rates. The only solution is to
eliminate ALL gun rays and that can only happen once EVERY gun in
private hands in the entire world is gathered up and destroyed. THEN
we will all be safe and live in peace and harmony. Boy! You sure are
dumb!
The Older Gentleman
> Are your really saying you want the full military
> discipline and justice system applied to everyone in the US?
Gets my vote.
You can do some nasty damage with a gnu.
--
BMW K1100LT & K100RS Ducati 750SS Triumph Street Triple Honda CB400F
Suzuki TS250 Suzuki GN250 chateaudotmurrayatidnetdotcom
Nothing damages a machine more than an ignoramus with a manual, a
can-do attitude and a set of cheap tools
Vito
"Vito" <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
| >| It needs to be a FEDERAL move and not local. Can you understand that?
| >|
| >Like in Washington, DC? That's very FEDERAL.
| >
| Federal..as in nation wide.
| Idiot.
Ahhhh, nationwide like in Mexico where guns are illegal?
You seem to think there is little or no crime there.
Heh - and you call me an idiot.
Typical spoiled third grader.
Lookout
wrote:
>Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>>Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>>>> Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Until the other day strict gun and gun owner control has worked just
>>>>>>>> fine on military installations. The proof is there. You can't ignore
>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The proof is in the massacre!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ONE massacre...as opposed to how many in the US year?
>>>>>
>>>>> Were there any this year?
>>>>
>>>> Depends on what you call a massacre I guess.
>>>
>>>�noun
>>>1. the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human
>>>beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or
>>>plunder. 2. a general slaughter, as of persons or animals: the massacre of
>>>millions during the war.
>>
>> There is a killing of 3 or more people every month in the US. So it
>> does happen more often OFF post.
>
> What happened last month, for example? A robbery, or a murder-suicide of a
>family doesn't really count since they aren't indiscriminate.
Why? It's still a massacre
>
>>>> No doubt what ever I list you'll claim wasn't a massacre.
>>>
>>> So I'll put you down for a "no" there?
>>
>> Wrong again.
>
> Not so far,
Sure you did
>>>>>>>Obviously, gun control claimed a bunch more victims.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong. A lack of gun control allows "a bunch" more victims every year
>>>>>> in the US
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. Too much gun control killed them, too.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong again.
>>>
>>> Nope, sorry. You're wrong. Too much gun control killed them.
>>
>> More gun control on post, less killings. The numbers don't lie.
>
> No, but liars do.
Those are facts. Try and dispute them.
>
>>>>>> As Lenin noticed, an armed man can shoot 100 unarmed
>>>>>>>men.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Asinine example.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell it to Lenin.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Worked on the Virginia Tech campus (a gun-free zone) and worked
>>>>>>>on a military base too. They had to wait for local police to come and
>>>>>>>disable the killer. Gosh that was REALLY "preventing" shootings wasn't
>it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And how many killings take place on college campuses and military
>>>>>> installations as compared to on the streets every day. You lose that
>>>>>> argument every time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only when you get to name yourself referee. Colleges and military bases
>>>>> hardly compare to the great unwashed on the streets. Drug conflicts and
>>>>> robberies are uncommon on campus and military base.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit. When I was in there were tons of drugs on post. I can show you
>>>> pics of me in front of a pile of coke in the barracks.
>>>
>>> That explains your brain damage, but it doesn't disprove my point.
>During
>>>your time in the service when you weren't stoned on your ass, did you notice
>>>any gangs violently competing for drug territory? Any soldiers committing
>>>armed robberies for fun and profit?
>>
>> Now you bring gangs into it?
>
> Who do you think is killing each other in these drug wars? Second
>lieutenants?
Again..a new variable change the debate. I'm not going there.
>
>> You keep changing the equation when I
>> shoot you down.
>
> I didn't change anything and you sure as hell haven't shot anything down.
>Gangs and other punks are a big part of the great unwashed I was talking
>about.
We're talking about guns. And there is more gun control on military
reservations and shootings are extreme rare. The two go hand in hand.
The same should be done in the general population. Britain and Canada
prove it works
>
>> Lets go back to your original statement:
>>>Only when you get to name yourself referee. Colleges and military bases
>>> hardly compare to the great unwashed on the streets. Drug conflicts and
>>> robberies are uncommon on campus and military base.
>>
>> Nothing about gangs there. Keep it on topic and stop throwing in new
>> variables.
>>
>>>> On the
>>>> walls there are centerfolds from High Times Magazine. You don't know
>>>> what you're talking about because you never served and you never went
>>>> to college.
>>>
>>> Oh, the irony! Telling me I don't know what I'm talking about, then
>>> telling me my life's history in the same sentence!! ROTFLMAO!!!!
>>
>> More nonsense.
>
> My point exactly. You claim I never served and never went to college?
>Prove it or admit it is YOU that doesn't know what he's talking about. GET IT
>NOW?
You didn't.
>
>>>>>>>The only proof that I see is that you were born without a brain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And when you don't have a logical argument you insult. Just like you
>>>>>> learned in 4th grade..and you've never grownup
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't
>>>>>>>worry though, I hear there are lots of liberal media who will hire you
>>>>>>>as a propagan...er...journalist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now THAT is an insult.
>>
>> So how's that bush\cheney thing working out?
>
> It's over. Get over it and start apologizing for your boy.
"my boy? I didn't vote for Obama. I predicted he would lose in the
primaries. You're wrong again.
Dumbass
Straightarrow
> In article <kM2dnXfXxdkhOGbXnZ2dnUVZ_rNi4...@earthlink.com>,
> srothst...@earthlink.net says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Lookout wrote:
> > > On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:09:31 -0500, "Vito" <v...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > >> "Lookout" <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rule #1: Never run over a negro on a bicycle. It might be your bicycle.
Lookout
<sroth...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Lookout wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:05:54 -0600, Stephan Rothstein
>> <sroth...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Lookout wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:09:31 -0500, "Vito" <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Lookout" <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>> | The problem is a lack of gun and gun owner control.
>>>>>
>>>>> If that were true there would be less crime where there is stricter control.
>>>>> Statistics show just the opposite.
>>>>> But phobia trumps fact.
>>>>>
>>>> There are. Look at military installations.
>>>> It won't work at the state level as you can just go to the next state
>>>> and buy what you want. We need NATIONAL laws that are enforced.
>>> Yeah, look at the recent incident at Ft. Hood and tell me again how well
>>> that works.
>>
>> ONE incident. Shall we look at murders in the US?
>>
>>> And there have been a lot of other crimes on base also. Note
>>> their police forces are about as proportional in size as similarly sized
>>> cities.
>>
>> Cite?
>
>You were an MP, weren't you? I could be wrong since that is an
>assumption from you and your wife having met while you were at
>McClellan. How many people were in your unit? How big was the base?
Nope, not MPs.
>My experience was that the police staffing ratio was over the national
>average of 1 per 2500, much as it is in small towns.
Your experience? Tell me facts.
> Luling, where I
>live now has 14 officers for a population of 6000. Walter Reed had 50
>officers for a population of around 5000 permanent party, 1500 patients,
>and 2500 civilian daytime workers. Leavenworth had about 70 MP's for a
>permanent party of about 3000 and a TDY to the school of 1000 students.
>They averaged around 4 family members for each person, but over half
>lived off-base. This does not count the 1000 MP's assigned to the DB for
>the 1600 inmates.
>
>>
>>> On a more serious note though, your logic about not working at
>>> the state level would fail because it is even easier to just go off base
>>> and get any guns you want.
>>>
>>> The example of a military base having a lower crime rate actually proves
>>> that gun control is not related to crime nearly as much as other
>>> factors. Lots of gun guys on base and they own their own weapons also.
>>> That is in addition to the closely controlled military weapons.
>>
>> And their is almost no crime on bases. I was in for 9 years and that's
>> a fact. Almost no crime what so ever.
>
>That is funny. I was an MP for 8 years, only 2 of which were guarding
>all those military prisoners at the USDB. Must have been quite a bit of
>crime to cram 1600 prisoners into one facility. And that was just the
>felonies. The misdemeanors were kept in local stockades. The Navy
>enlisted felons were also kept at their own prison in Portsmouth.
>
>While I was on patrol at three different bases, we handled calls for
>crimes almost every day
And how many were multiple deaths due to a hand gun? I know on the 5
posts where I spent 6 months or more it was almost unheard of.
You can't prove it wasn't due to a lack of guns and you admit that you
don't know what caused it. You used the word "probably". You seem to
have no facts what so ever to back up anything you say. Don't ever
join a debate club...they would laugh you out of the place.
>Of course, you recognize this when you admit it is not gun control but
>owner control. Are your really saying you want the full military
>discipline and justice system applied to everyone in the US?
I say we need more of both. I made that clear. Don't interpret what I
say for me.
Lookout
wrote:
>On Nov 12, 10:32�am, Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> And how many killings take place on college campuses and military
>> installations as compared to on the streets every day. You lose that
>> argument every time.
>
>If "I lose that argument" then why do your kind use it every chance
>you get to try to institute Lenin's idea of "men control" Since most
>killings are by blacks and Hispanics,
Cite?
>why aren't you working hard to
>put the old Jim Crow gun bans back in place? Oh that's right. You
>want a police state for EVERYONE not just criminal minorities.
Nope. You're lying again.
>> >The only proof that I see is that you were born without a brain.
>>
>> And when you don't have a logical argument you insult. Just like you
>> learned in 4th grade..and you've never grownup
Uh..I didn't say that you fucking loon.
>Sorry Bub. Anyone WITH a brain can obviously see that this was simply
>a statement of fact. It's not an insult. We truly desire for you to
>have medical help with your condition. Let's hope we get socialized
>"single payer" health "insurance" soon. With a little help you may
>even no longer be affected by "gun rays".
You lost again.