Guntards in action
Bill
about the two guntards who used body armor, automatic weapons and body
armor piercing bullets to rob a bank in North Hollywood, California.
The two guntards fired 1100 rounds and injured numerous civilians and
police officers. They had to bring in a special unit to bring them down
because the weapons the police had were ineffective against these
guntards. The police had to go into a gun shop to get better weapons.
The only good thing is that both guntards were killed and no further
public expenditure is required to dispose these criminals.
PLMerite
"Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133513419....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
See what happens when you release criminals early from prison?
I'm still wondering where the hell the SWAT Team was that day; I *know* they
have high-powered rifles.
Regards, PLMerite
Come get 'em when you grow a pair.
Robin Hood Zoro
禦含諿共n?
The police had to go to civilians for weapons, they were so
ill-prepared. Thank God for an armed populace.
Morton Davis
"PLMerite" <stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote in message
news:N2Ujf.6435$ob7.1476@trnddc04...
>
> "Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1133513419....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > It took place some time ago but it the documentary was shown last night
> > about the two guntards who used body armor, automatic weapons and body
> > armor piercing bullets to rob a bank in North Hollywood, California.
> > The two guntards fired 1100 rounds and injured numerous civilians and
> > police officers. They had to bring in a special unit to bring them down
> > because the weapons the police had were ineffective against these
> > guntards. The police had to go into a gun shop to get better weapons.
> > The only good thing is that both guntards were killed and no further
> > public expenditure is required to dispose these criminals.
>
>
> See what happens when you release criminals early from prison?
>
Lynn Sells are nifetards in "Bill's" delusional state?
> I'm still wondering where the hell the SWAT Team was that day; I *know*
they
> have high-powered rifles.
>
Two for one speacial at Dunkin Donuts?
Don Staples
"Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133513419....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Seems the guntards are you dumb fucks who cannot accept that criminals use
what ever means they can, and that you haven't a clue.
pohak...@gmail.com
R R R R .... no no Don, it's you that don't understand.
You see, the cops had to go into a "guntard" shop, and get "guntard"
guns, to take out what was essentially military grade armaments...oh,
wait, I think I'm confused.
R R R R R R ....too much.
Possily the poster you respond to needs to check with that Tx
legislator that got into politics precise because of retarded gun
banning laws ( in TEXAS? Yup...usta be ) getting her parents
slaughtered.
Ever read what she said to the DC politicos in committee when they
asked for her reasons for wanting to have armed citizens?
In so many words: "YOU, the government we have a right to protect
ourselves from."
So "guntard" guns from a "guntard" gun shop took out criminals who had
armed and armored themselves like the military and some police do.
Fancy that.
I know I do.
Let me check my .50 caliber piggy bank........oh, yes, just another
year and it's mine mine mine. Barrett you say? All I want for Christmas
is my ........
0:-> the proud Guntard.
" If anti gun loonies were as smart as Guntards Guntards would be
disarmed by now. Are we?" Kane, 2005
Bill
The good thing is that those two guntards will never harm anyone again.
Criminals? Guntards are criminals waiting to happen.
PLMerite
Come get 'em when you grow a pair.
Regards, PLMerite
"Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms" - Should be a convenience store, not a
Government Agency.
Bill
> "Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1133570441....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Don Staples wrote:
> >> "Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1133513419....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> > It took place some time ago but it the documentary was shown last night
> >> > about the two guntards who used body armor, automatic weapons and body
> >> > armor piercing bullets to rob a bank in North Hollywood, California.
> >> > The two guntards fired 1100 rounds and injured numerous civilians and
> >> > police officers. They had to bring in a special unit to bring them down
> >> > because the weapons the police had were ineffective against these
> >> > guntards. The police had to go into a gun shop to get better weapons.
> >> > The only good thing is that both guntards were killed and no further
> >> > public expenditure is required to dispose these criminals.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Seems the guntards are you dumb fucks who cannot accept that criminals
> >> use
> >> what ever means they can, and that you haven't a clue.
> >
> > The good thing is that those two guntards will never harm anyone again.
> > Criminals? Guntards are criminals waiting to happen.
>
>
> Come get 'em when you grow a pair.
Thank you for demonstrating the ignorant, violent, crazy nature of
guntards.
Bill
Please take it easy with the name calling, you mother fucking worthless
bucket of shit.
Jan Hammer
> Don Staples wrote:
>>Seems the guntards are you dumb fucks who cannot accept that criminals use
>>what ever means they can, and that you haven't a clue.
>
>
> Please take it easy with the name calling, you mother fucking worthless
> bucket of shit.
Poor Bill, he got scared when his "story" backfired on him.
Bill
It was not a "story" but a documentary of a horrible and terrifying
criminal event. I don't mind discussing it with normal people but I
insist on giving the proper response to those who engage in name
calling.
PLMerite
At the end of the day, the bottom line is that *you* are going to have to
disarm us.
You don't have the balls and we all know it.
Bill
Most gun crimes are committed against unarmed peopleproving that
guntards are cowards who need guns to terrorize innocent and
defenseless people. Almost every rampage by guntards ends in the
criminal giving up peacefully when confronted by armed police.
PLMerite
Criminals pick their vicitms based on a reward vs risk calculation. You
have something he wants bad enough to override whatever risk you
demonstrate, be it your money, your ass, or your position on the criminal
competition ladder. Increase his risk of failure by getting shot by his
intended victim and you decrease the chance that the crime will take place.
You prove my point.
The "rampages" that end when confronted by *armed* police demonstrate that
even your average pop-culture punk fears immediate death, something he was
not threatened with by any of his unarmed victims. You prove my point
again.
And what I said still goes. You are not going to just be handed my weapons
no matter what "law" you pass. You're going to have to earn them. And of
course, I don't mean you personally - you don't have the balls. But the
ones who think they do are going to learn a hard lesson.
Regards, PLMerite
--
"Unarmed, one can only flee from Evil. But Evil is not overcome by fleeing
from it." - Jeff Cooper
Scout
Yep, and in the end you're not going to disarm this guntards, ie criminals.
At most all you can do is disarm those people who aren't guntards, ie
criminals, and leave the criminal free to prey at will.
RD (The Sandman)
news:1133629243.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Mirror..mirror..on the wall.....
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
A real man should have the conviction to hold strong beliefs....
Hmmm, I believe I should have another beer.
RD (The Sandman)
news:1133655328.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Keyword in that paragraph is "criminal". They are less than 0.5% of the
gunowners in the country.
Bill
not care if law-abiding citizens own weapons for protection. What
turns most people off is when guntards get offensive about people
posting about crimes committed by guns. Law abiding citizens do not
need automatic and semi-automatic weapons with armor piercing bullets.
When I read some posts from those who would like to confiscate every
gun, I disagree with them and wonder if the guntards have a point.
These responses convinced me that society would far better served by
keeping a close eye on the guntards because there is no telling when
they might go off the deep end.
Jan Hammer
> The guntards are their own worst enemies. The majority of people do
> not care if law-abiding citizens own weapons for protection.
And that alone is why you are one fucked up individual, Bill.
I don't own, nor have I ever bought any of my firearms for "protection."
But to be honest, I sure am glad I have the right to use the ones I do
have, to shoot you cocksucking mental midgets in that small place you
have between your leaky, drippy eyes, if you should ever desire to steal
from me, or harm my family.
But, it is fasinating that you CONSTANTLY think that a "majority" has to
be in effect to make desicions for everybody, and make life safe!
Bill
Please take it easy with the name calling, you mother fucking worthless
bucket of shit.
Scout
> The guntards are their own worst enemies.
Well, criminals certainly are, but what's your point?
> The majority of people do
> not care if law-abiding citizens own weapons for protection.
Then what about DC?
> What
> turns most people off is when guntards get offensive about people
> posting about crimes committed by guns.
Sorry, but I'm not aware of any criminals getting offensive here. Do you
have some examples?
Oh, and remember you have already established your definition of "guntard"
is a criminal.
Al Baldry
More Guns, Less Crime. Believe The Lie.
"Dishonest" John Lott is discredited again.
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Bill
> "Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1133722697.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > The guntards are their own worst enemies.
>
> Well, criminals certainly are, but what's your point?
>
> > The majority of people do
> > not care if law-abiding citizens own weapons for protection.
>
> Then what about DC?
I don't agree with the DC law.
>
> > What
> > turns most people off is when guntards get offensive about people
> > posting about crimes committed by guns.
>
> Sorry, but I'm not aware of any criminals getting offensive here. Do you
> have some examples?
I don't know who is and who is not a criminal; however anyone who is
just itching to shoot me between the eyes has a criminal mind. It is
anybody's guess when someone as crazy as that will actually go off the
deep end and murder someone just for the fun of it.
>
> Oh, and remember you have already established your definition of "guntard"
> is a criminal.
You can see see good examples of guntards just on this thread. The
guntards know who they are.
Scout
> Scout wrote:
>> "Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1133722697.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > The guntards are their own worst enemies.
>>
>> Well, criminals certainly are, but what's your point?
>>
Silence noted
>> > The majority of people do
>> > not care if law-abiding citizens own weapons for protection.
>>
>> Then what about DC?
>
> I don't agree with the DC law.
Gee, you don't agree........but it's STILL the law.
>> > What
>> > turns most people off is when guntards get offensive about people
>> > posting about crimes committed by guns.
>>
>> Sorry, but I'm not aware of any criminals getting offensive here. Do you
>> have some examples?
>
> I don't know who is and who is not a criminal; however anyone who is
> just itching to shoot me between the eyes has a criminal mind. It is
> anybody's guess when someone as crazy as that will actually go off the
> deep end and murder someone just for the fun of it.
Ah, so what you're really trying to say is that you are a fanatic paranoid.
Got it.
>> Oh, and remember you have already established your definition of
>> "guntard"
>> is a criminal.
>
> You can see see good examples of guntards just on this thread. The
> guntards know who they are.
Care to point out these criminals? I certainly haven't seen them.
Bill
> "Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1133734156.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Scout wrote:
> >> "Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1133722697.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> > The guntards are their own worst enemies.
> >>
> >> Well, criminals certainly are, but what's your point?
> >>
>
> Silence noted
>
> >> > The majority of people do
> >> > not care if law-abiding citizens own weapons for protection.
> >>
> >> Then what about DC?
> >
> > I don't agree with the DC law.
>
> Gee, you don't agree........but it's STILL the law.
Change the law if it bothers you so much.
>
> >> > What
> >> > turns most people off is when guntards get offensive about people
> >> > posting about crimes committed by guns.
> >>
> >> Sorry, but I'm not aware of any criminals getting offensive here. Do you
> >> have some examples?
> >
> > I don't know who is and who is not a criminal; however anyone who is
> > just itching to shoot me between the eyes has a criminal mind. It is
> > anybody's guess when someone as crazy as that will actually go off the
> > deep end and murder someone just for the fun of it.
>
> Ah, so what you're really trying to say is that you are a fanatic paranoid.
>
> Got it.
Here is just one example in this thread of someone who is itching to
kill. It pays to be paranoid with people like that around. Read is for
yourself:
"I don't own, nor have I ever bought any of my firearms for
"protection."
But to be honest, I sure am glad I have the right to use the ones I do
have, to shoot you cocksucking mental midgets in that small place you
have between your leaky, drippy eyes, if you should ever desire to
steal
from me, or harm my family. "
>
>
> >> Oh, and remember you have already established your definition of
> >> "guntard"
> >> is a criminal.
> >
> > You can see see good examples of guntards just on this thread. The
> > guntards know who they are.
>
> Care to point out these criminals? I certainly haven't seen them.
See the above example of retarded, blood-thirty criminal mind.
Scout
> Scout wrote:
>> "Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1133734156.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> > Scout wrote:
>> >> "Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1133722697.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > The guntards are their own worst enemies.
>> >>
>> >> Well, criminals certainly are, but what's your point?
>> >>
>>
>> Silence noted
>>
>> >> > The majority of people do
>> >> > not care if law-abiding citizens own weapons for protection.
>> >>
>> >> Then what about DC?
>> >
>> > I don't agree with the DC law.
>>
>> Gee, you don't agree........but it's STILL the law.
>
> Change the law if it bothers you so much.
why aren't you? After all, you say you are bothered by it, so where are your
efforts to change it?
>> >> > What
>> >> > turns most people off is when guntards get offensive about people
>> >> > posting about crimes committed by guns.
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, but I'm not aware of any criminals getting offensive here. Do
>> >> you
>> >> have some examples?
>> >
>> > I don't know who is and who is not a criminal; however anyone who is
>> > just itching to shoot me between the eyes has a criminal mind. It is
>> > anybody's guess when someone as crazy as that will actually go off the
>> > deep end and murder someone just for the fun of it.
>>
>> Ah, so what you're really trying to say is that you are a fanatic
>> paranoid.
>>
>> Got it.
>
> Here is just one example in this thread of someone who is itching to
> kill. It pays to be paranoid with people like that around. Read is for
> yourself:
>
> "I don't own, nor have I ever bought any of my firearms for
> "protection."
> But to be honest, I sure am glad I have the right to use the ones I do
> have, to shoot you cocksucking mental midgets in that small place you
> have between your leaky, drippy eyes, if you should ever desire to
> steal
> from me, or harm my family. "
So, you are telling me you have plans to steal from him????
Otherwise, why the paranoia?
Further, I'm not aware that his statement is criminal, nor that his actions
would be.
>>
>> >> Oh, and remember you have already established your definition of
>> >> "guntard"
>> >> is a criminal.
>> >
>> > You can see see good examples of guntards just on this thread. The
>> > guntards know who they are.
>>
>> Care to point out these criminals? I certainly haven't seen them.
>
> See the above example of retarded, blood-thirty criminal mind.
I see, so someone stating they would defend themselves is an example of a
criminal mind....
The only criminal mind I see is the one that derives paranoia from such a
statement. After all, unless you're a criminal there is nothing there to get
paranoid over.
James F. Mayer
The "blood-thirsty" are the gun control advocates that need dead bodies
to exploit for their gun banning cause. Those are the "blood-thirsty
criminal(s)"
Bill
> "Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1133735540.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Scout wrote:
> >> "Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1133734156.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Scout wrote:
> >> >> "Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1133722697.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> > The guntards are their own worst enemies.
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, criminals certainly are, but what's your point?
> >> >>
> >>
> >> Silence noted
> >>
> >> >> > The majority of people do
> >> >> > not care if law-abiding citizens own weapons for protection.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then what about DC?
> >> >
> >> > I don't agree with the DC law.
> >>
> >> Gee, you don't agree........but it's STILL the law.
> >
> > Change the law if it bothers you so much.
>
> why aren't you? After all, you say you are bothered by it, so where are your
> efforts to change it?
I don't agree with it but it does not bother me especially since DC is
not where I hang out. Since it bothers you that much; what are you
doing about it?
>
>
> >> >> > What
> >> >> > turns most people off is when guntards get offensive about people
> >> >> > posting about crimes committed by guns.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sorry, but I'm not aware of any criminals getting offensive here. Do
> >> >> you
> >> >> have some examples?
> >> >
> >> > I don't know who is and who is not a criminal; however anyone who is
> >> > just itching to shoot me between the eyes has a criminal mind. It is
> >> > anybody's guess when someone as crazy as that will actually go off the
> >> > deep end and murder someone just for the fun of it.
> >>
> >> Ah, so what you're really trying to say is that you are a fanatic
> >> paranoid.
> >>
> >> Got it.
> >
> > Here is just one example in this thread of someone who is itching to
> > kill. It pays to be paranoid with people like that around. Read is for
> > yourself:
> >
> > "I don't own, nor have I ever bought any of my firearms for
> > "protection."
> > But to be honest, I sure am glad I have the right to use the ones I do
> > have, to shoot you cocksucking mental midgets in that small place you
> > have between your leaky, drippy eyes, if you should ever desire to
> > steal
> > from me, or harm my family. "
>
> So, you are telling me you have plans to steal from him????
The problem is that guntards make assumptions about people based on
their hate filled imagination and act on it.
>
> Otherwise, why the paranoia?
>
> Further, I'm not aware that his statement is criminal, nor that his actions
> would be.
Someone expressing as much hatred as guntards do because of opinions
they do not like are violence prone. Law abiding society needs to be
protected from them and that is why we have local, state and federal
authorities to protect the citizenry from them.
>
> >>
> >> >> Oh, and remember you have already established your definition of
> >> >> "guntard"
> >> >> is a criminal.
> >> >
> >> > You can see see good examples of guntards just on this thread. The
> >> > guntards know who they are.
> >>
> >> Care to point out these criminals? I certainly haven't seen them.
> >
> > See the above example of retarded, blood-thirty criminal mind.
>
> I see, so someone stating they would defend themselves is an example of a
> criminal mind....
At the very least, someone going nuts, using obscenities while making
threats is not of sound mind.
>
> The only criminal mind I see is the one that derives paranoia from such a
> statement. After all, unless you're a criminal there is nothing there to get
> paranoid over.
Paranoia (I call is reasonable precaution) is justified and needed
because there are too many guntards out there who are itching to murder
somebody because they are miserable failures in life.
Bill
Normal people do not wish for dead bodies. Unfortunately, what normal
people want does not matter to guntards who murder our children.
Scout
> Scout wrote:
>> "Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1133735540.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Scout wrote:
>> >> "Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1133734156.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > Scout wrote:
>> >> >> "Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:1133722697.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> > The guntards are their own worst enemies.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Well, criminals certainly are, but what's your point?
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >> Silence noted
>> >>
>> >> >> > The majority of people do
>> >> >> > not care if law-abiding citizens own weapons for protection.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Then what about DC?
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't agree with the DC law.
>> >>
>> >> Gee, you don't agree........but it's STILL the law.
>> >
>> > Change the law if it bothers you so much.
>>
>> why aren't you? After all, you say you are bothered by it, so where are
>> your
>> efforts to change it?
>
> I don't agree with it but it does not bother me especially since DC is
> not where I hang out. Since it bothers you that much; what are you
> doing about it?
First you say it bothers you, now you backpedal and say it doesn't.
Your reversal is noted.
Well certain criminals certainly do, but what exactly does that have to do
with him? He's not a criminal.
>> Otherwise, why the paranoia?
>>
>> Further, I'm not aware that his statement is criminal, nor that his
>> actions
>> would be.
>
> Someone expressing as much hatred as guntards do because of opinions
> they do not like are violence prone.
Your bigotry of criminals is noted.
Scout
Who exactly are these guntards of yours? On one hand you seem to be
suggesting they are anyone that owns a gun, and on the other you seem to be
suggesting they are violent criminals. So which is it, or are they so mixed
up in your mind that you view anyone with a gun as a violent criminal?
Oh, and FYI in America the normal person owns guns since the majority does,
and the actions of the majority define what is normal.
Bill
No reversal here. I said that I do not agree with it but it is a far
cry from being bothered by it. That is the problem with guntards. They
get too emotional, violent and hateful about things they do not agree
with.
Seem to have the emotional problems to become a criminal. Seem to get
off on the idea of putting a hole between my eyes. It seems abnormal
and may lead to criminal violence.
>
> >> Otherwise, why the paranoia?
> >>
> >> Further, I'm not aware that his statement is criminal, nor that his
> >> actions
> >> would be.
> >
> > Someone expressing as much hatred as guntards do because of opinions
> > they do not like are violence prone.
>
> Your bigotry of criminals is noted.
Thank you.
Bill
Those who respond violently and with threats to opinions they do not
like about guntards - are guntards.
>
> Oh, and FYI in America the normal person owns guns since the majority does,
> and the actions of the majority define what is normal.
I assume that you have not seen military service because you refer to
weapons as guns. Normal people may or may not have weapons. It is
their choice and there will never be any US laws to limit the rights of
law abiding citizens. Normal people do not need semi-automatic and
automatic weapons with armor piercing bullets. Those weapons are the
choice of guntards and those weapons are mostly used in criminal
activities.
Cole Firearms Inc.
Al Baldry wrote:
> Bill OutofWil...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>It took place some time ago but it the documentary was shown last night
>>about the two guntards who used body armor, automatic weapons and body
>>armor piercing bullets to rob a bank in North Hollywood, California.
>>The two guntards fired 1100 rounds and injured numerous civilians and
>>police officers. They had to bring in a special unit to bring them down
>>because the weapons the police had were ineffective against these
>>guntards. The police had to go into a gun shop to get better weapons.
>>The only good thing is that both guntards were killed and no further
>>public expenditure is required to dispose these criminals.
>>
>>
>
>
> More Guns, Less Crime. Believe The Lie.
>
> "Dishonest" John Lott is discredited again.
On one hand, we have John Lott, a well respected researcher and scholar.
On the other hand we have you slinging mud with no evidence.
Not much of a choice.
--
"Another Gun-grabber dancing
in the blood of children." -- Rev. Shawn Cole
Cole Firearms Inc.
Bill wrote:
Paranoid.
Scout
I see, so people who react badly about suggestions we enslave people are
people that need to be enslaved. People who react badly about suggestions we
infringe the freedom of the press are people that don't need to publish.
Etc.
Rather a self fulfilling condition you've established there.
However, I will just note that your statement here and your statement
elsewhere states that anyone that owns a gun is a dangerous violent criminal
and/or murderer. Well this isn't true, nor anywhere close to being true. As
such your claims, assertions and opinions are not based upon reality, but
rather your own paranoia, delusions and fantasy. Well, I reject your views
because there is no legitimate basis for them, and hence no reason to give
them any serious consideration.
Morton Davis
"Cole Firearms Inc." <colefir...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:L3Skf.3044$fO5....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
in America is at an all time historical high and shall-issue CCW is the law
in 35 states, crime is at a 30 year low, murder is at a 40 year low and
gun-related deaths continue their decades long decrease.
More guns, less crime - proven by national statistics.
Bill
My concern is with the guntards' emotional response an exaggerations
that seem to feed their anger and paranoia to the point that guntards
goad themselves into going out and murdering people who never meant any
harm to them.
>
> Rather a self fulfilling condition you've established there.
>
> However, I will just note that your statement here and your statement
> elsewhere states that anyone that owns a gun is a dangerous violent criminal
> and/or murderer.
You seem to have a habit of misquoting me. It does not help your
credibility.
> Well this isn't true, nor anywhere close to being true. As
> such your claims, assertions and opinions are not based upon reality, but
> rather your own paranoia, delusions and fantasy. Well, I reject your views
> because there is no legitimate basis for them, and hence no reason to give
> them any serious consideration.
I never equated responsible gun owners with guntards. Responsible gun
owners don't need semi-automatic and automatic weapons and armor
piercing bullets, guntards do.
Bill
Responsible gun owners don't need semi-automatic and automatic
John P
> I never equated responsible gun owners with guntards. Responsible gun
> owners don't need semi-automatic and automatic weapons and armor
> piercing bullets, guntards do.
What does "need" have to do with anything? Are all constitutionally
protected rights subject to this test?
How many gun owners do you think own automatic weapons or armor piercing
bullets?
Do you feel that people who need to resort to name calling and repeating
paranoid fantasies about automatic weapons and armor piercing bullets "need"
to share these delusions with the general public?
Bill
> "Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in a message
>
> > I never equated responsible gun owners with guntards. Responsible gun
> > owners don't need semi-automatic and automatic weapons and armor
> > piercing bullets, guntards do.
>
> What does "need" have to do with anything? Are all constitutionally
> protected rights subject to this test?
Please provide specific language in the Constitution about
semi-automatic and automatic weapons and armor piercing bullets.
> How many gun owners do you think own automatic weapons or armor piercing
> bullets?
Exactly! Normal people do not need these weapons. Why would any
responsible gun owner come to the defense of those guntards who fired
1100 rounds, injured several civilians and police officers?
> Do you feel that people who need to resort to name calling and repeating
> paranoid fantasies about automatic weapons and armor piercing bullets "need"
> to share these delusions with the general public?
I just recently watched the documentary on the carnage caused by two
crazed guntards. It took some time before they could get the SWAT team
on the scene and eliminate them. I found it very wrong that these
criminals could get those weapons and harm so many people. It is not
"name calling", "paranoid fantasies", or "delusions". It is normal
reaction to the harm these crazed guntards caused in North Hollywood,
California.
RD (The Sandman)
news:1133722697.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> The guntards are their own worst enemies.
In some cases, that is true.
> The majority of people do
> not care if law-abiding citizens own weapons for protection.
Correct....
> What
> turns most people off is when guntards get offensive about people
> posting about crimes committed by guns.
Guns don't commit crimes. Idiots with guns commit crime.
> Law abiding citizens do not
> need automatic and semi-automatic weapons with armor piercing bullets.
Need has nothing to do with it. There is no problem with someone like
myself owning any of those items since I will not commit crimes with
them.
> When I read some posts from those who would like to confiscate every
> gun, I disagree with them
Good for you.
> and wonder if the guntards have a point.
On confiscation, we certainly do.
> These responses convinced me that society would far better served by
> keeping a close eye on the guntards because there is no telling when
> they might go off the deep end.
Just how do you define a guntard since you are the one using the term?
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
A real man should have the conviction to hold strong beliefs....
Hmmm, I believe I should have another beer.
RD (The Sandman)
news:1133726666.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Does it always take two posts for you to get your point across?
Danny Gottlieb
> John P wrote:
>
>>"Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in a message
>>
>>
>>>I never equated responsible gun owners with guntards. Responsible gun
>>>owners don't need semi-automatic and automatic weapons and armor
>>>piercing bullets, guntards do.
>>
>>What does "need" have to do with anything? Are all constitutionally
>>protected rights subject to this test?
>
>
> Please provide specific language in the Constitution about
> semi-automatic and automatic weapons and armor piercing bullets.
Yer dodging the question, as usual.
ANY weapon used in the commision of a crime is a no-no, you boob.
>>How many gun owners do you think own automatic weapons or armor piercing
>>bullets?
Lots of them.
RD (The Sandman)
news:1133791967.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
What is your problem with a semi automatic? It cannot fire any faster
than my 5 shot revolver.
> and automatic weapons
What is your concern with full auto? We both know that the guns do not
commit any crimes.
> and armor piercing bullets, guntards do.
I am mixed about armor piercing ammo but don't believe that need really
has much to do with it. It is like no one really needs 140 mph Corvette
either, but I enjoyed mine.
Bill
Most of the people responded to my accounting of North Hollywood crime
spree appear to be guntards. You appear to be able to reason, ergo; you
are not a guntard.
What concerns me most about people on either side of "guns" and
"abortion" debate is that there is no middle ground.
People can expect to be called names and threatened any time they
express a point of view that does not meet the most extreme points of
view of either side.
I consider myself a moderate on gun rights but after the responses I
got from some real off the deep end guntards, I am inclined to favor
the gun control point of view. At least until I read something equally
off the deep end from the gun control nuts.
The abortion debate is no different. There are people on one side who
think that ripping a viable baby out of a mother's womb and sucking the
baby's brains out -just to make sure. These are the abortion people.
There are people who would deny a rape victim the right to abort or
would want a woman to give birth to a deformed and brain dead child.
These people would even stop others from using pills. These are the
anti-abortion people.
Try to express any opinion that does not support the crazies on either
side and you are in for a ride.
Bill
> Bill wrote:
>
> > John P wrote:
> >
> >>"Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in a message
> >>
> >>
> >>>I never equated responsible gun owners with guntards. Responsible gun
> >>>owners don't need semi-automatic and automatic weapons and armor
> >>>piercing bullets, guntards do.
> >>
> >>What does "need" have to do with anything? Are all constitutionally
> >>protected rights subject to this test?
> >
> >
> > Please provide specific language in the Constitution about
> > semi-automatic and automatic weapons and armor piercing bullets.
>
> Yer dodging the question, as usual.
> ANY weapon used in the commision of a crime is a no-no, you boob.
Come on guntard! Where does the Constitution say that you have the
right to own semi-automatic and automatic weapons and armor piercing
bullets?
>
> >>How many gun owners do you think own automatic weapons or armor piercing
> >>bullets?
>
> Lots of them.
Wrong! Most gun owners are not guntards and wouldn't waste their money
on an arsenal they do not need.
PLMerite
I don't own any fully-automatic weapons, but I do have AP ammo for some of
the military-pattern semi-automatic rifles I do own.
Come get 'em when you grow a pair.
Regards, PLMerite
Danny Gottlieb
> RD (The Sandman) (spamlock) asked:
>>Just how do you define a guntard since you are the one using the term?
>
> Most of the people responded to my accounting of North Hollywood crime
> spree appear to be guntards. You appear to be able to reason, ergo; you
> are not a guntard.
Yet, you offer no explanation of the "term" you like to banty about, and
were asked about.
Therefore, you are the "guntard" you speak of!
That "North Hollywood crime" that you constantly bring up, has nothing
to do with anything but the fact that those idiots were suicidal
criminals, hell bent on committing a terrible crime at any cost.
> The abortion debate is no different.
Oh, great!
Now yer an idiot that proclaims that YOU have insight on that as well!
Danny Gottlieb
> Danny Gottlieb wrote:
>
>>Bill wrote:
>>
>>
>>>John P wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in a message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I never equated responsible gun owners with guntards. Responsible gun
>>>>>owners don't need semi-automatic and automatic weapons and armor
>>>>>piercing bullets, guntards do.
>>>>
>>>>What does "need" have to do with anything? Are all constitutionally
>>>>protected rights subject to this test?
>>>
>>>
>>>Please provide specific language in the Constitution about
>>>semi-automatic and automatic weapons and armor piercing bullets.
>>
>> Yer dodging the question, as usual.
>>ANY weapon used in the commision of a crime is a no-no, you boob.
>
>
> Come on guntard! Where does the Constitution say that you have the
> right to own semi-automatic and automatic weapons and armor piercing
> bullets?
You still haven't defined what a "guntard" is, you mental midget!
Notice how the Constitution doesn't mention ANY type of personal
firearms that were made then, as all of the people then had the same
type and quality of weapons as the "military" did... back then.
So, you tell US where it says in our US Constitution that We The
People can't own the same quality of said personal weapons that are made
BY The People who supply and make the same arms to our fighting forces?
Why are so afraid of "semi/full automatic firearms, anyway?
And that CRAP about "armor piercing ammo"?
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!
What a JOKE!
I know! Make it against the law to have "Bullet Proof" vests, like they
do anything, anyway!
>>>>How many gun owners do you think own automatic weapons or armor piercing
>>>>bullets?
>>Lots of them.
> Wrong!
I am correct, you fucking idiot!
I know I am just one person, but I know LOTS of people that have that
what you call "evil stuff", that you happen to be very fearful of for no
real reason.
And they know lots of people..... and those people know lots of people..
and so on and so forth... like that old shampoo commercial that Mike
Myers/"Austin Powers" used in a rather popular movie.
Do you suppose you can cite where no LEGITIMATE gun owners have what you
say-n-claim don't exist or own?
> Most gun owners are not guntards and wouldn't waste their money
> on an arsenal they do not need.
An "Arsenal?"
Where, and why did you pick up that 3 syllable word?
Does one person having just one gun that is an "automatic" make an "arsenal?
(According to you... who knows!)
Also, why do you keep mentioning "need?"
I have lots of friends that have several fully automatic weapons.
They have them because they "WANT" them.
They, like all of my "mere semi-auto's", are a lot of fun to shoot!
Have you ever shot a fully automatic firearm?
I have!
It's a gas!
Hey! Have you ever shot ANY type of gun?
(I bet you haven't!)
Did you "need" to, if you actually did hold one in yer sweaty little palms?
Regarding that "ammo" you also fear so much because you heard about it
on TV, is a meaningless term.
I just buy what the factory recomends and my guns like.
After all, some rounds on some of my "evil guns" cost close to a buck a
round, and I haven't found a "need" to stop an errant '56 Buick road
master in the block... yet!
The "guntard" aka "Retarded Gun no-Knowledgeable halfwit" is indeed you.
If the case should ever arrive where I have to shoot a person, my
bullets (most likely a cal.22, as that's the one that is most handy and
holds the most ammo... and my wife loves it too!) will be entering their
thin skinned little skulls and bounce around a bit, severing each and
every synapsual connection they have before it's lead rattles to a stop
inside their echo chamber like cranium.
In your case, only four connections.. .0025 seconds.
Lord knows how gruesome it would be if we deployed the "armor piercing"
cal.45 Win Mag, as that would instantly stain our genuine Persian rugs
with brain goo!
Yer an idiot, Bill.
That's why you are safe from us normal folks that have the weapons that
we buy for the hell of it, because you are too stump stupid to be a
criminal!
John P
>>> I never equated responsible gun owners with guntards. Responsible gun
>>> owners don't need semi-automatic and automatic weapons and armor
>>> piercing bullets, guntards do.
>> What does "need" have to do with anything? Are all constitutionally
>> protected rights subject to this test?
> Please provide specific language in the Constitution about
> semi-automatic and automatic weapons and armor piercing bullets.
Please provide specific language in the Constitution that excludes
semi-automatic weapons, automatic weapons and/or armor piercing bullets.
>> How many gun owners do you think own automatic weapons or armor piercing
>> bullets?
> Exactly! Normal people do not need these weapons.
Who determines what "normal people" need?
> Why would any responsible gun owner come to the defense of those guntards
> who fired
> 1100 rounds, injured several civilians and police officers?
Most wouldn't. Why do you equate the actions of criminals with the rights of
law abiding citizens?
>> Do you feel that people who need to resort to name calling and repeating
>> paranoid fantasies about automatic weapons and armor piercing bullets
>> "need"
>> to share these delusions with the general public?
> I just recently watched the documentary on the carnage caused by two
> crazed guntards. It took some time before they could get the SWAT team
> on the scene and eliminate them. I found it very wrong that these
> criminals could get those weapons and harm so many people. It is not
> "name calling", "paranoid fantasies", or "delusions". It is normal
> reaction to the harm these crazed guntards caused in North Hollywood,
> California.
Those 2 men were criminals. They obtained those guns illegally. They did not
use armor piercing rounds. The biggest problem they presented was not so
much the weapons they chose, but the fact that they were wearing bullet
proof clothing. Another big problem in that particular incident was that the
cops, unlike many departments, didn't carry an AR-15 in their vehicle.
Fortunately, since the semi-auto AR-15 is a popular varmint and competition
weapon for law abiding gun owners, a local gun shop had several in stock.
The cops were easily able to get these weapons and the .223 ammunition to
help them respond to these criminals. Imagine how different things may have
been if these weapons had not been available to the police.
If I remember correctly, the bank robbers used a Chevy Malibu in the
commission of their crime. They stored weapons and ammo in the trunk, used
the vehicle to get to the crime scene, one criminal used it as a shield
while firing at the cops, and they both intended to use it as a getaway
vehicle. Obviously, this vehicle was an important component in allowing
them to do what they did. How many guns or how much ammo could they have
carried without a car? What is your position on anyone having a "need" for a
Chevy Malibu or any other type of car?
John P
>> How many gun owners do you think own automatic weapons or armor piercing
>> bullets?
> Lots of them.
I guess it depends on what you would consider "lots of them". There are
about 120,000 full auto weapons legally owned by civilians in the US. Based
on what it takes to own such a weapon, my guess is that most owners have
more than one in their collection. I would think it safe to say there are
probably 60,000 civilians in the US who own a fell auto weapon.
Considering the millions of gun owners, even 120,000 presents a very small
percentage of the total.
Full auto weapons are relatively rare, in civilian hands. Their use in
crimes is even more so. In 71 years (since 1934), there have only been 2
murders and 10 crimes involving the use of a full auto weapon. When looking
at possibilities for reducing or eliminating crime, looking at full auto
weapons is a waste of time.
As for armor piercing rounds... who makes such a thing? Where do civilians
buy it? Why didn't the LAPD get some armor piercing rounds from the same
store where they found the AR-15's? (Hint - because they don't exist)
John P
> Come on guntard! Where does the Constitution say that you have the
> right to own semi-automatic and automatic weapons and armor piercing
> bullets?
Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. There are no exclusions listed.
> Wrong! Most gun owners are not guntards and wouldn't waste their money
> on an arsenal they do not need.
Most Americans own a lot of things they don't "need".
Bert Hyman
news:TsKdnfSJtu9...@comcast.com:
> "Danny Gottlieb" <KIL...@drums.gov> wrote in a message
>
>>> How many gun owners do you think own automatic weapons or armor
>>> piercing bullets?
>
>> Lots of them.
>
> I guess it depends on what you would consider "lots of them".
You should check on what an "armor piercing bullet" really is;
millions of Americans have boxes of them in their homes right now.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@iphouse.com
Bert Hyman
> Most Americans own a lot of things they don't "need".
Why are you trying to have a discussion with a rotting tree stump?
John P
> You should check on what an "armor piercing bullet" really is;
> millions of Americans have boxes of them in their homes right now.
Like the "Cop Killer" ammo?
"Contrary to common belief, teflon or other coatings on the bullet do not in
any way help it penetrate deeper. Teflon coated bullets were meant to help
reduce the wear on the barrel as a result of normal operation. Teflon
coating was a trend that has largely faded, in part because of laws
resulting from this misconception; there was a brief moral panic over these
"Cop-killer bullets", which were said to have been designed to penetrate the
body armor worn by police."
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armor_piercing_bullet"
"In April 1997, the often-mischaracterized issue of "armor piercing
ammunition" finally was laid to rest by research conducted by the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). The study was done following
Clinton-Gore Administration calls for legislation that would have outlawed
practically all rifle ammunition used by hunters and a wide variety of
handgun ammunition traditionally used for sport and self-defense.
** BATF`s study concluded that: "(E)xisting laws are working, no additional
legislation regarding such laws is necessary."
** The "existing laws" were adopted in 1986 and prohibit the manufacture and
importation, for private use, of handgun bullets made of special, hard
metals and (in a 1994 amendment) specially-jacketed lead bullets. These
bullets were invented for use by law enforcement and military personnel. NRA
helped draft the 1986 provisions and didn`t object to the 1994 amendment.
(;18 U.S.C. 922(a)(7) and (8), and (b)(5), and 921(a)(17)(B) and (C))
** Legislation similar to that backed by the Clinton-Gore Administration was
first proposed in the 1980s and was opposed by both the Departments of
Justice and Treasury, and rejected by Congress.
** Use of the sensational term, "cop killer bullet," is dishonest and
misleading. There has never been any bullet invented for the purpose of
killing police officers. And, as the BATF reported to Congress in 1997, no
law enforcement officer has ever been killed or even injured because an
armor piercing bullet penetrated a bullet-resistant vest.
** Gun control advocates` groundless claims mislead the public and the
resultant publicity endanger police officers. BATF reported to Congress on
the need to "avoid any experimentation with police officer lives that could
conceivably lead to numerous additional officer fatalities.""
John P
> Why are you trying to have a discussion with a rotting tree stump?
I had a few minutes of time to kill. ;-)
Danny Gottlieb
> "Danny Gottlieb" <KIL...@drums.gov> wrote in a message
>
>
>>>How many gun owners do you think own automatic weapons or armor piercing
>>>bullets?
>
>
>>Lots of them.
>
>
> I guess it depends on what you would consider "lots of them". There are
> about 120,000 full auto weapons legally owned by civilians in the US. Based
> on what it takes to own such a weapon, my guess is that most owners have
> more than one in their collection. I would think it safe to say there are
> probably 60,000 civilians in the US who own a fell auto weapon.
That's a "lot."
But I still wish I could have one... or two hundred!
Then again, where the hell would I put them?
I only have a small, 3200 sq/ft house!
Bert Hyman
> "Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in a message
>
>> You should check on what an "armor piercing bullet" really is;
>> millions of Americans have boxes of them in their homes right now.
>
> Like the "Cop Killer" ammo?
Pretty much. The gun-control industry likes to invent scary sounding
names for commonplace items in order to further their agenda.
"Assault weapons — just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns,
and plastic firearms — are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks,
coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns
versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a
machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the
chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
From "Assault Weapons & Accessories in America"
(http://www.vpc.org/studies/awacont.htm), published by "The Violence
Policy Center", a sister organization to "Handgun Control Inc.".
Danny Gottlieb
Bingo!
I have a Toaster.
I have an Oven.
Why in god's name do I "need" a Toaster/Oven for as well?
I get it!
According to Bill, I now have an "arsenal" of cooking devices!
I wonder if the Cooking Police are gonna come-a-knocking.. and lamb
baste me!
Danny Gottlieb
Bravisimo!
John P
>> I guess it depends on what you would consider "lots of them". There are
>> about 120,000 full auto weapons legally owned by civilians in the US.
>> Based on what it takes to own such a weapon, my guess is that most owners
>> have more than one in their collection. I would think it safe to say
>> there are probably 60,000 civilians in the US who own a fell auto weapon.
> That's a "lot."
It is something significantly less than 1%. I can't imagine anyone calling
that a "lot"
> But I still wish I could have one... or two hundred!
If you live in the US, you can. Full auto weapons are legal (but expensive)
to own.
> Then again, where the hell would I put them?
> I only have a small, 3200 sq/ft house!
That is pretty small. Then again, in many housing markets, a 3,200 sq ft
house can easily run $500,000. Conversely, if you choose the right area at
the tight time, you can build an 8,000 sq ft ranch on 10 acres for just over
$1 million. Just depends on the market.
Morton Davis
"John P" <John...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:xPWdndJeL9D...@comcast.com...
historical high and increasing, shall - issue CCW or unrestricted carry are
the law in 37/50 states, crime in America is at a 30 year low, murder is at
a 40 year low and gun - related deaths continue to decrease.
YOU LOSE.
Bill
That is the problem with guntards who act so tough on the internet
instead of acting tough against our enemies in Iraq. Sign up for
service in Iraq when you grow a pair. Uncle Sam may even make a man out
of you.
Bill
I don't believe that you would rate even as a guntard.
Bill
Please take it easy with the name calling, you mother fucking worthless
bucket of shit.
> I know I am just one person, but I know LOTS of people that have that
Bill
> John...@comcast.net (John P) wrote in
> news:KfqdnS09p5AdCwne...@comcast.com:
>
> > Most Americans own a lot of things they don't "need".
>
> Why are you trying to have a discussion with a rotting tree stump?
Please take it easy with the name calling, you mother fucking worthless
bucket of shit.
>
Bill
> "Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in a message
>
> > Come on guntard! Where does the Constitution say that you have the
> > right to own semi-automatic and automatic weapons and armor piercing
> > bullets?
>
> Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. There are no exclusions listed.
Exclusions are not necessary. It is sufficient that the Constitution
does not say that anyone can own any type of weapons. That is why
Congress and local authorities can and have regulated the sale of fire
arms. There is a proper balance between what gun advocates claim their
right and gun control advocates claim necessary for the protection of
society. The only thing the abusive posters have accomplished is to
convince me that gun control advocates have a very good point.
>
> > Wrong! Most gun owners are not guntards and wouldn't waste their money
> > on an arsenal they do not need.
>
> Most Americans own a lot of things they don't "need".
It may be true but I found that a lot of people who have seen military
service don't own fire arms. I suspect that the majority of guntards
did not serve and have never faced enemy fire.
Scout
> Morton Davis wrote:
>> "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefir...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:L3Skf.3044$fO5....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > Al Baldry wrote:
>> > > Bill OutofWil...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >>It took place some time ago but it the documentary was shown last
>> > >>night
>> > >>about the two guntards who used body armor, automatic weapons and
>> > >>body
>> > >>armor piercing bullets to rob a bank in North Hollywood, California.
>> > >>The two guntards fired 1100 rounds and injured numerous civilians and
>> > >>police officers. They had to bring in a special unit to bring them
>> > >>down
>> > >>because the weapons the police had were ineffective against these
>> > >>guntards. The police had to go into a gun shop to get better weapons.
>> > >>The only good thing is that both guntards were killed and no further
>> > >>public expenditure is required to dispose these criminals.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > More Guns, Less Crime. Believe The Lie.
>> > >
>> > > "Dishonest" John Lott is discredited again.
>> >
>> >
>> > On one hand, we have John Lott, a well respected researcher and
>> > scholar.
>> > On the other hand we have you slinging mud with no evidence.
>> > Not much of a choice.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ownership
>> in America is at an all time historical high and shall-issue CCW is the
>> law
>> in 35 states, crime is at a 30 year low, murder is at a 40 year low and
>> gun-related deaths continue their decades long decrease.
>>
>> More guns, less crime - proven by national statistics.
>
> weapons and armor piercing bullets, guntards do.
Really? And who the hell do you think you are to tell me what I do or do not
need, much less what I can have because I want it?????
Personally, I don't see any need for you to have a computer and internet
access.
Bill
I don't know of any PC's that can be used to murder people. If there
were, they should definitely be kept out of the hands of unstable
people.
Danny Gottlieb
> PLMerite wrote:
>>I don't own any fully-automatic weapons, but I do have AP ammo for some of
>>the military-pattern semi-automatic rifles I do own.
>>
>>Come get 'em when you grow a pair.
>
>
> That is the problem with guntards who act so tough on the internet
Apparently, and so far, everyone that owns what you fear and loathe is
defined as a "guntard."
Yet YOU still refuse to say what you mean by that term.
Why do you watch so much bad TV?
Danny Gottlieb
This is true!
After all, you are the only one that does meet your criteria as one!
Do tell us all why you fear semi-auto's, full auto, certain bullets, and
women who want to have an abortion?
Danny Gottlieb
Billy? You sound like the worthless echo you are.
Why can't you respond like a man, instead of saying that same stupid
thing you do, time and time again?
When you KNOW you are beaten to a pulp and proven wrong, just admit it,
instead of copy/pasting that same stupid line you use, time and time again!
You remain SENTIANT and silent for a reason!
Bill
I do not fear extremists on either side but I believe that we need to
be vigilant and be prepared to respond to over-reaction by extremist
nuts. That is why we have people trained to handle extremists. What I
have seen so far, with considerable satisfaction, is that the
authorities have managed to take out the extremists with ease. I wish
them continued success.
Bill
> Bill wrote:
>
> > Danny Gottlieb wrote:
> >>I am correct, you fucking idiot!
>
> > Please take it easy with the name calling, you mother fucking worthless
> > bucket of shit.
>
> Billy? You sound like the worthless echo you are.
> Why can't you respond like a man, instead of saying that same stupid
> thing you do, time and time again?
It is you who have no valid argument and try to silence my opinion by
name calling. I have only one response to that. I respond with name
calling to name calling. If you wish to engage in a debate then cut out
the name calling and make your point. I stand on firm grounds because I
do not prescribe to extreme positions and able to consider opinions
contrary to mine, as long as those opinions are delivered without name
calling.
Danny Gottlieb
> "Danny Gottlieb" wrote in a message
>
>
>>>I guess it depends on what you would consider "lots of them". There are
>>>about 120,000 full auto weapons legally owned by civilians in the US.
>>>Based on what it takes to own such a weapon, my guess is that most owners
>>>have more than one in their collection. I would think it safe to say
>>>there are probably 60,000 civilians in the US who own a fell auto weapon.
>
>
>>That's a "lot."
>
>
> It is something significantly less than 1%. I can't imagine anyone calling
> that a "lot"
Then define "a few"! :)
>>But I still wish I could have one... or two hundred!
>
>
> If you live in the US, you can. Full auto weapons are legal (but expensive)
> to own.
300 bucks for the tax/get out of jail free papers, just to be able to
own a great "Spray fire"?
Is that "a lot" of money?
I make that, farting!
Hell! I pay more then that for gas and oil for my lawn and driveway
maintaining equipment!
And just in time, I might add, as it's about to dump another 6 inches
of snow here tonight, and I got my snow blower back JUST in time from
the shop yesterday!
>>Then again, where the hell would I put them?
>> I only have a small, 3200 sq/ft house!
> That is pretty small. Then again, in many housing markets, a 3,200 sq ft
> house can easily run $500,000. Conversely, if you choose the right area at
> the tight time, you can build an 8,000 sq ft ranch on 10 acres for just over
> $1 million. Just depends on the market.
I agree, even though mine has now been appraised at 759,000... as I
designed the "addition, and it's only on just less then an acre, and
only my wife and I live here.
Scout
> Scout wrote:
>> "Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1133751296.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Scout wrote:
>> >> "Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1133749050.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > James F. Mayer wrote:
>> >> >> "Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:1133735540.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> > Scout wrote:
>> >> >> >> "Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> news:1133734156.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> >> > Scout wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> "Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> news:1133722697.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> >> >> > The guntards are their own worst enemies.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Well, criminals certainly are, but what's your point?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Silence noted
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > The majority of people do
>> >> >> >> >> > not care if law-abiding citizens own weapons for
>> >> >> >> >> > protection.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Then what about DC?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I don't agree with the DC law.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Gee, you don't agree........but it's STILL the law.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Change the law if it bothers you so much.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> > What
>> >> >> >> >> > turns most people off is when guntards get offensive about
>> >> >> >> >> > people
>> >> >> >> >> > posting about crimes committed by guns.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Sorry, but I'm not aware of any criminals getting offensive
>> >> >> >> >> here.
>> >> >> >> >> Do
>> >> >> >> >> you
>> >> >> >> >> have some examples?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I don't know who is and who is not a criminal; however anyone
>> >> >> >> > who
>> >> >> >> > is
>> >> >> >> > just itching to shoot me between the eyes has a criminal mind.
>> >> >> >> > It
>> >> >> >> > is
>> >> >> >> > anybody's guess when someone as crazy as that will actually go
>> >> >> >> > off
>> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > deep end and murder someone just for the fun of it.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Ah, so what you're really trying to say is that you are a
>> >> >> >> fanatic
>> >> >> >> paranoid.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Got it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Here is just one example in this thread of someone who is itching
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > kill. It pays to be paranoid with people like that around. Read
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> > for
>> >> >> > yourself:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "I don't own, nor have I ever bought any of my firearms for
>> >> >> > "protection."
>> >> >> > But to be honest, I sure am glad I have the right to use the ones
>> >> >> > I
>> >> >> > do
>> >> >> > have, to shoot you cocksucking mental midgets in that small place
>> >> >> > you
>> >> >> > have between your leaky, drippy eyes, if you should ever desire
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > steal
>> >> >> > from me, or harm my family. "
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Oh, and remember you have already established your definition
>> >> >> >> >> of
>> >> >> >> >> "guntard"
>> >> >> >> >> is a criminal.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > You can see see good examples of guntards just on this thread.
>> >> >> >> > The
>> >> >> >> > guntards know who they are.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Care to point out these criminals? I certainly haven't seen
>> >> >> >> them.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > See the above example of retarded, blood-thirty criminal mind.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The "blood-thirsty" are the gun control advocates that need
>> >> >> dead
>> >> >> bodies
>> >> >> to exploit for their gun banning cause. Those are the
>> >> >> "blood-thirsty
>> >> >> criminal(s)"
>> >> >
>> >> > Normal people do not wish for dead bodies. Unfortunately, what
>> >> > normal
>> >> > people want does not matter to guntards who murder our children.
>> >>
>> >> Who exactly are these guntards of yours? On one hand you seem to be
>> >> suggesting they are anyone that owns a gun, and on the other you seem
>> >> to
>> >> be
>> >> suggesting they are violent criminals. So which is it, or are they so
>> >> mixed
>> >> up in your mind that you view anyone with a gun as a violent criminal?
>> >
>> > Those who respond violently and with threats to opinions they do not
>> > like about guntards - are guntards.
>>
>> I see, so people who react badly about suggestions we enslave people are
>> people that need to be enslaved. People who react badly about suggestions
>> we
>> infringe the freedom of the press are people that don't need to publish.
>> Etc.
>
> My concern is with the guntards' emotional response an exaggerations
> that seem to feed their anger and paranoia to the point that guntards
> goad themselves into going out and murdering people who never meant any
> harm to them.
Once again, we see you call gun owners criminals by suggesting they are all
murderers.
>> Rather a self fulfilling condition you've established there.
>>
>> However, I will just note that your statement here and your statement
>> elsewhere states that anyone that owns a gun is a dangerous violent
>> criminal
>> and/or murderer.
>
> You seem to have a habit of misquoting me. It does not help your
> credibility.
Really? Well then since I haven't quoted you before, let's quote you now and
see if your words match what I stated about your remarks.
"Most gun crimes are committed against unarmed peopleproving that
guntards are cowards who need guns to terrorize innocent and
defenseless people"
IOW, guntards are criminals, since terrorizing people is a criminal act.
"My concern is with the guntards' emotional response an exaggerations
that seem to feed their anger and paranoia to the point that guntards
goad themselves into going out and murdering people who never meant any
harm to them."
IOW, guntards are murderers, since murder is a criminal act.
Before you complain I'm misquoting you, 1) You better make sure I am
actually quoting you and 2) that you didn't really say what you claim is
being misquoted.
>> Well this isn't true, nor anywhere close to being true. As
>> such your claims, assertions and opinions are not based upon reality, but
>> rather your own paranoia, delusions and fantasy. Well, I reject your
>> views
>> because there is no legitimate basis for them, and hence no reason to
>> give
>> them any serious consideration.
>
> I never equated responsible gun owners with guntards.
Care to try again.
"What
turns most people off is when guntards get offensive about people
posting about crimes committed by guns. Law abiding citizens do not
need automatic and semi-automatic weapons with armor piercing bullets."
Responsible gun owners do own semi-automatic weapons, full automatic weapons
and armor piercing bullets.
Your contention that only guntards do so is to equate responsible owners
with guntards.
> Responsible gun
> owners don't need semi-automatic and automatic weapons and armor
> piercing bullets, guntards do.
And you repeat your assertion equating responsible owners with guntards.
Scout
> John P wrote:
>> "Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in a message
>>
>> > I never equated responsible gun owners with guntards. Responsible gun
>> > owners don't need semi-automatic and automatic weapons and armor
>> > piercing bullets, guntards do.
>>
>> protected rights subject to this test?
>
> Please provide specific language in the Constitution about
"arms"
Is there some part of that term you don't understand?
>> How many gun owners do you think own automatic weapons or armor piercing
>> bullets?
>
> Exactly! Normal people do not need these weapons.
Normal people don't need to own newspapers either, but that does mean they
can't do so if they WANT.
See, we can do things just because we WANT to, isn't freedom just really
awesome?
> Why would any
> responsible gun owner come to the defense of those guntards who fired
> 1100 rounds, injured several civilians and police officers?
Who is coming to defense of a pair of criminals, what people here are
objecting to is your attempting to imply that we are like them.
>> Do you feel that people who need to resort to name calling and repeating
>> paranoid fantasies about automatic weapons and armor piercing bullets
>> "need"
>> to share these delusions with the general public?
>
> I just recently watched the documentary on the carnage caused by two
> crazed guntards. It took some time before they could get the SWAT team
> on the scene and eliminate them. I found it very wrong that these
> criminals could get those weapons and harm so many people.
Well, they didn't do it legally. I wonder how much more illegal you need to
make things before crime stops?
Scout
> Danny Gottlieb wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >>"Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in a message
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>I never equated responsible gun owners with guntards. Responsible gun
>> >>>owners don't need semi-automatic and automatic weapons and armor
>> >>>piercing bullets, guntards do.
>> >>
>> >>What does "need" have to do with anything? Are all constitutionally
>> >>protected rights subject to this test?
>> >
>> >
>> > Please provide specific language in the Constitution about
>> > semi-automatic and automatic weapons and armor piercing bullets.
>>
>> ANY weapon used in the commision of a crime is a no-no, you boob.
>
> Come on guntard! Where does the Constitution say that you have the
> bullets?
>>
>> >>How many gun owners do you think own automatic weapons or armor
>> >>piercing
>> >>bullets?
>>
>
> Wrong! Most gun owners are not guntards and wouldn't waste their money
> on an arsenal they do not need.
Actually most gun owners own at least one semi-automatic, which by your
assertion makes them guntards, or did you forget your own comment?
Danny Gottlieb
> I don't know of any PC's that can be used to murder people. If there
> were, they should definitely be kept out of the hands of unstable
> people.
I don't know of any firearms that can be used to murder people, either..
you fucked up sack of name calling cat poop!
SO, How _do_ you use inanimate objects to commit crimes?
Scout
Been there, done that, got the "T" shirt.
Scout
> John P wrote:
>> "Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in a message
>>
>> > Come on guntard! Where does the Constitution say that you have the
>> > right to own semi-automatic and automatic weapons and armor piercing
>> > bullets?
>>
>> Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. There are no exclusions listed.
>
> Exclusions are not necessary. It is sufficient that the Constitution
> does not say that anyone can own any type of weapons.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms"
What part of "right" and "arms" do you not understand?
Danny Gottlieb
> Danny Gottlieb wrote:
>>Do tell us all why you fear semi-auto's, full auto, certain bullets, and
>> women who want to have an abortion?
>
>
>
> I do not fear extremists..
Read it again, S L O W L Y!
I asked:
" Do tell us all why you fear semi-auto's, full auto, certain bullets,
and women who want to have an abortion?"
When you absorb that, take your time and answer it when you are clear
headed.
Danny Gottlieb
> Danny Gottlieb wrote:
>
>>Bill wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Danny Gottlieb wrote:
>
>
>>>>I am correct, you fucking idiot!
>>
>>>Please take it easy with the name calling, you mother fucking worthless
>>>bucket of shit.
>>
>>Billy? You sound like the worthless echo you are.
>>Why can't you respond like a man, instead of saying that same stupid
>>thing you do, time and time again?
>
>
> It is you who have no valid argument and try to silence my opinion by
> name calling. I have only one response to that. I respond with name
> calling to name calling.
Calling you "billy" your name, is "name calling?
No wonder you are seen and known as the fuckin' munchkin you are, and
dumb as a stump!
You are now a known and predictable liar who admits that everything you
have ever said is wrong and SUPER DUMB!
Congrats.
Scout
> "Danny Gottlieb" <KIL...@drums.gov> wrote in a message
>
>>> How many gun owners do you think own automatic weapons or armor piercing
>>> bullets?
>
>> Lots of them.
>
> about 120,000 full auto weapons legally owned by civilians in the US.
> Based on what it takes to own such a weapon, my guess is that most owners
> have more than one in their collection. I would think it safe to say there
> are probably 60,000 civilians in the US who own a fell auto weapon.
>
> percentage of the total.
>
> Full auto weapons are relatively rare, in civilian hands. Their use in
> crimes is even more so. In 71 years (since 1934), there have only been 2
> murders and 10 crimes involving the use of a full auto weapon. When
> looking at possibilities for reducing or eliminating crime, looking at
> full auto weapons is a waste of time.
>
> As for armor piercing rounds... who makes such a thing? Where do civilians
> buy it? Why didn't the LAPD get some armor piercing rounds from the same
> store where they found the AR-15's? (Hint - because they don't exist)
Now care to consider how many people own semi-automatic weapons? After all
that is part of his definition.
"Responsible gun owners don't need semi-automatic and automatic
weapons and armor piercing bullets, guntards do."
Scout
double standard noted.
Oh, and computers have been used to kill.
RD (The Sandman)
news:1133802837.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> RD (The Sandman) (spamlock) wrote:
>> "Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in
SNIP........
>> > These responses convinced me that society would far better served by
>> > keeping a close eye on the guntards because there is no telling when
>> > they might go off the deep end.
>>
>> Just how do you define a guntard since you are the one using the term?
>
> Most of the people responded to my accounting of North Hollywood crime
> spree appear to be guntards.
What did they say about those robbers who illegally possessed full auto
weaponry and thought they were invincible that made you think to call
them guntards? I missed some of the earlier discussion.
> You appear to be able to reason, ergo; you
> are not a guntard.
>
> What concerns me most about people on either side of "guns" and
> "abortion" debate is that there is no middle ground.
Actually, there is but sometimes the noise level from either end tends to
drown it out.
> People can expect to be called names and threatened any time they
> express a point of view that does not meet the most extreme points of
> view of either side.
That is true of any controversial or emotional subject.
> I consider myself a moderate on gun rights but after the responses I
> got from some real off the deep end guntards, I am inclined to favor
> the gun control point of view. At least until I read something equally
> off the deep end from the gun control nuts.
Both ends have their followers.
> The abortion debate is no different. There are people on one side who
> think that ripping a viable baby out of a mother's womb and sucking the
> baby's brains out -just to make sure. These are the abortion people.
>
> There are people who would deny a rape victim the right to abort or
> would want a woman to give birth to a deformed and brain dead child.
> These people would even stop others from using pills. These are the
> anti-abortion people.
There are also those (like me) who are against abortion and would do a
lot of talking to keep my daughters from getting one, but the bottom line
is that it is their bodies, not mine, and therefore that decision has to
be theirs. No matter what decision they make they would still be my kids
and I would still love them.
> Try to express any opinion that does not support the crazies on either
> side and you are in for a ride.
That is true if you opt for the middle or one of the ends. Mights as
well simply voice your opinion and be prepared to defend it.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
A real man should have the conviction to hold strong beliefs....
Hmmm, I believe I should have another beer.
RD (The Sandman)
news:1133801607....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> John P wrote:
>> "Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in a message
>>
>> > I never equated responsible gun owners with guntards. Responsible
>> > gun owners don't need semi-automatic and automatic weapons and
>> > armor piercing bullets, guntards do.
>>
>> What does "need" have to do with anything? Are all constitutionally
>> protected rights subject to this test?
>
> Please provide specific language in the Constitution about
> semi-automatic and automatic weapons and armor piercing bullets.
Three points:
1. The Constitution is a limitation on government not on the people.
2. The Constitution does not *grant* the right to keep and bear arms, it
simply protects it from the federal government.
3. Since there is no limitation on semi or full auto weaponry or armor
piercing bullets given, there is no limitation in the Constitution as to
that protection.
>> How many gun owners do you think own automatic weapons or armor
>> piercing bullets?
>
> Exactly! Normal people do not need these weapons.
Need has exactly nothing to do with it. No one needs a 125 mph Mustang
either.
> Why would any
> responsible gun owner come to the defense of those guntards who fired
> 1100 rounds, injured several civilians and police officers?
I don't think that anyone did. If you can show me one cite of someone
defending the Hollywood Bank robbers, you may get me to changed my mind.
>> Do you feel that people who need to resort to name calling and
>> repeating paranoid fantasies about automatic weapons and armor
>> piercing bullets "need" to share these delusions with the general
>> public?
>
> I just recently watched the documentary on the carnage caused by two
> crazed guntards. It took some time before they could get the SWAT team
> on the scene and eliminate them. I found it very wrong that these
> criminals could get those weapons and harm so many people.
If you actually watched an actual documentary on that robbery, then you
should know that the full auto weaponry used by those guys was
*ILLEGALLY* converted. They had already broken the law.
Full auto weaponry is not something one simply goes to the local dealer
to pick out at lunchtime.
> It is not
> "name calling", "paranoid fantasies", or "delusions". It is normal
> reaction to the harm these crazed guntards caused in North Hollywood,
> California.
It would be those things if you think that normal citizens can simply go
to a gun store or gun show and get legally that type of firepower with no
background checks or questions asked.
RD (The Sandman)
news:1133820228.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> John P wrote:
>> "Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in a message
>>
>> > Come on guntard! Where does the Constitution say that you have the
>> > right to own semi-automatic and automatic weapons and armor
>> > piercing bullets?
>>
>> Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. There are no exclusions
>> listed.
>
> Exclusions are not necessary. It is sufficient that the Constitution
> does not say that anyone can own any type of weapons.
Nor does the Constitution place any limit on those types of weapons.
> That is why
> Congress and local authorities can and have regulated the sale of fire
> arms.
No, it isn't. The reason that they do it is that it is not defined and
only one case has gone to the USSC over a weapon type.
> There is a proper balance between what gun advocates claim their
> right and gun control advocates claim necessary for the protection of
> society. The only thing the abusive posters have accomplished is to
> convince me that gun control advocates have a very good point.
You are correct in that no right is absolute.
>> > Wrong! Most gun owners are not guntards and wouldn't waste their
>> > money on an arsenal they do not need.
>>
>> Most Americans own a lot of things they don't "need".
>
> It may be true but I found that a lot of people who have seen military
> service don't own fire arms. I suspect that the majority of guntards
> did not serve and have never faced enemy fire.
I would bet the majority of gun owners have been in the service but may
or may not have faced enemy fire.
John P
>>> Come on guntard! Where does the Constitution say that you have the
>>> right to own semi-automatic and automatic weapons and armor piercing
>>> bullets?
>> Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. There are no exclusions listed.
> Exclusions are not necessary. It is sufficient that the Constitution
> does not say that anyone can own any type of weapons.
"Where does the Constitution say that you have the right to own
semi-automatic and automatic weapons and armor piercing
bullets?"
That was your question. The answer is "The Second Amendment". As you agreed,
there are no exclusions. Any such exclusions come from local authority. ...
but at least you now know where the Constitution says "...The right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
As you noted, it doesn't say "... the right of the people to keep and bear
arms, but not semi-auto weapons, full auto weapons or armor piercing rounds,
shall not be infringed."
>> Most Americans own a lot of things they don't "need".
> It may be true but I found that a lot of people who have seen military
> service don't own fire arms. I suspect that the majority of guntards
> did not serve and have never faced enemy fire.
I wouldn't know. I don't know any guntards. There are a few people who seem
to have a mental illness that causes them to fear inanimate objects in this
newsgroups, but, even though they are obviously guntards, I wouldn't say
that I really know them.
Most of the military & ex-military people I know (and that would be quite a
few), *do* own guns.
John P
> I don't know of any PC's that can be used to murder people. If there
> were, they should definitely be kept out of the hands of unstable
> people.
Ironic that by Googling on "Murder +Computer -Game", the first hit I got was
a murder case where a man used Google to figure out how to kill his wife.
Bad enough that we have to deal with "Gun murders", now we have "PC
killings". Face it, the machines are taking over! It seems that, like guns,
computers are often used in killings.
"In a murder trial featuring evidence of Google searches, jurors late
Tuesday found former computer consultant Robert Petrick guilty of
first-degree murder in the killing of his wife..."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20051201/tc_cmp/174402850
Here's another "PC Killing";
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/vernon_geberth/12.html
And more;
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/19/parents.slain/?section=cnn_topstories
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/jun/26/computer_evidence_new_paper_trail_crime_investigat/?city_local
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/817913.stm
http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051122.gtsisters22/BNStory/Technology/
"02/28/99 -- Lenoir, NC -- Sharon Lopatka, 35, left her Hampstead, Maryland
home for North Carolina, on Oct. 13, 1998 to willingly be sexually tortured
to death by a man she had met on the Internet. She was killed 3 days later.
She left a note telling her husband she visiting friends in Georgia and
would not be coming returning. Her body was found in a shallow grave behind
a mobile home. Robert Glass, 45, was charged with first-degree murder"
http://www.karisable.com/crpc.htm
http://www.wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25195
I was really looking for something where someone had bashed their victim
over the head with a computer monitor or something like that... I mean, it's
got to have happened at least *once*, right? :-)
John P
>> It is something significantly less than 1%. I can't imagine anyone
>> calling that a "lot"
> Then define "a few"! :)
Much less than "A Lot". Think of it this way, If I offered you the choice
between "A few dollars" or "A lot of money", which would you choose? ;-)
>> If you live in the US, you can. Full auto weapons are legal (but
>> expensive) to own.
> 300 bucks for the tax/get out of jail free papers, just to be able to own
> a great "Spray fire"?
> Is that "a lot" of money?
I think it would cost you a bit more than $300 by the time you'd finally put
such a weapon in your hands.
Just go here & use the "Add to shopping cart" button. :-)
http://www.fortliberty.org/gun-accessories/class-three-iii-firearm-gun-dealers.shtml
> And just in time, I might add, as it's about to dump another 6 inches of
> snow here tonight, and I got my snow blower back JUST in time from the
> shop yesterday!
I snagged a sweet snow monster from my neighbor who was retiring and moving
to a condo. He had just bought it the year before and never used it. I got
it from him for $200. ... which isn't a lot. :-D
> I agree, even though mine has now been appraised at 759,000... as I
> designed the "addition, and it's only on just less then an acre, and only
> my wife and I live here.
Wow. Where do you live that $759,000 only gets you 3,200 sq ft? California?
There are a few burbs around here (Chicago), like that. Hell, even where I
live is getting a bit retarded. Houses built in the 1950's that sold for
$8,000 new, are going for $250,000. These are 700 sq ft pre-fab homes, built
on slabs. They were garbage when they were built.
It's not nearly as bad as some burbs though. There are areas here where
people pay a million bucks for a shit house, just so they can get the
property. They tear down the old house and squeeze a McMansion on the site.
Crazy bastards.
John P
> Now care to consider how many people own semi-automatic weapons? After all
> that is part of his definition.
Heck... that would probably be *most* gun owners. ... and what's the beef
with semi-auto weapons? I have a 7 shot DA revolver that can pop off 7
rounds as quickly as any semi-auto. Of course, people suffering from a fear
of guns generally seem to believe that one bullet is scary and many bullets
is more scary - ignoring the fact that, generally, the more lead you put in
the air, the more likely your accuracy will suffer. I'd rather be missed by
someone "spraying bullets" from a full auto weapon than have a guy with a
muzzle loader take his time to put one between my eyes. :-)
PLMerite
> PLMerite wrote:
>> "Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1133803213.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Danny Gottlieb wrote:
>> >> Bill wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>"Bill" <OutofWil...@hotmail.com> wrote in a message
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>gun
>> >> >>>piercing bullets, guntards do.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>What does "need" have to do with anything? Are all constitutionally
>> >> >>protected rights subject to this test?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Please provide specific language in the Constitution about
>> >>
>> >> Yer dodging the question, as usual.
>> >> ANY weapon used in the commision of a crime is a no-no, you boob.
>> >
>> > right to own semi-automatic and automatic weapons and armor piercing
>> > bullets?
>> >>
>> >> >>piercing
>> >> >>bullets?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Wrong! Most gun owners are not guntards and wouldn't waste their money
>> > on an arsenal they do not need.
>>
>>
>> of
>> the military-pattern semi-automatic rifles I do own.
>>
>> Come get 'em when you grow a pair.
>
> That is the problem with guntards who act so tough on the internet
> instead of acting tough against our enemies in Iraq. Sign up for
> service in Iraq when you grow a pair. Uncle Sam may even make a man out
> of you.
I'm already doing my bit to save American lives and kill terrorists.
My firearms are for enemies of the "domestic" kind.
Regards, PLMerite
James F. Mayer
Then gun control advocates are not normal.
Unfortunately, what normal
> people want does not matter to guntards who murder our children.
>
Then why have gun control advocates murdered children? Why do they own
guns?
James F. Mayer
You have had no valid argument from the time you posted your first
worthless rant.
Morton Davis
"James F. Mayer" <jf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:OFflf.59$Dd2...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
decrease. It drives people like "Bill" mad because it goes against their
preconceptions. More guns - less crime and less gun-related deaths do not
help "Bill", so he lies his ass off.