LUNACY TEST! Rack Jite 4/5/99
Rack Jite
Just with this simple test lunacy can be easily diagnosed.
First have them read the following:
"Shooting teaches young people good things.
All good rules for shooting are good rules for life."
Tom Selleck in his latest NRA ad.
Then ask if they agree with either statement. If they answer
affirmatively to one or both, they are even crazier than the lunatic
who actually signed his name to that crap. And finally, with your
hands a fair distance from your body, get away from them as soon as
possible.
"It is the duty of honorable men of good character to respect any woman they may have had a consensual affair with by denying it to those men of no character dishonorable enough to be nosing into it." Rack Jite
--> The New Conservatively Incorrect at: http://rackjite.com <--
Steve Fischer
>There is no need for psychiatrists.
>Just with this simple test lunacy can be easily diagnosed.
>First have them read the following:
>
>"Shooting teaches young people good things.
>All good rules for shooting are good rules for life."
>Tom Selleck in his latest NRA ad.
>Then ask if they agree with either statement. If they answer
>affirmatively to one or both, they are even crazier than the lunatic
>who actually signed his name to that crap. And finally, with your
>hands a fair distance from your body, get away from them as soon as
>possible.
It is painfully obvious from the way Rack Jite approaches the
Selleck comment that he equates "shooting" with "teaching kids how
to shoot other people." How else could he have arrived at such a
bizarre conclusion.
It seems pretty obvious that he considers ignorance a much
better idea. If kids never see a gun, they'll never end up using
one, right? Bullshit!
How well does that work in practice when you consider something
other than guns. Let's not teach teens how to drink responsibly because
then they won't drink at all, right? Yeah, riiight. Let's not teach
kids about illegal drugs because then they won't become involved with
them. Let's not teach kids how to drive because then they won't want
to own a car. Let's not teach kids about responsible sexual behavior,
and birth control, because then they won't have sex.
Why is ignorance useful only when the word gun is involved?
Irrational fear of guns, that's why.
Steve
Steve
--
/Steve D. Fischer/Atlanta, Georgia/str...@netcom.com/
Bruce
respond to any of the followups this post may prompt, thus destroying
his credibility and earning himself the label of "troll."
So, come on, folks. Explain to him (even though he will probably not
see your posts) how teaching kids to *not* shoot such trolls is a good
thing; how being responsible is good; how discipline and restraint of
action when capable are good things. Or maybe his definition of
"good" is contrary to that held by those of us with intelligence?
Bruce
On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 13:55:27 GMT, rack...@worldnet.att.net (Rack
Jite) wrote:
> snipped <troll drivel>
Robert Frenchu
>There is no need for psychiatrists.
>Just with this simple test lunacy can be easily diagnosed.
>First have them read the following:
>
>"Shooting teaches young people good things.
>All good rules for shooting are good rules for life."
>Tom Selleck in his latest NRA ad.
>
>Then ask if they agree with either statement. If they answer
>affirmatively to one or both, they are even crazier than the lunatic
>who actually signed his name to that crap. And finally, with your
>hands a fair distance from your body, get away from them as soon as
>possible.
The New 4-R's- Reading, 'riting, 'rithmatic, and reloading.
Coming to a school near you whether you like it or not, chump.
If- God forbid- you have any offspring, a little firearms instruction
would do them a world of good.
____________________________________________________
If my "assault rifle" makes me a criminal
And my encryption program makes me a terrorist
Does Dianne Feinstein's vagina make her a prostitute?
David Voth
era must have forced rack...@worldnet.att.net (Rack Jite) to write:
>There is no need for psychiatrists.
Oh, boy. It's Rack Jite, Amateur Internet Psychiatrist!
>Just with this simple test lunacy can be easily diagnosed.
>First have them read the following:
>
>"Shooting teaches young people good things.
And your problem with that statement is???
>All good rules for shooting are good rules for life."
Same question, Rack. We can get into details of the "good rules for
shooting" if you need help.
<snip>
--
See the amazing talk.politics.guns Kook of the Month page!
http://www.frenchu.com/tpg
m124
I feel very irascible and and mean, when knee jerk liberal scum, who are
afraid of their own shadow, try to take away my means, of defense.
If you don't want a gun,don't buy it! Leave the decent citizens alone.
You are, without a doubt, one of the dumbest and clue less Clinton jock
straps, on the internet!
Rack Jite
wrote:
>The truly telling fact will reveal itself when Mr. Jite refuses to
>respond to any of the followups this post may prompt, thus destroying
>his credibility and earning himself the label of "troll."
And if I do respond, you wont like dat either hey? :)
You gunloons are a real yuck...
>So, come on, folks. Explain to him (even though he will probably not
>see your posts) how teaching kids to *not* shoot such trolls is a good
>thing; how being responsible is good; how discipline and restraint of
>action when capable are good things. Or maybe his definition of
>"good" is contrary to that held by those of us with intelligence?
>Bruce
How many guns you got dare bruce? Tell us about yer ammo... :)
Rack Jite
On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 14:46:20 GMT, Robert_...@yahoo.org (Robert
Frenchu) wrote:
>How did rack...@worldnet.att.net (Rack Jite) come up with :
>
>>There is no need for psychiatrists.
>>Just with this simple test lunacy can be easily diagnosed.
>>First have them read the following:
>>
>>"Shooting teaches young people good things.
>>All good rules for shooting are good rules for life."
>>Tom Selleck in his latest NRA ad.
>>
>>Then ask if they agree with either statement. If they answer
>>affirmatively to one or both, they are even crazier than the lunatic
>>who actually signed his name to that crap. And finally, with your
>>hands a fair distance from your body, get away from them as soon as
>>possible.
>
>The New 4-R's- Reading, 'riting, 'rithmatic, and reloading.
>
>Coming to a school near you whether you like it or not, chump.
>If- God forbid- you have any offspring, a little firearms instruction
>would do them a world of good.
>
>____________________________________________________
>
>If my "assault rifle" makes me a criminal
>And my encryption program makes me a terrorist
>Does Dianne Feinstein's vagina make her a prostitute?
"It is the duty of honorable men of good character to respect any woman they may have had a consensual affair with by denying it to those men of no character dishonorable enough to be nosing into it." Rack Jite
Coach
themselves and teach gun safety?
Coach
william burke
davi...@catholic.org wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 13:55:27 GMT, a brain implant from the Cold War
> era must have forced rack...@worldnet.att.net (Rack Jite) to write:
>
> >There is no need for psychiatrists.
>
> Oh, boy. It's Rack Jite, Amateur Internet Psychiatrist!
>
> >Just with this simple test lunacy can be easily diagnosed.
> >First have them read the following:
> >
> >"Shooting teaches young people good things.
>
> And your problem with that statement is???
>
> >All good rules for shooting are good rules for life."
>
> Same question, Rack. We can get into details of the "good rules for
> shooting" if you need help.
>
> <snip>
Why don't we change the name of the thread to the suggested above?
Shooting taught ME a lot when I was young... such as respect for life, and
to NOT shoot others unless they reach a level of menace sufficient for
self-defense. What could be more obvious or simple than that?
--
"That's a... I say, THAT'S a JOKE, son!"
tjwilson
tjw
Rack Jite wrote:
> There is no need for psychiatrists.
> Just with this simple test lunacy can be easily diagnosed.
> First have them read the following:
>
> "Shooting teaches young people good things.
> All good rules for shooting are good rules for life."
> Tom Selleck in his latest NRA ad.
>
> Then ask if they agree with either statement. If they answer
> affirmatively to one or both, they are even crazier than the lunatic
> who actually signed his name to that crap. And finally, with your
> hands a fair distance from your body, get away from them as soon as
> possible.
>
>
>
Patrick L. Humphrey
>On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 14:23:43 GMT, bwayne@*nospam*home.com (Bruce)
>wrote:
>>The truly telling fact will reveal itself when Mr. Jite refuses to
>>respond to any of the followups this post may prompt, thus destroying
>>his credibility and earning himself the label of "troll."
>And if I do respond, you wont like dat either hey? :)
>You gunloons are a real yuck...
Not half as much of a yuck as you are, Dave, when you assume that anyone who
disputes your opinion is a "gunloon".
>>So, come on, folks. Explain to him (even though he will probably not
>>see your posts) how teaching kids to *not* shoot such trolls is a good
>>thing; how being responsible is good; how discipline and restraint of
>>action when capable are good things. Or maybe his definition of
>>"good" is contrary to that held by those of us with intelligence?
>>Bruce
>How many guns you got dare bruce? Tell us about yer ammo... :)
Hay, Dave, you never have answered this simple question: how many do *I*
have? Is there a reason you can't answer that? (Besides the obvious one,
that is.) Better yet, how many do YOU have? After all, you're the one who
claims that some conveniently anonymous LEO told you it was okay if you shot
unarmed people pedaling by your house, remember? I wouldn't want some
complete stranger getting shot because of your paranoia...
--PLH, thankful I'm on the other side of town from the loose screw crowd that
Dahlman seems to embrace so enthusiastically
Bruce
Jite) wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 14:23:43 GMT, bwayne@*nospam*home.com (Bruce)
>wrote:
>
>>The truly telling fact will reveal itself when Mr. Jite refuses to
>>respond to any of the followups this post may prompt, thus destroying
>>his credibility and earning himself the label of "troll."
>
>And if I do respond, you wont like dat either hey? :)
>You gunloons are a real yuck...
Nah, I like it when you respond. Every time you press fingers to
keyboard, you can't help but demonstrate your lack of intelligence.
So, how are things in PA these days? Feeling a bit insecure?
Your typing style sure looks familiar, too. Hmm...
Can you think of some more dirty words to say? They really make you
feel better, don't they? I mean, they probably hurt you, rattling
around like that in your skull, waiting to burst out.
>How many guns you got dare bruce? Tell us about yer ammo... :)
Here's an idea: Try breaking into my house to count them. I have a
feeling you might, if the opportunity presents itself, and judging
from your close association with death.
So, I see you've posted followups to a total of 2 responses, and
neither time did you use an iota of intellect in refutation. So, what
that tells me is that you are also a "fucked up" "gunloon" wishing to
incite free people to action through insult, or you simply spout the
freedom-thieves partyline blather without thought as to why you do so.
Either way, you lose.
Your friend,
Bruce
Bruce
wrote:
>Congratulations, you have just made it into my Kill File.
>tjw
Aw, come on, TJ! Jite has done more for libertarianism than a hundred
Bill Clintons could. He actually seems to believe what he says, and
the ideas he espouses are so loathsome and full of fear and hate that
he can't help but turn people away from his views. How often do you
hear people say, "Hey, that guy's an absolute psychotic! I think
I'll be just like him!"
Bruce
Dan Day
>There is no need for psychiatrists.
>Just with this simple test lunacy can be easily diagnosed.
Clearly, this falls into the "it takes one to know one" category.
>"Shooting teaches young people good things.
>All good rules for shooting are good rules for life."
>Tom Selleck in his latest NRA ad.
If that's a sign of lunacy, then what are we to make of:
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of
exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise
to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to
the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature,
are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind.
Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.
--Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to his nephew Peter Carr,
(from Paris, August 19, 1785)
Mr. Jite's clueless rant only goes to show that Charles Beard
was right all along:
"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself
a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about
repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in their
struggle for independence."
--Charles Austin Beard, historian (1874-1948)
--
"I worry about my judgment when anything I believe in or
do regularly begins to be accepted by the American public."
-- George Carlin
LQuest
>There is no need for psychiatrists.
>Just with this simple test lunacy can be easily diagnosed.
>First have them read the following:
>
>"Shooting teaches young people good things.
>All good rules for shooting are good rules for life."
>Tom Selleck in his latest NRA ad.
>
>Then ask if they agree with either statement. If they answer
>affirmatively to one or both, they are even crazier than the lunatic
>who actually signed his name to that crap. And finally, with your
>hands a fair distance from your body, get away from them as soon as
>possible.
You really are a comically preposterous individual aren't you?
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis (1852)
-Mike
Anti-Christ to the LibNut left
Patrick L. Humphrey
Well, Jim Kennemur and Shawn Smith have fallen for it -- but two people in the
fifteen years I've been watching him act like this is pretty slow, indeed.
Gonna be a long time before he's any threat to the established powers, at that
rate...:-)
--PLH, Dahlman's even slower at getting converts than the Scientologists...and
that's slow
Lock N Load
Jite) wrote:
>There is no need for psychiatrists.
Looking over your "web site" you're the one that needs the
psychiatrist.
>Just with this simple test lunacy can be easily diagnosed.
A "simple test" for your simple mind to collate.
>First have them read the following:
>
>"Shooting teaches young people good things.
Like self-control, personal responsibility, and respect for others
rights. Traits you obviously lack.
>All good rules for shooting are good rules for life."
True
>Tom Selleck in his latest NRA ad.
>
>Then ask if they agree with either statement. If they answer
>affirmatively to one or both, they are even crazier than the lunatic
>who actually signed his name to that crap. And finally, with your
>hands a fair distance from your body, get away from them as soon as
>possible.
So... Did you help A.Gore invent the Internet? Do you like the
"liberal bombs" that are dropping on Kosovo? Do you support ground
troops going into Kosovo? And if you do are you willing to sign up or
send a son or daughter? And since ALL branches of the Military (except
the Marines) can't fill their enlistment quota, do you support the
draft coming back? If the war goes on longer, will you support the
increase in military spending?
Come on you pseudo-liberal, bleeding heart whiner, what do you "feel"?
HaHaHaHaHaHaHa
>
Don't tow the party line
Think for yourself
Do not be afraid
Lock N Load
LQuest
>Gosh... You gunloons are just SO FUCKED UP! :)
The brilliance of this retort is underdone only by the depth of your vast
pathological ignorance -- a perfect example of the following observation:
When the facts go against them, they contest the logic.
When the logic goes against them, they contest the fact.
When both go against them, they insult.
I realized this will not penetrate your neanderthal skull but in case
intelligent young people are watching, here is a TINY glimpse of the truth
about guns:
<c-news-...@world.std.com>San Francisco Chronicle
Tuesday, July 12, 1994
Opinion -- A17
OPEN FORUM Edgar A. Suter, MD
Guns Save Lives
THE DATA from the 1990 Harvard Medical Practice
Study suggest that 150,000 Americans die every year from
doctors' negligence -- compared with 38,000 gun deaths annually.
Why are doctors not declared a public health menace? Because
they save more lives than they take. And so it is with guns.
Every year, good Americans use guns about 2.5 million times
to protect themselves and their families, which means 65 lives are
protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. For every 101 Cali-
fornia tragedy, many others are averted
An unsurprising 1 percent of America's 240 million guns are
used for protection annually. The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics
has repeatedly shown that guns are the most effective means of
self-protection. If guns are as dangerous for self-defense as the
alarmists claim, why does their leading researcher, Dr. Arthur
Kellerman, want his wife to have a gun for defense?
Physicians who advocate gun prohibition have promoted con-
fiscatory taxation and fees on guns, ammunition and gun own-
ers, in hopes that those taxes will be funneled into their research
and their emergency rooms. To strengthen their case, they ig-
nore the lives protected by guns and exaggerate the medical costs,
claiming $20 billion per year in costs from gun violence.
In fact, the cost of medical care for gun violence is about $1.5
billion per year, less than 0.2 percent of our $800 billion annual
health care costs. So advocates of gun prohibition routinely include
estimates of "lost lifetime earnings," assuming gang bangers,
drug dealers and rapists to be as productive as teachers and facto-
ry workers.
Even the virulently anti-self defense New England Journal of
Medicine and Journal of Trauma have published studies showing
that three-fourths of gun homicide "victims" are drug dealers or
their customers. On the street, they cost society an average of
$400,000 per criminal per year. In prison, they cost an average of
$30,000 per criminal per year and, some cold-hearted analysts have
noted, in the ground, they hurt no one and cost us nothing.
Cost-benefit analysis is necessarily hardhearted and, though it
may be repugnant to consider, the gun deaths of those predators
may be a savings to society on the order of $5.5 billion annually,
more than three times the medical "costs" of guns.
______________________________________________________
Edgar A. Suter, MD is national chairman of Doctors for Integrity in
Research and Public Policy.
Rack Jite
person is seriously FUCKED UP, and the LAST who should be running
around with a loaded gun. Its called GUNGOONERY.
"It is the duty of honorable men of good character to respect any woman they may have had a consensual affair with by denying it to those men of no character dishonorable enough to be nosing into it." Rack Jite
Patrick L. Humphrey
>When guns, ammunition and shooting are the center of one's life, that
>person is seriously FUCKED UP, and the LAST who should be running
>around with a loaded gun. Its called GUNGOONERY.
...and of course, Dave Dahlman -- the same guy who claimed he could tell a
person's race from his FidoNet handle -- can detect this trait just by reading
Usenet posts, right?
--PLH, imagine that
Rack Jite
wrote:
>Aw, come on, TJ! Jite has done more for libertarianism than a hundred
>Bill Clintons could. He actually seems to believe what he says, and
>the ideas he espouses are so loathsome and full of fear and hate that
>he can't help but turn people away from his views. How often do you
>hear people say, "Hey, that guy's an absolute psychotic! I think
>I'll be just like him!"
>Bruce
You got it backwards bruce. The reason I added .guns and .libertarian
to the groups was to get you lunatics and your lunatic responses out
in public for more people to see. That is the game you know...
Or didnt you? That Humphrey nitwit hasn't figured it out and he's been
at it 15 years now! Morton 10 years! Its simply AMAZING hey? :)
Duh...
Yossarian
Rack Jite wrote in message <37131224....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>There is no need for psychiatrists.
>
>"Shooting teaches young people good things.
it, don't point the "gun" at it.
no one of consequence
Sure. In Dave's tiny overheated little head, anyone who disagrees with him
on gun control is an evil icky gunloon.
--
|Patrick Chester (aka: claypigeon, Sinapus) wol...@io.com |
|"You know I like her. Scares the hell out of me sometimes, but I do like|
|her. Just, uh, don't tell her that." Dr. Franklin about Ivanova. -B5 |
|Wittier remarks always come to mind just after sending your article.... |
Panhead
>
> When guns, ammunition and shooting are the center of one's life, that
> person is seriously FUCKED UP, and the LAST who should be running
> around with a loaded gun. Its called GUNGOONERY.
I could possibly agree.
But, who do you know here or otherwise that has a life centered
around just that? I don't know anyone like that, do you?
Could not the same said to be true for those like you that spend
all their time trying to run my life? That's called BUFFOONERY
and, I won't let you or anyone do it.
By the way, I love your sigfile quote. It's totally funny.
Stupid and wrong, but funny. I laughed.
(I snipped it)
Robert Frenchu
>On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 14:46:20 GMT, Robert_...@yahoo.org (Robert
>Frenchu) wrote:
>
>>How did rack...@worldnet.att.net (Rack Jite) come up with :
>>
>>>There is no need for psychiatrists.
>>>Just with this simple test lunacy can be easily diagnosed.
>>>First have them read the following:
>>>
>>>"Shooting teaches young people good things.
>>>All good rules for shooting are good rules for life."
>>>Tom Selleck in his latest NRA ad.
>>>
>>>Then ask if they agree with either statement. If they answer
>>>affirmatively to one or both, they are even crazier than the lunatic
>>>who actually signed his name to that crap. And finally, with your
>>>hands a fair distance from your body, get away from them as soon as
>>>possible.
>>
>>The New 4-R's- Reading, 'riting, 'rithmatic, and reloading.
>>
>>Coming to a school near you whether you like it or not, chump.
>>If- God forbid- you have any offspring, a little firearms instruction
>>would do them a world of good.
>Gosh... You gunloons are just SO FUCKED UP! :)
We've given up on you and are now working on your children. Don't be
surprised when they come home begging for the new "assault rifle" that
they shot at the school range that day.
You've lost- pack up and go home.
ma...@pumatech.com
> There is no need for psychiatrists.
> Just with this simple test lunacy can be easily diagnosed.
> First have them read the following:
>
> "Shooting teaches young people good things.
> All good rules for shooting are good rules for life."
> Tom Selleck in his latest NRA ad.
>
> Then ask if they agree with either statement. If they answer
> affirmatively to one or both, they are even crazier than the lunatic
> who actually signed his name to that crap. And finally, with your
> hands a fair distance from your body, get away from them as soon as
> possible.
Ahh, Rack Jite is back with his carefully studied
and horded ignorance. Never let reality get in the
way of your precious pre-conceived notions, eh, Rack??
-Matt
Franklin Jennings
Rack Jite wrote:
> When guns, ammunition and shooting are the center of one's life, that
> person is seriously FUCKED UP, and the LAST who should be running
> around with a loaded gun. Its called GUNGOONERY.
>
>
Really? Guns, ammunition and shooting were the center of my life for several years, Rack Jite. From sun up, until late in the evening, five days a week, you could find me handling ammo and maintaining my
weapons. When that was over, once every four days, I strapped on a sidearm and began roving security patrols. I lived, breathed, and slept guns, Rack. It was the entire focus of my life, and nothing else
mattered in comparison.
And for my service as a FireControlman in the Gul War, Uncle Sam awarded me with a few commendations. They seemed to feel that with my level of expertise, I was one of the first who should be running around with a
loaded weapon. The Mk45, a 5 inch gun found on Cruisers and Destroyers.
Is it still gungoonery?
(Oh, and by the way, ever get it through your skull that assuming I was a Black pro-gunner was a bad idea, when I was an Indian posting from alt.impeach.clinton? Really frightening when we see what racist
tendencies you seem to share with your idealogical brethren.)
--
Franklin E. Jennings
Network Analyst I
BellSouth.Net
-----
Do NOT let them deceive you with the legitimization of their myth.
-----
The Dread Pirate Roberts
>
> There is no need for psychiatrists.
> Just with this simple test lunacy can be easily diagnosed.
> First have them read the following:
>
> "Shooting teaches young people good things.
> All good rules for shooting are good rules for life."
> Tom Selleck in his latest NRA ad.
>
1 - All guns are loaded until you examine them for yourself;
2 - Never point your weapon at anything that you do not want immediately
destroyed;
3 - Always be sure of your target AND what is beyond it;
4 - Never put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire
your weapon.
What's wrong with those, Racky?
> Then ask if they agree with either statement. If they answer
> affirmatively to one or both, they are even crazier than the lunatic
> who actually signed his name to that crap. And finally, with your
> hands a fair distance from your body, get away from them as soon as
> possible.
>
Behold, ladies and gentlemen, the psycotic ramblings of a racist and
elitist, Rack Jite, whose heroes include:
Vladmir Lenin
Josef Stalin
Adolf Hitler
Bennito Mousellini
General Tojo
Mao Ze-Dong
Pol Pot & the Khmer Rouge
Josef Broz Tito
Nicolae Ceausescu
Ho Chi Min
Idi Amin
Muimar Qadaffi
Saddam Hussien
Fidel Castro
All of whom support civilian disarmament AND are responsible for the
deaths of nearly one thousand million human beings (whose only crime was
not being of acceptable lineage/ ethnicity/skin color/intellectual
level/political affiliation.
The Dread Pirate Roberts
Anyone who wants to disarm you has only the worst in mind for you
Jeff James
>
> When guns, ammunition and shooting are the center of one's life, that
> person is seriously FUCKED UP, and the LAST who should be running
> around with a loaded gun. Its called GUNGOONERY.
What about the people for whom guns, ammunition and shooting aren't the
center of their life?
SNIP
--
Proud Member of the Radium League.
Sub-Genius
All around nice guy.
Pat Hines
>
> On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 19:47:05 GMT, bwayne@*nospam*home.com (Bruce)
> wrote:
>
> >Aw, come on, TJ! Jite has done more for libertarianism than a hundred
> >Bill Clintons could. He actually seems to believe what he says, and
> >the ideas he espouses are so loathsome and full of fear and hate that
> >he can't help but turn people away from his views. How often do you
> >hear people say, "Hey, that guy's an absolute psychotic! I think
> >I'll be just like him!"
> >Bruce
>
> You got it backwards bruce. The reason I added .guns and .libertarian
> to the groups was to get you lunatics and your lunatic responses out
> in public for more people to see. That is the game you know...
Why, thankyou, Jack.
Pat Hines, BSN, RN
Nurses for Self Defense Civil Rights
Rack Jite
On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 20:29:16 -0400, Franklin Jennings
<fjen...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>Rack Jite wrote:
>
>> When guns, ammunition and shooting are the center of one's life, that
>> person is seriously FUCKED UP, and the LAST who should be running
>> around with a loaded gun. Its called GUNGOONERY.
>>
>>
>
>Really? Guns, ammunition and shooting were the center of my life for several years, Rack Jite. From sun up, until late in the evening, five days a week, you could find me handling ammo and maintaining my
>weapons. When that was over, once every four days, I strapped on a sidearm and began roving security patrols. I lived, breathed, and slept guns, Rack. It was the entire focus of my life, and nothing else
>mattered in comparison.
>
>And for my service as a FireControlman in the Gul War, Uncle Sam awarded me with a few commendations. They seemed to feel that with my level of expertise, I was one of the first who should be running around with a
>loaded weapon. The Mk45, a 5 inch gun found on Cruisers and Destroyers.
>
>Is it still gungoonery?
>
>(Oh, and by the way, ever get it through your skull that assuming I was a Black pro-gunner was a bad idea, when I was an Indian posting from alt.impeach.clinton? Really frightening when we see what racist
>tendencies you seem to share with your idealogical brethren.)
"It is the duty of honorable men of good character to respect any woman they may have had a consensual affair with by denying it to those men of no character dishonorable enough to be nosing into it." Rack Jite
Patrick L. Humphrey
>Patrick L. Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>]rack...@worldnet.att.net (Rack Jite) writes:
>]
>]>When guns, ammunition and shooting are the center of one's life, that
>]>person is seriously FUCKED UP, and the LAST who should be running
>]>around with a loaded gun. Its called GUNGOONERY.
>]
>]...and of course, Dave Dahlman - the same guy who claimed he could tell a
>]person's race from his FidoNet handle - can detect this trait just by reading
>]Usenet posts, right?
>Sure. In Dave's tiny overheated little head, anyone who disagrees with him
>on gun control is an evil icky gunloon.
Yep...makes me pity the police department whose jurisdiction covers Dave's
neighborhood. (Of course, at least his kids are old enough that they're not
speed-dialing 911 any more, so it evens out.)
--PLH, still planning on waving his direction from atop the Kemah bridge a
little later this summer
AntisDoLie@tpg
The Dread Pirate Roberts <tdpr...@theFRIEDSPAMvision.net> wrote:
> Rack Jite wrote:
> >
> > There is no need for psychiatrists.
> > Just with this simple test lunacy can be easily diagnosed.
> > First have them read the following:
> >
> > "Shooting teaches young people good things.
> > All good rules for shooting are good rules for life."
> > Tom Selleck in his latest NRA ad.
> Rules such as:
>
> 1 - All guns are loaded until you examine them for yourself;
> 2 - Never point your weapon at anything that you do not want immediately
> destroyed;
> 3 - Always be sure of your target AND what is beyond it;
> 4 - Never put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire
> your weapon.
>
> What's wrong with those, Racky?
Simple. If kids follow these rules, the kids won't shoot themselves and
gun-grabbing ghouls like Racky and Sarah Brady won't have dead kids bodies to
stand on. Anti-gunners LOVE shot-dead kids.
Jim
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
AntisDoLie@tpg
rack...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Yeah, you and Timothy McVeigh... Yer so cool...
Yeah, you, the Unabomber, and Kangas. Yer so cool...
M. W. Eglestone
is the idiot who started it. Obviously, sentence structure, grammar
and spelling aren't on his priority list at the moment. Is it "Jack
Rite" or "Rack Jite?" Only his hair dresser knows for sure.
Mike Eglestone
---------------
Tag Lines:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little
Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty or Safety. Nor, are they
likely to end up with either!
The Lion and the Lamb may lie down together, but the Lamb won't get
much sleep!
Patrick L. Humphrey
>So far, the only person who is "seriously" Fucked Up in this thread,
>is the idiot who started it. Obviously, sentence structure, grammar
>and spelling aren't on his priority list at the moment. Is it "Jack
>Rite" or "Rack Jite?" Only his hair dresser knows for sure.
Actually, it's David Dahlman -- call him by that and watch him come unglued.
--PLH, he's been reacting to it in Pavlovian fashion for the past 15 years
Tim Tyler
"M. W. Eglestone" wrote:
> So far, the only person who is "seriously" Fucked Up in this thread,
> is the idiot who started it. Obviously, sentence structure, grammar
> and spelling aren't on his priority list at the moment. Is it "Jack
> Rite" or "Rack Jite?" Only his hair dresser knows for sure.
It depends upon how many Jack D's he's consumed.
David G. Hughey
>
> When guns, ammunition and shooting are the center of one's life, that
> person is seriously FUCKED UP, and the LAST who should be running
> around with a loaded gun. Its called GUNGOONERY.
Unless of course that person happens to be an infantry soldier. But there are
plenty of people who own firearms and enjoy shooting them at target ranges.
They are hobbyists; they have an interest in firearms, and they don't bother
anyone. What I don't understand is how you make the assumption that one is a
"gungoon" when one is responsible enough to learn about a weapon, how to use it,
and when to use it. Do you also apply similar labels to the school children who
are provided condoms and taught how to use them? What are they to you -
"fuckloons"?
--
----------------------------------------------------
David G. Hughey | Decatur, Georgia
Replace capsaicin with dghughey for e-mail response
----------------------------------------------------
If a man speaks in the woods, and there is no woman
to hear him, is he still wrong?
Go Braves!
----------------------------------------------------
Rack Jite
<caps...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Rack Jite wrote:
>>
>> When guns, ammunition and shooting are the center of one's life, that
>> person is seriously FUCKED UP, and the LAST who should be running
>> around with a loaded gun. Its called GUNGOONERY.
>
>Unless of course that person happens to be an infantry soldier. But there are
>plenty of people who own firearms and enjoy shooting them at target ranges.
>They are hobbyists; they have an interest in firearms, and they don't bother
>anyone. What I don't understand is how you make the assumption that one is a
>"gungoon" when one is responsible enough to learn about a weapon, how to use it,
>and when to use it. Do you also apply similar labels to the school children who
>are provided condoms and taught how to use them? What are they to you -
>"fuckloons"?
There are other hobbies that are not related to machines designed to
kill. Raising orchids, waterskiing, airplanes etc... Because YOU have
decided that YOUR hobby is going to be machines that are designed for
only one thing, killing living things, you are a GUNGOON.
You people are disgusting... IT's beyond neurosis...
As far as students using condems, I do not see them screaming about it
anywhere, I do not see them making it the center of their lives, I do
not see them bombing federal buildings or forcing mass suicide on
others or putting on uniforms and marching around like nitwits on
weekends...
David R. Voth
Jite) wrote:
<snip>
>There are other hobbies that are not related to machines designed to
>kill. Raising orchids, waterskiing, airplanes etc... Because YOU have
>decided that YOUR hobby is going to be machines that are designed for
>only one thing, killing living things, you are a GUNGOON.
Who says we can have only one hobby?
<snip>
David R. Voth
Rack Jite
>In <3710144a....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
>rack...@worldnet.att.net (Rack Jite) writes:
>>
>>There are other hobbies that are not related to machines designed to
>>kill. Raising orchids, waterskiing, airplanes etc... Because YOU have
>>decided that YOUR hobby is going to be machines that are designed for
>>only one thing, killing living things, you are a GUNGOON.
>>You people are disgusting... IT's beyond neurosis...
>>
>
>
>Kind of contradicting yourself here. If a hobby is using a tool that
>only kills, then wouldn't the hobbyist be either dead or in jail in a
>very short time?
>
>I think there are about 70 million people in the United States who will
>attest that those are not the results of shooting sports or self
>defense.
If what you say is true, your life revolves around poking little holes
in paper far away, then yer all even nuttier than I thought...
GET A LIFE! :)
David R. Voth
Jite) wrote:
>On 9 Apr 1999 16:40:53 GMT, dan...@ix.netcom.com(Dan Z) wrote:
<snip>
>>Kind of contradicting yourself here. If a hobby is using a tool that
>>only kills, then wouldn't the hobbyist be either dead or in jail in a
>>very short time?
>>
>>I think there are about 70 million people in the United States who will
>>attest that those are not the results of shooting sports or self
>>defense.
>
>If what you say is true, your life revolves around poking little holes
>in paper far away, then yer all even nuttier than I thought...
You'd rather have us go around shooting people?
Rack, you're the only weirdo in here.
David G. Hughey
>
> There are other hobbies that are not related to machines designed to
> kill. Raising orchids, waterskiing, airplanes etc... Because YOU have
> decided that YOUR hobby is going to be machines that are designed for
> only one thing, killing living things, you are a GUNGOON.
> You people are disgusting... IT's beyond neurosis...
Actually I don't own any firearms. So much for "you" people. You come across
like a bigot; you create behaviorisms for groups of people based upon the
behaviors of a few. You are a gun bigot just as other people profess their
bigotry about race, gender, religion, etc.
>
> As far as students using condems, I do not see them screaming about it
> anywhere, I do not see them making it the center of their lives, I do
> not see them bombing federal buildings or forcing mass suicide on
> others or putting on uniforms and marching around like nitwits on
> weekends...
And yet I know people who own firearms who shoot them at state-sponsored target
ranges on the weekends. They don't seem to put on any uniforms or march on
weekends or any of those other activities you like to assert everyone who owns a
weapon does. Come to think of it, they have other hobbies as well, such as
cooking, running, gardening, traveling, etc. Perhaps your bigotry stems from
ignorance; perhaps it is the result of malevolence. I hope it is from ignorance
as that could be overcome.
You are right to condemn those who would circumvent the laws of the nation and
those who use their weapons to murder innocent citizens. But a gun is a tool
just as an axe is a tool. Granted, a gun is designed to kill. And it can do
that very well. Unfortunately, innocent people are sometimes killed or maimed
or otherwise have their lives altered by the careless or deliberately vicious
use of guns. And I think the gun manufacturers are short-sighted by not putting
safety devices on handguns, for example, that would keep children from being
able to use the weapons. But there are also instances where the judicious use
of a firearm has saved a life and that should not be sneered at.
Angelo D. Perez Jr.
Jite) wrote:
<snip>
>
>There are other hobbies that are not related to machines designed to
>kill. Raising orchids, waterskiing, airplanes etc... Because YOU have
>decided that YOUR hobby is going to be machines that are designed for
>only one thing, killing living things, you are a GUNGOON.
>You people are disgusting... IT's beyond neurosis...
>
<SNIP>
I was employed for 20 years, by our great governement, to do exactly
that, take care of weapons specifically designed to kill people. Much
to your approval I imagine, see as you did not see fit to make them
disband that organization.
Due to the fact that MY LIFE depended on the proper functioning,
maintnence and operation of the devices that you so despise, how could
I NOT have an interest in them?
I'll have you know, the only uniform I have is in my closet (Dress
Greens) with all awards etc, still in place from the Day I retired.
All other uniforms were given to a group who gave them to,
underpriviledged people (may they wear them well).
I just joined NRA TSRA after seeing how the politicians are eroding
the rights of the people. And you can bet that I will be just as
serious about stopping them from doing that as I was about being sure
I was ready to defend you freedom.
You cannot convice me Guns are the root of all evil, I've been around
people all my life with guns and have only seen I hurt (and that was
related to drugs).
I don't drink, or do drugs. that is my choice. I think the "DRUG WAR"
is BS. Leave the people alone and if they commit crimes, but their
asses in jail. (same for gun offenses).
But I refuse to be a defenseless victim, just because YOU (HCI/VPC )
etc. feel that I should be. The police cannot/will not protect you,
they are not legally bound to do so. They do the best they can, but
there's too many of us, too many BG's and not enough of them.
So why should I ask a man to give his life to defend mine, if I am
unwilling to defend myself.
I have no desire to overthrow the govt/police, but if they continue on
their present course, I can see there will be a time where it will be
necessary.
So if you want to feel safe from CHL/CCW holders stay home. They're
not going to come to your house unbidden. (the BG's might) but I
won't.
I'm tired of hearing you people cry about one life, If you want to
save lives, start on cars, alcohol and work on them by order of danger
to you.
You say you don't want to ban guns, maybe you don't but, there are
people that do. What I have seen is NRA/gun owners being tolerant of
restrictions in the name of decreased crime, wait times, background
checks, Brady, NCIS yet the anti-gun people always want more. Now they
are tired of the increased restrictions. (Senate is trying to either
outlaw or make a 1000% tax on 9MM ammo, restrict types of ammo
"hollowpoints") any way that they can to deprive the gun owners of
their right to shoot.
When they come for the guns I'll have one to turn in (I have a piece
of junk). I'll have "sold" all the others.
I feel that's fair, because that will prove that "you (HCI/VPC)"etc.
have lied the entire time.
See how that "tastes to you"
U.S. Army (Ret) 20 years of trying to keep us FREE.
Gun Laws keep Law abiding Citizens from Defending
themselves from Criminals (Criminals don't CARE if they BREAK LAWS)
Looks like I was Defending My Country from the Wrong Enemies
TSRA Life Member #120989
NRA Member, KC4TEP
ICQ # 5823877
adpe...@email.com
ma...@pumatech.com
> On Fri, 09 Apr 1999 17:42:30 GMT, rack...@worldnet.att.net (Rack
> Jite) wrote:
>
> >On 9 Apr 1999 16:40:53 GMT, dan...@ix.netcom.com(Dan Z) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>Kind of contradicting yourself here. If a hobby is using a tool that
> >>only kills, then wouldn't the hobbyist be either dead or in jail in a
> >>very short time?
> >>
> >>I think there are about 70 million people in the United States who will
> >>attest that those are not the results of shooting sports or self
> >>defense.
> >
> >If what you say is true, your life revolves around poking little holes
> >in paper far away, then yer all even nuttier than I thought...
>
> You'd rather have us go around shooting people?
>
> Rack, you're the only weirdo in here.
Or perhaps merely stupid. Hard to say from the evidence
presented. Of course, if it's *studied* ignorance, then
perhaps insane is a better description - anyone who
*willingly* clings to the howling error and paranoid
foolishness Rack pontificates on about clearly has a
few screws loose...
-Matt
Rack Jite
<caps...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Rack Jite wrote:
>>
>> There are other hobbies that are not related to machines designed to
>> kill. Raising orchids, waterskiing, airplanes etc... Because YOU have
>> decided that YOUR hobby is going to be machines that are designed for
>> only one thing, killing living things, you are a GUNGOON.
>> You people are disgusting... IT's beyond neurosis...
>
>Actually I don't own any firearms. So much for "you" people. You come across
>like a bigot; you create behaviorisms for groups of people based upon the
>behaviors of a few. You are a gun bigot just as other people profess their
>bigotry about race, gender, religion, etc.
Immutable cause... Big difference there pal... But you dont get it do
you? Were you born a gungoon? Is it biological? Maybe yer right...
apb
after like 2 episodes or something, and is now relegated to making guest
appearances on "Friends". What the hell else is he supposed to do for
exposure? Making a statement like this in an NRA ad is only slightly more
embarassing than him showing up in a psychic hotline ad or an informercial
for exercise equipment or food dehydrators. What's the problem?
Let the man be.
David G. Hughey
> >Actually I don't own any firearms. So much for "you" people. You come across
> >like a bigot; you create behaviorisms for groups of people based upon the
> >behaviors of a few. You are a gun bigot just as other people profess their
> >bigotry about race, gender, religion, etc.
>
> Immutable cause... Big difference there pal... But you dont get it do
> you? Were you born a gungoon? Is it biological? Maybe yer right...
One more time. I don't own weapons. I support the right of law-abiding people
to possess weapons. I think gun manufacturers should build in safety devices
that would prevent children from firing said weapons. I believe in strong
penalties for those who commit crimes with firearms. If that makes me a
"gungoon" in your eyes, so be it. And take notice, if you will, of your
inability to conduct a rational discussion on the topic without resorting to
stereotyping me as a member of some unnamed fringe group and exhibiting other
forms of bigotry. I'll try again with someone who has less of a personal axe to
grind.
--
----------------------------------------------------
David G. Hughey | Decatur, Georgia
Replace capsaicin with dghughey for e-mail response
----------------------------------------------------
"Unfortunate people who scrutinize the Social Security
trust fund discover two facts:
It's not there. It's not theirs." -- P.J. O'Rourke
Scout
David G. Hughey <caps...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> wrote in article
<370FAD04...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>...
> Rack Jite wrote:
> > >Actually I don't own any firearms. So much for "you" people. You
come across
> > >like a bigot; you create behaviorisms for groups of people based upon
the
> > >behaviors of a few. You are a gun bigot just as other people profess
their
> > >bigotry about race, gender, religion, etc.
> >
> > Immutable cause... Big difference there pal... But you dont get it do
> > you? Were you born a gungoon? Is it biological? Maybe yer right...
>
> One more time. I don't own weapons. I support the right of law-abiding
people
> to possess weapons. I think gun manufacturers should build in safety
devices
> that would prevent children from firing said weapons.
Such as what?
What exactly is going to fulfil this function with 99.9% reliability, no
maintenance, high speed (<10ms), and perfect reliability to differentiate
between adults and children.
I would love to know, because so far I have yet to see any product on the
market that is PROOF against all children.
Rack Jite
David G. Hughey
technology that would permit a handgun to be fired only by the purchaser. But
what's with the 10 millisecond response time?
--
Rack Jite
>According to Colt, the firearms manufacturer who started this whole
>idea, there is NO current technology that is reliable enough, and will
>not be for at least two years. Now tell me what my wife is supposed to
>do after I am shot, and she can't fire my gun as the home invaders come
>towards her. Beg?
And the bigger question is how can your wife or your militia pals
shoot your .44 at the 1st Cav tanks coming up yer driveway, or that
f16 coming over? Thats what the guns are really for.
Robert Frenchu
>On 11 Apr 1999 02:50:34 GMT, dan...@ix.netcom.com(Dan Z) wrote:
>
>>According to Colt, the firearms manufacturer who started this whole
>>idea, there is NO current technology that is reliable enough, and will
>>not be for at least two years. Now tell me what my wife is supposed to
>>do after I am shot, and she can't fire my gun as the home invaders come
>>towards her. Beg?
>
>And the bigger question is how can your wife or your militia pals
>shoot your .44 at the 1st Cav tanks coming up yer driveway, or that
>f16 coming over? Thats what the guns are really for.
You shoot them BEFORE they get inside. What, are you new at this?
____________________________________________________
If my "assault rifle" makes me a criminal
And my encryption program makes me a terrorist
Does Dianne Feinstein's vagina make her a prostitute?
Scout
David G. Hughey <caps...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> wrote in article
<37100B25...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>...
> I understand that there is available, or could be made readily available,
> technology that would permit a handgun to be fired only by the purchaser.
Really? Care to post a cite for this claim. The best claims I've heard is
that it will be at LEAST 5 years before such devices are out of R&D, and
even then they don't fulfil the conditions of the test. After all what if
the purchaser is the "child" you are attempting to protect? However, let's
be fair (and have some fun). Kindly tell us about this wonderful technology
that will always work for the purchaser, doesn't need maintenance, works
under all possible self defense conditions, is FAST, is automatic, and
which can't be broken in such a manner to allow operation by some child
with a set of tools.
So tell you what, let's see you produce your evidence that such devices
are:
1) in existence
2) in production
3) fulfil the requirements I set forth
4) Are to be adopted by every law enforcement agencies.
> But
> what's with the 10 millisecond response time?
Heck I'm just remembering a write up of Dennis Hennigan of HCI's legal arm
attempting to remove a Saf-T-Lok from a gun to show how quick they were.
Took him at least two attempts. That is a fully lit room, no panic, no
stress, and no stranger threatening to kill you.
If it takes any more than a small fraction of a second to function, then my
risk is increased. I can't wait for this gun to decide that it's going to
fire, when someone is coming at me NOW. Oh, 10ms, that's 1/100 of a second.
I figure that 1/10 is slow enough to get you killed. Say it. One Thousand
and One. Now think about how long that is when someone is trying to KILL
you. Long enough to succeed. Now consider how long 1/10 of that is. Long
enough for at least one attack. IOW long enough to kill you. That's why it
is important that it be fast. I mean you are talking about adding a delay,
a delay that could make the difference between life and death. So excuse
me, if I want that delay to be small enough not to have much if any impact.
David G. Hughey
> > I understand that there is available, or could be made readily available,
> > technology that would permit a handgun to be fired only by the purchaser.
>
> Really? Care to post a cite for this claim. The best claims I've heard is
> that it will be at LEAST 5 years before such devices are out of R&D, and
> even then they don't fulfil the conditions of the test. After all what if
> the purchaser is the "child" you are attempting to protect? However, let's
> be fair (and have some fun). Kindly tell us about this wonderful technology
> that will always work for the purchaser, doesn't need maintenance, works
> under all possible self defense conditions, is FAST, is automatic, and
> which can't be broken in such a manner to allow operation by some child
> with a set of tools.
Oh, I get it. You want Nirvana. You are correct; that doesn't exist. I can't
think of many products available on the market that fulfill all of the
conditions you just set forth.
I don't care if you don't put anything on your handgun. I don't care if you
have a handgun. My argument about safety devices was that some devices - the
efficacy of which may be debated - are available for those who wish to safeguard
their firearms. In others words, there are choices out there for those who may
have concerns. Those that don't will be fully responsible for the injuries
their firearms cause.
>
> So tell you what, let's see you produce your evidence that such devices
> are:
>
> 1) in existence
> 2) in production
> 3) fulfil the requirements I set forth
> 4) Are to be adopted by every law enforcement agencies.
See above. I can think of no product that fulfills the requirements you set
forth.
>
> > But
> > what's with the 10 millisecond response time?
>
> Heck I'm just remembering a write up of Dennis Hennigan of HCI's legal arm
> attempting to remove a Saf-T-Lok from a gun to show how quick they were.
> Took him at least two attempts. That is a fully lit room, no panic, no
> stress, and no stranger threatening to kill you.
>
> If it takes any more than a small fraction of a second to function, then my
> risk is increased. I can't wait for this gun to decide that it's going to
> fire, when someone is coming at me NOW. Oh, 10ms, that's 1/100 of a second.
> I figure that 1/10 is slow enough to get you killed. Say it. One Thousand
> and One.
Now think about how long that is when someone is trying to KILL
> you. Long enough to succeed. Now consider how long 1/10 of that is. Long
> enough for at least one attack. IOW long enough to kill you. That's why it
> is important that it be fast. I mean you are talking about adding a delay,
> a delay that could make the difference between life and death. So excuse
> me, if I want that delay to be small enough not to have much if any impact.
Your choice. Your responsibility. I doubt if your reflexes, including trigger
pull time, could be measured in terms of 1/100th of a second.
Charles's News Acc.
Rack Jite wrote in message <370f3bc1....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>>>kill. Raising orchids, waterskiing, airplanes etc... Because YOU have
>>>decided that YOUR hobby is going to be machines that are designed for
>>>only one thing, killing living things, you are a GUNGOON.
>>>You people are disgusting... IT's beyond neurosis...
>>>
Do you maintain your yard? If so your killing living things,(grass,
weeds, shrubs, trees, ect..) and the tools used are designed olny to kill.
In the process of maintaining your yard you also kill a greate many insects,
thay are also living.
>>
>If what you say is true, your life revolves around poking little holes
>in paper far away, then yer all even nuttier than I thought...
>
>GET A LIFE! :)
>
>
What is wrong with "poking little holes in paper", at least we are out
doing something and getting some exersize.
If you really want to get down to brass tacks, you are a orbanic machine
that has olny 2 perposes,(to eat) to kill and reproduse. I for one dont
know if you should be doing eather. By your statements you should not kill,
and a person with your mental additude maby should not have kids.
>
>
>"It is the duty of honorable men of good character to respect any woman
they may have had a consensual affair with by denying it to those men of no
character dishonorable enough to be nosing into it." Rack Jite
It is never the duty of a honerable to lie. If he does his character is
in question..
Snake
Sinistral
"Charles's News Acc." <se...@net-nw.com> wrote:
> >If what you say is true, your life revolves around poking little holes
> >in paper far away, then yer all even nuttier than I thought...
> >
> >GET A LIFE! :)
> >
> >
> What is wrong with "poking little holes in paper", at least we are out
> doing something and getting some exersize.
Shooting guns is exercize now? Heh, God forbid your trigger finger doesn't
get weak eh? I can just imagine Richard Simmons' new video... "Sweatin' at
the firing range!"
"Com'n all you special people! Sing along with the Village People! In the
militia... you can shoot you fellow man! In the militia... shootin' holes in
empty cans!"
--Sinistral--
You don't have to be politically correct.
Just don't be politically moronic either.
http://members.xoom.com/librealm/
Michael Ejercito
dan...@ix.netcom.com(Dan Z) wrote:
> In <37100B25...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> "David G. Hughey"
> <caps...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> writes:
> >
> >I understand that there is available, or could be made readily
> available,
> >technology that would permit a handgun to be fired only by the
> purchaser. But
> >what's with the 10 millisecond response time?
> >
>
>
> According to Colt, the firearms manufacturer who started this whole
> idea, there is NO current technology that is reliable enough, and will
> not be for at least two years. Now tell me what my wife is supposed to
> do after I am shot, and she can't fire my gun as the home invaders come
> towards her. Beg?
It can be calibrated to recognize multiple users.
Michael
Member,CSULB Colege Republicans
For Truth,Justice,Freedom,and the American Way
Michael Ejercito
rack...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> On 11 Apr 1999 02:50:34 GMT, dan...@ix.netcom.com(Dan Z) wrote:
>
> >According to Colt, the firearms manufacturer who started this whole
> >idea, there is NO current technology that is reliable enough, and will
> >not be for at least two years. Now tell me what my wife is supposed to
> >do after I am shot, and she can't fire my gun as the home invaders come
> >towards her. Beg?
>
> And the bigger question is how can your wife or your militia pals
> shoot your .44 at the 1st Cav tanks coming up yer driveway, or that
> f16 coming over? Thats what the guns are really for.
Are you kidding,Rack. But let us suppose a foreign army were to invade.
The appropriaste solution is to sneak on the enemy camps and sabotage the
tanks and F-16's.
Christopher Morton
Jite) wrote:
>There is no need for psychiatrists.
Except in the case of shotgun toting White supremacists like David
Dahlman of Seabrook, Texas (Rack Jite).
You've repeatedy referred to the neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers of the
National Alliance as "honest".
What do you find honest about denying the Holocaust?
Do you claim that the Holocaust is a hoax?
Christopher Morton
Jite) wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 14:23:43 GMT, bwayne@*nospam*home.com (Bruce)
>wrote:
>
>>The truly telling fact will reveal itself when Mr. Jite refuses to
>>respond to any of the followups this post may prompt, thus destroying
>>his credibility and earning himself the label of "troll."
>
>And if I do respond, you wont like dat either hey? :)
>You gunloons are a real yuck...
You've repeatedly referred to the neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers of the
Christopher Morton
Jite) wrote:
>Gosh... You gunloons are just SO FUCKED UP! :)
What does somebody have to do to be "polite and honest"? Deny the
Holocaust like your pals in the neo-Nazi National Alliance?
Here's what David Dahlman of Seabrook, Texas (Rack Jite) considers
"polite and honest":
==============================================================
On 16 Feb 1999 22:50:08 -0000, in talk.politics.misc Secret Squirrel
<an...@squirrel.owl.de> wrote:
Path:
spln!extra.newsguy.com!lotsanews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!news-feed1.tiac.net!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!dallas-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news.lava.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news-x3!mail2news-x2!mail2news
Date: 16 Feb 1999 22:50:08 -0000
From: Secret Squirrel <an...@squirrel.owl.de>
Comments: Please report problems with this automated remailing service
to <postm...@squirrel.owl.de>. The message sender's identity
is unknown, unlogged, and not replyable.
Subject: AGENT PROVOCATEURS BEING USED TO INFLAME RACIAL TENSIONS!
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Message-ID: <afdfface6961a85c...@anonymous.poster>
Mail-To-News-Contact: postm...@nym.alias.net
Organization: mail...@nym.alias.net
Lines: 350
Xref: spln alt.conspiracy:263190 talk.politics.misc:645112
alt.activism:175226
WHOSE BURNING THOSE CHURCHES?
THE JEWS: you don't see any synagogues being burned -- just a little
grafitti to avoid suspicion.
I hope you realize that these ridicule routines, and attempts at
demoniztion following your posts are the work of the ADL. These
people also pose as white power groups and the KKK inorder to di-
vide us.
National Alliance Main Page
Christopher Morton
Jite) wrote:
>When guns, ammunition and shooting are the center of one's life, that
>person is seriously FUCKED UP, and the LAST who should be running
>around with a loaded gun. Its called GUNGOONERY.
But when White supremacism, anti-Semitism and denying the Holocaust
are the center of one's life, you call it "polite and honest".
Christopher Morton
Jite) wrote:
>If what you say is true, your life revolves around poking little holes
>in paper far away, then yer all even nuttier than I thought...
I find it illustrative that David Dahlman of Seabrook, Texas (Rack
Jite) thinks that target shooting is "nutty", while at the same time
claiming that Holocaust revisionism is "polite and honest".
>GET A LIFE! :)
Dave's primary interest is in taking the lives of Black people.
Christopher Morton
Jite) wrote:
>Immutable cause... Big difference there pal... But you dont get it do
>you? Were you born a gungoon? Is it biological? Maybe yer right...
So Dave, tell us again about how Nazis are "polite and honest"....
Christopher Morton
Jite) wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 19:47:05 GMT, bwayne@*nospam*home.com (Bruce)
>wrote:
>
>>Aw, come on, TJ! Jite has done more for libertarianism than a hundred
>>Bill Clintons could. He actually seems to believe what he says, and
>>the ideas he espouses are so loathsome and full of fear and hate that
>>he can't help but turn people away from his views. How often do you
>>hear people say, "Hey, that guy's an absolute psychotic! I think
>>I'll be just like him!"
>>Bruce
>
>You got it backwards bruce. The reason I added .guns and .libertarian
The reason is that you crave attention, even the savage thrashing you
got peddling your White supremacism in
soc.culture.african.american.moderated.
Christopher Morton
Jite) wrote:
>Yeah, you and Timothy McVeigh... Yer so cool...
I'm not surprised that you like Tim McVeigh. He owned a copy of the
"Turner Diaries", the how-to manual for White supremacists such as
yourself, Dave.
Did he get his copy from the National Alliance the way you did?
Christopher Morton
Jite) wrote:
>There are other hobbies that are not related to machines designed to
>kill. Raising orchids, waterskiing, airplanes etc... Because YOU have
But you NEVER call anyone "polite and honest" unless their hobby is
pretending that the Holocaust never happened, right Dave?
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>In article <7eqtah$1sq$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>,
> "Charles's News Acc." <se...@net-nw.com> wrote:
>
>> >If what you say is true, your life revolves around poking little holes
>> >in paper far away, then yer all even nuttier than I thought...
>> >
>> >GET A LIFE! :)
>> >
>> >
>> What is wrong with "poking little holes in paper", at least we are out
>> doing something and getting some exersize.
>
>Shooting guns is exercize now? Heh, God forbid your trigger finger doesn't
>get weak eh? I can just imagine Richard Simmons' new video... "Sweatin' at
>the firing range!"
Taking a break from telling Black people that we should let ourselves
be lynched?
Christopher Morton
Jite) wrote:
>On 11 Apr 1999 02:50:34 GMT, dan...@ix.netcom.com(Dan Z) wrote:
>
>>According to Colt, the firearms manufacturer who started this whole
>>idea, there is NO current technology that is reliable enough, and will
>>not be for at least two years. Now tell me what my wife is supposed to
>>do after I am shot, and she can't fire my gun as the home invaders come
>>towards her. Beg?
>
>And the bigger question is how can your wife or your militia pals
>shoot your .44 at the 1st Cav tanks coming up yer driveway, or that
What you're a lot more concerned about Dave, is getting shot the next
time you try to drag a Black man behind a pickup.
W. E. Woods
Rack Jite wrote:
>
> Gosh... You gunloons are just SO FUCKED UP! :)
Gee, how original and profound.
W. E. Woods
Rack Jite wrote:
>
> On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 14:23:43 GMT, bwayne@*nospam*home.com (Bruce)
> wrote:
>
> >The truly telling fact will reveal itself when Mr. Jite refuses to
> >respond to any of the followups this post may prompt, thus destroying
> >his credibility and earning himself the label of "troll."
>
> And if I do respond, you wont like dat either hey? :)
I don't mind. Your garbage tends to be hilarious.
> You gunloons are a real yuck...
>
> >So, come on, folks. Explain to him (even though he will probably not
> >see your posts) how teaching kids to *not* shoot such trolls is a good
> >thing; how being responsible is good; how discipline and restraint of
> >action when capable are good things. Or maybe his definition of
> >"good" is contrary to that held by those of us with intelligence?
> >Bruce
>
> How many guns you got dare bruce? Tell us about yer ammo... :)
How many brain cells you got left there, Perv? Tell us how you enjoy
hanging around the playgrounds.
W. E. Woods
Rack Jite wrote:
>
> When guns, ammunition and shooting are the center of one's life, that
> person is seriously FUCKED UP, and the LAST who should be running
> around with a loaded gun. Its called GUNGOONERY.
Again you avoid reality. Are you a moron or a troll?
W. E. Woods
Rack Jite wrote:
>
> Yeah, you and Timothy McVeigh... Yer so cool...
You're so laughable.
W. E. Woods
"M. W. Eglestone" wrote:
>
> So far, the only person who is "seriously" Fucked Up in this thread,
> is the idiot who started it. Obviously, sentence structure, grammar
> and spelling aren't on his priority list at the moment. Is it "Jack
> Rite" or "Rack Jite?" Only his hair dresser knows for sure.
I think he *LIKES* to be in the barrel.
W. E. Woods
Rack Jite wrote:
>
> On Fri, 09 Apr 1999 14:09:42 GMT, "David G. Hughey"
> <caps...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >Rack Jite wrote:
> >>
> >> When guns, ammunition and shooting are the center of one's life, that
> >> person is seriously FUCKED UP, and the LAST who should be running
> >> around with a loaded gun. Its called GUNGOONERY.
> >
> >Unless of course that person happens to be an infantry soldier. But there are
> >plenty of people who own firearms and enjoy shooting them at target ranges.
> >They are hobbyists; they have an interest in firearms, and they don't bother
> >anyone. What I don't understand is how you make the assumption that one is a
> >"gungoon" when one is responsible enough to learn about a weapon, how to use it,
> >and when to use it. Do you also apply similar labels to the school children who
> >are provided condoms and taught how to use them? What are they to you -
> >"fuckloons"?
>
> There are other hobbies that are not related to machines designed to
> kill.
What machines are those? Airplanes?
> Raising orchids,
Do that.
> waterskiing,
Do that.
> airplanes etc...
Fly those.
<boneheaded garbage snipped>
W. E. Woods
Rack Jite wrote:
> GET A LIFE! :)
Gee, I bet he's got one. Why would he want to take the pitiful one
you're stuck with?
W. E. Woods
Sinistral wrote:
>
> In article <7eqtah$1sq$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>,
> "Charles's News Acc." <se...@net-nw.com> wrote:
>
> > >If what you say is true, your life revolves around poking little holes
> > >in paper far away, then yer all even nuttier than I thought...
> > >
> > >GET A LIFE! :)
> > >
> > >
> > What is wrong with "poking little holes in paper", at least we are out
> > doing something and getting some exersize.
>
> Shooting guns is exercize now? Heh, God forbid your trigger finger doesn't
> get weak eh? I can just imagine Richard Simmons' new video... "Sweatin' at
> the firing range!"
Have you ever shot a gun?
W. E. Woods
"David G. Hughey" wrote:
>
> You are right to condemn those who would circumvent the laws of the nation and
> those who use their weapons to murder innocent citizens. But a gun is a tool
> just as an axe is a tool. Granted, a gun is designed to kill.
Disagreement.
> And it can do
> that very well. Unfortunately, innocent people are sometimes killed or maimed
> or otherwise have their lives altered by the careless or deliberately vicious
> use of guns. And I think the gun manufacturers are short-sighted by not putting
> safety devices on handguns, for example, that would keep children from being
> able to use the weapons.
Major disagreement.
> But there are also instances where the judicious use
> of a firearm has saved a life and that should not be sneered at.
Agreement.
W. E. Woods
"David G. Hughey" wrote:
>
> Rack Jite wrote:
> > >Actually I don't own any firearms. So much for "you" people. You come across
> > >like a bigot; you create behaviorisms for groups of people based upon the
> > >behaviors of a few. You are a gun bigot just as other people profess their
> > >bigotry about race, gender, religion, etc.
> >
> > Immutable cause... Big difference there pal... But you dont get it do
> > you? Were you born a gungoon? Is it biological? Maybe yer right...
>
> One more time. I don't own weapons. I support the right of law-abiding people
> to possess weapons. I think gun manufacturers should build in safety devices
> that would prevent children from firing said weapons. I believe in strong
> penalties for those who commit crimes with firearms. If that makes me a
> "gungoon" in your eyes, so be it. And take notice, if you will, of your
> inability to conduct a rational discussion on the topic without resorting to
> stereotyping me as a member of some unnamed fringe group and exhibiting other
> forms of bigotry. I'll try again with someone who has less of a personal axe to
> grind.
Good decision. He's an ass.
W. E. Woods
"David G. Hughey" wrote:
>
> I understand that there is available, or could be made readily available,
> technology that would permit a handgun to be fired only by the purchaser.
Nothing reliable. Such systems can also be both dangerous and
counterproductive. The best system to achieve your goal is called
education.
W. E. Woods
Rack Jite wrote:
>
> On 11 Apr 1999 02:50:34 GMT, dan...@ix.netcom.com(Dan Z) wrote:
>
> >According to Colt, the firearms manufacturer who started this whole
> >idea, there is NO current technology that is reliable enough, and will
> >not be for at least two years. Now tell me what my wife is supposed to
> >do after I am shot, and she can't fire my gun as the home invaders come
> >towards her. Beg?
>
> And the bigger question is how can your wife or your militia pals
> shoot your .44 at the 1st Cav tanks coming up yer driveway, or that
> f16 coming over? Thats what the guns are really for.
You didn't listen when your parents said it would make you go blind, did
you?
W. E. Woods
Michael Ejercito wrote:
>
> In article <7ep2lq$h...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
> dan...@ix.netcom.com(Dan Z) wrote:
>
> > In <37100B25...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> "David G. Hughey"
> > <caps...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> writes:
> > >
> > >I understand that there is available, or could be made readily
> > available,
> > >technology that would permit a handgun to be fired only by the
> > purchaser. But
> > >what's with the 10 millisecond response time?
> > >
> >
> >
> > According to Colt, the firearms manufacturer who started this whole
> > idea, there is NO current technology that is reliable enough, and will
> > not be for at least two years. Now tell me what my wife is supposed to
> > do after I am shot, and she can't fire my gun as the home invaders come
> > towards her. Beg?
> It can be calibrated to recognize multiple users.
All my guns already do that.
W. E. Woods
"David G. Hughey" wrote:
>
> Scout wrote:
> >
> > David G. Hughey <caps...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> wrote in article
> > <37100B25...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>...
> > > I understand that there is available, or could be made readily available,
> > > technology that would permit a handgun to be fired only by the purchaser.
> >
> > Really? Care to post a cite for this claim. The best claims I've heard is
> > that it will be at LEAST 5 years before such devices are out of R&D, and
> > even then they don't fulfil the conditions of the test. After all what if
> > the purchaser is the "child" you are attempting to protect? However, let's
> > be fair (and have some fun). Kindly tell us about this wonderful technology
> > that will always work for the purchaser, doesn't need maintenance, works
> > under all possible self defense conditions, is FAST, is automatic, and
> > which can't be broken in such a manner to allow operation by some child
> > with a set of tools.
>
> Oh, I get it. You want Nirvana. You are correct; that doesn't exist. I can't
> think of many products available on the market that fulfill all of the
> conditions you just set forth.
>
> I don't care if you don't put anything on your handgun. I don't care if you
> have a handgun. My argument about safety devices was that some devices - the
> efficacy of which may be debated - are available for those who wish to safeguard
> their firearms. In others words, there are choices out there for those who may
> have concerns. Those that don't will be fully responsible for the injuries
> their firearms cause.
Firearms do not cause *ANY* injuries.
W. E. Woods
Rack Jite wrote:
>
> On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 19:47:05 GMT, bwayne@*nospam*home.com (Bruce)
> wrote:
>
> >Aw, come on, TJ! Jite has done more for libertarianism than a hundred
> >Bill Clintons could. He actually seems to believe what he says, and
> >the ideas he espouses are so loathsome and full of fear and hate that
> >he can't help but turn people away from his views. How often do you
> >hear people say, "Hey, that guy's an absolute psychotic! I think
> >I'll be just like him!"
> >Bruce
>
> You got it backwards bruce. The reason I added .guns and .libertarian
> to the groups was
Because you have no life beyond playing with yourself.
W. E. Woods
Lock N Load wrote:
> Come on you pseudo-liberal, bleeding heart whiner, what do you "feel"?
Just his itty bitty wee-wee.
W. E. Woods
Yossarian wrote:
>
> Rack Jite wrote in message <37131224....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
> >There is no need for psychiatrists.
> >Just with this simple test lunacy can be easily diagnosed.
> >First have them read the following:
> >
> >"Shooting teaches young people good things.
> >All good rules for shooting are good rules for life."
> >Tom Selleck in his latest NRA ad.
> Well, the second is kind of true for Sex Ed - if you don't plan to "shoot"
> it, don't point the "gun" at it.
Make sure it is properly cleaned and holstered first. <G>
Jim Patrick
Hughey" <caps...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> David G. Hughey <caps...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> wrote in article
>> <37100B25...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>...
>> > I understand that there is available, or could be made readily available,
>> > technology that would permit a handgun to be fired only by the purchaser.
Then you heard wrong.
>I don't care if you don't put anything on your handgun. I don't care if you
>have a handgun. My argument about safety devices was that some devices - the
>efficacy of which may be debated - are available for those who wish to safeguard
>their firearms. In others words, there are choices out there for those who may
>have concerns. Those that don't will be fully responsible for the injuries
>their firearms cause.
Are you saying an owner should be reponsible in case of theft?
Everyone is already reponsible for the use of force.
>Your choice. Your responsibility. I doubt if your reflexes, including trigger
>pull time, could be measured in terms of 1/100th of a second.
That's the standard way most people's actions under stress are
measured. Fastest draw, shoot and hit measured is 0.35 second.
It took Hennigan 2 minutes to remove his "safety feature".
Measure that against a thug kicking in a door.
No one is objecting to your CHOICE to cripple your own firearms, there
are more devices out there than you can shake a stick at. Just don't
try to impose your ideas on others.
Jim P
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanlysis (1952)
Scout
Sinistral <sini...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<7er5ad$817$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Tell you what. You take a 3 pound weight. Extend to arms length. Hold it
perfectly steady for 3 seconds. Now repeat 200 times. Then get back to us.
Scout
Michael Ejercito <meje...@csulb.edu> wrote in article
<mejercit-110...@134.139.57.111>...
> In article <7ep2lq$h...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
> dan...@ix.netcom.com(Dan Z) wrote:
>
> > In <37100B25...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> "David G. Hughey"
> > <caps...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> writes:
> > >
> > >I understand that there is available, or could be made readily
> > available,
> > >technology that would permit a handgun to be fired only by the
> > purchaser. But
> > >what's with the 10 millisecond response time?
> > >
> >
> >
> > According to Colt, the firearms manufacturer who started this whole
> > idea, there is NO current technology that is reliable enough, and will
> > not be for at least two years. Now tell me what my wife is supposed to
> > do after I am shot, and she can't fire my gun as the home invaders come
> > towards her. Beg?
> It can be calibrated to recognize multiple users.
Jesus, it's not even on the market yet, much less out of R&D, and already
he's telling us the specifications for what it can do.
However, why should I pay a bunch of money for something like that? After
all I already have a gun that recognizes multiple uses.
Scout
Michael Ejercito <meje...@csulb.edu> wrote in article
<mejercit-110...@134.139.57.111>...
> In article <37119fde...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> rack...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> > On 11 Apr 1999 02:50:34 GMT, dan...@ix.netcom.com(Dan Z) wrote:
> >
> > >According to Colt, the firearms manufacturer who started this whole
> > >idea, there is NO current technology that is reliable enough, and will
> > >not be for at least two years. Now tell me what my wife is supposed to
> > >do after I am shot, and she can't fire my gun as the home invaders
come
> > >towards her. Beg?
> >
> > And the bigger question is how can your wife or your militia pals
> > shoot your .44 at the 1st Cav tanks coming up yer driveway, or that
> > f16 coming over? Thats what the guns are really for.
> Are you kidding,Rack. But let us suppose a foreign army were to
invade.
> The appropriaste solution is to sneak on the enemy camps and sabotage the
> tanks and F-16's.
Nope if you're going to go to that much trouble, spike the food with
something lethal.
Sinistral
"Scout" <sc...@monumental.com> wrote:
Looks like a blew up a few reluctant skirts...
How hard it is to get accustomed to firing a weapon is not the point. My post
was that it's ridiculous using the excuse of "exercise" as the reason for
enjoying guns. There are countless other ways to work that body that don't
involve deadly weapons.
Some people have no sense of humor, I swear :)
--Sinistral--
You don't have to be politically correct.
Just don't be politically moronic either.
http://members.xoom.com/librealm/
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Sinistral
cm...@nwonline.net wrote:
Hi Webster!!! :)
Still haven't goten that new act I see.
Don't give up!
> >> >If what you say is true, your life revolves around poking little holes
> >> >in paper far away, then yer all even nuttier than I thought...
> >> >
> >> >GET A LIFE! :)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> What is wrong with "poking little holes in paper", at least we are out
> >> doing something and getting some exersize.
> >
> >Shooting guns is exercize now? Heh, God forbid your trigger finger
doesn't
> >get weak eh? I can just imagine Richard Simmons' new video... "Sweatin' at
> >the firing range!"
>
> Taking a break from telling Black people that we should let ourselves
> be lynched?
>
--Sinistral--
Michael Ejercito
<wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Rack Jite wrote:
> >
> > When guns, ammunition and shooting are the center of one's life, that
> > person is seriously FUCKED UP, and the LAST who should be running
> > around with a loaded gun. Its called GUNGOONERY.
>
> Again you avoid reality. Are you a moron or a troll?
Why does it have to be one or the other? It can be both.
Michael
CSULB College Republicans
For Truth,Justice,Freedom,and the American Way
Michael Ejercito
<sc...@monumental.com> wrote:
chemical and biological weapons can also be used. they are cheap
compared to nukes.
Scout
Sinistral <sini...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<7esudk$mh8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <01be84da$f1f42980$051e7cd1@scoutp>,
> "Scout" <sc...@monumental.com> wrote:
>
> Looks like a blew up a few reluctant skirts...
>
> > Sinistral <sini...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
> > <7er5ad$817$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > > In article <7eqtah$1sq$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>,
> > > "Charles's News Acc." <se...@net-nw.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >If what you say is true, your life revolves around poking little
holes
> > > > >in paper far away, then yer all even nuttier than I thought...
> > > > >
> > > > >GET A LIFE! :)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > What is wrong with "poking little holes in paper", at least we
are
> > out
> > > > doing something and getting some exersize.
> > >
> > > Shooting guns is exercize now? Heh, God forbid your trigger finger
> > doesn't
> > > get weak eh? I can just imagine Richard Simmons' new video...
"Sweatin'
> > at
> > > the firing range!"
> >
> > Tell you what. You take a 3 pound weight. Extend to arms length. Hold
it
> > perfectly steady for 3 seconds. Now repeat 200 times. Then get back to
us.
>
> How hard it is to get accustomed to firing a weapon is not the point. My
post
> was that it's ridiculous using the excuse of "exercise" as the reason for
> enjoying guns. There are countless other ways to work that body that
don't
> involve deadly weapons.
So now it IS exercise?
Who exactly are you to tell me what kind of exercise I should perform or
enjoy?
Further who cares if it "involve(s) a deadly weapon", as long as no one is
injured?
Should I tell you to stop driving, because it involves a deadly weapon?
How about archery?
Shot put?
Javelin?
Fencing?
Boxing?
I know I can here you now. Boxing? Yes, boxing. It involves the use of a
fist, a deadly weapon that has killed countless people.
> Some people have no sense of humor, I swear :)
Sorry, but my rights aren't a subject of humor to me.
dhe...@atlantic.net
And any HS student with a local grocery store can make them.
>
> Michael
>
>
> CSULB College Republicans
>
>
> For Truth,Justice,Freedom,and the American Way
The only reason the US doesn't have a Gestapo is that the
FBI, BATF, DEA, EPA etc. can't speak German.
W. E. Woods
Sinistral wrote:
>
> How hard it is to get accustomed to firing a weapon is not the point. My post
> was that it's ridiculous using the excuse of "exercise" as the reason for
> enjoying guns. There are countless other ways to work that body that don't
> involve deadly weapons.
>
> Some people have no sense of humor, I swear :)
It's not a mater of humor. Your argument is sense free. Guns are not
deadly weapons unless used as such.
W. E. Woods
Sinistral wrote:
>
> In article <01be850c$67d274a0$331e7cd1@scoutp>,
> "Scout" <sc...@monumental.com> wrote:
> >
> > So now it IS exercise?
>
> Um, I don't recall saying that. I do recall saying that you people using this
> for some silly concept of "exercise" was... well, to be redundant: silly.
>
> > Should I tell you to stop driving, because it involves a deadly weapon?
>
> Car doesn't become a weapon until you're drunk.
Wrongo. A car doesn't become a weapon until it is used as one.