Guns Ownership Is A Homicide Fantasy!
AndrewJH80
homicide fantasies. If you like to target shoot, hunt, or just collect guns
then you have a homicide fantasy. But gun loons tell me that my contention is
preposterous.
But if recreational target shooting, as well as gun collecting, has nothing to
do with feeding a homicide fantasy, then how do they explain the following:
*That the value of the type of rifle that Oswald used went up after the
JFK assassination, despite always being a crappy gun!
*That the exact handgun that Gary Gilmore used to kill two innocent young men
in cold blood in Utah in the '70s was for sale at a Las Vegas gun show for
hundreds of thousands of dollars!
Was I the only person watching the local Las Vegas TV news report, apprising
it's viewers to this sale, who was actually sickened by the fact that there
could be such a demand for this gun that should have been destroyed- and never
manufactured in the first place?
Wild game hunting also feeds a homicide fantasy. I know there is surplus
wildlife that needs to be eradicated, but that's not the reason why people
hunt. People hunt to kill something, period. They're bloodthirsty nuts! They
may care about sticking a deer head on their wall, but they don't care about
wildlife conservation. And they are not doing it for survival. Man no longer
needs to hunt because of domestic meat production.
Even home and self-defense is really about a homicide fantasy and not a
legitimate reason to own a gun. I know macho men who live in safe
neighborhoods, and never set foot in the slums, but yet own guns for
"protection." We already have police to protect us. We don't need guns. You can
reach for a phone to call 911 as easily as you can reach for a gun. Other
civilized countries don't allow guns for protection let alone establish laws
allowing Concealed Carry Permits, and for good reason. I am 100 times safer
walking European, Japanese, Australian, or Canadian streets than I am walking
the streets of America. If guns are necessary for self-protection, then why are
women, despite being physically smaller and weaker and more vulnerable to
crimes like rape and domestic violence, more adverse to gun ownership and more
likely to support gun control?
Gun loons say we need guns for protection against government tyranny. If you
gun loons are really being "enslaved and ripped off" by this government, then
why
not use Gandhi's method? He didn't have any guns, and he liberated India from
the British Empire. Because the pro-gun movement is really about arming the
more chauvinistic members of society and empowering them the way only guns can.
This whole "we need guns for protection against the government" nonsense is
just an excuse for people with Ramboitis to pose in the mirror with their
favorite assault weapon.
You Know Who
>Since guns are desinged for homicide,
Cite
> I believe that people who own guns have homicide fantasies.
Do you believe in the tooth fairy too?
>If you like to target shoot, hunt, or just collect guns
>then you have a homicide fantasy. But gun loons tell me that my contention is
>preposterous.
And so does everyone else.
>But if recreational target shooting, as well as gun collecting, has nothing to
>do with feeding a homicide fantasy, then how do they explain the following:
>
>*That the value of the type of rifle that Oswald used went up after the
>JFK assassination, despite always being a crappy gun!
If it was so "crappy" then how did Oswald get all those shots off with
iron sights?
>*That the exact handgun that Gary Gilmore used to kill two innocent young men
>in cold blood in Utah in the '70s was for sale at a Las Vegas gun show for
>hundreds of thousands of dollars!
Cite
>Was I the only person watching the local Las Vegas TV news report, apprising
>it's viewers to this sale, who was actually sickened by the fact that there
>could be such a demand for this gun that should have been destroyed- and never
>manufactured in the first place?
You must have been. I'll bet you were the only person who saw the
show. In fact, I'll bet you see a LOT of shows no one else sees.
>Wild game hunting also feeds a homicide fantasy. I know there is surplus
>wildlife that needs to be eradicated, but that's not the reason why people
>hunt.
Cite
> People hunt to kill something, period. They're bloodthirsty nuts! They
>may care about sticking a deer head on their wall, but they don't care about
>wildlife conservation. And they are not doing it for survival. Man no longer
>needs to hunt because of domestic meat production.
Domestic meat is poison. Just about the only good meat nowadays is
wild.
>Even home and self-defense is really about a homicide fantasy and not a
>legitimate reason to own a gun.
As a matter of fact, it is.
>I know macho men who live in safe
>neighborhoods, and never set foot in the slums, but yet own guns for
>"protection." We already have police to protect us.
No, we don't. The police can't protect you. They REFUSE to protect
people every day. They will, however, write up a nice report.
>We don't need guns.
Sure we do. We need 'em, and we want 'em. And- we have 'em!
>You can
>reach for a phone to call 911 as easily as you can reach for a gun.
No, I can reach for a gun easier.
>Other civilized countries don't allow guns for protection
Cite
>let alone establish laws
>allowing Concealed Carry Permits, and for good reason. I am 100 times safer
>walking European, Japanese, Australian, or Canadian streets than I am walking
>the streets of America.
Cite
>If guns are necessary for self-protection, then why are
>women, despite being physically smaller and weaker and more vulnerable to
>crimes like rape and domestic violence, more adverse to gun ownership and more
>likely to support gun control?
Who says they are?
>Because the pro-gun movement is really about arming the
>more chauvinistic members of society and empowering them the way only guns can.
So guns empower people?
>This whole "we need guns for protection against the government" nonsense is
>just an excuse for people with Ramboitis to pose in the mirror with their
>favorite assault weapon.
Too bad you can't do anything about it, huh?
Scout
"AndrewJH80" <andre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040403212643...@mb-m22.aol.com...
> Since guns are desinged for homicide
I love the way you jump the chase and leap right in with a lie....
Reuben Hick
> *That the exact handgun that Gary Gilmore used to kill two innocent young
men
> in cold blood in Utah in the '70s was for sale at a Las Vegas gun show for
> hundreds of thousands of dollars!
>
> Was I the only person watching the local Las Vegas TV news report,
apprising
> it's viewers to this sale, who was actually sickened by the fact that
there
> could be such a demand for this gun that should have been destroyed- and
never
> manufactured in the first place?
Of course you were sickened. When the gun was sold, a person actually
received hundreds of thousands of dollars. The mere thought that someone
other than you received "hundreds of thousands of dollars" pricked your
envy, greed and covetness spirit. how dare someone receive "hundreds of
thousands of dollars" and it not be in the form of a winning lottery ticket?
Other people's joy brings you misery. A misery that you want to spread to
others.
Bert Hyman
(AndrewJH80) wrote:
> Since guns are desinged for homicide,
Really? Do tell.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@visi.com
Reuben Hick
"You Know Who" <u...@who.us> wrote in message
news:9a57c1cad753f034...@news.teranews.com...
> >In talk.politics.guns andre...@aol.com (AndrewJH80) wrote:
>
> >Since guns are desinged for homicide,
>
> Cite
Why cite? Clearly the originator is impervious to reason, facts or the
truth.
Everyone knows that an elephant gun is not made for shooting people (the
"hom" in homicide), it is highly impractical in the same sense as using a
firehose to water some house plants. How can someone look at a .410 shotgun
and a 10 gauge and say that both were designed primarily to kill people? If
a .410 could do the job, why the overkill in a 10 gauge? If the bolt action
.22LR was designed to kill people, then why bother with the Barrett M82, or
go to the .223 automatic? Why are target guns called "target guns" if
targets were not the intent and purpose?
You see, irrational emotion, hate and fear are the basis of all Andrew's
opinons. He is obviously immune to objectivity and must resort to wild
imagination and raw subjectivity. You need that for good trolling.
What is the purpose of psychotropics? To alter the mood and emotion. There
are drugs out there that are said to control ADD, which is a nice way to say
that there are drugs available to alter how a person thinks. A drug is a
chemical. Food is a chemical since many problems can be connected to a diet
deficient in certain nutrients. When a person consumes a drug, it is often
to stabilize a chemical imbalance. Objectively, 2 + 2 = 4. No matter what
a person ingests, the equation is always the same because it is based on
certain absolute facts and laws. Andrew here, invents a new term called
"homicide fantasy". Because it has no foundation, no clear definition, and
can only be presented in subjective terms, it is excluded from the circle of
rational thinking. Since it is subjective, it is contingent on the whims
and fancy of whoever contemplates the idea. Since it is contingent on
however the mind is working at a point in time, and the mind is subject to
the chemical composition of the body, and the body receives its chemicals
through food and drugs, we can safely say that the statement "guns are
designed for homicide" gets its basis from leftover pizza.
Open up a bag of Cheetos and there is Andrew's citation.
> > I believe that people who own guns have homicide fantasies.
> Do you believe in the tooth fairy too?
Wait until you have a definition of "homicide fantasy" before one comments.
I think the term is deliberately obtuse because Andrew is a troll and
incapable of reasonable discourse. A person who is not able to defend
their views seems to me be the last person on earth who we should take
advice from.
You Know Who
>
>"You Know Who" <u...@who.us> wrote in message
>news:9a57c1cad753f034...@news.teranews.com...
>> >In talk.politics.guns andre...@aol.com (AndrewJH80) wrote:
>>
>> >Since guns are desinged for homicide,
>>
>> Cite
>
>Why cite? Clearly the originator is impervious to reason, facts or the
>truth.
Of course he is. But I didn't feel like typing, "Clearly, sir, you are
impervious to reason, facts or the truth!" when I can say the say
thing by typing "Cite" and having him ignore it. :>
>> > I believe that people who own guns have homicide fantasies.
>
>> Do you believe in the tooth fairy too?
>
>Wait until you have a definition of "homicide fantasy" before one comments.
>I think the term is deliberately obtuse because Andrew is a troll and
>incapable of reasonable discourse. A person who is not able to defend
>their views seems to me be the last person on earth who we should take
>advice from.
I think Andrew is giving us a window into his own dark little world.
Christopher Morton
>Since guns are desinged for homicide, I believe that people who own guns have
>homicide fantasies. If you like to target shoot, hunt, or just collect guns
>then you have a homicide fantasy. But gun loons tell me that my contention is
>preposterous.
Indulge your suicide fantasies and come get my guns.
--
"Holocaust was greatly exaggerated and you know it. Another monster lie
from the gover-media." - Judy Diarya, AKA "Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend"
Bama Brian
> Since guns are desinged for homicide, I believe that people who own guns
> have homicide fantasies. If you like to target shoot, hunt, or just
> collect guns then you have a homicide fantasy. But gun loons tell me that
> my contention is preposterous.
Psychologically, your idea is called "projection". You think this way, so
you feel everyone else must feel this way. That this is a self-deluding
fantasy has obviously not occurred to you.
> But if recreational target shooting, as well as gun collecting, has
> nothing to do with feeding a homicide fantasy, then how do they explain
> the following:
>
> *That the value of the type of rifle that Oswald used went up after the
> JFK assassination, despite always being a crappy gun!
>
> *That the exact handgun that Gary Gilmore used to kill two innocent young
> men in cold blood in Utah in the '70s was for sale at a Las Vegas gun show
> for hundreds of thousands of dollars!
>
> Was I the only person watching the local Las Vegas TV news report,
> apprising it's viewers to this sale, who was actually sickened by the fact
> that there could be such a demand for this gun that should have been
> destroyed- and never manufactured in the first place?
People love to collect stuff from notorious events. It has nothing to do
with guns. Someone in the U.S. owns Hitler's Mercedes limousine - and this
has nothing to do with Nazis.
> Wild game hunting also feeds a homicide fantasy. I know there is surplus
> wildlife that needs to be eradicated, but that's not the reason why people
> hunt. People hunt to kill something, period. They're bloodthirsty nuts!
> They may care about sticking a deer head on their wall, but they don't
> care about wildlife conservation. And they are not doing it for survival.
> Man no longer needs to hunt because of domestic meat production.
Does it really? Cite the learned works that tell you this - or just accept
that 4 million years of hominid evolution that resulted in humans has
created a race of hunter/gatherers who are opportunistic omnivores. There
is something so emotionally satisfying about killing one's own food that I
cannot describe the feeling to someone who has never hunted nor fished.
Yes, there are a few people out there who think they have a God-given right
to kill everything within reach - but even they can be retrained.
> Even home and self-defense is really about a homicide fantasy and not a
> legitimate reason to own a gun. I know macho men who live in safe
> neighborhoods, and never set foot in the slums, but yet own guns for
> "protection." We already have police to protect us. We don't need guns.
> You can reach for a phone to call 911 as easily as you can reach for a
> gun.
We have fire departments as well - but a prudent person will have a fire
extinguisher in his kitchen, and perhaps in his garage as well.
And the police CANNOT protect us - indeed, they are not required to. In
over 28 city, state, and federal court decisions all the way up to the
Supreme Court, the courts have UNANIMOUSLY ruled that the police have no
duty whatsoever to protect the citizens. These decisions include cases
where the police KNEW that citizens were being harmed at that moment - but
refused to take any action.
> Other civilized countries don't allow guns for protection let alone
> establish laws allowing Concealed Carry Permits, and for good reason.
This statement is an outright lie. SOME countries are in the process of
disarming their subjects, with Britain, Australia, and Canada coming to
mind. SOME countries have historically been disamed - such as Japan.
Other countries, such as Finland and Switzerland, are armed to the teeth.
> I am
> 100 times safer walking European, Japanese, Australian, or Canadian
> streets than I am walking the streets of America.
Really? I can show you entire states in the United States where you are
safer than you would be in Europe, Japan, Australia, or Canada. This is a
function of demographics within cultures; not a function of country vs.
country. There ARE areas in Europe, Japan, Australia and Canada that you
will not walk at night.
> If guns are necessary
> for self-protection, then why are women, despite being physically smaller
> and weaker and more vulnerable to crimes like rape and domestic violence,
> more adverse to gun ownership and more likely to support gun control?
Because they want to trust idiots like you, who claim the government can
protect them - when it both cannot and will not.
> Gun loons say we need guns for protection against government tyranny. If
> you gun loons are really being "enslaved and ripped off" by this
> government, then why
> not use Gandhi's method? He didn't have any guns, and he liberated India
> from the British Empire. Because the pro-gun movement is really about
> arming the more chauvinistic members of society and empowering them the
> way only guns can.
The arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume we will, in
defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ
for the preservation of our liberties being with one mind resolved to die
free rather than live slaves.
--Thomas Jefferson, 1775
> This whole "we need guns for protection against the government" nonsense
> is just an excuse for people with Ramboitis to pose in the mirror with
> their favorite assault weapon.
Again, Andrew, this is just projection on your part. Get professional help.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
--------------
In the Y2K presidential elections, there were 103 million eligible voters -
of whom 51 million voted for "None of the above" by not voting.
AH#49
>
> AndrewJH80 wrote:
>
> > Since guns are desinged for homicide, I believe that people who own guns
> > have homicide fantasies. If you like to target shoot, hunt, or just
> > collect guns then you have a homicide fantasy. But gun loons tell me that
> > my contention is preposterous.
>
> Psychologically, your idea is called "projection". You think this way, so
> you feel everyone else must feel this way. That this is a self-deluding
> fantasy has obviously not occurred to you.
Sounds just like Judy Diarrhea, to me.
Scout
"W. Maynard" <WMay...@mia.edu> wrote in message
news:e5d0705k2lf68213o...@4ax.com...
Another lie.
Guns serve a multitude of purposes and functions. Your assertion to the
contrary shows either your ignorance or your willingness to lie. So which is
it?
Oh, and FYI guns have also been designed for a multitude of purposes and
functions.
Morton Davis
"Bama Brian" <bamaNO...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:_tXbc.24658$xW1....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Someone also owns Hiter's matched pearl grip pistols.
Hey, Andrew, matvch this up witrh your preconceptions:
http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php
-*MORT*--
Scout
>
> You will now list them in the space provided below:
Hitting pieces of steel, paper, clay, plastic, and slag. Since these aren't
animate they can't die, hence no killing.
> Claire D. Lune
Yardpilot
"W. Maynard" <WMay...@mia.edu> wrote in message
news:e5d0705k2lf68213o...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 10:03:04 -0400, "Scout"
<4g...@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >
They project energy from one point to another. Next?
Yardpilot
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 22:30:58 -0400, "Scout"
> Beware the answering fire.
I can write your name on the wall behind you with one. Consider it an artist's
tool.
Scout
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 22:30:58 -0400, "Scout"
> Beware the answering fire.
I accept your admission that killing isn't the only purpose of guns.
Morton Davis
"Yardpilot" <yard...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gx8cc.76363$w54.439012@attbi_s01...
-*MORT*-
r_c_brown
> Since guns are desinged for homicide, I believe that people who own guns have
> homicide fantasies. If you like to target shoot, hunt, or just collect guns
> then you have a homicide fantasy. But gun loons tell me that my contention is
> preposterous.
>
<snip>
Well, that's the nice thing about living in a free country: you can
believe whatever you like, and can write about it on the Internet.
OTOH, if you really wish to have an intelligent discussion - or even a
debate - regarding this subject, you would do well *not* to demonize
your opposition. By doing so, you basically concede defeat before the
debate has begun.
Morton Davis
"r_c_brown" <r_c_...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:bb730bf.04040...@posting.google.com...
That debate was settled at the polls:
http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php
-*MORT*-
Yardpilot
"Morton Davis" <oglet...@oglethorpe.com> wrote in message
news:Nvccc.186130$1p.2182225@attbi_s54...
Yup. Like many other anti's, "he" insists on ascribing certain anthropomorphic
attributes to guns that they cannot possess by virtue of the fact that they are
inanimate objects.
Yardpilot
goons.
> How's that?
Ignorant. When do you want to see that demonstration of having your name written
on the wall behind you with one?
Morton Davis
-*MORT*-
Yardpilot
Indeed. I think it would sell pretty well, too. It doesn't look like CDL
<Snort!) is much of a supporter of the arts.
Scout
> On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 06:04:18 -0400, "Scout"
for them.
I'm pleased that you are finally able to admit you are a liar, even if it is
indirectly.
Scout
> On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 08:13:56 GMT, "Yardpilot" <yard...@comcast.net>
cowardly goons.
> How's that?
Who cares about your insane considerations?
Scout
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 17:57:35 -0400, "Scout"
Then let me show the depth of my care....<plonk>
W. Stephen Lush
"Scout" <4g...@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:rpSdnf5fdpc...@adelphia.com...
Well he/she/it does have a point. Are guns designed to give someone a
wedgie?
AH#49
> Are guns designed to give someone a
> wedgie?
What do you think?
Are you capable of such an option?
Jim Austin
> Since guns are desinged for homicide, I believe that people who own guns have
> homicide fantasies.
Sounds like a personal problem.
> If you like to target shoot, hunt, or just collect guns then you have a
> homicide fantasy.
Non sequitur.
> But gun loons tell me that my contention is preposterous.
It is.
> But if recreational target shooting, as well as gun collecting, has nothing to
> do with feeding a homicide fantasy, then how do they explain the following:
>
> *That the value of the type of rifle that Oswald used went up after the
> JFK assassination, despite always being a crappy gun!
The value of all guns went up due to inflation.
The same ad that showed the crappy gun Oswald used also showed an M1
Garrand for 60 plus dollars. They're more than 10 times that now.
Smith and Wesson was about to discontinue their .44 magnum pistol
until demand went up after Clint Eastwood's "Dirty Harry" movies.
> *That the exact handgun that Gary Gilmore used to kill two innocent young men
> in cold blood in Utah in the '70s was for sale at a Las Vegas gun show for
> hundreds of thousands of dollars!
Items connected with a historic event becomes collector's items, like
pens used by a president to sign landmark legislation or a baseball
caught by a member of the audience when a famous player hits a
homerun.
> Was I the only person watching the local Las Vegas TV news report, apprising
> it's viewers to this sale, who was actually sickened by the fact that there
> could be such a demand for this gun that should have been destroyed- and never
> manufactured in the first place?
Possibly.
> Wild game hunting also feeds a homicide fantasy. I know there is surplus
> wildlife that needs to be eradicated, but that's not the reason why people
> hunt. People hunt to kill something, period. They're bloodthirsty nuts! They
> may care about sticking a deer head on their wall, but they don't care about
> wildlife conservation. And they are not doing it for survival. Man no longer
> needs to hunt because of domestic meat production.
But the urges developed over millions of years of evolution persist.
> Even home and self-defense is really about a homicide fantasy and not a
> legitimate reason to own a gun.
This is the real point of AndrewJH80's post. He believes that self
defense is not legitimate. He denies our right of self defense. He
believes armed criminals should be able to strike with impunity
without opposition, resistance or retaliation.
> I know macho men who live in safe neighborhoods, and never set foot in the
> slums, but yet own guns for "protection."
That has something to do with why safe neighborhoods are safe
neighborhoods.
> We already have police to protect us. We don't need guns. You can
> reach for a phone to call 911 as easily as you can reach for a gun.
Police cannot be everywhere at once. Response times to 911 calls can
be glacially slow. Bullets travel very fast.
If 911 fails, try .357.
Besides, liberals who favor disarming the law abiding population also
favor ever increasing restrictions on police's ability to deal with
gun wielding criminals.
> Other civilized countries don't allow guns for protection let alone establish
> laws allowing Concealed Carry Permits, and for good reason. I am 100 times
> safer walking European, Japanese, Australian, or Canadian streets than I am
> walking the streets of America.
Particularly streets of American big cities where guns are banned.
Such countries like England, Australia and Canada suffer a spate of
home invasion crimes, where armed thugs break into an occupied home
knowing that the home dwellers are unarmed. In America, burglars wait
for homeowners to leave before breaking in.
Perhaps AndrewJH80 should put a sign on has lawn that reads, "There
are no guns in this house!"
> If guns are necessary for self-protection, then why are women, despite being
> physically smaller and weaker and more vulnerable to crimes like rape and
> domestic violence, more adverse to gun ownership and more likely to support
> gun control?
Women are more likely to be pacifist than men. Women who have been
attacked often end up thinking differently. I would, of course, prefer
that they reach the proper conclusion through detached reflection
rather than personal experience.
> Gun loons say we need guns for protection against government tyranny. If you
> gun loons are really being "enslaved and ripped off" by this government, then
> why not use Gandhi's method? He didn't have any guns, and he liberated India
> from the British Empire.
When Jews faced extermination by Nazis, Gandhi's recommended method
was for the Jews so threatened to commit mass suicide, in effect,
saving Hitler the trouble of killing them off.
That is the essence of AndrewJH80's agenda.
> Because the pro-gun movement is really about arming the more chauvinistic
> members of society and empowering them the way only guns can.
Which is to say, empowering people to be able to defend themselves.
> This whole "we need guns for protection against the government" nonsense...
An armed population does in fact narrow the policy options of
government. On at least one occasion, a bureaucrat addressing a
college public administration class told us of a legislative proposal
was dropped because of fears of an armed uprising.
> ...is just an excuse for people with Ramboitis to pose in the mirror with
> their favorite assault weapon.
AndrewJH80 believes that guns should be the sole prerogative of punks,
hoods, thugs and other assorted lowlives. His whole agenda is to
empower the thugs and render everyone helpless to resist them.
Yardpilot
"W. Stephen Lush" <wl...@niu.edu> wrote in message
news:c5a858$1cd$1...@usenet.cso.niu.edu...
The 12.7mm wedgie gun is. Why, do you want one?
Jim Alder
> "Scout" <4g...@adelphia.net> wrote...
>>
>> "AndrewJH80" <andre...@aol.com> wrote...
>
>> > Since guns are designed for homicide...
>>
>> I love the way you jump the chase and leap right in with a
>> lie....
>
> Well he/she/it does have a point. Are guns designed to give
> someone a wedgie?
His 'point' was to inflame by using the word 'homicide' rather
than 'killing' because most people consider 'homicide' to be a
crime. It isn't. Specifically, "justifiable homicide" is not a
crime.
Guns can more honestly be said to be designed to STOP
homicides.
--
Metaphors bewitch you.
I'm Jim Alder and I approved this message.
Jim Alder
news:20040403212643...@mb-m22.aol.com:
> Since guns are desinged for homicide, I believe that people
> who own guns have homicide fantasies. If you like to target
> shoot, hunt, or just collect guns then you have a homicide
> fantasy. But gun loons tell me that my contention is
> preposterous.
>
> But if recreational target shooting, as well as gun
> collecting, has nothing to do with feeding a homicide fantasy,
> then how do they explain the following:
>
> *That the value of the type of rifle that Oswald used went up
> after the JFK assassination, despite always being a crappy
> gun!
Prove it. Try to sell a 6.5 Carcano nowadays.
> *That the exact handgun that Gary Gilmore used to kill two
> innocent young men in cold blood in Utah in the '70s was for
> sale at a Las Vegas gun show for hundreds of thousands of
> dollars!
The car Hitler owned also sells for lots more than it's worth
in the Blue Book. Do potential buyers have megalomaniacal
fantasies?
> Was I the only person watching the local Las Vegas TV news
> report, apprising it's viewers to this sale, who was actually
> sickened by the fact that there could be such a demand for
> this gun that should have been destroyed- and never
> manufactured in the first place?
Probably not. There are other people sickened by the mere
sight of a gun, let alone the sale. That doesn't make you any less
loony. It just means you have company.
> Wild game hunting also feeds a homicide fantasy. I know there
> is surplus wildlife that needs to be eradicated, but that's
> not the reason why people hunt. People hunt to kill something,
> period. They're bloodthirsty nuts! They may care about
> sticking a deer head on their wall, but they don't care about
> wildlife conservation. And they are not doing it for survival.
> Man no longer needs to hunt because of domestic meat
> production.
People no longer need to fish because of the many restaurants
that serve a nice broiled scrod.
Thanks for giving me still another example for my contention
that gun nuts like yourself are so phobic because they transfer
their own mental problems (in this case, 'bloodthirsty nuts') onto
the population at large.
> Even home and self-defense is really about a homicide fantasy
> and not a legitimate reason to own a gun. I know macho men who
> live in safe neighborhoods, and never set foot in the slums,
> but yet own guns for "protection."
I could easily find examples for you of people just like that
who are unexpectedly dead.
> We already have police to
> protect us. We don't need guns. You can reach for a phone to
> call 911 as easily as you can reach for a gun. Other civilized
> countries don't allow guns for protection let alone establish
> laws allowing Concealed Carry Permits, and for good reason. I
> am 100 times safer walking European, Japanese, Australian, or
> Canadian streets than I am walking the streets of America. If
> guns are necessary for self-protection, then why are women,
> despite being physically smaller and weaker and more
> vulnerable to crimes like rape and domestic violence, more
> adverse to gun ownership and more likely to support gun
> control?
>
> Gun loons say we need guns for protection against government
> tyranny. If you gun loons are really being "enslaved and
> ripped off" by this government, then why not use Gandhi's
> method?
Okay...
Mahatma Gandhi: "I would rather have India resort to arms in order
to defend her honour than that she should in a cowardly manner
become or remain a hopeless witness to her own dishonour."
"Where the choice is between only violence and cowardice, I would
advise
violence." ~ Mohatma Gandhi
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts,
than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence."
-Mahatma Gandhi
> He didn't have any guns, and he
> liberated India from the British Empire. Because the pro-gun
> movement is really about arming the more chauvinistic members
> of society and empowering them the way only guns can.
>
> This whole "we need guns for protection against the
> government" nonsense is just an excuse for people with
> Ramboitis to pose in the mirror with their favorite assault
> weapon.
So you don't think individuals with guns have any change
against an army? We'll pass that opinion along to the soldiers in
Iraq. They'll be relieved.
Mary Woods
And don't forget the SOB holster. <G>
Yardpilot
"Mary Woods" <jau...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LLeec.12382$wP1.30489@attbi_s54...
It doesn't take long to understand that there are two reasons it's called that.