#Deceptive Gun Advertising: If so, then why.....

9 views
Skip to first unread message

Master

unread,
May 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/13/97
to

>Citing studies at the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center
>in Seattle and elsewhere, the researchers say guns don't protect
>nearly as often as the ads imply and, in fact, make homes more
>dangerous.


Just two questions:

1. Why do police officers, Ted Kennedy's bodyguards and Secret Service agents
carry guns if they are useless for self defense?

Police officers adopt tools that work. They abandon tools that don't. That's
why few if any officers carry the original formulation of Mace.

2. Why do so many people believe that they must act as my guardian, thus
preventing me from taking responsibility for my own life?

John_Johnson

unread,
May 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/14/97
to

In <3379fa19...@news.acmenet.net> Pude...@comencon.com
(Puderick Von Richard) writes:

> On 13 May 1997 23:18:37 GMT, mas...@master.com (Master) wrote:
>
>>> Citing studies at the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research
>>> Center in Seattle and elsewhere, the researchers say guns don't
>>> protect nearly as often as the ads imply and, in fact, make homes
>>> more dangerous.
>>
>> Just two questions:
>>
>> 1. Why do police officers, Ted Kennedy's bodyguards and Secret
>> Service agents carry guns if they are useless for self
>> defense?
>

> Because the ARE good against gun nuts.


>
>> Police officers adopt tools that work. They abandon tools that
>> don't. That's why few if any officers carry the original
>> formulation of Mace.
>

> Police carry what their civilian procurement staff get for them.
> I'm good friends with several police who complain about this fact
> regularly.


>
>> 2. Why do so many people believe that they must act as my
>> guardian, thus preventing me from taking responsibility
>> for my own life?
>

> That's not the case. They are trying to protect the rest of the
> public against gun nuts like yourself. Now don't you have a neighbor
^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
> to take hostage or something?

Typical Ad Hominum attack from an Anti-RKBA/Anti-Gun person; in
this instance, Puderick Von Richard.
NOWHERE in "Master's" posting is it indicated he is Pro-Gun; or
even that he OWNS a firearm of ANY TYPE.
And yet, Puderick (is that for REAL?) launches into the typical
"Guns are BAD; Anyone who has ANYTHING to do with guns are "gun
nuts" Ad Hominum attack!
Get a LIFE, Puderick!

--John Johnson

"Handgun Control Inc., the lobbying group that helped push through
the federal ban on semi-automatic weapons and the Brady law on gun
purchases, is said to be worried that it is losing the public
relations war to the National Rifle Association. . . . It is also
considering a name change because, among other reasons, polls and
focus groups show that many Americans are uncomfortable with the
word *control*." --US News and World Report, August 19, 1996

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
--George Santayana, American Philosopher

"The further backward you look, the further forward you can see."
-- Winston Churchill

"Throughout recorded history, without exception, it has been
the sole accomplishment of organized government to deprive
their populations of their Liberty and of their Property."
--John C. Calhoun

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect
everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing
will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up
that force, you are ruined."
-- Patrick Henry

"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government
officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that
are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence
of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the
law scrupulously." --Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting,
Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928)

"It would...be strange to find in the midst of a catalog of the
rights of individuals a provision securing to the states the
right to maintain a designated 'Militia' -- and to find that
purely institutional guarantee accorded a position of great
prominence immediately following freedom of religion and freedom
of speech." (Italics in original)
--Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
on the Second Amendment:
(A Matter of Interpretation: Federal
Courts and the Law, Princeton
University Press, 1997, 159 pages.)

"Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be
maintained; for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
--Abraham Lincoln

ATTENTION citizens near the east coast! That rumbling sound you
hear is NOT an earthquake! It's just the sounds of Washington,
Hamilton, Jefferson, Allen, Witherspoon, et al; spinning in their
graves! --John Johnson (1996)

-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Copyrighted material contained within this document is used in |
| compliance with the United States Code, Title 17, Section 107, |
|"for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching"|
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--

From the computer of:
John_Johnson
TXJo...@ix.netcom.com

The opinions expressed above represent those of the writer (me)
and not necessarily those of his employer (also me).

By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer
meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C),
it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment.
By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is
punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500,
whichever is greater, for each violation. All incoming unsolicited
commercial traffic will therefore be billed at a rate of $500 per msg
to compensate for loss of service.

James F. Mayer

unread,
May 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/15/97
to

In <3379fa19...@news.acmenet.net> Pude...@comencon.com (Puderick
Von Richard) writes:
>
>On 13 May 1997 23:18:37 GMT, mas...@master.com (Master) wrote:
>
>>
>>>Citing studies at the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research
Center
>>>in Seattle and elsewhere, the researchers say guns don't protect
>>>nearly as often as the ads imply and, in fact, make homes more
>>>dangerous.
>>
>>
>>Just two questions:
>>
>>1. Why do police officers, Ted Kennedy's bodyguards and Secret
Service agents
>>carry guns if they are useless for self defense?
>
> Because the ARE good against gun nuts.
>
>>
>>Police officers adopt tools that work. They abandon tools that
don't. That's
>>why few if any officers carry the original formulation of Mace.
>
> Police carry what their civilian procurement staff get for them.
>I'm good friends with several police who complain about this fact
>regularly.
>
>>
>>2. Why do so many people believe that they must act as my guardian,
thus
>>preventing me from taking responsibility for my own life?
>
> That's not the case.

That is exactly the case. The police have no duty t protect anyone
from anything:


Warren v. District of Columbia (DC App. 1981)

"...a fundamental princple of American law that a
government and its agents are under no general duty to
provide public services, such as police protection, to
any individual citizen."

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 6 (D.C. App 1981)


They are trying to protect the rest of the
>public against gun nuts like yourself. Now don't you have a neighbor

>to take hostage or something?
>
>

Don't you have any more projections of your own fears that you
yourself might do?

James F. Mayer

unread,
May 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/16/97
to

In <337d563b...@news.acmenet.net> Pude...@comencon.com (Puderick
Von Richard) writes:
>
>On 16 May 1997 01:29:50 GMT, jf...@ix.netcom.com(James F. Mayer)
>wrote:
>
>>In <337b3ac9...@news.acmenet.net> Pude...@comencon.com
(Puderick
>>Von Richard) writes:
>>>
>>>On 15 May 1997 06:14:02 GMT, jf...@ix.netcom.com(James F. Mayer)
>>>wrote:
>>> Ohh, you can read! Good for you young man. Talk to a LEO
>>>sometime, if you get out of the compound on weekends or something.
Ask
>>>them what their *PRIMARY* responsibility is. Don't play lawyerball
>>>son.

>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>They are trying to protect the rest of the
>>>>>public against gun nuts like yourself. Now don't you have a
>>neighbor
>>>>>to take hostage or something?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Don't you have any more projections of your own fears that you
>>>>yourself might do?
>>>
>>> I'm hardly afraid of weak little gun nuts like yourself, you
>>>viscous little prick.
>>>
>>>
>> I don't think that I made any comments that would justify your
>>vehement attack other than pointing out the truth. Is it your
standard
>>operating procedure when confronted with the facts to resort to name
>>calling? Is your argument and position so weak that you can't come
up
>>with a coherent, intellegent response?
>>
>
> Is that *your* stock response to anyone who doesn't agree with you?
>You say you pointed out the truth. You are lying. I know for a fact
>that the vast majority of LEO's on the local level see their primary
>duty as "Protect and Serve". Get a clue punk. Try to think of
>someone besides yourself.
>
>

Are saying that the the courts are lying? It seems that it is your
stock response is to attempt to denigrate those that don't sgree with
your perception of the truth.
Your continued usage of derogetory insinuations continues to
confirm that you would rather bully your assertions on those that
disagree with your point of view than engage in meaningful discussion.
This seems typical of the power-hungry gun control advocates. It's not
about guns, it's about control.
I do think of others and detest those that would attempt to remove
my choice in how I wish to protect those I care about.

apriori

unread,
May 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/16/97
to

In article <337b3ac9...@news.acmenet.net>, Pude...@comencon.com
(Puderick Von Richard):
blathered like the vacuum-skulled little dicksmack that he is:

> Ohh, you can read! Good for you young man. Talk to a LEO
>sometime, if you get out of the compound on weekends or something. Ask
>them what their *PRIMARY* responsibility is. Don't play lawyerball
>son.

Unless that LEO suffers from a cranio-rectal inversion as profound as your
own, he'she'll tell you that they're out there to apprehend criminals. That
this action has the effect of protecting citizens in general (and, it follows,
in specific), is important but secondary.

If you consider this to be smantic nitpicking that merely demonstrates that
you don't understand the issue.

>>They are trying to protect the rest of the
>>>public against gun nuts like yourself. Now don't you have a neighbor
>>>to take hostage or something?

I see your reality check bounced again, Pudyank.

Clue: Out of 250 million firearms in private hands in this country, less than
1% will be used in a crime. Go find a _real_ problem to address, like
measures to deal with the people abusing that remaining <1 percent.

>> Don't you have any more projections of your own fears that you
>>yourself might do?
>
> I'm hardly afraid of weak little gun nuts like yourself, you
>viscous little prick.

Yikes! Man, if he really _does_ have a viscous prick, he should see a doctor, ASAP...

DKAnderson

Eor on Crack

unread,
May 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/16/97
to

In <337c55c1...@news.acmenet.net> Pude...@comencon.com (Puderick
Von Richard) writes:
>
>On 15 May 1997 23:16:46 GMT, mort...@ix.netcom.com(Eor on Crack)

>wrote:
>
>>In <337b3ac9...@news.acmenet.net> Pude...@comencon.com
(Puderick
>>Von Richard) writes:
>>
>>>Talk to a LEO
>>>sometime, if you get out of the compound on weekends or something.
Ask
>>>them what their *PRIMARY* responsibility is.
>>
>>Um, to protect the status quo from those who would bring about
change?
>
>
> Wow, what are you, some sort of closet philosopher or something?
>I know many LEO's. Most of them are honest to a fault, hard working,
>and actually care about the community. Don't be such a dick.
>
>>
>>To prevent the rich from being robbed by the non-rich?
>
> If you had the slightest clue.
>
>>
>>Just guesses.
>
> Damn poor ones at that. You best stick to astrology.
>
>>
>>Mortalis

What a debater.

Mortalis

Christopher Morton

unread,
May 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/17/97
to

On Fri, 16 May 1997 13:54:37 GMT, Pude...@comencon.com (Puderick Von
Richard) wrote:

>On 15 May 1997 23:16:46 GMT, mort...@ix.netcom.com(Eor on Crack)
>wrote:
>
>>In <337b3ac9...@news.acmenet.net> Pude...@comencon.com (Puderick
>>Von Richard) writes:
>>
>>>Talk to a LEO
>>>sometime, if you get out of the compound on weekends or something. Ask
>>>them what their *PRIMARY* responsibility is.
>>
>>Um, to protect the status quo from those who would bring about change?
>
>
> Wow, what are you, some sort of closet philosopher or something?
>I know many LEO's. Most of them are honest to a fault, hard working,
>and actually care about the community. Don't be such a dick.
>
>>
>>To prevent the rich from being robbed by the non-rich?
>
> If you had the slightest clue.
>
>>
>>Just guesses.
>
> Damn poor ones at that. You best stick to astrology.

Hmmm, juvenile sarcasm... fawning servility toward the police... when
it suits the purposes of his argument... must be another Shawn Smith
alias.

Christopher Morton

unread,
May 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/17/97
to

On Fri, 16 May 1997 13:54:38 GMT, Pude...@comencon.com (Puderick Von
Richard) wrote:


>> I don't think that I made any comments that would justify your
>>vehement attack other than pointing out the truth. Is it your standard
>>operating procedure when confronted with the facts to resort to name
>>calling? Is your argument and position so weak that you can't come up
>>with a coherent, intellegent response?
>>
>
> Is that *your* stock response to anyone who doesn't agree with you?
>You say you pointed out the truth. You are lying. I know for a fact
>that the vast majority of LEO's on the local level see their primary
>duty as "Protect and Serve". Get a clue punk. Try to think of
>someone besides yourself.

Whom were the Selma, AL police "protecting and serving" when they
turned dogs loose on civil rights marchers?

Whom were the Pittsburgh, PA police "protecting and serving" when they
beat Malice Green to death because he wouldn't open his hand so they
could see what was inside?

You've been outed Shawn.

Better go back to calling yourself "Emma".

Eor on Crack

unread,
May 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/18/97
to

In <3386f337...@netnews2.worldnet.att.net>
volt...@worldnet.att.net (Jim Kennemur) writes:
>Because of past abuses by SOME police officials ALL policemen are
>corrupt?????
>
> Don't you usually whine when anyone uses that argument against SOME
>NRA members?
>
> Jim

I don't whine about it, but you damn sure paint with a broad brush when
you talk about not only NRA members, but gun owners in general.

What's sauce for everyone else is sauce for you and the Pudster.

Mortalis

James F. Mayer

unread,
May 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/18/97
to

In <3385f2d7...@netnews2.worldnet.att.net>
volt...@worldnet.att.net (Jim Kennemur) writes:
>
>On Sat, 17 May 1997 20:06:01 GMT, cm...@nwohio.com (Christopher
>Morton) wrote:
>Still praying for rain, Christopher.
>
>Different name. Same old bullshit.
>
> Jim
>
Yeah, we know.

Christopher Morton

unread,
May 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/19/97
to

On Sun, 18 May 1997 12:19:05 GMT, volt...@worldnet.att.net (Jim
Kennemur) wrote:

>On Sat, 17 May 1997 20:08:18 GMT, cm...@nwohio.com (Christopher
>Morton) wrote:


>
>>On Fri, 16 May 1997 13:54:38 GMT, Pude...@comencon.com (Puderick Von
>>Richard) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I don't think that I made any comments that would justify your
>>>>vehement attack other than pointing out the truth. Is it your standard
>>>>operating procedure when confronted with the facts to resort to name
>>>>calling? Is your argument and position so weak that you can't come up
>>>>with a coherent, intellegent response?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is that *your* stock response to anyone who doesn't agree with you?
>>>You say you pointed out the truth. You are lying. I know for a fact
>>>that the vast majority of LEO's on the local level see their primary
>>>duty as "Protect and Serve". Get a clue punk. Try to think of
>>>someone besides yourself.
>>
>>Whom were the Selma, AL police "protecting and serving" when they
>>turned dogs loose on civil rights marchers?
>>
>>Whom were the Pittsburgh, PA police "protecting and serving" when they
>>beat Malice Green to death because he wouldn't open his hand so they
>>could see what was inside?
>>
>>You've been outed Shawn.
>>
>>Better go back to calling yourself "Emma".
>
>Because of past abuses by SOME police officials ALL policemen are
>corrupt?????

We know that we can ALWAYS count on Jim Kennemur, the Internet
Klansman, to come out in favor of racism and police brutality against
Black people.

It's the nature of the beast.

In this case, a really stupid, malicious, hateful, racist beast.

>
> Don't you usually whine when anyone uses that argument against SOME
>NRA members?

You mean like you?

Of course when Kennemur the Klansman can show that the NRA murdered
Mark Clark and Fred Hampton, or organized the Good Old Boy's Roundup,
he might have a point... other than the one atop his hood.

>
>Still praying for rain, Christopher?

Still praying for rope and Zyklon-B KKKennemur?

I know now that it's really started to sink in. You know now that
I'll NEVER give you one second's peace here. As long as you're in the
internet, I'll be right behind you telling people what a racist piece
of shit you really are, no matter how long it takes, until the day you
burn to death after accidentally setting yourself on fire, lighting a
cross in some Black person's yard.


Christopher Morton

unread,
May 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/19/97
to

On Sun, 18 May 1997 12:16:38 GMT, volt...@worldnet.att.net (Jim
Kennemur) wrote:


>Still praying for rain, Christopher.

KKKennemur's still praying for rope and Zyklon-B.

>
>Different name. Same old bullshit.

Have a new alias, do you? What is it, Mark Craig?

Christopher Morton

unread,
May 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/20/97
to

On Tue, 20 May 1997 14:20:02 GMT, Pude...@comencon.com (Puderick Von
Richard) wrote:

>>Hmmm, juvenile sarcasm... fawning servility toward the police... when
>>it suits the purposes of his argument... must be another Shawn Smith
>>alias.
>

> Hmm, another white guy pretending to be black... gun nut...
>molests children... MUST BE CHRIS MORTON AGAIN!!!

Yep, it's Schutzstaffel Shawn again.

Still writing letters to Clinton asking him to reopen Manzanar, Shawn?

Christopher Morton

unread,
May 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/21/97
to

On Tue, 20 May 1997 14:20:05 GMT, Pude...@comencon.com (Puderick Von
Richard) wrote:

>On Sat, 17 May 1997 20:08:18 GMT, cm...@nwohio.com (Christopher
>Morton) wrote:
>

>>On Fri, 16 May 1997 13:54:38 GMT, Pude...@comencon.com (Puderick Von
>>Richard) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I don't think that I made any comments that would justify your
>>>>vehement attack other than pointing out the truth. Is it your standard
>>>>operating procedure when confronted with the facts to resort to name
>>>>calling? Is your argument and position so weak that you can't come up
>>>>with a coherent, intellegent response?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is that *your* stock response to anyone who doesn't agree with you?
>>>You say you pointed out the truth. You are lying. I know for a fact
>>>that the vast majority of LEO's on the local level see their primary
>>>duty as "Protect and Serve". Get a clue punk. Try to think of
>>>someone besides yourself.
>>
>>Whom were the Selma, AL police "protecting and serving" when they
>>turned dogs loose on civil rights marchers?
>>
>>Whom were the Pittsburgh, PA police "protecting and serving" when they
>>beat Malice Green to death because he wouldn't open his hand so they
>>could see what was inside?
>
>

> Wow, 2 antecdotal cases must disprove the rule, right? Grow up
>pinhead.

Wow, Schutzstaffel Shawn tries for the 100th time to claim that
there's no racism or police abuse of Black people.

Limbaugh would be proud.

>
>>
>>You've been outed Shawn.
>>
>>Better go back to calling yourself "Emma".
>

> Go fuck yourself Morton, admit that you are white, and go get a new
>hobby like fucking dogs.

Yep it's Schutzstaffel Shawn alright. Point out that he's a pinheaded
racist and he starts making sexual allusions to his mom.

So, when are you going to pretend to be a homosexual who supports gay
bashing?

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages