Something must be done... this is something...

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by Peter Allen, Sep 9, 2005.

  1. John Hanson

    John Hanson Guest

    On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 09:17:59 +0100, Charles <[email protected]> wrote in
    misc.fitness.weights:

    >On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 05:26:18 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Seth
    >Breidbart) wrote:
    >
    >>In article <[email protected]>,
    >>Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>The carrying of weapons is a personal choice and nothing whatsoever to
    >>>do with keeping governments in check. The most likely time Slippery is
    >>>to pull his six-shooter, is if he carves someone up at the traffic
    >>>lights and the rotten bastard threatens to punch out his lights.
    >>>
    >>>I doubt whether our Willy would leap out and smack him one back, he'd
    >>>think this was a classic case of self defence, where he starts the
    >>>trouble, someone offers to sort him out, and our Slippery thinks it's
    >>>Dodge City - bang bang.

    >>
    >>MN passed a "must issue" (license to carry) law a few years ago, and a
    >>lot of licenses have been issued under it. The number of licensed
    >>carriers involved in such shooting incidents over traffic problems
    >>here is how many? Oh, right, none.
    >>
    >>On the other hand, the state best known for road-rage shootings is
    >>California, where carry licenses aren't easily available. Strange how
    >>that works, isn't it?

    >
    >It's all quite alien to me Se th, given that I live in a country where
    >if you drive like a prick to the disadvantage of other road users, it
    >is quite likely that someone will give you a smack alongside the ear.


    Quite likely? Bullshit! The argument could be made that you'd be
    quite likely to receive a one finger salute.

    >
    >If you give a gun to "the person who is capable of driving like a
    >prick to the disadvantage of other road users", it comes as no
    >surprise to me Se th, that if someone takes exception to such
    >behaviour that the prick will pull his gun if anyone should attempt to
    >point out the error of his ways.


    Again you show your idiocy. A carry permit only allows one to carry a
    firearm legally. It does NOT, allow that person to pull it.

    >
    >It doesn't make a very good case for the carrying of concealed weapons
    >Se th, given that the last thing any of us want is a bullet up the
    >arse for pointing out the error of his ways to some abrasive little
    >road hog.


    You're being an idiot.
     


  2. John Hanson

    John Hanson Guest

    On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 11:12:24 +0100, "Peter Allen"
    <[email protected]> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

    >http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/n...&en=1b27db938424d6bd&ei=5094&partner=homepage
    >
    >Someone hasn't thought this one through.
    >
    >I might even be in agreement with Brink here.
    >

    I still haven't found any evidence that this is happening. I think
    the writer saw the bit on TV with the little old lady having her gun
    strong armed away from her. Forced evacuations were stopped nearly
    immediately after that was aired.
     
  3. On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 07:17:28 -0500, John Hanson
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >You're being an idiot.


    What happened to "loser", loser?
    TBR

    "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
    more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
    the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
    White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
    H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
    "Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
    but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
     
  4. Larry Hodges

    Larry Hodges Guest

    Charles wrote:
    > On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 05:26:18 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Seth
    > Breidbart) wrote:
    >
    >> In article <[email protected]>,
    >> Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>> The carrying of weapons is a personal choice and nothing whatsoever
    >>> to do with keeping governments in check. The most likely time
    >>> Slippery is to pull his six-shooter, is if he carves someone up at
    >>> the traffic lights and the rotten bastard threatens to punch out
    >>> his lights.
    >>>
    >>> I doubt whether our Willy would leap out and smack him one back,
    >>> he'd think this was a classic case of self defence, where he starts
    >>> the trouble, someone offers to sort him out, and our Slippery
    >>> thinks it's Dodge City - bang bang.

    >>
    >> MN passed a "must issue" (license to carry) law a few years ago, and
    >> a lot of licenses have been issued under it. The number of licensed
    >> carriers involved in such shooting incidents over traffic problems
    >> here is how many? Oh, right, none.
    >>
    >> On the other hand, the state best known for road-rage shootings is
    >> California, where carry licenses aren't easily available. Strange
    >> how that works, isn't it?

    >
    > It's all quite alien to me Se th, given that I live in a country where
    > if you drive like a prick to the disadvantage of other road users, it
    > is quite likely that someone will give you a smack alongside the ear.
    >
    > If you give a gun to "the person who is capable of driving like a
    > prick to the disadvantage of other road users", it comes as no
    > surprise to me Se th, that if someone takes exception to such
    > behaviour that the prick will pull his gun if anyone should attempt to
    > point out the error of his ways.
    >
    > It doesn't make a very good case for the carrying of concealed weapons
    > Se th, given that the last thing any of us want is a bullet up the
    > arse for pointing out the error of his ways to some abrasive little
    > road hog.


    Hi John, hope your weeks is shaping up well.

    Although I see your point, and many still hold that view here in the States
    (obviously not me), that hasn't been the case. The weapon permit holders
    are never the aggressors. Which is why people against legislation allowing
    them can't seem to block the passage of laws in their state allowing weapon
    permits for concealed carry. Basically, they have no proof that people with
    road rage will blast the other guy, and in fact, all the proof sides against
    their position. It has been the case state after state that those with
    concealed weapon permits don't abuse it.

    The FBI did a comprehensive study a few years back (no time to Google it
    this morning), and their findings were that in all municipalities where
    concealed carry permits were allowed, crime decreased. That coupled with my
    above point makes it hard for the anti-gunners to argue their point.
    --
    -Larry

    "The troll hasn't been born who can troll us worse than we troll
    ourselves." Hugh Beyer
     
  5. Charles

    Charles Guest

    On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 08:25:49 -0700, "Larry Hodges"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Charles wrote:
    >> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 05:26:18 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Seth
    >> Breidbart) wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article <[email protected]>,
    >>> Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> The carrying of weapons is a personal choice and nothing whatsoever
    >>>> to do with keeping governments in check. The most likely time
    >>>> Slippery is to pull his six-shooter, is if he carves someone up at
    >>>> the traffic lights and the rotten bastard threatens to punch out
    >>>> his lights.
    >>>>
    >>>> I doubt whether our Willy would leap out and smack him one back,
    >>>> he'd think this was a classic case of self defence, where he starts
    >>>> the trouble, someone offers to sort him out, and our Slippery
    >>>> thinks it's Dodge City - bang bang.
    >>>
    >>> MN passed a "must issue" (license to carry) law a few years ago, and
    >>> a lot of licenses have been issued under it. The number of licensed
    >>> carriers involved in such shooting incidents over traffic problems
    >>> here is how many? Oh, right, none.
    >>>
    >>> On the other hand, the state best known for road-rage shootings is
    >>> California, where carry licenses aren't easily available. Strange
    >>> how that works, isn't it?

    >>
    >> It's all quite alien to me Se th, given that I live in a country where
    >> if you drive like a prick to the disadvantage of other road users, it
    >> is quite likely that someone will give you a smack alongside the ear.
    >>
    >> If you give a gun to "the person who is capable of driving like a
    >> prick to the disadvantage of other road users", it comes as no
    >> surprise to me Se th, that if someone takes exception to such
    >> behaviour that the prick will pull his gun if anyone should attempt to
    >> point out the error of his ways.
    >>
    >> It doesn't make a very good case for the carrying of concealed weapons
    >> Se th, given that the last thing any of us want is a bullet up the
    >> arse for pointing out the error of his ways to some abrasive little
    >> road hog.

    >
    >Hi John, hope your weeks is shaping up well.
    >
    >Although I see your point, and many still hold that view here in the States
    >(obviously not me), that hasn't been the case. The weapon permit holders
    >are never the aggressors. Which is why people against legislation allowing
    >them can't seem to block the passage of laws in their state allowing weapon
    >permits for concealed carry. Basically, they have no proof that people with
    >road rage will blast the other guy, and in fact, all the proof sides against
    >their position. It has been the case state after state that those with
    >concealed weapon permits don't abuse it.
    >
    >The FBI did a comprehensive study a few years back (no time to Google it
    >this morning), and their findings were that in all municipalities where
    >concealed carry permits were allowed, crime decreased. That coupled with my
    >above point makes it hard for the anti-gunners to argue their point.


    Thanks Larry, that was a much more reasoned and informative
    explanation than my friend John Hanson offered me.

    Perhaps people who carry guns feel secure enough not to need to get
    into mindless road-rage situations. That would make sense.
     
  6. Larry Hodges

    Larry Hodges Guest

    Charles wrote:
    > On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 08:25:49 -0700, "Larry Hodges"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> Charles wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 05:26:18 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Seth
    >>> Breidbart) wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In article <[email protected]>,
    >>>> Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> The carrying of weapons is a personal choice and nothing
    >>>>> whatsoever to do with keeping governments in check. The most
    >>>>> likely time Slippery is to pull his six-shooter, is if he carves
    >>>>> someone up at the traffic lights and the rotten bastard threatens
    >>>>> to punch out his lights.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I doubt whether our Willy would leap out and smack him one back,
    >>>>> he'd think this was a classic case of self defence, where he
    >>>>> starts the trouble, someone offers to sort him out, and our
    >>>>> Slippery thinks it's Dodge City - bang bang.
    >>>>
    >>>> MN passed a "must issue" (license to carry) law a few years ago,
    >>>> and a lot of licenses have been issued under it. The number of
    >>>> licensed carriers involved in such shooting incidents over traffic
    >>>> problems here is how many? Oh, right, none.
    >>>>
    >>>> On the other hand, the state best known for road-rage shootings is
    >>>> California, where carry licenses aren't easily available. Strange
    >>>> how that works, isn't it?
    >>>
    >>> It's all quite alien to me Se th, given that I live in a country
    >>> where if you drive like a prick to the disadvantage of other road
    >>> users, it is quite likely that someone will give you a smack
    >>> alongside the ear.
    >>>
    >>> If you give a gun to "the person who is capable of driving like a
    >>> prick to the disadvantage of other road users", it comes as no
    >>> surprise to me Se th, that if someone takes exception to such
    >>> behaviour that the prick will pull his gun if anyone should attempt
    >>> to point out the error of his ways.
    >>>
    >>> It doesn't make a very good case for the carrying of concealed
    >>> weapons Se th, given that the last thing any of us want is a bullet
    >>> up the arse for pointing out the error of his ways to some abrasive
    >>> little road hog.

    >>
    >> Hi John, hope your weeks is shaping up well.
    >>
    >> Although I see your point, and many still hold that view here in the
    >> States (obviously not me), that hasn't been the case. The weapon
    >> permit holders are never the aggressors. Which is why people
    >> against legislation allowing them can't seem to block the passage of
    >> laws in their state allowing weapon permits for concealed carry.
    >> Basically, they have no proof that people with road rage will blast
    >> the other guy, and in fact, all the proof sides against their
    >> position. It has been the case state after state that those with
    >> concealed weapon permits don't abuse it.
    >>
    >> The FBI did a comprehensive study a few years back (no time to
    >> Google it this morning), and their findings were that in all
    >> municipalities where concealed carry permits were allowed, crime
    >> decreased. That coupled with my above point makes it hard for the
    >> anti-gunners to argue their point.

    >
    > Thanks Larry, that was a much more reasoned and informative
    > explanation than my friend John Hanson offered me.
    >
    > Perhaps people who carry guns feel secure enough not to need to get
    > into mindless road-rage situations. That would make sense.


    When I renewed mine a few years back in my county (A county is a smaller
    municipality within the State), I was the last guy to process that day.
    There was a female sheriff processing the concealed weapon permits, and she
    had been in charge of that department for quite some time. Since I was the
    last guy, things were slow, so I struck up a conversation with her. I asked
    how the concealed carry permits were working out. She said that when the
    Sate of Oregon decided to allow them (about 15 years ago if memory serves),
    she was strongly against them for the very reason you suggested. She
    thought people would be shooting it out on every freeway. But she said she
    has come full circle on the issue and fully supports them now.

    She said we have over 38,000 concealed weapon permit holders (I don't
    remember if she said state wide or just in our County), and in all the years
    since their issuance, there has never been one instance of a permit holder
    abusing their concealed weapon. She didn't mean that some of those got in
    trouble with the law at some point in time (traffic offences, driving while
    under the influence, etc), but rather no permit holder has pulled out their
    gun and misused it. In all those years, with all those people. That's
    quite amazing.
    --
    -Larry

    "The troll hasn't been born who can troll us worse than we troll
    ourselves." Hugh Beyer
     
  7. On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:35:47 +0100, Charles <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Perhaps people who carry guns feel secure enough not to need to get
    >into mindless road-rage situations. That would make sense.


    Quite the opposite, they have it they tend to use it.
    TBR

    "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
    more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
    the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
    White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
    H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
    "Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
    but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
     
  8. On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:35:47 +0100, Charles <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Perhaps people who carry guns feel secure enough not to need to get
    >into mindless road-rage situations. That would make sense.


    Quite the opposite, they have it they tend to use it.
    TBR

    "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
    more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
    the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
    White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
    H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
    "Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
    but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
     
  9. Larry Hodges

    Larry Hodges Guest

    Fred Dreikorn wrote:
    > On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:35:47 +0100, Charles <chas[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> Perhaps people who carry guns feel secure enough not to need to get
    >> into mindless road-rage situations. That would make sense.

    >
    > Quite the opposite, they have it they tend to use it.
    > TBR


    I'd love to see some statistics that support that, pillow biter. I'll be
    waiting, but won't hold my breath. Truth and statistics are things liberal
    pukes like you know nothing about.

    Keep up the good work!
    --
    -Larry

    "The troll hasn't been born who can troll us worse than we troll
    ourselves." Hugh Beyer
     
  10. JMW

    JMW Guest

    David Cohen wrote:
    > Peter Allen wrote:
    > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/n...&en=1b27db938424d6bd&ei=5094&partner=homepage
    > >
    > > Someone hasn't thought this one through.
    > >
    > > I might even be in agreement with Brink here.

    >
    > This is EXACTLY the reason we of the firearms fraternity oppose ALL
    > firearms registration programs. "They" always say, "don't worry, we'll
    > just keep these records in case your gun gets used in a crime or
    > something" and then, The Government, for whatever reason they choose,
    > comes knocking on your door, demanding your guns.
    >
    > I hate/love when they prove us right.


    I love it when the NRA proves *them* wrong:

    http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6539
     
  11. David  Cohen

    David Cohen Guest

    "JMW" <[email protected]> wrote
    > David Cohen wrote:
    >> Peter Allen wrote:
    >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/n...&en=1b27db938424d6bd&ei=5094&partner=homepage
    >> >
    >> > Someone hasn't thought this one through.
    >> >
    >> > I might even be in agreement with Brink here.

    >>
    >> This is EXACTLY the reason we of the firearms fraternity oppose ALL
    >> firearms registration programs. "They" always say, "don't worry, we'll
    >> just keep these records in case your gun gets used in a crime or
    >> something" and then, The Government, for whatever reason they choose,
    >> comes knocking on your door, demanding your guns.
    >>
    >> I hate/love when they prove us right.

    >
    > I love it when the NRA proves *them* wrong:
    >
    > http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6539


    Exactly. And predicting that a similar case would result in a typical stupid
    Ninth Circuit decision, it reinforces why the important news...the news that
    will have an impact on people's lives decades, or centuries, from now...is
    the appointments going on right now to the US Supreme Court.

    David
     
  12. Lee Michaels

    Lee Michaels Guest

    "JMW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > David Cohen wrote:
    >> Peter Allen wrote:
    >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/n...&en=1b27db938424d6bd&ei=5094&partner=homepage
    >> >
    >> > Someone hasn't thought this one through.
    >> >
    >> > I might even be in agreement with Brink here.

    >>
    >> This is EXACTLY the reason we of the firearms fraternity oppose ALL
    >> firearms registration programs. "They" always say, "don't worry, we'll
    >> just keep these records in case your gun gets used in a crime or
    >> something" and then, The Government, for whatever reason they choose,
    >> comes knocking on your door, demanding your guns.
    >>
    >> I hate/love when they prove us right.

    >
    > I love it when the NRA proves *them* wrong:
    >
    > http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6539
    >


    I know that the NRA is often a big, bloated political machine. But this is
    sweet. It happened very quickly too.

    Makes ya kinda wonder what they spent all those other millions on.

    In terms of bang for your buck, this is probably the most value of anything
    the NRA ever did.
     
  13. In article <[email protected]>,
    "JMW" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > David Cohen wrote:
    > > Peter Allen wrote:
    > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09storm.html?hp
    > > > &ex=1126324800&en=1b27db938424d6bd&ei=5094&partner=homepage
    > > >
    > > > Someone hasn't thought this one through.
    > > >
    > > > I might even be in agreement with Brink here.

    > >
    > > This is EXACTLY the reason we of the firearms fraternity oppose ALL
    > > firearms registration programs. "They" always say, "don't worry, we'll
    > > just keep these records in case your gun gets used in a crime or
    > > something" and then, The Government, for whatever reason they choose,
    > > comes knocking on your door, demanding your guns.
    > >
    > > I hate/love when they prove us right.

    >
    > I love it when the NRA proves *them* wrong:
    >
    > http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6539
    >


    Yay! :)
    --
    Om.

    "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson
     
  14. Larry Hodges

    Larry Hodges Guest

    JMW wrote:
    > David Cohen wrote:
    >> Peter Allen wrote:
    >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/n...&en=1b27db938424d6bd&ei=5094&partner=homepage
    >>>
    >>> Someone hasn't thought this one through.
    >>>
    >>> I might even be in agreement with Brink here.

    >>
    >> This is EXACTLY the reason we of the firearms fraternity oppose ALL
    >> firearms registration programs. "They" always say, "don't worry,
    >> we'll just keep these records in case your gun gets used in a crime
    >> or something" and then, The Government, for whatever reason they
    >> choose, comes knocking on your door, demanding your guns.
    >>
    >> I hate/love when they prove us right.

    >
    > I love it when the NRA proves *them* wrong:
    >
    > http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6539


    yay. Don't let Blair see this. He'll have his period early.
    --
    -Larry

    "The troll hasn't been born who can troll us worse than we troll
    ourselves." Hugh Beyer
     
  15. Charles

    Charles Guest

    On 23 Sep 2005 14:30:41 -0700, "JMW" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >David Cohen wrote:
    >> Peter Allen wrote:
    >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/n...&en=1b27db938424d6bd&ei=5094&partner=homepage
    >> >
    >> > Someone hasn't thought this one through.
    >> >
    >> > I might even be in agreement with Brink here.

    >>
    >> This is EXACTLY the reason we of the firearms fraternity oppose ALL
    >> firearms registration programs. "They" always say, "don't worry, we'll
    >> just keep these records in case your gun gets used in a crime or
    >> something" and then, The Government, for whatever reason they choose,
    >> comes knocking on your door, demanding your guns.
    >>
    >> I hate/love when they prove us right.

    >
    >I love it when the NRA proves *them* wrong:
    >
    >http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6539


    Of course this means all the bad guys get to keep their weapons too
    remember.
     
  16. WillBrink

    WillBrink Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Lee Michaels" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "JMW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > > David Cohen wrote:
    > >> Peter Allen wrote:
    > >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09storm.html?h
    > >> > p&ex=1126324800&en=1b27db938424d6bd&ei=5094&partner=homepage
    > >> >
    > >> > Someone hasn't thought this one through.
    > >> >
    > >> > I might even be in agreement with Brink here.
    > >>
    > >> This is EXACTLY the reason we of the firearms fraternity oppose ALL
    > >> firearms registration programs. "They" always say, "don't worry, we'll
    > >> just keep these records in case your gun gets used in a crime or
    > >> something" and then, The Government, for whatever reason they choose,
    > >> comes knocking on your door, demanding your guns.
    > >>
    > >> I hate/love when they prove us right.

    > >
    > > I love it when the NRA proves *them* wrong:
    > >
    > > http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6539
    > >

    >
    > I know that the NRA is often a big, bloated political machine. But this is
    > sweet. It happened very quickly too.


    Once in a while, the good guys win. I have my issues with the NRA, but
    they are about the only thing that stands between gun owners and the
    idiot anti gun types.

    --
    Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
     
  17. In article <[email protected]x.com>,
    Charles <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On 23 Sep 2005 14:30:41 -0700, "JMW" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >David Cohen wrote:
    > >> Peter Allen wrote:
    > >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09storm.html?h
    > >> > p&ex=1126324800&en=1b27db938424d6bd&ei=5094&partner=homepage
    > >> >
    > >> > Someone hasn't thought this one through.
    > >> >
    > >> > I might even be in agreement with Brink here.
    > >>
    > >> This is EXACTLY the reason we of the firearms fraternity oppose ALL
    > >> firearms registration programs. "They" always say, "don't worry, we'll
    > >> just keep these records in case your gun gets used in a crime or
    > >> something" and then, The Government, for whatever reason they choose,
    > >> comes knocking on your door, demanding your guns.
    > >>
    > >> I hate/love when they prove us right.

    > >
    > >I love it when the NRA proves *them* wrong:
    > >
    > >http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6539

    >
    > Of course this means all the bad guys get to keep their weapons too
    > remember.


    The bad guys would have kept them regardless.
    Now the good guys can once again defend themselves.

    If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!

    I'm signing up for my CW permit class towards the end of October.
    Texas.guns advises that it's cool to apply and pay for the permit
    over the internet. The guy doing the class at the local police range
    gave me the website.

    Cheers!
    --
    Om.

    "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson
     
  18. In article <[email protected]>,
    Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
    >On 23 Sep 2005 14:30:41 -0700, "JMW" <[email protected]> wrote:


    >>http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6539

    >
    >Of course this means all the bad guys get to keep their weapons too
    >remember.


    Not when they get caught doing bad things.

    And if they don't do bad things, they aren't bad guys.

    (As if the bad guys would turn in guns just because the law said they
    have to, anyway.)

    Seth
    --
    When I'm telling you to get a life, it's time to consider suicide very
    seriously. -- Lyle McDonald
     
  19. Charles

    Charles Guest

    On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 02:20:33 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Seth
    Breidbart) wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>,
    >Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>On 23 Sep 2005 14:30:41 -0700, "JMW" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >>>http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6539

    >>
    >>Of course this means all the bad guys get to keep their weapons too
    >>remember.

    >
    >Not when they get caught doing bad things.


    How often does that happen Se th?

    >
    >And if they don't do bad things, they aren't bad guys.


    Then we don't need guns to protect ourselves from them!

    >
    >(As if the bad guys would turn in guns just because the law said they
    >have to, anyway.)


    As if!! ;o)
     
  20. In article <[email protected]>,
    Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
    >On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 02:20:33 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Seth
    >Breidbart) wrote:
    >>In article <[email protected]>,
    >>Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>On 23 Sep 2005 14:30:41 -0700, "JMW" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>
    >>>>http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6539
    >>>Of course this means all the bad guys get to keep their weapons too
    >>>remember.

    >>Not when they get caught doing bad things.

    >How often does that happen Se th?


    Sometimes. Not always.

    >>And if they don't do bad things, they aren't bad guys.

    >Then we don't need guns to protect ourselves from them!


    But we do to protect ourselves from the people who do do bad things.

    >>(As if the bad guys would turn in guns just because the law said they
    >>have to, anyway.)

    >As if!! ;o)


    If gun control were a magic spell that worked, I'd be a lot more
    tempted to support it.

    Seth
    --
    When I'm telling you to get a life, it's time to consider suicide very
    seriously. -- Lyle McDonald
     
Loading...
Loading...