|
|
|
|
"*JimH*" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
ups.com...
*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
John H wrote:
On 17 Jun 2005 05:48:03 -0700, wrote:
Larry wrote:
On 17 Jun 2005 04:53:32 -0700, wrote:
Tim wrote:
They were sitting on a small
hill by a state hwy. and took a couple of shots at passing cars
with a
Daisy BB gun!
No big deal unless that BB hit you, right?
Hell, we used to have BB gun wars on my uncle's farm!
Have 2 eyes now? If so, you are lucky. Other's were not. Like I
said,
kids
shooting bb guns has ruined a man's life. It is inexcusable to
shoot
at
passing cars.
So, you agree that they should be charged with Terroristic acts????
Hmm, I find it odd that you right wingers are pro gun, except when
it
comes to something personal. And sure, it's wrong to shoot at
passing
cars, who said it wasn't? But, I'll tell you this, with a little
Daisy,
by the time that bb gets to the car, it's going REAL SLOW. Should we
outlaw sticks, too? They've been known to take people's eyes out.
Hell,
maybe even more eyes have been lost to sticks. The Consumer Product
Safety Commission estimates that in 2003, there were 550,000 to
600,000
injuries associated with bicycles and 97,640 injuries from
skateboards
that required emergency room treatment, compared with 19,504 for air
guns -- including the high-powered air guns.
I know, I shouldn't say anything to you, so I'll be nice.
Even if the bb is going 'very' slow, wouldn't the speed of the car
still
be able
to cause the impact to be severe? Did you ever see what a small rock,
going very
slow, does to the windshield of a car going 60mph?
Oh, ****!!!! I spilled my water bottle laughing at that!!! Hmm, that
would mean that the kids would have to be in FRONT of the vehicle. If
they were behind then the car could be going faster than the bb. Would
that make the driver of the CAR guilty of terroristic threats?
The law in Georgia specifies terroristic acts.
I didn't say "terroristic acts", it's great how you twist things to
make it sound like you know what you're talking about. I said
"terroristic THREATS". Show me that GA law.
No? I guess you don't even know what you initially posted. Here is one
sentence from that post of yours: "Now, a couple of young boys in
northern
GA were arrested for "terroristic acts"."
Idiot.
Are you asking for
agreement/disagreement with the laws of Georgia? Why? So your slam at
DHS
will
make sense?
How about just saying, "OK, I made a mistake."
--
John H
Yes,
Good. Time to move on Kevin.
Oh, Jim, can you possibly get more childish?? I thought that sort of
**** was beneath you, and I was certainly correct in my assumptions
that you've reverted back to your childish actions. You should be
ashamed of yourself. You deliberately snipped my reply to make it sound
like I was admitting something. I thought for awhile that you'd
changed, but by doing the above childish actions, you've proven
yourself worthy of Fritz's charms. Too bad you don't have the mental
capacity to debate something without stooping so damned low.
You are correct Kevin. I should not have called you an idiot for not
knowing what you post within the same thread from one minute to another.
I should not have called you an idiot for starting this thread. I should
not have called you an idiot because you point out typos made by others
when you don't know the difference between the words 'they're" and
'there'.
Calling you an idiot was actually a compliment to you. I *should* have
called you brainless.
BTW I forgot to add: I should not have called you an idiot because you
point out typos made by others when you don't know when to use the word
*you're* instead of 'your'.
|