Keith Nuttle wrote:
In most states those who have guns
have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated".


In some states, there are ways around the "validation" because of the
gun show loophole, which must be closed.

Couldn't agree with this writer more...


At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer
Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming
to public meeting with deadly force in-tow.

“It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment
that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the
day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue
using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase
at a local gunshop.”

Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that
the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen,
one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that
attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in
question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to
him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong.
So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a
gun.”

jps wrote:
Couldn't agree with this writer more...


At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer
Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming
to public meeting with deadly force in-tow.

“It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment
that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the
day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue
using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase
at a local gunshop.”

Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that
the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen,
one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that
attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in
question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to
him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong.
So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a
gun.”


Sooner rather than later, one of the gun-toting right-wing nincompoops
is going to open fire or "have an accident" or get into a brawl with law
enforcement.

When these armed idiots show up at public meetings at which the
president is going to appear, it increases the workload of the secret
service and local police forces.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:01:25 -0700, jps wrote:


Couldn't agree with this writer more...


At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer
Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming
to public meeting with deadly force in-tow.

“It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment
that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the
day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue
using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase
at a local gunshop.”

Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that
the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen,
one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that
attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in
question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to
him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong.
So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a
gun.”

Suppose he said, "The possession of guns by American civilians should
be outlawed, and all guns currently in such possession will be
confiscated. Warantless searches should be authorized."

Wouldn't you agree with him more then?
--
John H

"BEND OVER - The 'change' is coming!"

"H the K" wrote in message
m...
jps wrote:
Couldn't agree with this writer more...


At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer
Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming
to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted
intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment
that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the
day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue
using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase
at a local gunshop.”

Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that
the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen,
one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that
attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in
question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to
him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong.
So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a
gun.”


Sooner rather than later, one of the gun-toting right-wing nincompoops is
going to open fire or "have an accident" or get into a brawl with law
enforcement.

When these armed idiots show up at public meetings at which the president
is going to appear, it increases the workload of the secret service and
local police forces.

Some kind of federal law restricting weapons within a couple thousand feet
of anywhere the President of member of congress may be is in order
This is something you couldn't trust the individual states to pass/enforce.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:21:09 -0400, Proprietario di Guzzi
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:01:25 -0700, jps wrote:


Couldn't agree with this writer more...


At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer
Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming
to public meeting with deadly force in-tow.

“It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment
that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the
day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue
using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase
at a local gunshop.”

Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that
the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen,
one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that
attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in
question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to
him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong.
So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a
gun.”

Suppose he said, "The possession of guns by American civilians should
be outlawed, and all guns currently in such possession will be
confiscated. Warantless searches should be authorized."

Wouldn't you agree with him more then?

Nope. Shotguns and rifles for hunting and protection is fine by me.

Assholes out in public openly toting handguns and AR15 are pussies
who should be slapped upside the head and put in a cell.

Don White wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
jps wrote:
Couldn't agree with this writer more...


At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer
Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming
to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted
intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment
that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the
day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue
using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase
at a local gunshop.”

Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that
the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen,
one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that
attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in
question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to
him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong.
So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a
gun.”

Sooner rather than later, one of the gun-toting right-wing nincompoops is
going to open fire or "have an accident" or get into a brawl with law
enforcement.

When these armed idiots show up at public meetings at which the president
is going to appear, it increases the workload of the secret service and
local police forces.

Some kind of federal law restricting weapons within a couple thousand feet
of anywhere the President of member of congress may be is in order
This is something you couldn't trust the individual states to pass/enforce.




I've been practicing so I can handle the impending invasion of the
Loogy/JustHate Zombies...


http://tinyurl.com/ma5znl


First five shot group at 100 yards from the new ZombieKiller Rifle. I
was plopped on a ground cloth and using the rifle's built-in sights.
Took a couple of shots first to sight in for elevation...there wasn't
any wind.

Tomorrow I'm going to try some shots with the new scope I just attached.
Once I get used to it, I should be able to put five between the eyes of
your typical zombie at 100 yards.

"H the K" wrote in message
news
Don White wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
jps wrote:
Couldn't agree with this writer more...


At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer
Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming
to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted
intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment
that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the
day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue
using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase
at a local gunshop.”

Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that
the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen,
one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that
attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in
question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to
him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong.
So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a
gun.”

Sooner rather than later, one of the gun-toting right-wing nincompoops
is going to open fire or "have an accident" or get into a brawl with law
enforcement.

When these armed idiots show up at public meetings at which the
president is going to appear, it increases the workload of the secret
service and local police forces.

Some kind of federal law restricting weapons within a couple thousand
feet of anywhere the President of member of congress may be is in order
This is something you couldn't trust the individual states to
pass/enforce.


I've been practicing so I can handle the impending invasion of the
Loogy/JustHate Zombies...


http://tinyurl.com/ma5znl


First five shot group at 100 yards from the new ZombieKiller Rifle. I was
plopped on a ground cloth and using the rifle's built-in sights. Took a
couple of shots first to sight in for elevation...there wasn't any wind.

Tomorrow I'm going to try some shots with the new scope I just attached.
Once I get used to it, I should be able to put five between the eyes of
your typical zombie at 100 yards.


I have an old semi-auto 22 cal rifle with a 6x scope that I haven't fired in
25 years or so.
I should get it out and do some practice myself.... just in case those
'zombies' make it across the border. ;-)

Don White wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
news
Don White wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
jps wrote:
Couldn't agree with this writer more...


At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer
Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming
to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted
intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment
that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the
day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue
using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase
at a local gunshop.”

Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that
the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen,
one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that
attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in
question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to
him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong.
So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a
gun.”
Sooner rather than later, one of the gun-toting right-wing nincompoops
is going to open fire or "have an accident" or get into a brawl with law
enforcement.

When these armed idiots show up at public meetings at which the
president is going to appear, it increases the workload of the secret
service and local police forces.
Some kind of federal law restricting weapons within a couple thousand
feet of anywhere the President of member of congress may be is in order
This is something you couldn't trust the individual states to
pass/enforce.

I've been practicing so I can handle the impending invasion of the
Loogy/JustHate Zombies...


http://tinyurl.com/ma5znl


First five shot group at 100 yards from the new ZombieKiller Rifle. I was
plopped on a ground cloth and using the rifle's built-in sights. Took a
couple of shots first to sight in for elevation...there wasn't any wind.

Tomorrow I'm going to try some shots with the new scope I just attached.
Once I get used to it, I should be able to put five between the eyes of
your typical zombie at 100 yards.


I have an old semi-auto 22 cal rifle with a 6x scope that I haven't fired in
25 years or so.
I should get it out and do some practice myself.... just in case those
'zombies' make it across the border. ;-)





You also have the herring, D, flajim zombies after you.

"H the K" wrote in message
m...
jps wrote:
Couldn't agree with this writer more...


At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer
Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming
to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted
intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment
that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the
day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue
using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase
at a local gunshop.”

Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that
the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen,
one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that
attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in
question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to
him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong.
So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a
gun.”


Sooner rather than later, one of the gun-toting right-wing nincompoops is
going to open fire or "have an accident" or get into a brawl with law
enforcement.

When these armed idiots show up at public meetings at which the president
is going to appear, it increases the workload of the secret service and
local police forces.


But the charges will be dropped. The precedent is already established with
the New Black Panthers and the voter intimidation judgement.