On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 08:22:13 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 10/6/11 8:13 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 19:12:22 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 13:28:05 -0700, wrote:


Do you carry your sidearm at work? They were all at work in a quary.

Company policy prevents me from carrying a firearm at work. Since we
have a security force at work personal firearms are deemed not
necessary.

What? Your company doesn't think your safety is at the top of the list?
What would that security force do if a disgruntled worker got to your
floor, started shooting and killed 20 people before they could get to
him? Get body bags? And how would you be transporting that firearm in
Maryland? You know the rules here.

merican skull?

If someone was carrying a concealed weapon for their own protection they
could have taken out the guy before he got to 2, 3 or 4 or more peoples.

If, if, if, if. And you're assuming the guy with the firearm wouldn't be
the first one shot or would actually have the balls to shoot back or was
a good enough aim. If, if, if, if...

The guy who justifies carrying a weapon for self-defense is more
likely to use it in the commission of a crime, mistaken circumstances,
vigilante justice or domestic abuse.

Arming everybody in hopes of reducing violence is insane logic.

On 10/6/2011 11:07 AM, jps wrote:

Arming everybody in hopes of reducing violence is insane logic.

Who advocates arming "everyone"?

You made that up, didn't you, so you could look good by calling it
"insane logic"?!

On 10/6/2011 1:07 PM, Jimmy wrote:
On 10/6/2011 11:07 AM, jps wrote:

Arming everybody in hopes of reducing violence is insane logic.

Who advocates arming "everyone"?

You made that up, didn't you, so you could look good by calling it
"insane logic"?!

Harry making himself look good? That's laughable.

In article m,
says...

On 10/6/2011 1:07 PM, Jimmy wrote:
On 10/6/2011 11:07 AM, jps wrote:

Arming everybody in hopes of reducing violence is insane logic.

Who advocates arming "everyone"?

You made that up, didn't you, so you could look good by calling it
"insane logic"?!

Harry making himself look good? That's laughable.

Did you see where Harry was posting about what a wonder man Steve Jobs
was? Now, while I agree that Jobs was an amazing person, he really goes
against some of Harry's strongest convictions. Such as, he's
"uneducated", a term Harry uses in a derogatory manner here to anyone
that doesn't totally agree with him. Also, there's Foxconn which
manufactures the iPod, iPad, and iPhone in China. They had to install
nets because the workers were jumping out of the windows to commit
suicide.


See he

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...-jobs-strange-
defense-of-foxconn.html

On 10/6/2011 2:37 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In aweb.com,
says...

On 10/6/2011 1:07 PM, Jimmy wrote:
On 10/6/2011 11:07 AM, jps wrote:

Arming everybody in hopes of reducing violence is insane logic.

Who advocates arming "everyone"?

You made that up, didn't you, so you could look good by calling it
"insane logic"?!

Harry making himself look good? That's laughable.

Did you see where Harry was posting about what a wonder man Steve Jobs
was? Now, while I agree that Jobs was an amazing person, he really goes
against some of Harry's strongest convictions. Such as, he's
"uneducated", a term Harry uses in a derogatory manner here to anyone
that doesn't totally agree with him. Also, there's Foxconn which
manufactures the iPod, iPad, and iPhone in China. They had to install
nets because the workers were jumping out of the windows to commit
suicide.


See he

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...-jobs-strange-
defense-of-foxconn.html



You shouldn't be concerned about what Harry thinks. Think of him as an
entertainer who provides us with unending sidesplitting humor. I like to
think of him as a modern day Lou Costello with a mean streak.

In article m,
says...

On 10/6/2011 2:37 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In aweb.com,
says...

On 10/6/2011 1:07 PM, Jimmy wrote:
On 10/6/2011 11:07 AM, jps wrote:

Arming everybody in hopes of reducing violence is insane logic.

Who advocates arming "everyone"?

You made that up, didn't you, so you could look good by calling it
"insane logic"?!

Harry making himself look good? That's laughable.

Did you see where Harry was posting about what a wonder man Steve Jobs
was? Now, while I agree that Jobs was an amazing person, he really goes
against some of Harry's strongest convictions. Such as, he's
"uneducated", a term Harry uses in a derogatory manner here to anyone
that doesn't totally agree with him. Also, there's Foxconn which
manufactures the iPod, iPad, and iPhone in China. They had to install
nets because the workers were jumping out of the windows to commit
suicide.


See he

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...-jobs-strange-
defense-of-foxconn.html



You shouldn't be concerned about what Harry thinks. Think of him as an
entertainer who provides us with unending sidesplitting humor. I like to
think of him as a modern day Lou Costello with a mean streak.

Costello wasn't near the coward as Harry is.

On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 13:07:45 -0400, Jimmy wrote:

On 10/6/2011 11:07 AM, jps wrote:

Arming everybody in hopes of reducing violence is insane logic.

Who advocates arming "everyone"?

You made that up, didn't you, so you could look good by calling it
"insane logic"?!

Are you the only person fielding arguments in rec.boats?

I suggest you read some of Bertie Poop's fertile insights.

On 10/6/2011 2:48 PM, jps wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 13:07:45 -0400, wrote:

On 10/6/2011 11:07 AM, jps wrote:

Arming everybody in hopes of reducing violence is insane logic.

Who advocates arming "everyone"?

You made that up, didn't you, so you could look good by calling it
"insane logic"?!

Are you the only person fielding arguments in rec.boats?

I suggest you read some of Bertie Poop's fertile insights.

I know it's hard for you parse with comprehension because of your
anti-gun prejudice, but no one was advocating arming criminals.

The fact is that where citizens are armed, and it's known they are
armed, crimes against them are reduced, though not eliminated.

As has been demonstrated before, your agenda is not merely one of
reducing gun related deaths.

On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 08:50:25 -0400, Jimmy wrote:

On 10/6/2011 2:48 PM, jps wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 13:07:45 -0400, wrote:

On 10/6/2011 11:07 AM, jps wrote:

Arming everybody in hopes of reducing violence is insane logic.

Who advocates arming "everyone"?

You made that up, didn't you, so you could look good by calling it
"insane logic"?!

Are you the only person fielding arguments in rec.boats?

I suggest you read some of Bertie Poop's fertile insights.

I know it's hard for you parse with comprehension because of your
anti-gun prejudice, but no one was advocating arming criminals.

The fact is that where citizens are armed, and it's known they are
armed, crimes against them are reduced, though not eliminated.

As has been demonstrated before, your agenda is not merely one of
reducing gun related deaths.

People with clean records aren't criminals until they are. Did this
guy in Cupertino ever have trouble with the law? Not from what I've
read. He just got fed up and snapped.

Anyone with a brain knows that's possible for any human being, given
the right circumstances. And, in America, we're used to immediate
gratification.

Guns and immediate gratification do not mix well.

For Americans not to recognize the folly in the wide distribution of
firearms is as stupid as not recognizing that Walmart-style globalism
spells the demise of our middle class.

It's past the time that people should have woken up but it's not
happening. Too bad for the USA.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 08:50:25 -0400, Jimmy wrote:

On 10/6/2011 2:48 PM, jps wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 13:07:45 -0400, wrote:

On 10/6/2011 11:07 AM, jps wrote:

Arming everybody in hopes of reducing violence is insane logic.

Who advocates arming "everyone"?

You made that up, didn't you, so you could look good by calling it
"insane logic"?!

Are you the only person fielding arguments in rec.boats?

I suggest you read some of Bertie Poop's fertile insights.

I know it's hard for you parse with comprehension because of your
anti-gun prejudice, but no one was advocating arming criminals.

The fact is that where citizens are armed, and it's known they are
armed, crimes against them are reduced, though not eliminated.

As has been demonstrated before, your agenda is not merely one of
reducing gun related deaths.

People with clean records aren't criminals until they are. Did this
guy in Cupertino ever have trouble with the law? Not from what I've
read. He just got fed up and snapped.

So you believe in prior restraint.

You, jps, could get drunk and drive a car, therefor, we are not going to
allow you to drive cars anymore.

Great logic.

Anyone with a brain knows that's possible for any human being, given
the right circumstances. And, in America, we're used to immediate
gratification.

Guns and immediate gratification do not mix well.

When are you going to outlaw penises?

For Americans not to recognize the folly in the wide distribution of
firearms is as stupid as not recognizing that Walmart-style globalism
spells the demise of our middle class.

It's past the time that people should have woken up but it's not
happening. Too bad for the USA.

The only thing between you and slavery is a gun.