In article , says...

On 12/21/2012 11:30 AM, thumper wrote:
On 12/21/2012 6:38 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:40:27 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/20/2012 11:54 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:25:08 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/19/2012 12:49 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:33:35 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/18/2012 12:21 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:

Fine - do away with 'military style...combat assault rifles with
high capacity (not defined)
magazines'. How the hell would that stop someone who wanted to
kill twenty kids? It might make him a
little slower, but not much!

Yeah, lets make it as easy as possible.

That was kind of a stupid reply. C-4 would make it *very* easy. In
fact, I'm wondering why some
jihadist hasn't strapped a bomb to her chest and walked into a
school cafeteria during lunchtime.

Yeah, it wasn't the time for sarcasm. You got my point though.

If the goal is to make the killing of 20 kids take 10 seconds
longer, then it's a stupid goal! Do
you get the point?


Look who's being stupid... the goal is to make the potential killing of
20 kids result in less than 20 dead kids. The fewer the better. I
don't buy your assertions.

I'd much rather find a solution that would prevent the killing of all
twenty, not just allow the
killing of 19.

I guess that's a hard one.


It is. I don't think it's effective to hold out for perfection.

And it's all politics on both sides of the argument...

seems like an excuse to do nothing. I'll take improvement.

It's "politics" to not want innocent children dying?? You ARE a ****ing
moron.

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:50:28 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...

On 12/21/2012 11:30 AM, thumper wrote:
On 12/21/2012 6:38 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:40:27 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/20/2012 11:54 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:25:08 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/19/2012 12:49 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:33:35 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/18/2012 12:21 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:

Fine - do away with 'military style...combat assault rifles with
high capacity (not defined)
magazines'. How the hell would that stop someone who wanted to
kill twenty kids? It might make him a
little slower, but not much!

Yeah, lets make it as easy as possible.

That was kind of a stupid reply. C-4 would make it *very* easy. In
fact, I'm wondering why some
jihadist hasn't strapped a bomb to her chest and walked into a
school cafeteria during lunchtime.

Yeah, it wasn't the time for sarcasm. You got my point though.

If the goal is to make the killing of 20 kids take 10 seconds
longer, then it's a stupid goal! Do
you get the point?


Look who's being stupid... the goal is to make the potential killing of
20 kids result in less than 20 dead kids. The fewer the better. I
don't buy your assertions.

I'd much rather find a solution that would prevent the killing of all
twenty, not just allow the
killing of 19.

I guess that's a hard one.


It is. I don't think it's effective to hold out for perfection.

And it's all politics on both sides of the argument...

seems like an excuse to do nothing. I'll take improvement.

It's "politics" to not want innocent children dying?? You ARE a ****ing
moron.

Agreed, Kevin.

On 12/21/2012 5:20 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:50:28 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...

On 12/21/2012 11:30 AM, thumper wrote:
On 12/21/2012 6:38 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:40:27 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/20/2012 11:54 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:25:08 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/19/2012 12:49 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:33:35 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/18/2012 12:21 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:

Fine - do away with 'military style...combat assault rifles with
high capacity (not defined)
magazines'. How the hell would that stop someone who wanted to
kill twenty kids? It might make him a
little slower, but not much!

Yeah, lets make it as easy as possible.

That was kind of a stupid reply. C-4 would make it *very* easy. In
fact, I'm wondering why some
jihadist hasn't strapped a bomb to her chest and walked into a
school cafeteria during lunchtime.

Yeah, it wasn't the time for sarcasm. You got my point though.

If the goal is to make the killing of 20 kids take 10 seconds
longer, then it's a stupid goal! Do
you get the point?


Look who's being stupid... the goal is to make the potential killing of
20 kids result in less than 20 dead kids. The fewer the better. I
don't buy your assertions.

I'd much rather find a solution that would prevent the killing of all
twenty, not just allow the
killing of 19.

I guess that's a hard one.


It is. I don't think it's effective to hold out for perfection.

And it's all politics on both sides of the argument...

seems like an excuse to do nothing. I'll take improvement.

It's "politics" to not want innocent children dying?? You ARE a ****ing
moron.

Agreed, Kevin.


**** you john, just because I don't need a penis gun like you.... You
are a ****ing asshole to the max...

In article , says...

On 12/21/2012 5:20 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:50:28 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...

On 12/21/2012 11:30 AM, thumper wrote:
On 12/21/2012 6:38 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:40:27 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/20/2012 11:54 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:25:08 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/19/2012 12:49 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:33:35 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/18/2012 12:21 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:

Fine - do away with 'military style...combat assault rifles with
high capacity (not defined)
magazines'. How the hell would that stop someone who wanted to
kill twenty kids? It might make him a
little slower, but not much!

Yeah, lets make it as easy as possible.

That was kind of a stupid reply. C-4 would make it *very* easy. In
fact, I'm wondering why some
jihadist hasn't strapped a bomb to her chest and walked into a
school cafeteria during lunchtime.

Yeah, it wasn't the time for sarcasm. You got my point though.

If the goal is to make the killing of 20 kids take 10 seconds
longer, then it's a stupid goal! Do
you get the point?


Look who's being stupid... the goal is to make the potential killing of
20 kids result in less than 20 dead kids. The fewer the better. I
don't buy your assertions.

I'd much rather find a solution that would prevent the killing of all
twenty, not just allow the
killing of 19.

I guess that's a hard one.


It is. I don't think it's effective to hold out for perfection.

And it's all politics on both sides of the argument...

seems like an excuse to do nothing. I'll take improvement.

It's "politics" to not want innocent children dying?? You ARE a ****ing
moron.

Agreed, Kevin.


**** you john, just because I don't need a penis gun like you.... You
are a ****ing asshole to the max...

There's that compassionate Christian.....

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:43:47 -0500, JustWait wrote:

On 12/21/2012 5:20 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:50:28 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...

On 12/21/2012 11:30 AM, thumper wrote:
On 12/21/2012 6:38 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:40:27 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/20/2012 11:54 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:25:08 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/19/2012 12:49 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:33:35 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/18/2012 12:21 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:

Fine - do away with 'military style...combat assault rifles with
high capacity (not defined)
magazines'. How the hell would that stop someone who wanted to
kill twenty kids? It might make him a
little slower, but not much!

Yeah, lets make it as easy as possible.

That was kind of a stupid reply. C-4 would make it *very* easy. In
fact, I'm wondering why some
jihadist hasn't strapped a bomb to her chest and walked into a
school cafeteria during lunchtime.

Yeah, it wasn't the time for sarcasm. You got my point though.

If the goal is to make the killing of 20 kids take 10 seconds
longer, then it's a stupid goal! Do
you get the point?


Look who's being stupid... the goal is to make the potential killing of
20 kids result in less than 20 dead kids. The fewer the better. I
don't buy your assertions.

I'd much rather find a solution that would prevent the killing of all
twenty, not just allow the
killing of 19.

I guess that's a hard one.


It is. I don't think it's effective to hold out for perfection.

And it's all politics on both sides of the argument...

seems like an excuse to do nothing. I'll take improvement.

It's "politics" to not want innocent children dying?? You ARE a ****ing
moron.

Agreed, Kevin.


**** you john, just because I don't need a penis gun like you.... You
are a ****ing asshole to the max...

Scotty, I didn't agree with the name-calling ****. I should have been more clear. I apologize for
that part of the message.

But, your 'it's all politics' comment was totally out of place. You have been preaching against the
30-round clip. All here have agreed it's not needed for civilians - multiple times. You continue to
act as though you had this super idea and no one is agreeing with it and everyone is political.

My 'penis gun' is a Winchester Model 94 .30-.30 - one of these:
http://www.wisnersinc.com/additional...%20carbine.jpg

Oh, I also have a .22 rifle and a 12 gauge.shotgun. Not much 'penis' there, is there?

I used one of your 'penis guns' while in Vietnam. Didn't like it. But, it would spray a lot of ammo
in a hurry!

On 12/22/2012 9:38 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:43:47 -0500, JustWait wrote:

On 12/21/2012 5:20 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:50:28 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...

On 12/21/2012 11:30 AM, thumper wrote:
On 12/21/2012 6:38 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:40:27 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/20/2012 11:54 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:25:08 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/19/2012 12:49 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:33:35 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/18/2012 12:21 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:

Fine - do away with 'military style...combat assault rifles with
high capacity (not defined)
magazines'. How the hell would that stop someone who wanted to
kill twenty kids? It might make him a
little slower, but not much!

Yeah, lets make it as easy as possible.

That was kind of a stupid reply. C-4 would make it *very* easy. In
fact, I'm wondering why some
jihadist hasn't strapped a bomb to her chest and walked into a
school cafeteria during lunchtime.

Yeah, it wasn't the time for sarcasm. You got my point though.

If the goal is to make the killing of 20 kids take 10 seconds
longer, then it's a stupid goal! Do
you get the point?


Look who's being stupid... the goal is to make the potential killing of
20 kids result in less than 20 dead kids. The fewer the better. I
don't buy your assertions.

I'd much rather find a solution that would prevent the killing of all
twenty, not just allow the
killing of 19.

I guess that's a hard one.


It is. I don't think it's effective to hold out for perfection.

And it's all politics on both sides of the argument...

seems like an excuse to do nothing. I'll take improvement.

It's "politics" to not want innocent children dying?? You ARE a ****ing
moron.

Agreed, Kevin.


**** you john, just because I don't need a penis gun like you.... You
are a ****ing asshole to the max...

Scotty, I didn't agree with the name-calling ****. I should have been more clear. I apologize for
that part of the message.

But, your 'it's all politics' comment was totally out of place. You have been preaching against the
30-round clip.

ARE YOU ****ING SERIOUS??? I HAVE NOT SAID NOT ONE THING NEGATIVE ABOUT
30 ROUND CLIPS. I ASKED "WHY YOU NEED THEM" AND ABSOLUTLY NOTHING ELSE!!
YOUR OWN INSECURITY ON THE SUBJECT MAKES YOU READ MY POSTS WRONG!

All here have agreed it's not needed for civilians - multiple times. You
continue to
act as though you had this super idea and no one is agreeing with it and everyone is political.

You missed my entire point, all of you did cause you are shooting from a
corner you don't even need to be in.

My 'penis gun' is a Winchester Model 94 .30-.30 - one of these:
http://www.wisnersinc.com/additional...%20carbine.jpg

Wow, I am impressed.... well, not really.


Oh, I also have a .22 rifle and a 12 gauge.shotgun. Not much 'penis' there, is there?

I used one of your 'penis guns' while in Vietnam. Didn't like it. But, it would spray a lot of ammo
in a hurry!

On 12/22/2012 10:03 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/22/2012 9:38 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:43:47 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/21/2012 5:20 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:50:28 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...

On 12/21/2012 11:30 AM, thumper wrote:
On 12/21/2012 6:38 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:40:27 -0800, thumper
wrote:

On 12/20/2012 11:54 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:25:08 -0800, thumper
wrote:

On 12/19/2012 12:49 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:33:35 -0800, thumper
wrote:

On 12/18/2012 12:21 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:

Fine - do away with 'military style...combat assault
rifles with
high capacity (not defined)
magazines'. How the hell would that stop someone who
wanted to
kill twenty kids? It might make him a
little slower, but not much!

Yeah, lets make it as easy as possible.

That was kind of a stupid reply. C-4 would make it *very*
easy. In
fact, I'm wondering why some
jihadist hasn't strapped a bomb to her chest and walked into a
school cafeteria during lunchtime.

Yeah, it wasn't the time for sarcasm. You got my point though.

If the goal is to make the killing of 20 kids take 10 seconds
longer, then it's a stupid goal! Do
you get the point?


Look who's being stupid... the goal is to make the potential
killing of
20 kids result in less than 20 dead kids. The fewer the
better. I
don't buy your assertions.

I'd much rather find a solution that would prevent the killing
of all
twenty, not just allow the
killing of 19.

I guess that's a hard one.


It is. I don't think it's effective to hold out for perfection.

And it's all politics on both sides of the argument...

seems like an excuse to do nothing. I'll take improvement.

It's "politics" to not want innocent children dying?? You ARE a
****ing
moron.

Agreed, Kevin.


**** you john, just because I don't need a penis gun like you.... You
are a ****ing asshole to the max...

Scotty, I didn't agree with the name-calling ****. I should have been
more clear. I apologize for
that part of the message.

But, your 'it's all politics' comment was totally out of place.

my point about "political" was that both sides were engaged in hyperbole
here.... and as to out of place, how about you all misrepresenting
everything I say, just to avoid answering a question...

You
have been preaching against the
30-round clip.

ARE YOU ****ING SERIOUS??? I HAVE NOT SAID NOT ONE THING NEGATIVE ABOUT
30 ROUND CLIPS. I ASKED "WHY YOU NEED THEM" AND ABSOLUTLY NOTHING ELSE!!
YOUR OWN INSECURITY ON THE SUBJECT MAKES YOU READ MY POSTS WRONG!

All here have agreed it's not needed for civilians - multiple times. You
continue to
act as though you had this super idea and no one is agreeing with it
and everyone is political.

And I made it clear that nobody had to agree with me, just asked you all
to stop misrepresenting what I said... my point about "political" was
that both sides were engaged in hyperbole here....

You missed my entire point, all of you did cause you are shooting from a
corner you don't even need to be in.

My 'penis gun' is a Winchester Model 94 .30-.30 - one of these:
http://www.wisnersinc.com/additional...%20carbine.jpg

Wow, I am impressed.... well, not really.


Oh, I also have a .22 rifle and a 12 gauge.shotgun. Not much 'penis'
there, is there?

I used one of your 'penis guns' while in Vietnam. Didn't like it. But,
it would spray a lot of ammo
in a hurry!

In article , says...

On 12/22/2012 10:03 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/22/2012 9:38 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:43:47 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/21/2012 5:20 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:50:28 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...

On 12/21/2012 11:30 AM, thumper wrote:
On 12/21/2012 6:38 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:40:27 -0800, thumper
wrote:

On 12/20/2012 11:54 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:25:08 -0800, thumper
wrote:

On 12/19/2012 12:49 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:33:35 -0800, thumper
wrote:

On 12/18/2012 12:21 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:

Fine - do away with 'military style...combat assault
rifles with
high capacity (not defined)
magazines'. How the hell would that stop someone who
wanted to
kill twenty kids? It might make him a
little slower, but not much!

Yeah, lets make it as easy as possible.

That was kind of a stupid reply. C-4 would make it *very*
easy. In
fact, I'm wondering why some
jihadist hasn't strapped a bomb to her chest and walked into a
school cafeteria during lunchtime.

Yeah, it wasn't the time for sarcasm. You got my point though.

If the goal is to make the killing of 20 kids take 10 seconds
longer, then it's a stupid goal! Do
you get the point?


Look who's being stupid... the goal is to make the potential
killing of
20 kids result in less than 20 dead kids. The fewer the
better. I
don't buy your assertions.

I'd much rather find a solution that would prevent the killing
of all
twenty, not just allow the
killing of 19.

I guess that's a hard one.


It is. I don't think it's effective to hold out for perfection.

And it's all politics on both sides of the argument...

seems like an excuse to do nothing. I'll take improvement.

It's "politics" to not want innocent children dying?? You ARE a
****ing
moron.

Agreed, Kevin.


**** you john, just because I don't need a penis gun like you.... You
are a ****ing asshole to the max...

Scotty, I didn't agree with the name-calling ****. I should have been
more clear. I apologize for
that part of the message.

But, your 'it's all politics' comment was totally out of place.

my point about "political" was that both sides were engaged in hyperbole
here.... and as to out of place, how about you all misrepresenting
everything I say, just to avoid answering a question...

You
have been preaching against the
30-round clip.

ARE YOU ****ING SERIOUS??? I HAVE NOT SAID NOT ONE THING NEGATIVE ABOUT
30 ROUND CLIPS. I ASKED "WHY YOU NEED THEM" AND ABSOLUTLY NOTHING ELSE!!
YOUR OWN INSECURITY ON THE SUBJECT MAKES YOU READ MY POSTS WRONG!

All here have agreed it's not needed for civilians - multiple times. You
continue to
act as though you had this super idea and no one is agreeing with it
and everyone is political.

And I made it clear that nobody had to agree with me, just asked you all
to stop misrepresenting what I said... my point about "political" was
that both sides were engaged in hyperbole here....

You missed my entire point, all of you did cause you are shooting from a
corner you don't even need to be in.

My 'penis gun' is a Winchester Model 94 .30-.30 - one of these:
http://www.wisnersinc.com/additional...%20carbine.jpg

Wow, I am impressed.... well, not really.


Oh, I also have a .22 rifle and a 12 gauge.shotgun. Not much 'penis'
there, is there?

I used one of your 'penis guns' while in Vietnam. Didn't like it. But,
it would spray a lot of ammo
in a hurry!



Scotty, do you find it odd that not ONE single person here gets or
agrees with you??

On 12/22/2012 7:11 AM, JustWait wrote:

And I made it clear that nobody had to agree with me, just asked you all
to stop misrepresenting what I said...

Scott, I'll make it easy. If I'm referring to you I quote you and reply
directly to you. Otherwise relax.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:50:28 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...

On 12/21/2012 11:30 AM, thumper wrote:
On 12/21/2012 6:38 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:40:27 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/20/2012 11:54 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:25:08 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/19/2012 12:49 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:33:35 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/18/2012 12:21 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:

Fine - do away with 'military style...combat assault rifles with
high capacity (not defined)
magazines'. How the hell would that stop someone who wanted to
kill twenty kids? It might make him a
little slower, but not much!

Yeah, lets make it as easy as possible.

That was kind of a stupid reply. C-4 would make it *very* easy. In
fact, I'm wondering why some
jihadist hasn't strapped a bomb to her chest and walked into a
school cafeteria during lunchtime.

Yeah, it wasn't the time for sarcasm. You got my point though.

If the goal is to make the killing of 20 kids take 10 seconds
longer, then it's a stupid goal! Do
you get the point?


Look who's being stupid... the goal is to make the potential killing of
20 kids result in less than 20 dead kids. The fewer the better. I
don't buy your assertions.

I'd much rather find a solution that would prevent the killing of all
twenty, not just allow the
killing of 19.

I guess that's a hard one.


It is. I don't think it's effective to hold out for perfection.

And it's all politics on both sides of the argument...

seems like an excuse to do nothing. I'll take improvement.

It's "politics" to not want innocent children dying?? You ARE a ****ing
moron.

Agreed, Kevin.

I'm not Kevin, but I'm glad that you agree you are a moron.