What the 'ell??
 

In article ,
says...

On Monday, December 31, 2012 3:43:40 PM UTC-5, Boating All Out wrote:

The pot smokers are all wired to vote.

No, they are "wired" to eat cheetos and watch cartoons. They'd forget to vote.

Proof your ramblings are those of an idiot.

Proof that you are narrow minded.

What the 'ell??
 

On 1/1/2013 8:37 AM, Tim wrote:
On Dec 31 2012, 4:43 pm, ESAD wrote:




Bilious Bill thinks the army of NRA members, once it emerges from its
beer-induced stupor in the woods deer hunting expedition, will be able
to stage a successful insurrection against the forces of the United
States. More likely, they'll shoot each other.


I'm sure King George used that type of thinking too

?;^ )


Or any other deadbeat drunk....

What the 'ell??
 

On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 10:27:26 AM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,

says...



On Monday, December 31, 2012 3:43:40 PM UTC-5, Boating All Out wrote:



The pot smokers are all wired to vote.



No, they are "wired" to eat cheetos and watch cartoons. They'd forget to vote.



Proof your ramblings are those of an idiot.



Proof that you are narrow minded.

Have some personal experience with that, eh?

What the 'ell??
 

On 1/1/13 10:26 AM, JustWait wrote:

In article , says...

On 12/31/12 11:37 AM, JustWait wrote:

Quite frankly I think the training should be based on the training a
rookie Police Officer comes in with... This might mean a couple
years of
night school, but if you are going to have armed anybody in the schools
I think they need all the tools of conflict resolution, physical
ability, tactical awareness, etc that a fully trained Police Officer
has.


You're barely literate and you're coming with "plans" on educating and
putting armed guards in the public schools? Funny stuff.

You are a pedophile, we don't even want to know what your plans would be
for the kids...

You are projecting your pedophilia onto others, little **** of a boy-man.

What the 'ell??
 

In article ,
says...

On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 10:27:26 AM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,

says...



On Monday, December 31, 2012 3:43:40 PM UTC-5, Boating All Out wrote:



The pot smokers are all wired to vote.



No, they are "wired" to eat cheetos and watch cartoons. They'd forget to vote.



Proof your ramblings are those of an idiot.



Proof that you are narrow minded.

Have some personal experience with that, eh?

I sure do, you and Scotty are very narrow minded, and I watch and
listen.

What the 'ell??
 

On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 12:07:51 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,

says...



On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 10:27:26 AM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,



says...







On Monday, December 31, 2012 3:43:40 PM UTC-5, Boating All Out wrote:







The pot smokers are all wired to vote.







No, they are "wired" to eat cheetos and watch cartoons. They'd forget to vote.







Proof your ramblings are those of an idiot.







Proof that you are narrow minded.



Have some personal experience with that, eh?



I sure do,

So you're a pot-head? Figures.

What the 'ell??
 

On 1/1/13 12:37 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 14:33:45 -0500, GuzzisRule
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:02:40 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 12/31/12 8:32 AM, wrote:

Disarm the population...with an exception for shotguns and legitimate hunting rifles.



Too rational for the lunatics in this country.

How would you 'disarm the population' in DC and Anacostia, ESAD?

They must have already been disarmed. Owning a handgun has been
illegal in DC since 1968 (unless it was registered at that time) and
long guns are heavily regulated. This should be the safest city in the
country.


I proposed a plan. The plan was to round up all the useless old racist
right-wing farts like Herring and send them into the tough neighborhoods
in DC to knock on doors and insist on having the occupants turn over
their firearms.

My plan:

1. Provides honest work for the old-fart right wingers.
2. Might result in some of the old farts being terminated, an event that
would cut down on the number of racists *and* the CO2 they emit.
3. Might get some firearms out of the hands of those who might not be
legally entitled to have them.

Such duties might help people like Herring atone for the horrors they
visited upon SE Asia.

What the 'ell??
 

On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 11:19:05 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article 1805701577378681744.653332bmckeenospam-

, says...



wrote:

On Monday, December 31, 2012 4:22:26 PM UTC-4, Califbill wrote:

wrote:



On Monday, December 31, 2012 8:58:58 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:



In article ,







says...















Looks like things are getting crazier by the minute down there...







http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity...-shooting.html















What is YOUR solution?







Disarm the population...with an exception for shotguns and legitimate hunting rifles.







The founders did not include gun rights because of hunting. They wanted



the leaders to have a fear of the populace. The problem we have, and



seeing a few mass murders in Canada also, the problem includes canada, is



that we have both a general breakdown in society and a mental health system



that is mostly nonexistent and overly constrained by law.



All the more reason to limit ownership of firearms.



See what the control advocates in Canada have accomplished. You can have

you petty dictator run roughshod all he wants.



Here's how you do it:



http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexin...12/gun-control









And, to be crude, having few guns does mean that few people get shot. In

2008-2009, there were 39 fatal injuries from crimes involving firearms

in England and Wales, with a population about one sixth the size of

America?s. In America, there were 12,000 gun-related homicides in 2008.

Here's how who does it?
You do know that Canada makes it's own laws, eh?
That lady is talking about Britain. Being next door to y'all makes it much harder to control hand guns and ammunition.

What the 'ell??
 

On 1/1/2013 12:32 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:37:17 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/31/2012 11:12 AM, JustWait wrote:


Quite frankly I think the training should be based on the training a
rookie Police Officer comes in with... This might mean a couple years of
night school, but if you are going to have armed anybody in the schools
I think they need all the tools of conflict resolution, physical
ability, tactical awareness, etc that a fully trained Police Officer has.


Why do we think there is something wonderful about the training cops
have?

Because a lot of their training is directed at exactly the type of
incursion we are talking about here...

Remember last summer the cops in New York shot 11 innocent bystanders,
taking down one suspect. They weren't even rookies.


It called "the fog of war"... it was terrible, but it happened. Hey, I
hear a plane crashed once, maybe we just shouldn't fly either...

Do you think a bunch of untrained civilians would do any better? In
fact, can you give me one identifiable group that you think would be
better suited for such duty?

What the 'ell??
 

On 1/1/13 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 11:19:05 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article 1805701577378681744.653332bmckeenospam-

, says...



wrote:

On Monday, December 31, 2012 4:22:26 PM UTC-4, Califbill wrote:

wrote:



On Monday, December 31, 2012 8:58:58 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:



In article ,







says...















Looks like things are getting crazier by the minute down there...







http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity...-shooting.html















What is YOUR solution?







Disarm the population...with an exception for shotguns and legitimate hunting rifles.







The founders did not include gun rights because of hunting. They wanted



the leaders to have a fear of the populace. The problem we have, and



seeing a few mass murders in Canada also, the problem includes canada, is



that we have both a general breakdown in society and a mental health system



that is mostly nonexistent and overly constrained by law.



All the more reason to limit ownership of firearms.



See what the control advocates in Canada have accomplished. You can have

you petty dictator run roughshod all he wants.



Here's how you do it:



http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexin...12/gun-control









And, to be crude, having few guns does mean that few people get shot. In

2008-2009, there were 39 fatal injuries from crimes involving firearms

in England and Wales, with a population about one sixth the size of

America?s. In America, there were 12,000 gun-related homicides in 2008.

Here's how who does it?
You do know that Canada makes it's own laws, eh?
That lady is talking about Britain. Being next door to y'all makes it much harder to control hand guns and ammunition.


Even so, Canada is a far safer country than the United States,
especially as it relates to firearm murders.

It's funny that you bring up that bit about Canada making its own laws.
Undereducated Americans think Elizabeth II is the head of government in
Canada, rather than just the head of state.

In the 2008 elections, Sarah Palin thought the Queen, not the Prime
Minister, was the head of government of the United Kingdom. D'oh. The
Queen is the head of state, the constitutional monarch.

Of course, Palin was the dumbest candidate for high elective office in
the history of the United States, and much beloved by righties of
similar intellectual capabilities.