On 5/16/2014 4:48 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 5/16/14, 4:46 PM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2014 16:35:50 -0400, H*a*r*r*o*l*d
wrote:

On 5/16/2014 3:27 PM, jps wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2014 13:02:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/15/2014 12:52 PM, jps wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 19:30:29 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

On 5/13/2014 5:15 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 5/13/14, 4:54 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On 5/13/2014 3:31 PM, jps wrote:

You don't leave running cars lying around the house, nor are
they
designed to kill things. They're what's called
transportation, dummy.




One of the design purposes of a gun is to prevent *being* killed.


Another, of course, is to kill.



uh huh. So, who's going to declare a truce and disarm first ...
those
who try to kill or those who are trying to prevent being killed?

Those with guns who are trying to prevent being killed far outnumber
those who actually kill. The vast majority of gun owners are law
abiding and would only shoot someone as a last resort measure.

Most gun related events in the home aren't related to crime
prevention
or bodily injury prevention but accidents or domestic disputes
between
family members.

Prevention is among the least likely uses for guns in a home.


See? Some would argue that it works! :-)

I posed a question to you a week or so ago and don't know if you
responded with an answer or not. Might have missed it.
I asked what *your* position on guns is. Do you favor private
ownership
at all of handguns or are you an advocate to outlaw them entirely?

I'm in favor of people being able to defend themselves, their
families, their homes.

I would, however, put stringent controls on the sale, ownership and
transfer of weapons and treat those who misunderstand the law very
harshly.

So you have a gun(s). Yup, I knew it.

You either don't read very much or real good.



FlaJim's MOS in "letters" when he was in the Navy was deckpaint
chipper/head swabber.

You too could have served your country, if only you had a pair of balls. ;-)

On 5/16/2014 9:00 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 5/16/14, 7:48 PM, KC wrote:
On 5/16/2014 7:05 PM, BAR wrote:



It seriously is a liberal thing.... Look at the height of hypocrisy,
colleges. Rutgers a so called "bastion of free speech", just had it's
faculty lead a resistance that made Condi Rice turn down an invitation
when recently they paid "Snookie" to speak there... What a bunch of
morons let me add ****ing to that.. What a bunch of ****ing morons...

Actually, the students at Rutgers led the protests against Rice. Not to
worry, you couldn't get a job digging fence postholes there, either.



I am not sure *who* led what.

I purposely read several media reports on this to get a sense of bias.

Some report student objections only.
Some report both student and faculty objections.

Where the truth lies ... no one knows.

On 5/16/2014 10:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/16/2014 9:00 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 5/16/14, 7:48 PM, KC wrote:
On 5/16/2014 7:05 PM, BAR wrote:



It seriously is a liberal thing.... Look at the height of hypocrisy,
colleges. Rutgers a so called "bastion of free speech", just had it's
faculty lead a resistance that made Condi Rice turn down an invitation
when recently they paid "Snookie" to speak there... What a bunch of
morons let me add ****ing to that.. What a bunch of ****ing morons...

Actually, the students at Rutgers led the protests against Rice. Not to
worry, you couldn't get a job digging fence postholes there, either.



I am not sure *who* led what.

I purposely read several media reports on this to get a sense of bias.

Some report student objections only.
Some report both student and faculty objections.

Where the truth lies ... no one knows.



My God man, there is video of the teacher.... man, change the channel.

On 5/16/14, 10:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/16/2014 9:00 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 5/16/14, 7:48 PM, KC wrote:
On 5/16/2014 7:05 PM, BAR wrote:



It seriously is a liberal thing.... Look at the height of hypocrisy,
colleges. Rutgers a so called "bastion of free speech", just had it's
faculty lead a resistance that made Condi Rice turn down an invitation
when recently they paid "Snookie" to speak there... What a bunch of
morons let me add ****ing to that.. What a bunch of ****ing morons...

Actually, the students at Rutgers led the protests against Rice. Not to
worry, you couldn't get a job digging fence postholes there, either.



I am not sure *who* led what.

I purposely read several media reports on this to get a sense of bias.

Some report student objections only.
Some report both student and faculty objections.

Where the truth lies ... no one knows.




It's that language thingie again.

"Led" is not an excluding term.

On 5/16/2014 10:29 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 5/16/14, 10:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/16/2014 9:00 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 5/16/14, 7:48 PM, KC wrote:
On 5/16/2014 7:05 PM, BAR wrote:



It seriously is a liberal thing.... Look at the height of hypocrisy,
colleges. Rutgers a so called "bastion of free speech", just had it's
faculty lead a resistance that made Condi Rice turn down an invitation
when recently they paid "Snookie" to speak there... What a bunch of
morons let me add ****ing to that.. What a bunch of ****ing morons...

Actually, the students at Rutgers led the protests against Rice. Not to
worry, you couldn't get a job digging fence postholes there, either.



I am not sure *who* led what.

I purposely read several media reports on this to get a sense of bias.

Some report student objections only.
Some report both student and faculty objections.

Where the truth lies ... no one knows.




It's that language thingie again.

"Led" is not an excluding term.



Good grief.

Funny thing is ... I was a full time college student in the late 60's as
a 18 year old, a part time student over the next decade and a semi-full
time college student again in 1978 as a 29 year old.

Nothing changed much in terms of professor or instructor liberal bias
over the years. The only thing that changed was me and how much I paid
attention to it.

On 5/17/2014 12:21 AM, BAR wrote:
In article , says...

On 5/16/14, 7:48 PM, KC wrote:
On 5/16/2014 7:05 PM, BAR wrote:



It seriously is a liberal thing.... Look at the height of hypocrisy,
colleges. Rutgers a so called "bastion of free speech", just had it's
faculty lead a resistance that made Condi Rice turn down an invitation
when recently they paid "Snookie" to speak there... What a bunch of
morons let me add ****ing to that.. What a bunch of ****ing morons...

Actually, the students at Rutgers led the protests against Rice. Not to
worry, you couldn't get a job digging fence postholes there, either.

And of course this is a lie.. The protest was nothing until two teachers
got involved. There is video for anybody who wants to look in places
where they play video liberals really don't want to see

It is astonishing to see such blatant closed minded group think
prevailing at an institute of higher learning. It appears that the
liberals beliefs and knowledge can't stand up to a little bit of the
other sides view.

On 5/16/14, 10:51 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2014 16:50:14 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Under certain circumstances and, of course, if you fire that handgun and
you miss and hit someone else, you face criminal charges and civil
suits...no excuse that you were "defending yourself."

No "innocent" people were shot by Zimmerman.



I wouldn't take Zimmerman's word on that. Unfortunately, there were no
other witnesses and it was Florida.

On 5/17/14, 11:26 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2014 10:37:54 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 5/16/14, 10:51 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2014 16:50:14 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Under certain circumstances and, of course, if you fire that handgun and
you miss and hit someone else, you face criminal charges and civil
suits...no excuse that you were "defending yourself."

No "innocent" people were shot by Zimmerman.



I wouldn't take Zimmerman's word on that. Unfortunately, there were no
other witnesses and it was Florida.

It was decided in a court of law.
There were witnesses that put Martin on top of Zimmerman beating the
**** out of him.


As I said, there were no witnesses and it was Florida. Not too
worry...at some point Zimmerman will start a fight with the wrong woman
and she'll cave in his skull.

On 5/17/2014 11:26 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2014 10:37:54 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 5/16/14, 10:51 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2014 16:50:14 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Under certain circumstances and, of course, if you fire that handgun and
you miss and hit someone else, you face criminal charges and civil
suits...no excuse that you were "defending yourself."

No "innocent" people were shot by Zimmerman.



I wouldn't take Zimmerman's word on that. Unfortunately, there were no
other witnesses and it was Florida.

It was decided in a court of law.
There were witnesses that put Martin on top of Zimmerman beating the
**** out of him.

As clear a case of self defense as I've ever seen. No matter if the
aggressor was black, white, or green. Harry needs to get over it.

On 5/17/14, 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2014 11:33:18 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 5/17/14, 11:26 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2014 10:37:54 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 5/16/14, 10:51 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2014 16:50:14 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Under certain circumstances and, of course, if you fire that handgun and
you miss and hit someone else, you face criminal charges and civil
suits...no excuse that you were "defending yourself."

No "innocent" people were shot by Zimmerman.



I wouldn't take Zimmerman's word on that. Unfortunately, there were no
other witnesses and it was Florida.

It was decided in a court of law.
There were witnesses that put Martin on top of Zimmerman beating the
**** out of him.


As I said, there were no witnesses.

You are entitled to your own opinion but you can't make up your own
facts.



No one came forward to report what happened at the moment Zimmerman
decided to shoot the kid. As I said, though, no worries...Zimmerman will
be put in his rightful place soon enough, and, I predict, by a woman.