The Brits just lost an MP ... shot. I thought they didn't have any
guns there.

On 6/17/16 1:00 AM, wrote:
The Brits just lost an MP ... shot. I thought they didn't have any
guns there.



D'oh. Better, compare the murder by gun rate per 1000 between our two
countries.

Keyser Söze Wrote in message:
On 6/17/16 1:00 AM, wrote:
The Brits just lost an MP ... shot. I thought they didn't have any
guns there.



D'oh. Better, compare the murder by gun rate per 1000 between our two
countries.


Start a new thread if that's what you want to talk about,
asshole.I suppose you like O'bumma's plan to take guns away
from the innocent to protect the guilty.
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 06:25:19 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/17/16 1:00 AM, wrote:
The Brits just lost an MP ... shot. I thought they didn't have any
guns there.



D'oh. Better, compare the murder by gun rate per 1000 between our two
countries.

Tell that to the dead MP's family

On 6/17/16 1:00 AM, wrote:
The Brits just lost an MP ... shot. I thought they didn't have any
guns there.



There are reports, as yet unconfirmed, that he used a "homemade gun" he
made from plans in a U.S.-based white nationalist publication or
website. Probably a Trump supporter, too.

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/17/16 1:00 AM, wrote:
The Brits just lost an MP ... shot. I thought they didn't have any
guns there.



There are reports, as yet unconfirmed, that he used a "homemade gun" he
made from plans in a U.S.-based white nationalist publication or
website. Probably a Trump supporter, too.


You need to do a little more research. England has a gun problem. Lots of
the guns were reactivated weapons, from the days when the Brit's could own
anything. Some are starter pistols that have been made usable. Biggest
problem in England is ammo. Sort of like the state of California has
tried. So lots of the ammo is reloads. 100 years ago, the English could
still own any weapon, including machine guns. That was right guaranteed by
a statute from Parliament when the people were worried about despot rulers.
Unfortunately it was a statute and not a Magna Carta type law. So a later
Parliament changed the law. At least we have the 2nd amendment to protect
us from despot rulers. And the 2nd can not be changed by Congress. Seems
as if the SCOTUS has been allowed tho. The 2nd is not about hunting
weapons, it is about politics! Especially bad politics. You say we can not
defeat an army. How many of the military would oppose the people? Russia
stationed soldiers far from their homes, and in different countries, so
they would not have to choose between their neighbors and the government.
With islamoterrism on the rise, we may need more lenient gun laws to
protect ourselves from those who ignore laws anyway.

On 6/17/16 1:14 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/17/16 1:00 AM, wrote:
The Brits just lost an MP ... shot. I thought they didn't have any
guns there.



There are reports, as yet unconfirmed, that he used a "homemade gun" he
made from plans in a U.S.-based white nationalist publication or
website. Probably a Trump supporter, too.


You need to do a little more research. England has a gun problem. Lots of
the guns were reactivated weapons, from the days when the Brit's could own
anything. Some are starter pistols that have been made usable. Biggest
problem in England is ammo. Sort of like the state of California has
tried. So lots of the ammo is reloads. 100 years ago, the English could
still own any weapon, including machine guns. That was right guaranteed by
a statute from Parliament when the people were worried about despot rulers.
Unfortunately it was a statute and not a Magna Carta type law. So a later
Parliament changed the law. At least we have the 2nd amendment to protect
us from despot rulers. And the 2nd can not be changed by Congress. Seems
as if the SCOTUS has been allowed tho. The 2nd is not about hunting
weapons, it is about politics! Especially bad politics. You say we can not
defeat an army. How many of the military would oppose the people? Russia
stationed soldiers far from their homes, and in different countries, so
they would not have to choose between their neighbors and the government.
With islamoterrism on the rise, we may need more lenient gun laws to
protect ourselves from those who ignore laws anyway.



The 2nd Amendment is no protection against "despot leaders."

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/17/16 1:14 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/17/16 1:00 AM, wrote:
The Brits just lost an MP ... shot. I thought they didn't have any
guns there.



There are reports, as yet unconfirmed, that he used a "homemade gun" he
made from plans in a U.S.-based white nationalist publication or
website. Probably a Trump supporter, too.


You need to do a little more research. England has a gun problem. Lots of
the guns were reactivated weapons, from the days when the Brit's could own
anything. Some are starter pistols that have been made usable. Biggest
problem in England is ammo. Sort of like the state of California has
tried. So lots of the ammo is reloads. 100 years ago, the English could
still own any weapon, including machine guns. That was right guaranteed by
a statute from Parliament when the people were worried about despot rulers.
Unfortunately it was a statute and not a Magna Carta type law. So a later
Parliament changed the law. At least we have the 2nd amendment to protect
us from despot rulers. And the 2nd can not be changed by Congress. Seems
as if the SCOTUS has been allowed tho. The 2nd is not about hunting
weapons, it is about politics! Especially bad politics. You say we can not
defeat an army. How many of the military would oppose the people? Russia
stationed soldiers far from their homes, and in different countries, so
they would not have to choose between their neighbors and the government.
With islamoterrism on the rise, we may need more lenient gun laws to
protect ourselves from those who ignore laws anyway.



The 2nd Amendment is no protection against "despot leaders."


Why?

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 13:38:00 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:


The 2nd Amendment is no protection against "despot leaders."


Why?

Harry thinks the Air Force would nuke us I guess. It is clear that
they are not that effective against a civilian insurgency.
When have we ever won one of those?
Even in the last war we won (WWII) we defeated the standing armies but
we had to make concessions to the civilian population to chill them
out. (we let the japanese keep the emperor, engaging him to end any
insurgency and we let the germans keep all the property they stole
from the jews ... and more, chilling out the nazi supporters.)

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 12:43:22 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/17/16 1:00 AM, wrote:
The Brits just lost an MP ... shot. I thought they didn't have any
guns there.



There are reports, as yet unconfirmed, that he used a "homemade gun" he
made from plans in a U.S.-based white nationalist publication or
website. Probably a Trump supporter, too.

He got off at least 3 rounds in rapid succession so that is a heluva
zip gun. If this is true it talks to the futility of gun control even
more than an illegally owned gun.