On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 22:41:38 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:19:43 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 18:50:07 GMT, Nicholas Heyward
wrote:

Tom S wrote:

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 07:17:53 -0500, Icon O'Clast wrote:

Terrorist Attack at Ohio School -- 13 shot, 4 dead
Kent State, May 4, 1970. Lessons from History News(c) 2004

You are an asshole. Posting this on 9/11. Go **** yourself you
slimey
piece
of ****!


We will never forget.


Good thing too. Never forget that charging a group of scared, heavily
armed people with mayhem on your mind may lead to your death.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

It was a case of poorly trained for the job guardsmen. According to you
any
time the police arrive at a riot and there are things being tossed, they
should start shooting?
Bill

Your reading comprehension issues are noted. And laughed at.
You didnt get a passing grade in Logic, 101 did you?

Gunner


Seems you have no reading comprehension or any logic background what so
ever. So, I ask again, the cops should shoot when ever things are thrown at
them?

Of course not. Its on a case by case basis. If the crowd was hurling
deadly ping pong balls at them, Id say no. If the crowd was hurling
molotov cocktails, or rocks or bottles at them, Id have to say yes.

So remember boys and girls..if you dont want to die..dont hurl deadly
objects at the men with guns. If you really want to hurt them, get
your own guns and have a pitched battle.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

Gunner wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 22:41:38 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote

Seems you have no reading comprehension or any logic background what so
ever. So, I ask again, the cops should shoot when ever things are thrown at
them?


Of course not. Its on a case by case basis. If the crowd was hurling
deadly ping pong balls at them, Id say no. If the crowd was hurling
molotov cocktails, or rocks or bottles at them, Id have to say yes.

So remember boys and girls..if you dont want to die..dont hurl deadly
objects at the men with guns. If you really want to hurt them, get
your own guns and have a pitched battle.

Gunner

There is no middle ground between a peaceful protest and an ambush. To
have a successful peaceful protest all of the protesters must remain
peaceful even if the opposition is not. At Kent State the National
Guard was peaceful though well armed. But a few protesters chose to use
rocks against troops with firearms. A thrown rock is a lethal weapon.
Before firearms became common tremendous numbers of battle deaths
resulted from thrown rocks (mostly from slings). The rock throwing was
exceptionally foolish as it justified (and arguably required) the troops
to fire in self defense. Had most of the protesters thrown rocks they
could have killed the guardsmen who were greatly outnumbered. The
fault (if fault needs to be assigned) lies with a few undiciplined rock
throwers, not with the National Guard.

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 21:19:01 -0700, Louis Boyd
wrote:

There is no middle ground between a peaceful protest and an ambush. To
have a successful peaceful protest all of the protesters must remain
peaceful even if the opposition is not. At Kent State the National
Guard was peaceful though well armed. But a few protesters chose to use
rocks against troops with firearms. A thrown rock is a lethal weapon.
Before firearms became common tremendous numbers of battle deaths
resulted from thrown rocks (mostly from slings). The rock throwing was
exceptionally foolish as it justified (and arguably required) the troops
to fire in self defense. Had most of the protesters thrown rocks they
could have killed the guardsmen who were greatly outnumbered. The
fault (if fault needs to be assigned) lies with a few undiciplined rock
throwers, not with the National Guard.

Pot Kettle Black
Palestinian Rock Throwers vs. Kent State Students
Pot Kettle Black

Lawrence Glickman wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 21:19:01 -0700, Louis Boyd
wrote:


There is no middle ground between a peaceful protest and an ambush. To
have a successful peaceful protest all of the protesters must remain
peaceful even if the opposition is not. At Kent State the National
Guard was peaceful though well armed. But a few protesters chose to use
rocks against troops with firearms. A thrown rock is a lethal weapon.
Before firearms became common tremendous numbers of battle deaths
resulted from thrown rocks (mostly from slings). The rock throwing was
exceptionally foolish as it justified (and arguably required) the troops
to fire in self defense. Had most of the protesters thrown rocks they
could have killed the guardsmen who were greatly outnumbered. The
fault (if fault needs to be assigned) lies with a few undiciplined rock
throwers, not with the National Guard.

Pot Kettle Black
Palestinian Rock Throwers vs. Kent State Students
Pot Kettle Black

What's the pot & kettle stuff? Self defense is justified assuming the
"defender" has not provoked the attack.

As this is a survivalist group it should be noted that it's dangerous to
be a member of a pacifist protest group. In doing so you put your life
in the hands of the weakest person in the group who might be goaded to
violence or even of an outsider who joins the group after it's formed.
It's not safe to be a policeman or soldier who's placed in the position
of facing such a group either.

"Louis Boyd" wrote in message
...
Gunner wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 22:41:38 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote

Seems you have no reading comprehension or any logic background what so
ever. So, I ask again, the cops should shoot when ever things are
thrown at
them?


Of course not. Its on a case by case basis. If the crowd was hurling
deadly ping pong balls at them, Id say no. If the crowd was hurling
molotov cocktails, or rocks or bottles at them, Id have to say yes.

So remember boys and girls..if you dont want to die..dont hurl deadly
objects at the men with guns. If you really want to hurt them, get
your own guns and have a pitched battle.

Gunner

There is no middle ground between a peaceful protest and an ambush. To
have a successful peaceful protest all of the protesters must remain
peaceful even if the opposition is not. At Kent State the National
Guard was peaceful though well armed. But a few protesters chose to use
rocks against troops with firearms. A thrown rock is a lethal weapon.
Before firearms became common tremendous numbers of battle deaths
resulted from thrown rocks (mostly from slings). The rock throwing was
exceptionally foolish as it justified (and arguably required) the troops
to fire in self defense. Had most of the protesters thrown rocks they
could have killed the guardsmen who were greatly outnumbered. The
fault (if fault needs to be assigned) lies with a few undiciplined rock
throwers, not with the National Guard.

Jeeze, you logic is totally FUBAR

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 05:01:47 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"Louis Boyd" wrote in message
...
Gunner wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 22:41:38 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote

Seems you have no reading comprehension or any logic background what so
ever. So, I ask again, the cops should shoot when ever things are
thrown at
them?


Of course not. Its on a case by case basis. If the crowd was hurling
deadly ping pong balls at them, Id say no. If the crowd was hurling
molotov cocktails, or rocks or bottles at them, Id have to say yes.

So remember boys and girls..if you dont want to die..dont hurl deadly
objects at the men with guns. If you really want to hurt them, get
your own guns and have a pitched battle.

Gunner

There is no middle ground between a peaceful protest and an ambush. To
have a successful peaceful protest all of the protesters must remain
peaceful even if the opposition is not. At Kent State the National
Guard was peaceful though well armed. But a few protesters chose to use
rocks against troops with firearms. A thrown rock is a lethal weapon.
Before firearms became common tremendous numbers of battle deaths
resulted from thrown rocks (mostly from slings). The rock throwing was
exceptionally foolish as it justified (and arguably required) the troops
to fire in self defense. Had most of the protesters thrown rocks they
could have killed the guardsmen who were greatly outnumbered. The
fault (if fault needs to be assigned) lies with a few undiciplined rock
throwers, not with the National Guard.

Jeeze, you logic is totally FUBAR

Blink blink...how so? Are you going to let a large crowd of rioters
throw rocks and lethal objects at you and not respond in self defense?

If so..what color would you like your chalk outline be drawn in?

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke