Michael says:
================
Just to throw gas on the fire - check into Rev. Tom Harpur's writings
on the New Testament. Much of what is written is simply copied from
older, pre-Christian religions. There is virtually no evidence that
JC actually existed.
============

Of course, I can live with that too, as I have absolutely nothing
invested in any of this stuff.

Every now and then, when I get an itch in the direction of the
"fellowship" of like-minded souls, I look at the Unitarians. I attended
a Unitarian memorial service recently and have to say it was by far the
most respectful (of the deceased) service I've ever been to. The
INclusivity was what impressed me as well.

Anyway, I'll take a look at your source.

Cheers,
frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 4:07 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 12:39 AM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

Leave it to Fox to find someone who could turn a multiple victim
public
shooting stemming from a custody dispute resulting in the murder of
two
people and the wounding of four others into a pro-gun piece of
claptrap.

Well, a gun started it, and guns were the only thing that stopped it.
And
it's clear that Wilson saved lives by distracting the shooter, at the
cost
of his own life.

Only a complete asshole would denigrate this bravery and sacrifice.

Which would be, evidently, you.

The asshole(s) are those who are capable of such bizarre thinking as to
turn
that incident into a pro-gun platform. Amazing.

And yet you cannot refute the inescapable fact that without guns, nobody
would have been able to stop the killer.

Guns are merely inanimate objects
and tools that can be used for both good and ill. Most of the time, they
are
used for good. Only relatively rarely are they used for ill.

They are never used for good. They are only used for different degrees of
ill.

What a remarkably ignorant statement. The vast majority of the time, guns
are used to provide pleasure, and the only thing "harmed" is a piece of
paper or a tin can.

But your assertion utterly ignores the obvious fact that guns can be, and
very frequently are used to protect the innocent against violent attack.
That you would classify self-defense as a "degree of ill" indicates that
you
have lost touch with reality.

Take a pill.

Get off whatever pills you are taking.

People (normal people) don't feel good after they act in self-defense.

No one but you suggested anything of the kind.

They
wish they never had to do it in the first place. Find a cop that doesn't
describe using his gun as a "necessary evil" and I'll find you a cop that
should be off the force.

Your statement is non sequitur.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/9/05 9:30 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 4:07 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 12:39 AM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

Leave it to Fox to find someone who could turn a multiple victim
public
shooting stemming from a custody dispute resulting in the murder of
two
people and the wounding of four others into a pro-gun piece of
claptrap.

Well, a gun started it, and guns were the only thing that stopped it.
And
it's clear that Wilson saved lives by distracting the shooter, at the
cost
of his own life.

Only a complete asshole would denigrate this bravery and sacrifice.

Which would be, evidently, you.

The asshole(s) are those who are capable of such bizarre thinking as to
turn
that incident into a pro-gun platform. Amazing.

And yet you cannot refute the inescapable fact that without guns, nobody
would have been able to stop the killer.

Guns are merely inanimate objects
and tools that can be used for both good and ill. Most of the time, they
are
used for good. Only relatively rarely are they used for ill.

They are never used for good. They are only used for different degrees of
ill.

What a remarkably ignorant statement. The vast majority of the time, guns
are used to provide pleasure, and the only thing "harmed" is a piece of
paper or a tin can.

But your assertion utterly ignores the obvious fact that guns can be, and
very frequently are used to protect the innocent against violent attack.
That you would classify self-defense as a "degree of ill" indicates that
you
have lost touch with reality.

Take a pill.

Get off whatever pills you are taking.

People (normal people) don't feel good after they act in self-defense.

No one but you suggested anything of the kind.

You said:

"That you would classify self-defense as a "degree of ill" indicates that
you have lost touch with reality."


They
wish they never had to do it in the first place. Find a cop that doesn't
describe using his gun as a "necessary evil" and I'll find you a cop that
should be off the force.

Your statement is non sequitur.

Not at all.

You said:

"That you would classify self-defense as a "degree of ill" indicates that
you have lost touch with reality."

I am saying that good police officers (which is most of them) view using
their guns as a necessary evil.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


Gun registries have nothing to do with that. They have no purpose or
effect
other than to provide a mechanism for eventual confiscation. They don't
prevent crime, they don't identify criminals, they don't track the
location
of guns. They merely identify who is the putative "owner" of the gun and
where the gun might likely be located at some point. The ONLY potential
benefit to a gun registry is that it might, in the odd case, allow a
stolen
gun to be returned to its rightful owner. However, it's usually more
efficient and less costly to simply wait for an owner who has had a gun
stolen to report it to the police, whereupon the serial number and
description is entered in the national stolen property database.

It's sophistry to suggest that universal gun registration is intended only
to facilitate the return of stolen guns.

It has the same intended effect as an automobile registry. It's a list. What
more do you want it to do? Dive in front of bullets?!?

I'd like for there to be some legitimate reason to collect and retain the
data beyond providing a tool for confiscation that this list could actually
accomplish. What do you see its purpose as? How does it enhance gun safety?
How does it prevent criminals from illegally obtaining guns? What,
precisely, is its purpose?



How do you imagine it
differs from the registration of cars?

The government has no intention of confiscating cars.

Cars do get taken away from people who aren't supposed to have them, and
I
believe the fact that cars are registered enables this in many cases.

Almost never. Cars in the possession of those who aren't supposed to have
them are seized based on the direct observation of the police that the
occupant is doing something wrong.

Geezus, then I guess we should scrap the idea of registering automobiles
too!

Are you fighting against that at present?

No, because there is no constitutionally prohibition on the infringement of
the right to keep and drive a car. That's not the case with guns. They have
a higher level of protection against government interference.


Gun registries have no purpose other than giving authorities information
on
where to go to gather up gun when they are eventually banned. Nor can you
actually state a legitimate reason for gun registries. At best you can
provide specious analogies.

The purpose of a gun register is to assign a registration number to a gun
and match it up to who the owner is supposed to be.

For what purpose? Why is the government interested in who owns what gun?
What possible difference does it make if I own one gun or twenty, so long as
I do so legally? The answer is that there is no legitimate government
objective to be achieved by registering guns. The only possible reason is to
provide a tool for future confiscation and gun owner harassment, much like
is taking place in Canada, Britain, Australia and elsewhere.

I note that even you cannot explicate a rational reason for collecting this
information. Your argument boils down to "because it's there." Not good
enough.

Can you buy them there like you're "buying a pack of gum?"

There are some minor inconveniences, but if you can handle opening a bank
account, you won't be dettered by the process of getting a gun.

Well, there you go. You were lying, and you've been caught lying and now
you're trying to weasel out of your lie.

ROFL. I was not lying.

Certainly you were. Or, you're just a moron. Which is it?

I had no intent to deceive an obvious genius like
yourself, Scotty, into thinking that the purchase of guns and gum were
identical processes.

Except that precisely what you said: "You can buy a wicked assault weapon
like you are buying a pack of gum." You lie.


It's easy to buy a gun. That was the point of the obvious employment of
humour regarding the gum.

Backpedaling evasion.



Why are assault weapons needed?

It's not a Bill of Needs, it's a Bill of Rights. Besides, "assault
weapons"
are the civilian equivalent of military arms, and as I've said before, one
of the primary purposes of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the whole
populace is armed with military-capable arms.

Why are assault weapons needed?

Asked and answered.


I was pointing out that a lot of people have trouble with some basic
tasks
in life, and I'm not comforted by the idea of those same people walking
around with guns making decisions on whether or not to blow someone
else's
brains out.

Your statement is patently false and deliberately defamatory. The fact is
that "a lot of people" don't have problems with daily tasks, only a very
small number do, and if they are truly mentally impaired, they generally
aren't issued CCW permits.

I'm not talking about clinically impaired.

I'm talking about the tens of millions of folks who have trouble driving at
an appropriate speed and maintaining a reasonable level of personal debt
(other examples could follow, but hopefully you get the point.)

I don't want those same people, in the middle of their cell phone
conversation while giving the finger to the driver next to them, making a
decision about blowing someone's head off.

Once again, this is specious claptrap. You presume wrongly that merely
because someone possesses a gun that they will inevitably become berserk
killers. Problem is that you're just wrong. The vast majority of people
would no sooner randomly and for no reason shoot someone than they would
randomly and for no reason deliberately drive their car into a crowd
standing at a bus stop.

Cars get used to commit murder all the time. Much more frequently than
guns.

Evidence to support this bizarre assertion?!!?

Every DUI-caused death is a murder. Every crash caused by deliberate
negligence is a murder. Someone does something they aren't supposed to do,
and somebody else dies. Happens all the time in cars, and lots of people are
convicted and sentenced to prison for murder or manslaughter for killing
someone with a car, many more than are convicted and sentenced to prison for
shooting someone with a gun.


The point is, however,
that merely possessing a tool that can be used to kill does not magically
turn people into raving homicidal maniacs, as much as you might like it to
be so to suit your anti-gun agenda.

An idiot with a gun is a lot more dangerous than an idiot with a jacknife.

Which falsely presumes that the majority of people are idiots.


Your wife has a vagina, which allows
her to turn into a prostitute quite easily.

ACtually, being a prostitute has very little to do with having a vagina.

Statistically speaking, the vast majority of prostitutes are females, but
again you miss the point.

The point was stupid.

Not at all. It just destroyed your argument, and you can't defend yourself,
so you dismiss it.
I hope and pray that I'll never be called upon to draw my gun,
much less shoot someone with it. That doesn't mean that I can't or won't
if
it's necessary to do so. That's the difference between us. You are a moral
coward who wouldn't lift a finger to help someone in need

It doesn't sound like you've ever actually done much to help people in need.

How would you know? You wouldn't, but you'll be insulting anyway just
because you're intellect is not up to the task of arguing rationally.

whereas I'm
willing to put my life on the line, just as Wilson did, to protect those
who
cannot protect themselves.

I'm willing to take daily action to help people rather than engage in grand
delusions about being a gun-toting superhero.

One does not preclude the other.


You really sound like a pathetic loser when you talk about this.

Coming from the likes of you, I take it as high praise.


Not everyone
has to carry a gun in order to be responsible or courageous.

Quite right. Nor is anyone required to do so. What's really reprehensible
is
when you advocate PREVENTING people who wish to do so from doing so. When
you do that, you take direct moral responsibility for their complete
safety,
and if they get hurt because your advocacy supported their disarmament,
their blood is on your hands.

I'll I've asked so far is why it assault weapons are needed.

It's not a Bill of Needs, it's a Bill of Rights, and I've explained it to
you numerous times. You choose to ignore that information.


I don't like gun culture.

Well, they don't like you, so I guess you're even...except that they have
guns and you do not.


I think gun nuts like you are scary freaks.

The only people who need to be scared of me are criminals. If the shoe fits,
wear it.


But I haven't done a thing to try and take away your guns. Unless you happen
to have an assault rifle, in which case I think that's nutty and you don't
need to have one and should not have the option.

Well, that's why you're a Canadian slave-boy and I'm a free American.


The police here
don't feel that their safety is on the line because citizens don't all
carry
weapons around.

What the police feel about is is not relevant.

The police were relevant to you a while ago when you said I was being unfair
by expecting them to do all the gun work for me.

Different issue.


They are public servants, and
if one of the things they have to get used to is that law-abiding citizens
may be armed, so be it.

LOL. Their lives are on the line every day, they carry guns.

Yup.

I think the
fact that they don't think having ordinary citizens like you walking around
waiting to shoot people is a good idea carries more weight with me that your
idiotic ramblings.

Whatever. Wear your chains however you wish.


Fact is that on occasion, armed citizens come to the defense of officers
who
are being attacked and not infrequently save their lives. That's what
Wilson
did just the other day, and he died doing so.

The police here don't want that, and don't feel it makes the community
safer.

They are enamored of their own opinions. Down here, the police work for us,
we don't do obesience to them as our masters and superiors like you do up
there in Canada.


In fact, quite the opposite, their lives are at greater risk
were they carrying out their duties in a gun culture full of gun nuts
like
you.

Nope. They are far safer, in fact. And most line cops down here know that
full well. The major objectors to CCW are police administrators who are
trying to curry favor with anti-gun politicians.

There's no such political action up here, the cops don't want it because
they know it makes the community more dangerous.

Except, of course, that they are wrong. They just don't like the
competition. They want to feel like they, and only they are in charge.


Your tired "cops blood will be running in the gutters if we legalize CCW"
argument is noxiously false. It's simply a lie.

The cops don't want it. I'll go with their view over yours.

Again, that's why you're a Canadian slave and I'm a free American.


I know you'd like to think that¹s what I think, but in reality you are
just
trying to insult me because you have no cogent argument to make. So, I'll
respond in kind, just out of principle: Go **** yourself.

I bet you'd like to pull your gun on me right now eh?

Don't be silly, of course not. You aren't even very annoying much less
dangerous.

Interesting. All because I don't want to walk around with a gun.

No, because you demean and denigrate those law-abiding citizens (like
me...and there are millions like me) who choose to be armed, even when
they
make the ultimate sacrifice trying to protect others.

They may have delusions of grandeur that lead them to believe that is what
they are doing but that thinking is just as nutty as the preacher on the
corner keeping them out of hell.

You really are deranged.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Michael commenting on Weiser:
==============
Dickhead likes to pretend that he supports freedom and rights.

===============

And then, interestingly, in one of his more recent posts, he's all over
the ACLU as some sort of subversive organization. If he REALLY cared
about freedom and rights, he'd be sending them a donation.

To that bunch of leftist socialist pricks? No way. They aren't interested in
freedom and rights, they are just interested in forwarding their socialist
agenda.

They are actually a dangerous, seditious group that ought to be run out of
town on a rail, at the very least.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink opines:
==============
Do you see any difference between these statements of Old vs. New,
and
what that implies? What is the status of the Old Testament today, and
what is this New Testament all about! I ask the last question, to
check
the depth of your philosophy, sort of like a dipstick on the engine
to
check the oil. It does not change the status of the engine, but you
have an idea of its condition.
================

I'll ignore your "dipstick" comment GRIN.

Hey, when it comes to OT, NT, Koran, et al, I'm running on empty. So
now that you know the status, how about some of the better-known
examples of NT boogey-man stuff (or OT warm fuzzies). I say
better-known because I'd at least like to occasionally be able to
say,
"Hey, I've heard of that!" You're going to have to relate to me at a
pretty simplistic level.

But, be forewarned, just as the JW's at my doorstep are forewarned,
I'm
not coming over to your side so long as you've got a mythical deity
on
your squad. OK?

frtzw906

I was home for lunch, and tried posting, and still getting a server
issue. I was never able to get posted, so I will try again now this PM.


As I read your post, I came up with one question that I would like to
address first, if we may. You mention " a mythical deity". I am not
sure what your mean, by mythical? What would a non-mythical deity be
like? TnT

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 9-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

It's not they, it's you that I judge to be evading.

Given your lack of evidence to support your bull****, evasion
seems to be your specialty.

I am using the term morphology correctly. It is about shape and
form, not size.

Not according to the only authoritative definition of the word posted so
far.

You don't understand that and are using the
term incorrectly.

That you claim it to be so does not prove it to be so. You refuse to cite
any credible authority that defines "morphology" differently than Websters,
so I conclude that it's you that are full of bull****.

When you discuss sizes, you are entering into
the realm of biometry. Something you would know nothing about,
since you know virtually nothing about science.

Main Entry:mor£phol£o£gy
Pronunciation:m*r-*f*-l*-j*
Function:noun

Etymology:German Morphologie, from morph- + -logie -logy
Date:1830

1 a : a
branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of animals and
plants b : the form and structure of an organism or any of its parts
2 a :
a study and description of word formation (as inflection, derivation, and
compounding) in language b : the system of word-forming elements and
processes in a language
3 a : a study of structure or form b : STRUCTURE,
FORM
4 : the external structure of rocks in relation to the development of
erosional forms or topographic features
ñmor£pho£log£i£cal
\*m*r-f*-*l*-ji-k*l\ also mor£pho£log£ic \-*l*-jik\ adjective

ñmor£pho£log£i£cal£ly \-k(*-)l*\ adverb
ñmor£phol£o£gist
\m*r-*f*-l*-jist\ noun

Size is a part of "form and structure." Without size, there is no form or
structure. Form and structure have size. Thus, you're proven wrong again.


You want a reference - here's one from the first book I grabbed
off my bookshelves. It discusses the use of morphology and biometry
specifically in the context of paleoanthropology.

Johanson, Donald, and Edey, Maitland A., "Lucy, The Beginnings of
Humankind", Simon and Schuster, 1981, pp74-75. ISBN 0-671-25036-1

I see no discussion of any of the subjects you claim. I see only a book
title.


Now how about you providing the references to back up your ridiculous
claims? Here's the bull**** you're trying to avoid. Go ahead,
dickhead, put yout money where your mouth is. Prove your ridiculous
assertions. Cut the bull**** and post some facts for a change.

Main Entry:mor£phol£o£gy
Pronunciation:m*r-*f*-l*-j*
Function:noun

Etymology:German Morphologie, from morph- + -logie -logy
Date:1830

1 a : a
branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of animals and
plants b : the form and structure of an organism or any of its parts
2 a :
a study and description of word formation (as inflection, derivation, and
compounding) in language b : the system of word-forming elements and
processes in a language
3 a : a study of structure or form b : STRUCTURE,
FORM
4 : the external structure of rocks in relation to the development of
erosional forms or topographic features
ñmor£pho£log£i£cal
\*m*r-f*-*l*-ji-k*l\ also mor£pho£log£ic \-*l*-jik\ adjective

ñmor£pho£log£i£cal£ly \-k(*-)l*\ adverb
ñmor£phol£o£gist
\m*r-*f*-l*-jist\ noun



Scientists generally thought the Earth was flat - bogus.

Sorry, but that was the prevailing belief for a very long time.

By religious nut cases - yes. By the scientists - no. In fact is
is a myth that most people believed the earth was flat. If you can
prove otherwise, do so. Otherwise it remains a bogus claim on
your part.

H. sapiens didn't always walk upright - bogus.

Not a claim I ever made.

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

There you go inventing your own version of morphology. Stick with
the facts - height variation occurs _within_ morphological similarity.

And then there's the change to upright gait...

Bull**** again.

Except that you have elided the context, which clearly indicated that we
were discussing the precursors of homo sapien.


Your fantasy "theory of evolution" is an accepted scientific theory - bogus

You've yet to post anything which refutes it.

Your claim - your proof required. Put up or shut up.

Um...make me.


Not a claim I made.

Want me to quote you again? More bull**** on your part.

Well, I'm sure you'd be happy to misquote me again...


It's implicit in your statements

And you choose to ignore my _explicit_ statement. You are
still full of ****.

And you still gobble it down like it was ambrosia. What does that make you?

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 9-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

And yet not one of them can actually cite an incident where enforcement of
the Patriot Act has unlawfully infringed on ANYONE'S civil rights.

Then there should not be any reason for a constitutional guarantee for
a right to bear arms. After all, it doesn't matter what the law is
as long as you aren't affected.

BTW dickhead, there are amerikans that have been held without resort to
legal counsel and without charge for years.

Really? How many? Who are they?

Jose Padilla has been
detained in a military brig in South Carolina for three years. A federal
court judge just ordered the Bush administration to either charge or
release Padilla within 45 days.

There's a fact for you. Choke on it.

That a judge so ordered does not mean that he has been being held
unlawfully, unless and until the judges happen to be the Supreme Court. The
government believes that it is within its legal powers to detain Padilla as
an enemy spy and saboteur indefinitely so long as we are at war and they are
appealing the judge's order. We will find out if they are right once the
case has worked its way through the system and the Supreme Court has ruled.
If the government is eventually proven to be wrong, they will release
Padilla forthwith. Until then, the government has the authority to hold a
suspected enemy spy and saboteur under the war powers act.

So, his civil rights have not been violated because we are at war and he is
not entitled to a writ of habeus corpus.

Next.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Tink asks:
===========
You mention " a mythical deity". I am not sure what your mean, by
mythical? What would a non-mythical deity be like?
=============

Good point, Tink. Replace with either "mythical entity" or "deity".

Cheers,
frtzw906

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/9/05 9:56 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


Gun registries have nothing to do with that. They have no purpose or
effect
other than to provide a mechanism for eventual confiscation. They don't
prevent crime, they don't identify criminals, they don't track the
location
of guns. They merely identify who is the putative "owner" of the gun and
where the gun might likely be located at some point. The ONLY potential
benefit to a gun registry is that it might, in the odd case, allow a
stolen
gun to be returned to its rightful owner. However, it's usually more
efficient and less costly to simply wait for an owner who has had a gun
stolen to report it to the police, whereupon the serial number and
description is entered in the national stolen property database.

It's sophistry to suggest that universal gun registration is intended only
to facilitate the return of stolen guns.

It has the same intended effect as an automobile registry. It's a list. What
more do you want it to do? Dive in front of bullets?!?

I'd like for there to be some legitimate reason to collect and retain the
data beyond providing a tool for confiscation that this list could actually
accomplish. What do you see its purpose as? How does it enhance gun safety?
How does it prevent criminals from illegally obtaining guns? What,
precisely, is its purpose?

It's exactly like a car registry.

It tells you who the rightful owner is.

As with being able to match a car to who the rightful owner is, this
information can be useful for any number of purposes ranging from returning
one that is stolen to the owner, to finding a starting point for
investigating a crime.



How do you imagine it
differs from the registration of cars?

The government has no intention of confiscating cars.

Cars do get taken away from people who aren't supposed to have them, and
I
believe the fact that cars are registered enables this in many cases.

Almost never. Cars in the possession of those who aren't supposed to have
them are seized based on the direct observation of the police that the
occupant is doing something wrong.

Geezus, then I guess we should scrap the idea of registering automobiles
too!

Are you fighting against that at present?

No, because there is no constitutionally prohibition on the infringement of
the right to keep and drive a car. That's not the case with guns. They have
a higher level of protection against government interference.

LOL. I see.

Gun registries have no purpose other than giving authorities information
on
where to go to gather up gun when they are eventually banned. Nor can you
actually state a legitimate reason for gun registries. At best you can
provide specious analogies.

The purpose of a gun register is to assign a registration number to a gun
and match it up to who the owner is supposed to be.

For what purpose? Why is the government interested in who owns what gun?
What possible difference does it make if I own one gun or twenty, so long as
I do so legally? The answer is that there is no legitimate government
objective to be achieved by registering guns. The only possible reason is to
provide a tool for future confiscation and gun owner harassment, much like
is taking place in Canada, Britain, Australia and elsewhere.

I note that even you cannot explicate a rational reason for collecting this
information. Your argument boils down to "because it's there." Not good
enough.

You never asked previously, that I can remember.

Thus far I have been trying to explain to you that the gun registry is just
a list that tells you the name of the person corresponding to the serial
number on the gun.

It has not greater or lesser purpose than the registration of vehicles, a
widely accepted practice. I understand that there is a bicycle registration
available in many places. They had it here when I was a kid.

Can you buy them there like you're "buying a pack of gum?"

There are some minor inconveniences, but if you can handle opening a bank
account, you won't be dettered by the process of getting a gun.

Well, there you go. You were lying, and you've been caught lying and now
you're trying to weasel out of your lie.

ROFL. I was not lying.

Certainly you were. Or, you're just a moron. Which is it?

Neither.

I had no intent to deceive an obvious genius like
yourself, Scotty, into thinking that the purchase of guns and gum were
identical processes.

Except that precisely what you said: "You can buy a wicked assault weapon
like you are buying a pack of gum." You lie.

No, Scotty.

It's like when I say "Scott Weiser is nuttier than a fruitcake."

Even though it may be easily proven (I'm assuming this is true) that there
are more nuts in a fruitcake than may actually be found on your physical
person, few people (only those who are nuttier than a fruitcake) would
interpret this as lying.

The point of my comment was to indicate that I think it is too easy to
acquire a gun.

It's easy to buy a gun. That was the point of the obvious employment of
humour regarding the gum.

Backpedaling evasion.

No, Scotty.

Why are assault weapons needed?

It's not a Bill of Needs, it's a Bill of Rights. Besides, "assault
weapons"
are the civilian equivalent of military arms, and as I've said before, one
of the primary purposes of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the whole
populace is armed with military-capable arms.

Why are assault weapons needed?

Asked and answered.

Evasion.

I was pointing out that a lot of people have trouble with some basic
tasks
in life, and I'm not comforted by the idea of those same people walking
around with guns making decisions on whether or not to blow someone
else's
brains out.

Your statement is patently false and deliberately defamatory. The fact is
that "a lot of people" don't have problems with daily tasks, only a very
small number do, and if they are truly mentally impaired, they generally
aren't issued CCW permits.

I'm not talking about clinically impaired.

I'm talking about the tens of millions of folks who have trouble driving at
an appropriate speed and maintaining a reasonable level of personal debt
(other examples could follow, but hopefully you get the point.)

I don't want those same people, in the middle of their cell phone
conversation while giving the finger to the driver next to them, making a
decision about blowing someone's head off.

Once again, this is specious claptrap.

No, it isn't. I really don't want those people making such decisions.

You presume wrongly that merely
because someone possesses a gun that they will inevitably become berserk
killers.

No, I assume they will be normal people, only being normal people with a
gun, instead of giving someone the finger, they might shoot someone instead.
Not good.

Problem is that you're just wrong. The vast majority of people
would no sooner randomly and for no reason shoot someone than they would
randomly and for no reason deliberately drive their car into a crowd
standing at a bus stop.

What is the ratio of deliberate shootings to deliberate "drivings?"

Cars get used to commit murder all the time. Much more frequently than
guns.

Evidence to support this bizarre assertion?!!?

Every DUI-caused death is a murder. Every crash caused by deliberate
negligence is a murder. Someone does something they aren't supposed to do,
and somebody else dies. Happens all the time in cars, and lots of people are
convicted and sentenced to prison for murder or manslaughter for killing
someone with a car, many more than are convicted and sentenced to prison for
shooting someone with a gun.

I think you are stretching the definition of "murder" pretty far there
Scotty!

I'll ask it another way.

What is the ratio of people who aimed their car at someone else with the
intent to kill them and succeeded vs the number of people who aimed their
gun at someone else with tthe intent to kill them and succeeded?

The point is, however,
that merely possessing a tool that can be used to kill does not magically
turn people into raving homicidal maniacs, as much as you might like it to
be so to suit your anti-gun agenda.

An idiot with a gun is a lot more dangerous than an idiot with a jacknife.

Which falsely presumes that the majority of people are idiots.

Since an idiot test is not required before buying the gun, your point is
moot. Remember, you managed to get one.

Your wife has a vagina, which allows
her to turn into a prostitute quite easily.

ACtually, being a prostitute has very little to do with having a vagina.

Statistically speaking, the vast majority of prostitutes are females, but
again you miss the point.

The point was stupid.

Not at all. It just destroyed your argument, and you can't defend yourself,
so you dismiss it.

No, it was just plain stupid.

I hope and pray that I'll never be called upon to draw my gun,
much less shoot someone with it. That doesn't mean that I can't or won't
if
it's necessary to do so. That's the difference between us. You are a moral
coward who wouldn't lift a finger to help someone in need

It doesn't sound like you've ever actually done much to help people in need.

How would you know? You wouldn't, but you'll be insulting anyway just
because you're intellect is not up to the task of arguing rationally.

Well Scotty, I believe you made the initial accusation that I wouldn't lift
a finger to help someone in need. It turns out I help people in need as a
daily routine.

So, apparently your intellect was not up to the task of arguing rationally,
and what's worse, when I respond to your childishness be addressing your
point and turning it back on you, you couldn't muster up anything beyond
some whining.

whereas I'm
willing to put my life on the line, just as Wilson did, to protect those
who
cannot protect themselves.

I'm willing to take daily action to help people rather than engage in grand
delusions about being a gun-toting superhero.

One does not preclude the other.

LOL. So you admit to having grand delusions about being a gun-toting
superhero? Well, at least you are honest.

You really sound like a pathetic loser when you talk about this.

Coming from the likes of you, I take it as high praise.

It isn't.

Not everyone
has to carry a gun in order to be responsible or courageous.

Quite right. Nor is anyone required to do so. What's really reprehensible
is
when you advocate PREVENTING people who wish to do so from doing so. When
you do that, you take direct moral responsibility for their complete
safety,
and if they get hurt because your advocacy supported their disarmament,
their blood is on your hands.

I'll I've asked so far is why it assault weapons are needed.

It's not a Bill of Needs, it's a Bill of Rights, and I've explained it to
you numerous times. You choose to ignore that information.

I didn't ask you about the Bill of Rights.

I asked you why assault weapons are needed.

I don't like gun culture.

Well, they don't like you, so I guess you're even...except that they have
guns and you do not.

Someone can have a gun but not be part of a gun culture.

I think gun nuts like you are scary freaks.

The only people who need to be scared of me are criminals. If the shoe fits,
wear it.

Well Scotty, I'm not a criminal, but someone who admits to having delusions
of grandeur about being a gun-toting superhero (and actually carries a gun
hoping to make the fantasy come true!) is very scary indeed.

But I haven't done a thing to try and take away your guns. Unless you happen
to have an assault rifle, in which case I think that's nutty and you don't
need to have one and should not have the option.

Well, that's why you're a Canadian slave-boy and I'm a free American.

Non sequitur.

The police here
don't feel that their safety is on the line because citizens don't all
carry
weapons around.

What the police feel about is is not relevant.

The police were relevant to you a while ago when you said I was being unfair
by expecting them to do all the gun work for me.

Different issue.

Oh, so what the police think is only relevant when Scotty says so! I should
have known.

They are public servants, and
if one of the things they have to get used to is that law-abiding citizens
may be armed, so be it.

LOL. Their lives are on the line every day, they carry guns.

Yup.

I think the
fact that they don't think having ordinary citizens like you walking around
waiting to shoot people is a good idea carries more weight with me that your
idiotic ramblings.

Whatever. Wear your chains however you wish.

No chains on me.

The cops are 100% clear that lives are endangered by goofs like you walking
around hoping to shoot someone and be a hero.

Fact is that on occasion, armed citizens come to the defense of officers
who
are being attacked and not infrequently save their lives. That's what
Wilson
did just the other day, and he died doing so.

The police here don't want that, and don't feel it makes the community
safer.

They are enamored of their own opinions. Down here, the police work for us,
we don't do obesience to them as our masters and superiors like you do up
there in Canada.

LOL. So all cops in the US want goofs like you walking around with concealed
weapons?

If it would be safer here with goofs like you walking around with concealed
weapons, why wouldn't the police say so? It must be some sort of national
conspiracy, perhaps Fidel Castro is behind it.

In fact, quite the opposite, their lives are at greater risk
were they carrying out their duties in a gun culture full of gun nuts
like
you.

Nope. They are far safer, in fact. And most line cops down here know that
full well. The major objectors to CCW are police administrators who are
trying to curry favor with anti-gun politicians.

There's no such political action up here, the cops don't want it because
they know it makes the community more dangerous.

Except, of course, that they are wrong. They just don't like the
competition. They want to feel like they, and only they are in charge.

Well I suppose it does get confusing to arrive on a crime scene with 40
weapons drawn and trying to sort out which of them are criminals and which
of them are vigilantes.

Your tired "cops blood will be running in the gutters if we legalize CCW"
argument is noxiously false. It's simply a lie.

The cops don't want it. I'll go with their view over yours.

Again, that's why you're a Canadian slave and I'm a free American.

I'm free from goofs like you, which makes being Canadian even sweeter than
it already is. The more I hear from you, the more happy and grateful I am to
be Canadian.

I know you'd like to think that¹s what I think, but in reality you are
just
trying to insult me because you have no cogent argument to make. So, I'll
respond in kind, just out of principle: Go **** yourself.

I bet you'd like to pull your gun on me right now eh?

Don't be silly, of course not. You aren't even very annoying much less
dangerous.

Ooo. I'm dangerous. I don't want people to get killed. Better shoot me
before the word gets out!

Interesting. All because I don't want to walk around with a gun.

No, because you demean and denigrate those law-abiding citizens (like
me...and there are millions like me) who choose to be armed, even when
they
make the ultimate sacrifice trying to protect others.

They may have delusions of grandeur that lead them to believe that is what
they are doing but that thinking is just as nutty as the preacher on the
corner keeping them out of hell.

You really are deranged.

No, deranged is your self-appointed superhero status. All you need is tights
and a cape...or is that what you are wearing right now?