BoatBanter.com - Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/27823-re-bill-moyers-environment-politics-christian-fundamentalists.html)

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message
nk.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 25-Feb-2005, "rick" wrote:

Please provide a link. Otherwise, unless you believe
that
everyone but you
is able to see them, you may have to accept that they do
not
exist.
=================
I have, and I've told you where else to check several
times.
that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your
decision.

It would take you a lot less time to post the link than to
keep insisting that you already did. What are you afraid
of?
=====================
ROTFLMAO What a hoot. It would have been far quicker for
you and kman to have looked for yourselves.

Since it doesn't exist, it's not quicker.
=================
Keep telling yourself that fool. That you refuse to look says
all anyone needs to know about your willful ignorance.

You are a liar and a coward.
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts...

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
rick says:
================
Again, I posted
information, the ideologs here didn't like the messenger so
they
huffed and puffed their jingoistic buffoonery, and they have
yet
to refute the facts presented.
==============

HOW TIRESOME!

Scott?!!! Please! Where are you?

See how nuts rick has made me?
======================
Then do yourself a favor and look up the information for yourself
and kman. I provided the data already. That you and he are too
determined to remain ignorant on the subject means nothing to me.
Afterall, 'm not the one that's going to be sent home to wait.

frtzw906

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message

snip...

Either every other person here is delusional, or it's just
you rick.
=======================
Yes, you are first and foremost delusional. You are afraid
to seek out the info. You are afraid of real discussion, so
instead you puff out your chest in jingoistic blatherings.

As I've offered, simply post the material and I will
apologize.
==============
Already have fool, and on my server they are still available,
plus where I've told you to look. That you wish to remain
willfully ignorant proves your ideology trumps knowledge.

You are a liar and a coward.
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts...

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

snip

Neither I nor anyone else can see any post from you that
provides evidence
that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health
care.

Please provide a link. Otherwise, unless you believe that
everyone but you
is able to see them, you may have to accept that they do
not exist.
=================
I have, and I've told you where else to check several
times.
that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your
decision.

No one else has seen this post that you say you made. None
of them.
================
You've asked the whole world have you? What a hoot fool.
Again, why are you afraid to look up the info for yourself?
Why do you want me to, whne I already have and you didn't
like the messenger?

The information does not exist, because you are wrong.
==============
Keep telling yourself that, and maybe someday you might even
believe it. That you wish to remain willfully ignorant proves
your ideology trumps knowledge.

You are a liar and a coward. =================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts...

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

snip

You are afraid of real discussion, so instead
you puff out your chest in jingoistic blatherings.

There is nothing jingoistic about asking you to post the
materials to support your claim. But you can't, because they
don't exist.
==================
LOL I posted support for my claims, you have not. All you've
done is thump your chest and make claims that I disproved.
You didn't like that, so you have ignored the posts and/or
claimed the messenger was bad. Too bad for you that the facts
remain available, and are there for you to see, if you'd ever
open your eyes.

You are a liar and a coward.
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts... I'm not the one that is making claims that
aren't being backed up, that would be you, fool.

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
t, rick
at
wrote on 2/25/05 12:13 AM:

snip

Whatever it was, it wasn't truthful. Because, the truth
is, I
never said
what you claimed I said.
========================
Your intent was the same...

My intent was exactly what I stated, not something you made
up.
====================
Yes, spewing your ignorance. That wasn't something I made
up.

Actually, it was.
==============
No, your have displayed your ignorance quite well. You have
proven that you cannot use your computer.

The fact that you just responded to a message sent from my
computer proves that I can use it.
=====================
LOL Nice tap dance queeny. Now prove that you realy can use
your computer and look up the data that I have posted for you.
Or are you still too afraid to do that?

You have proven that you cannot accept facts that interfere
with your fantasies.

What facts? Please present them.
=================
I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts... I'm not the one that is making claims that
aren't being backed up, that would be you, fool.
Why have YOU been afraid to look. The sites are still there, my
posts are still there, the only thing missing is your courage to
look at them.

You have proven that you are a buffoon.

I think behaviour befitting a buffoon could include:

1) corresponding with someone via computer and then telling
them they don't know how to use a computer
====================
You've made it apparent that you do not know how to use your
computer effectively. That, or you've proven that you are afraid
of what you will find.

2) telling them that they cannot accept facts that you have
failed to present
==================
I have presented facts, dolt. It is YOU that has made claims
that you have never backed up. It is you that has been lying.

3) at this point, the idea that you are going to start making
sense has become a fantasy
======================
Fantasies and delusions are what you live by. Me? I prefer to
deal in reality. And that is what I have posted for you. You
have decided that you prefer your willful ignorance and
delusions. Thanks for proving it yet again.

http://www.freep.com/news/locway/shoot4_20040604.htm
=====================
NAme the corner store they bought their weapons from, fool.
thanks again for displaying your ignorant ideology.

Does it matter which store they bought them at!??!?!!??!
===========================
LOL You're theone that keeps saying they trot down to the
corner gun-mart, like there's one on every crack dealers
corner. That's just part of your ignorant delusions.

Well, they got them, and shot up the neighbourhood, isn't THAT
the point?
==========================
Tap, tap, tap. Nice dance there queeny.

But I'll see your corner gun-marts and raise you a corner
gun rent-a-center, like they have in Toronto.
http://www.diversitywatch.ryerson.ca...globe_jan7.htm

So? I'm not in favour of drug dealers buying guns and
shooting people in Canada either!
==================
Yet you can rent one for just that purpose. haven't seen any
rent-a-gun shops around here.

There's actually more than just me here in Canada. They can
close every gun shop of ever type for all I care.
====================
And fortunately for everyone else, you aren't the person that
gets to make that call.

Now where's your link that proves Canadians are dying in
wait lines for
health care?
=================
I have, and I've told you where else to check several times.
that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your decision.

No one else has seen this post that you say you made. None of
them.

Either every other person here is delusional, or it's just
you rick.
=======================
Yes, you are first and foremost delusional. You are afraid to
seek out the info. You are afraid of real discussion, so
instead
you puff out your chest in jingoistic blatherings.

The info does not exist. Prove me wrong. Or are you a coward?
=================
I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts... I'm not the one that is making claims that
aren't being backed up, that would be you, fool.
Why have YOU been afraid to look. The sites are still there, my
posts are still there, the only thing missing is your courage to
look at them.

snip..

There's no need for assault weapons, other than the selfish
fascination of gun nuts or those who want to kill a lot of
people in a short period of time.
=====================
Again fool, tell us the difference between this assault weapon
and any other available. There are far more powerful and
deadly weapons out there fool.

Good, get rid of those too.
================
You aren't the person that makes that call. Unlike you I live in
a more free society apparently. At least one where I'm not
trapped by my ideology, brainwashing, and delusions.

snip

=======================
Yes, you are first and foremost delusional. You are afraid to
seek out the info. You are afraid of real discussion, so
instead
you puff out your chest in jingoistic blatherings.

I'm not afraid. Prove me wrong. I say the information does not
exist. Are you a coward?
======================
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts... I'm not the one that is making claims that
aren't being backed up, that would be you, fool.

Like I said before fool, that you are too afraid to know
the facts is no skin off my nose. I gave you the opportunity
to find them yourself, because if I bring them up, you claim
they are biased sources. Whay a hoot you are. thabnks
again for proving your ignorant ideology...

No one else has seen this post that you say you made. None of
them.

Either every other person here is delusional, or it's just
you rick.
=======================
Yes, you are first and foremost delusional. You are afraid to
seek out the info. You are afraid of real discussion, so
instead
you puff out your chest in jingoistic blatherings.

I say you are a liar. Prove me wrong. Are you a coward?
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts... I'm not the one that is making claims that
aren't being backed up, that would be you, fool.

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

snip

I never said any such thing, nor implied it. If even one
person
is killed
with an assault weapon - a gun that is designed to kill
many
people quickly
- that's obviously too many.
=====================
Yes, that is exactly what you keep implying when you talk
about
spraying in parks.

It happens.
===================
What corner store did they buy these guns from? Your
ignorance is exposed, again...

AHAHAHA!

So now it matters which store they bought them at?

Heehee. It's fun watching you get so pathetically desperate!
======================
LOL That's a hoot coming from the tap dance queen...

You've been tap dancing for days on end. You are a liar and a
coward.
=================
Wow, a mimic now too. See, I've told you you have no
independent thoughts of your own.
I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the
facts... I'm not the one that is making claims that aren't being
backed up, that would be you, fool. Why have YOU been afraid to
look. The sites are still there, my posts are still there, the
only thing missing is your courage to look at them.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

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

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

The framers were talking about keeping a musket in the barn.

No, they were most emphatically not. In fact, in many of the Colonies,
male
citizens were *required* by ordinance.to bring their firearms and
militia
kit to church on Sundays for inspection and militia drill after
services.

Because they didn't have a massive amry, navy, air force, marines!

We don't have a "massive" standing army in the US. We're not supposed to,
precisely so that military coups can be avoided. That's the purpose of the
Militia provisions of the Constitution.

Um. Do you feel that the current standing army is comparable to the
minutemen?!?!? It's, uh, kind of big!

But then so is the population of the US and indeed the planet. Comparatively
speaking, our standing army is quite small, even as compared to some other
contemporary nations.

There's at best only a couple of million in the regular army, while there
are about 360 million citizens and 380 million privately-owned guns in about
110 million households. That makes the ratio, at a minimum, 50 to 1 in favor
of armed citizens. At best, it makes a ratio of about 140 to one of citizens
who *can* be armed to standing military. And this presumes that all two
million regular army troops would obey orders to subjugate their own
countrymen.

Are you so stupid that you can't see the difference between a sparse
population of people defending a huge amount of territory and the modern
day
juggernaut that is the US armed forces?

Only in degree

Like, 1000 degrees?

not as applied to the philosophical underpinnings of our
nation. In fact, a larger standing army actually militates for more and
better arms in the hands of the citizenry, since one of the points of the
2nd Amendment is to ensure that the armed citizenry always greatly
outnumber
the standing army.

Really! Please post the exact quote that says "the armed citizens of the US
should always outnumber the military forces of the government"

False dilemma. I did not say that such a direct quote existed. However,
there is ample evidence in the record that those who actually wrote the
Constitution intended this precise result. I refer you, Mr. History Person,
to the Federalist Papers for a start.

"Thomas Jefferson said, "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms."
Patrick Henry said, "The great object is, that every man be armed." Richard
Henry Lee wrote, "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of
people always possess arms." Thomas Paine noted, "[A]rms . . . discourage
and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the
world as well as property."

Prominent Federalist Tench Coxe asked, "Who are the militia? Are they not
ourselves?. . . Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords,
and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an
American. . . . [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of
either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will
ever remain, in the hands of the people."

In introducing the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives, James
Madison noted that the amendments "relate first to private rights." Sen.
William Grayson observed that they "altogether respected personal liberty."
Tench Coxe wrote, "[T]he people are confirmed by the next article [of
amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms.""

Source: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=83

There was no
armed forces.

Are you really this stupid? Of course there were armed forces. Ever hear
of
the "Minutemen?" Every hear of the Continental Army? How about George
Washington?

LOL. Yes, with his rowboat, no doubt outfitted with nuclear weapons.

Evasion. You said "There was (sic) no armed forces." This is simply wrong.
Whether it's a lie or mere ignorance I cannot tell.

The armed forces of the day were insignificant in comparison to the US army
of 2005.

Yet more ignorance from a purported "history major."

It is as irrelevant as saying that a fleet of rowboats is the same
as a fleet of nuclear submarines.

You attempt to evade the implications of your own words. You said, and I
quote, "there was (sic) no armed forces." That is a lie.

There were no assault weapons.

The Brown Bess was the "assault weapon" of the time. Tempus fugit and
technology advances. That doesn't change the nature of the rig
Um. Indeed it does.

Um. No it doesn't.

Perhaps you don't understand that the usual result of change is...change.

Clearly you don't understand that the right protected does not change based
on some technological calculus.

And there weren't more than
30,000 Americans killed by guns each year at the hands of their
neighbours.

There still aren't. Most of the gun-related deaths in the US are a)
suicides
and b) criminal attacks. The incidence of accidental shootings is very
small
and getting smaller every year.

Wow, you must be so proud! The guns are mostly used for people shooting
themselves or deliberately shooting someone else! Great!

You misconstrue...deliberately I suspect. Guns of every stripe are mostly
used to punch holes in paper and tin cans, along with punching holes in
game
animals. Less than 0.01% of all guns in the US are ever used unlawfully
against another human being. And that fraction is continuing to drop every
year.

And yet more than 30,000 (THIRTY THOUSAND!!!!) US citizens die every year
from them.

"Gun accidents account for only 0.7% of accidental deaths. Most accidental
deaths involve motor vehicles or are due to drowning, falls, fires,
poisoning, medical mistakes, choking on ingested objects and environmental
factors."

Source: Centers for Disease Control.

FBI crime reports, combined with BATFE gun ownership records prove
conclusively that 99.99 percent of guns in the US are never used
unlawfully
or unsafely.

Maybe the total number of guns should be reduced so that the .01 does not
account for so many deaths!

Motes and planks. The actual number in 1994 was 38,505, which amounts to
0.0001 percent of the population. Given the massive number of deaths that
would inevitably result if guns were banned and confiscated in this country,
that number, while unfortunate, is acceptable.

Moreover, between 1962 and 1994, 94 percent of gun deaths were caused by
suicide and homicide.

Suicide is a fundamental human right, and I would not presume to interfere
in someone's ability to end their own life if they so choose, and homicide
is not reduced by gun bans, it is radically increased.

That's an admirable safety record by any metric.

Swimming pools and five gallon buckets are more dangerous to children than
guns are, by far.

Did you have over 30000 swimming deaths last year?

Nope, just 3,281 in 2000 for all groupings. But that was not my claim.

According to the CDC, In 2002, 775 children between 1 and 14 drowned and
2,208 were killed in motor vehicle accidents. By comparison, in 2002, only
59 children between 1 and 14 died from unintentional firearm injuries.

Children in that age group are thirteen times more likely to drown than be
accidentally shot.

Firearm deaths don't even make it into the top ten causes of death by
unintentional injury for children age 1-14

Source: CDC WISQARS database "2002 United States Unintentional Injuries,
ages 1-14, All races, Both sexes." Total deaths=4359.

FYI, that's a silly argument, since pools are not built to be used to kill
people.

Neither are guns, but your argument is fallacious because it attempts to
link the purpose of the object to the factual incidence of death associated
with that object. This fallacy merely attempts to "demonize" guns because
they may be used deliberately for lethal purposes. It matters not what the
"intended purpose" of the object is...it's merely an object with no
independent will or ability to act. What is done with that object is up to a
human being.

The point of my statement, which you obviously missed...probably
deliberately...is that you're looking for motes while ignoring planks. If
your real concern were preventing deaths, of children or anyone else, you
would be concentrating on motor vehicle safety, drowning, poisoning, fires
and suffocation before worrying about firearms.

But you don't, which indicates that you are merely an anti-gun hoplophobe
trying, as usual, to demonize gun ownership.

Still, even if it weren't, banning guns only results in MORE gun related
deaths, not fewer. Just ask Britain, Australia and, yes, Canada.

Um. You mean we have more gun-related deaths in Britain, Australia, and
Canada?!?!?

More than you did before you banned guns.

Well geezus christ you idiot, we live next to the US!!!!!!

What's the cause/effect relationship you're trying to show with this obtuse
statement?

But our gun deaths in Canada are MINISCULE compared to the United States.
Even in cities that are just minutes away from major US centers.

But what is happening to the RATE of gun (and criminal) violence in Canada
since you banned guns? That's what's important, because it is directly
related to the effectiveness of gun bans in protecting society.

In other words, because you are so slow, it means that you ought to consider
whether banning guns is a good thing, because it inevitably results in MORE
people being victimized, injured and killed by violent criminals than before
the gun ban, and it also results in MORE injuries and deaths as a result of
criminal violence than were caused by gun accidents before the ban.

That has been the experience in the US. There is no doubt whatever that what
I say is true, and will continue to be true for Canada, Britain and
Australia. Gun bans KILL MORE PEOPLE than ubiquitous gun ownership EVER HAS.

Violent crime in Great Britain,
for example, is running rampant. In all three places, violent crime has
jumped markedly and continues to rise at record rates BECAUSE your masters
in government banned the ownership and possession of defensive firearms by
law-abiding citizens. You see, criminals LIKE gun bans, because it ensures
that they can pursue their criminal careers with impunity. Moreover,
criminals don't care a fig for gun bans, because it's already illegal for
them to possess a firearm with the intent to use it in a crime.

Ridiculous.

No, fact. Go look it up.

The world is a more violent place, and (thanks in large measure
to the US) guns are more readily available.

And yet you CANNOT prove a causal link between the ready availability of
guns and an increase in violence. This is because, in point of actual fact,
precisely the opposite is true. The more guns there are in a society, the
less crime there is.

But you don't hear citizens in
the UK or Canada looking to have more assault weapons on the street so they
will feel safer, because, well, only a nut like you would argue that.

Actually, I've heard any number of Canadians arguing for exactly that. In
fact, even your own provinces are refusing to enforce the gun
registration/ban programs imposed by your government masters. British
Columbia, for example, has told Ottowa to pound sand.

Seems you have a few "nuts" up there. Good for them.

The opposite is true in the US, where violent crime rates continue the
dramatic reductions that began back in the 80s when the trend towards
lawful
concealed carry started to spread across this country.

Where'd you get that loony idea?

Well, from the Home Office, actually.

It seems to me like you've had 30000 - 35000 gun deaths every year for about
the past 20 years. No?

Evasion. Can you disprove my claim?

You really are a full on nut!

Pot, kettle, black.

What's my nutty attitude? That more guns does not create safer communities?

Indeed. Our "experiment" in putting more guns in communities, via lawful
concealed carry in more than 40 states over the last 20 years, proves you to
be utterly wrong.

Then call me Mr. Planters!

You're Mr. Planters.

If the framers could have foreseen that nuts like you would have
interpreted
that "right to bear arms" phrase to mean "the right to carry a multiple
clip
semi-automatic easily converted to fully automatic military assault
weapon
and fire it into a McDonalds when I lose my temper" I'm pretty sure
they
would rethink the whole thing.

Fortunately you don't get to second guess them. And they were perfectly
aware of the potentials of firearms.

Actually, the constitution has undergone quite a lot of amendments, for
example, a black person is now consider equal to a white person in value.
At
least on paper. The framers obviously had no idea what the USA of 2005
would
be like. They didn't know about nuclear weapons. Crack houses. Assault
weapons.

The genius of the Framers is that they created a system that can both
respond to public need while protecting fundamental rights.

The problem on America's "crack house" streets is not too many "assault
weapons," it's too FEW. A few hundred good, law-abiding citizens resolved
to
drive crack dealers from their community by force of arms would have
things
cleaned up in a hurry.

Yup, and don't worry about the baby that gets shot in the head by accident.

Urban warfare is dangerous, it's true. However, by and large, crackheads and
drug dealers are cowards and they fold up like a house of cards when
confronted by superior armed force.

Or the house that wasn't really a crack house.

Oh, I think the people who live on the block have a pretty good idea of
which houses are crack houses...a far better idea than even the police.

Or the anarchy and everyday
violence that comes from shooting your gun at whoever is bothering you.

The only one making any such suggestion is you.

Another bit of misinformation you spout that needs debunking: No legal
semi-automatic firearm in the US can be "easily converted" to fully
automatic fire. In fact, one of the requirements of the BATFE regarding
semi-automatic firearms is that to be legal, it must NOT be "easily
convertible" to fully automatic fire.

Factually, any semi-automatic firearm, including shotguns, CAN be made
to
fire more than one round per trigger pull, but doing so is a serious
federal
crime, and it's done quite infrequently. Moreover, in every mass killing
event in the US, no weapon used by an assailant was "fully automatic."
They
were all, at best, semi-automatic.

It's good to know (?) that it's not necessary to bother with the
conversion
to fully automatic in order to commit a mass slaying.

True. What really facilitates mass slayings is the lack of legally carried
firearms in the hands of law-abiding, responsible (and proficient)
citizens.
It's much harder to "spray bullets around" when someone is shooting back
at
you. That's why, for example, no Israeli school has been attacked by
terrorists in more than 20 years. Today, Israeli citizens carry
fully-automatic military firearms, often issued to them BY the military,
which they use to defend themselves against terrorists...pretty
effectively
too.

So if you want to feel safe, you would suggest moving to Israel?

No, I suggest obtaining and carrying defensive firearms where you live.

Nor do people randomly shoot up McDonalds because the "lost their
temper."
Mass killings are very rare, that's why they make the news. But the
single
common factor in EVERY mass shooting, worldwide, is that the shooter was
the
ONLY PERSON with a gun. In almost all cases, had there been one or more
good
citizens who were lawfully armed, the mass killing likely would not have
occurred.

Ah yes, if only we all had a gun.

Indeed.

Scary that your ideal would not be that no one had a gun.

Only to a hoplophobe like yourself. I'm a realist. It is utterly impossible
to collect up all the guns on the planet, and so long as any guns are still
in circulation, criminals will obtain them. When you limit the supply of
guns only to criminals, who ipso facto don't care if they are illegal, all
you do is create a pool of defenseless, unarmed victims for the criminals to
prey upon with impunity.

That's PRECISELY what's happening in GB, where the incidence of violent
assault has skyrocketed, and the incidence of "hot burglaries" (which is to
say burglaries committed while the occupants are home...not infrequently in
broad daylight) are also very high.

By comparison, the incidence of "hot burglaries" in the US is extremely
small, and burglars go to great pains to be sure nobody's home BECAUSE they
fear getting shot to death by an armed homeowner.

In GB, however, not only do good citizens not have firearms for self
defense, they get PROSECUTED if they use physical force against an intruder,
even if he's got the family jewels in his hands and is threatening you with
a knife. You're supposed to just let him escape rather than risking hurting
him in any way. What a bunch of dumb fu*ks!!

Around here, you intrude into my house illegally, and I so much as THINK you
are going to use ANY degree of physical force, no matter how slight, and I'm
legally empowered to use deadly physical force. And if I do, I'm immune from
both civil and criminal liability.

That's why burglary rates keep dropping around here.

Then every office argument, domestic
disagreement, incorrect tally on a grocery bill, bumper tap in a parking
lot, etc could easily turn into a bloodbath and we'd all be happy (?)

This is typical hoplophobe rhetoric. You falsely presume that the vast
majority of citizens will somehow be driven into insane, killing rages
merely because they possess a firearm. Problem is that your tripe is
simply
not true, as the 40+ states that have authorized lawful concealed carry
prove. Anti-gunners like yourself routinely predict "bloodbaths" and
"blood
running in the gutters" and "dead police officers at routine traffic
stops"
as a result of lawful concealed carry.

Unfortunately for you folks, it simply doesn't happen.

It doesn't? What are those 30,000 DEATHS PER YEAR all about? Oh, right, they
are all suicides?

Not all, but the majority of them are. Most of the rest are homicides.

According to the CDC, in 2002, there were 11,829 firearm homicides and
17,108 suicides by firearm.

That's 28,937 of your "30,000 DEATHS PER YEAR" accounted for.

There were 762 accidental firearms deaths in the US in 2002.

Next specious argument please...

People who are likely to use a gun to kill someone over a petty
disagreement
in an office are unlikely to be dissuaded by gun control laws in the first
place, and factually speaking, the only way to stop such things once
they've
begun is with firearms. Waiting for the police is not an option, as
Columbine proved. Thus, it is incumbent on all citizens to provide for
their
own safety in such situations by carrying their own gun that they can use
for self-defense.

Yup. If only all the kids at Columbine had been carrying guns.

Or even one teacher or visitor. As it was, we had science teachers using
fire extinguishers and a lot of dead kids.

Total up all the Americans killed in every
war since 1775 and it is less than the total killed in gun deaths
between
1979 and 1979.

Now total up the number of human beings killed by tyrants and murderous
thugs BECAUSE they were disarmed by their government, starting with the
Jews
of Germany circa 1939 and continuing right on down to Rawanda and beyond
and
you'll have hundreds of millions of times the number of US citizens
killed
by firearms since 1776.

So your theory is that we simply need to arm every single person in the
world and we'll all be safer? You are not just a nut. You are a SCARY
nut.

Facts are often inconvenient to gun-banners like you, but that doesn't
change the facts.

Um, there's no facts that indicate more guns = safer society, since you have
30,000+ deaths per year every year.

False logic. The existence of some specific number of deaths per year caused
by firearms is unrelated to the question of whether society is safer with
more or fewer guns.

That question has already been answered, and it is in fact true that more
guns make a safer society. Homicide and violent crime rates drop an average
of 8% in the first years in all jurisdictions where concealed carry is made
lawful, and the declines in violent crime rates continue to climb over the
years to as much as 15%.

The facts prove you wrong.

That's NOT what the framers had in mind.

Of course not. The Framers did not intend that people be killed with
firearms

Haaaaaaaalleeeeeeeloooooya. Halelloya. Hallellooooooo-ooooo-ooooo-ys!

but they DID recognize that taking the firearms out of the hands
of good, law-abiding citizens WOULD result in tyranny and wholesale
death...because that's exactly what happened to them...and the Irish,
and
the Scots, and every other population of disarmed citizens on the
planet.

Hm. Does the average Irish person wish they had more guns around?

Probably.

Maybe you should run for head of state there on that platform.

I'm not Irish.

Keep in mind that the Irish were disarmed by their generational
enemy, the British, who did so specifically so that they could oppress the
Irish.

Which has little to do with what we are talking about.

It has everything to do with it. It's why we, when we formed this country,
resolved to NEVER allow our government to disarm us. Any attempt to do so is
treason and the perpetrators need to have their heads on spikes along the
Reflecting Pool in front of the Lincoln Memorial, as a warning to other
would-be tyrants.

I think
they are pretty happy to be getting past the days when parts of Ireland
were
best known as places to get shot.

Once again, the problem in Northern Ireland is not too many guns, it's too
few guns in the hands of good, law-abiding citizens. I'd bet that if you
lived in Belfast, and the kneecappers came busting in YOUR door, that
you'd
wish fervently that you had an AK-47, as a preference to being nailed to
the
floor through the knees.

I'd wish fervently to live in a society where the ideal is not to shoot
someone else before they shoot you.

That's a good thing to wish. However, as the Arabs say, "Trust in Allah, but
tie your camel."

They absolutely understood that bad people would use guns to kill good
people, and they knew that the only way for the good people to protect
themselves was to be armed.

You really have no clue about American history, do you?

Other than my university degree in History, not much.

Your university degree in Ultra-Left-Wing Socialist History? I'd have to
agree.

It's pretty hard to get a left-wing history degree. Historians tend to be
rather dry old conservatives.

Well, that proves you're lying. Clearly you have no experience in academia.

Apparently you learned
all your history from the NRA sponsored texts.

No, I learned it from reading the actual writings of the Framers, who
wrote
extensively on their intent and purpose, and the Constitution, and the
majority of Supreme Court cases touching on the RKBA since the founding of
the nation.

Your claim to have a degree in history is highly suspect

I'll be happy to prove it to you if that would be important to you.

It's a waste of my time to bother. I judge you on what you write, not what
you claim your credentials are. As Ward Churchill proves, any nutjob can get
a college degree if he picks the right college...or diploma mill. That
doesn't mean squat to me. You could have a PhD in history for all I care,
but if your arguments here are on a tenth-grade level, then I will conclude
that you're a tenth-grader pretending to be an adult. I so conclude.

and if you do have
one, you don't deserve it, because you clearly learned nothing about
American history during your matriculation.

What you mean is that I was not indoctrinated by whatever forces have messed
up your own ability to think.

Whatever. Go watch Spongebob, little boy, and leave the debates to the
adults.

--
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

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message

snip..

In terms of ability to kill more people more quickly, it is
definitely more
dangerous than any bolt action. You won't find too many
drug dealers
sporting a Field King LOL!
=================
LOL Thanks again for the proof of your stupidity. Why
bring up bolt actions? Besides, many people can fire bolt
actions very very quickly. My question was what makes the AK
knockoff any more dangerous that other weapons of the type?

I doubt it.
====================
You doubt what? I asked a question, but I doubt that you can
answer, as that would require some knowledge.
Again, tell us what makes the ak knockoff more dangerous than
other.

I'm sure there are lots of others as dangerous or more
dangerous.
======================
Then why the spew on only assault weapons for the last few days,
fool? Agenda?

All you are focusing on are visual aspects of a gun, the
operation is not any different that many other weapons.

It is different than any type of weapon where a lot of
ammunition can't be fired quickly.
=================
Now you ignorance is really taking over, isn't it? There are
many other weapons not on the assault weaopn list that you
like to spew about that fire just as fast, and just as many
projectiles.

I didn't say otherwise. Look again.
====================
I have, you only want to rant about the cause of the day that
your ideology demands.

Again you porvw that you can't think for yourself, but rely
on ignorance and sensationalism for your ideology.

No idea what you are babbling about.
====================
Of course not, that would require some thoughts of your own,
and your brainwashing doesn't allow for that, does it?

If you mean someone brainwashed me into thinking that 30000+
people dying every year from guns is not a good thing, you are
right.

But at least I am not a liar and a coward like you.
======================
LOL Looks like you should know all about being a coward, since
you are the one afraid to look up the data I have already
presented, and told you where to look.

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

"Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of their
asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything."

Sounds pretty derisory to me.

That is a critisism of their foolish attempts at "proving" God exists.

Why would any attempt to prove that God exists be foolish? At worst it might
be unsuccessful, but when ever is inquiry inappropriate?

It doesn't say anything about people believing in God being fools.

I think you're engaging in sophistry.

But then, you can't read very well.

Or, perhaps I read just fine and understand far better than you would like
me to...

Proof of the existence of God requires, first, a definition of what "God"
is.

How can you prove the existance of something if you don't even know what
it is you are setting out to prove?

It's called "basic scientific research." It happens all the time.

The fact that such belief is an act of faith does not mean that either
church does not believe that God does, in fact, exist.

Belief is not proof. Proof is much more difficult.

No one is saying that belief is proof.

Since God exists in a spiritual world and we exist in a physical
world, there is a permanent problem of proving anything about a
realm in which we don't exist.

How do you know God exists in a spiritual world? What is a "spiritual
world?" What does it consist of? Where is it located? What are it's physical
properties?

On the other hand, philosophical references to a "spiritual world" may in
fact be only one way of describing that which is poorly understood that may
very well be a part of the physical world that we simply cannot detect,
quantify or understand at the moment. It may be that the observations and
faith-based beliefs regarding God come from some unanalyzed, indirect
"ripple" effect of the actual machinations of God acting in the physical
world in ways we ordinarily cannot perceive.

Philosophy is often a way to rationalize that which we do not understand,
pending scientific inquiry and proof. That we have not yet been able to
prove the existence of God in the physical world, and that we may
philosophically misinterpret our beliefs about God as being "spiritual" only
shows a degree of lack of understanding, something that can perhaps be
resolved as our knowledge and understanding of the physical world advances.

--
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 KMAN wrote:

If you desire a rifle that looks similar to the AK-47 we would
suggest that you purchase a stamped 7.62x39 post-ban AK in the
$200.00-$400.00 price range. Then purchase a U.S. parts kit from any of
our
sponsors and install it in the rifle, tell them you want the wood
furniture.
This will allow you to legally have a pistol grip mounted on the rifle.
You
will then need to purchase a non-ribbed 30 round AK magazine from Global
Trades.

The key being "looks similar." Functionally, the firearm operates no
differently if it has look-alike parts installed.

Uhuh. And you think it's unreasonable to describe such a firearm as a
variation of the AK-47? The whole point to begin with is it is a weapon for
killing a lot of people quickly.

Nothing wrong with killing a lot of people quickly, if they need killing.

--
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 KMAN wrote:

I didn't think so, you are just spreading Democrat propaganda.

I am?

Yes, you are.

I don't think so.

Which merely makes you a deluded stooge of the
Liberal/Democrat/Socialist
machine.

How did they manage this?

That you don't know proves how effective their brainwashing and propaganda
is.

LOL. Since they never gave me any information about it, it was a hell of a
trick!

Perhaps. More likely you're just hell for stupid.

--
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

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message

snip...

Either every other person here is delusional, or it's just you rick.
=======================
Yes, you are first and foremost delusional. You are afraid to seek
out the info. You are afraid of real discussion, so instead you puff
out your chest in jingoistic blatherings.

As I've offered, simply post the material and I will apologize.
==============
Already have fool, and on my server they are still available, plus where
I've told you to look. That you wish to remain willfully ignorant
proves your ideology trumps knowledge.

You are a liar and a coward.
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts...

You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation that
Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

You are a liar and a coward.

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

snip

Neither I nor anyone else can see any post from you that provides
evidence
that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

Please provide a link. Otherwise, unless you believe that everyone
but you
is able to see them, you may have to accept that they do not exist.
=================
I have, and I've told you where else to check several times.
that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your decision.

No one else has seen this post that you say you made. None of them.
================
You've asked the whole world have you? What a hoot fool. Again, why
are you afraid to look up the info for yourself? Why do you want me
to, whne I already have and you didn't like the messenger?

The information does not exist, because you are wrong.
==============
Keep telling yourself that, and maybe someday you might even believe it.
That you wish to remain willfully ignorant proves your ideology trumps
knowledge.

You are a liar and a coward. =================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts...

You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation that
Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

You are a liar and a coward.

"rick" wrote in message
nk.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

snip

You are afraid of real discussion, so instead
you puff out your chest in jingoistic blatherings.

There is nothing jingoistic about asking you to post the materials to
support your claim. But you can't, because they don't exist.
==================
LOL I posted support for my claims, you have not. All you've done is
thump your chest and make claims that I disproved.
You didn't like that, so you have ignored the posts and/or claimed the
messenger was bad. Too bad for you that the facts remain available, and
are there for you to see, if you'd ever open your eyes.

You are a liar and a coward.
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts... I'm not the one that is making claims that aren't being
backed up, that would be you, fool.

You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation that
Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

You are a liar and a coward.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

"Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of their
asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything."

Sounds pretty derisory to me.

That is a critisism of their foolish attempts at "proving" God exists.
It doesn't say anything about people believing in God being fools.
But then, you can't read very well.

Proof of the existence of God requires, first, a definition of what
"God"
is.

How can you prove the existance of something if you don't even know what
it is you are setting out to prove?

The fact that such belief is an act of faith does not mean that either
church does not believe that God does, in fact, exist.

Belief is not proof. Proof is much more difficult.

Since God exists in a spiritual world and we exist in a physical
world, there is a permanent problem of proving anything about a
realm in which we don't exist.

Mike

Unless you are insane. Those who KNOW that "god" exists are quite certain
about it and see no problem with promoting their unique personal fantasy as
factual reality.

Perhaps they are privy to knowledge you aren't.... That would not be at all
surprising.
--
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

"rick" wrote in message
nk.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t, rick
at
wrote on 2/25/05 12:13 AM:

snip

Whatever it was, it wasn't truthful. Because, the truth is, I
never said
what you claimed I said.
========================
Your intent was the same...

My intent was exactly what I stated, not something you made up.
====================
Yes, spewing your ignorance. That wasn't something I made up.

Actually, it was.
==============
No, your have displayed your ignorance quite well. You have proven
that you cannot use your computer.

The fact that you just responded to a message sent from my computer
proves that I can use it.
=====================
LOL Nice tap dance queeny. Now prove that you realy can use your
computer and look up the data that I have posted for you. Or are you still
too afraid to do that?

You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation that
Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

You are a liar and a coward.

You have proven that you cannot accept facts that interfere with your
fantasies.

What facts? Please present them.
=================
I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts... I'm not the one that is making claims that aren't being
backed up, that would be you, fool.
Why have YOU been afraid to look. The sites are still there, my posts are
still there, the only thing missing is your courage to look at them.

You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation that
Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

You are a liar and a coward.

You have proven that you are a buffoon.

I think behaviour befitting a buffoon could include:

1) corresponding with someone via computer and then telling them they
don't know how to use a computer
====================
You've made it apparent that you do not know how to use your computer
effectively. That, or you've proven that you are afraid of what you will
find.

You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation that
Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

You are a liar and a coward.

2) telling them that they cannot accept facts that you have failed to
present
==================
I have presented facts, dolt. It is YOU that has made claims that you
have never backed up. It is you that has been lying.

You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation that
Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

You are a liar and a coward.

3) at this point, the idea that you are going to start making sense has
become a fantasy
======================
Fantasies and delusions are what you live by. Me? I prefer to deal in
reality. And that is what I have posted for you. You have decided that
you prefer your willful ignorance and delusions. Thanks for proving it
yet again.

You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation that
Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

You are a liar and a coward.

http://www.freep.com/news/locway/shoot4_20040604.htm
=====================
NAme the corner store they bought their weapons from, fool. thanks
again for displaying your ignorant ideology.

Does it matter which store they bought them at!??!?!!??!
===========================
LOL You're theone that keeps saying they trot down to the corner
gun-mart, like there's one on every crack dealers corner. That's just
part of your ignorant delusions.

Well, they got them, and shot up the neighbourhood, isn't THAT the point?
==========================
Tap, tap, tap. Nice dance there queeny.

No dancing. That's the point.

But I'll see your corner gun-marts and raise you a corner gun
rent-a-center, like they have in Toronto.
http://www.diversitywatch.ryerson.ca...globe_jan7.htm

So? I'm not in favour of drug dealers buying guns and shooting people
in Canada either!
==================
Yet you can rent one for just that purpose. haven't seen any rent-a-gun
shops around here.

There's actually more than just me here in Canada. They can close every
gun shop of ever type for all I care.
====================
And fortunately for everyone else, you aren't the person that gets to make
that call.

Never said I was.

Now where's your link that proves Canadians are dying in wait lines
for
health care?
=================
I have, and I've told you where else to check several times.
that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your decision.

No one else has seen this post that you say you made. None of them.

Either every other person here is delusional, or it's just you rick.
=======================
Yes, you are first and foremost delusional. You are afraid to
seek out the info. You are afraid of real discussion, so instead
you puff out your chest in jingoistic blatherings.

The info does not exist. Prove me wrong. Or are you a coward?
=================
I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts... I'm not the one that is making claims that aren't being
backed up, that would be you, fool.
Why have YOU been afraid to look. The sites are still there, my posts are
still there, the only thing missing is your courage to look at them.

You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation that
Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

You are a liar and a coward.

snip..

There's no need for assault weapons, other than the selfish fascination
of gun nuts or those who want to kill a lot of people in a short period
of time.
=====================
Again fool, tell us the difference between this assault weapon and any
other available. There are far more powerful and deadly weapons out
there fool.

Good, get rid of those too.
================
You aren't the person that makes that call. Unlike you I live in a more
free society apparently. At least one where I'm not trapped by my
ideology, brainwashing, and delusions.

I'm carrying along with life and doing just fine, thanks. But I don't have
to say I love guns if I don't.

=======================
Yes, you are first and foremost delusional. You are afraid to
seek out the info. You are afraid of real discussion, so instead
you puff out your chest in jingoistic blatherings.

I'm not afraid. Prove me wrong. I say the information does not exist. Are
you a coward?
======================
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts... I'm not the one that is making claims that aren't being
backed up, that would be you, fool.

You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation that
Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

You are a liar and a coward.

Like I said before fool, that you are too afraid to know the facts is
no skin off my nose. I gave you the opportunity to find them yourself,
because if I bring them up, you claim they are biased sources. Whay a
hoot you are. thabnks again for proving your ignorant ideology...

No one else has seen this post that you say you made. None of them.

Either every other person here is delusional, or it's just you rick.
=======================
Yes, you are first and foremost delusional. You are afraid to
seek out the info. You are afraid of real discussion, so instead
you puff out your chest in jingoistic blatherings.

I say you are a liar. Prove me wrong. Are you a coward?
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts... I'm not the one that is making claims that aren't being
backed up, that would be you, fool.

You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation that
Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

You are a liar and a coward.

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

snip

I never said any such thing, nor implied it. If even one person
is killed
with an assault weapon - a gun that is designed to kill many
people quickly
- that's obviously too many.
=====================
Yes, that is exactly what you keep implying when you talk about
spraying in parks.

It happens.
===================
What corner store did they buy these guns from? Your ignorance is
exposed, again...

AHAHAHA!

So now it matters which store they bought them at?

Heehee. It's fun watching you get so pathetically desperate!
======================
LOL That's a hoot coming from the tap dance queen...

You've been tap dancing for days on end. You are a liar and a coward.
=================
Wow, a mimic now too. See, I've told you you have no independent
thoughts of your own.
I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts...
I'm not the one that is making claims that aren't being backed up, that
would be you, fool. Why have YOU been afraid to look. The sites are
still there, my posts are still there, the only thing missing is your
courage to look at them.

You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation that
Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

You are a liar and a coward.

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message

snip..

In terms of ability to kill more people more quickly, it is
definitely more
dangerous than any bolt action. You won't find too many drug dealers
sporting a Field King LOL!
=================
LOL Thanks again for the proof of your stupidity. Why bring up bolt
actions? Besides, many people can fire bolt actions very very
quickly. My question was what makes the AK knockoff any more dangerous
that other weapons of the type?

I doubt it.
====================
You doubt what? I asked a question, but I doubt that you can answer, as
that would require some knowledge.
Again, tell us what makes the ak knockoff more dangerous than other.

I'm sure there are lots of others as dangerous or more dangerous.
======================
Then why the spew on only assault weapons for the last few days, fool?
Agenda?

Because assault weapons are an obvious and logical starting point in getting
rid of weapons that serve no useful purpose but to kill people.

All you are focusing on are visual aspects of a gun, the operation is
not any different that many other weapons.

It is different than any type of weapon where a lot of ammunition can't
be fired quickly.
=================
Now you ignorance is really taking over, isn't it? There are many other
weapons not on the assault weaopn list that you like to spew about that
fire just as fast, and just as many projectiles.

I didn't say otherwise. Look again.
====================
I have, you only want to rant about the cause of the day that your
ideology demands.

I'm not ranting at all.

Again you porvw that you can't think for yourself, but rely on
ignorance and sensationalism for your ideology.

No idea what you are babbling about.
====================
Of course not, that would require some thoughts of your own, and your
brainwashing doesn't allow for that, does it?

If you mean someone brainwashed me into thinking that 30000+ people dying
every year from guns is not a good thing, you are right.

But at least I am not a liar and a coward like you.
======================
LOL Looks like you should know all about being a coward, since you are
the one afraid to look up the data I have already presented, and told you
where to look.

You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation that
Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

You are a liar and a coward.

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

If you desire a rifle that looks similar to the AK-47 we would
suggest that you purchase a stamped 7.62x39 post-ban AK in the
$200.00-$400.00 price range. Then purchase a U.S. parts kit from any
of
our
sponsors and install it in the rifle, tell them you want the wood
furniture.
This will allow you to legally have a pistol grip mounted on the rifle.
You
will then need to purchase a non-ribbed 30 round AK magazine from
Global
Trades.

The key being "looks similar." Functionally, the firearm operates no
differently if it has look-alike parts installed.

Uhuh. And you think it's unreasonable to describe such a firearm as a
variation of the AK-47? The whole point to begin with is it is a weapon
for
killing a lot of people quickly.

Nothing wrong with killing a lot of people quickly, if they need killing.

And there you have it, Scott Weiser, future mass murderer.

A Usenet persona calling itself Galen Hekhuis wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:56:14 GMT, "Michael Daly"
wrote:

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

First, he was a brutal tyrant who was murdering
his own people wholesale and was engaging (and condoning) the most heinous
sorts of torture, rape and brutality imaginable.

Which also describes US treatment of prisoners in Iraq.

I've kind of wondered about this.Who thought Abu Ghraib was a good place
to continue to keep prisoners? From what I understand, the place had a
pretty bad rep even before the US got there. Why not just tear it down?

Because US Intelligence wanted to use it's reputation as one of the methods
of breaking the prisoner's ability to resist questioning.

For that matter, why did US generals and others use Saddam's palaces?

Why shouldn't they? They were unoccupied, which meant that US troops did not
have to either build new buildings or displace residents from their homes,
and they were fortified (heavily) which provided security against insurgent
attack...and they were the access points for the vast network of underground
bunkers and tunnels, so it was necessary to occupy them if for no other
reason than to prevent the insurgents from getting into the tunnels.

And if our soldiers got to bathe in gold-plated tubs and sleep on silk
sheets, well, so what? To the victors go the spoils, and they deserved every
bit of the luxury after what they accomplished.

Having an occupying army billeted in luxury smacks more of "new boss same
as the old boss" than it does of any kind of "liberation."

Do you really think that the Iraqi people are so stupid that they can't
differentiate US liberators from Saddam Hussein? That sounds somewhat
elitist, if not racist, to me.

Besides, most of that "luxury" had been thoroughly bombed beforehand.

Second, he was facilitating
and harboring terrorists, which threatened world peace and facilitated the
9/11 attacks.

No one has ever made a credible link between Saddam and 9/11.

Even George W Bush has said he has seen no evidence to link Saddam and
9/11.

And yet there is a link. You just haven't heard about it because the liberal
press has been concealing it. Go read some back issues of Soldier of
Fortune. They reported on the links shortly after the war started.

--
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:

Weiser says:
=========
Terrorists and terrorist-supporting nations are not "freedom fighters."
=============

depends whose ox is being gored...

Nope.

a rose by any other name....

Nope.

six of one - one half dozen of another

Nope.

who is writing the history books?

The winners, which will be us.

The fact that you cannot distinguish between terrorists (and the nations
which support them) who deliberately target civilians in a calculated
attempt to instill terror from soldiers (including "freedom fighters")
engaging other soldiers in a war is reprehensible.

--
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 KMAN wrote:

What's to stop an accused crack dealer from buying an assault rifle at the
shop on the corner and shooting a witness?

Well, a couple of things: First, there's the background check prior to
purchase and second, and most importantly, there's the likelyhood that the
witness will himself be armed and capable of defending himself. Third, there
may be other armed citizens around who can likewise take down the crack
dealer.

Then there's the fact that he'll probably be in jail and won't be able to
even attempt to buy a gun.

But, sometimes that happens, though quite rarely. Most crack dealers are
crack dealers, not murderers. These days, a lot of them don't even carry
guns, because the penalties for dealing crack while in possession of a gun
are positively draconian...and should be.

I'm not implying anything. I'm saying it: if more than one person is killed
with an assault weapon that is one too many.

Utopian nonsense.

How about if that "one person" is a child-molester/murderer just about to
slit the throat of a little boy he's just finished raping? Is it okay to
shoot him with an "assault weapon?"

How about if that "one person" is about to slit YOUR throat? Would you be
hoping someone might kill him before he finishes, or is your dedication to
non-violence deep enough that you would rather be brutally and painfully
murdered rather than have your attacker killed by someone with a gun?

How about if it's your wife, or your child?

How deep is your belief?

I've never met anybody who didn't have a limit somewhere that would provoke
them to use deadly force to defend someone dear to them.

Are you the first?

Somehow I doubt it.
--
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:

wilko, you warned about some of these characters... i may be wrong,
because i'm new here, but after a constant barrage of rick posts, i was
very happy to see scott back... am i going nuts myself?

Going? No, not "going." Past-tense would be appropriate however.

--
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 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

No, I don't like ultra-leftist liberal propaganda.

You've obviously never listened to the CBC.

Wrong. That's *why* I characterize it as I do.

Once again, you use
your fantasies to create something to criticize. Try dealing
with reality.

The fact that you can't figure out the political slant of the CBC is
unsurprising. Ultra-leftist liberals are incapable of distinguishing
propaganda from fact, it's in their DNA.
--
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 riverman wrote:

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

Hindsight is always 20/20, but the fact remains that at the time the
decision to go to war was made, the available evidence supported the
president's decision.

Foresight not being 20-20 does not forgive errors discovered in hindsight.

Of course it does. If we were required to have 100% accurate information
before acting, nothing would ever get done.

If our intelligence was wrong, it was our intelligence's fault.

Or, it was just a matter of not being able to get more conclusive evidence
and having to operate on what we knew at the time.

And you
might be the only voice crying out that you still think our intelligence was
right.

I didn't say it was right, I said the president made a decision based on the
best available intelligence. It's his authority to make such decisions.

Do you still believe that we invaded Iraq because we believed that he had
WMDs??

No, we KNEW he had used them in the past, and therefore he necessarily HAD
them, and we KNEW that he was refusing UN inspections to confirm that he had
properly disposed of them, and we had EVIDENCE that he still had both WMD's
and production facilities. We invaded for those and numerous other reasons.

Even Bush has stopped singing that song, you might as well also. The
new reason is because he was a despot and impediment to Freedom and had to
go for the benefit of his people.

It's not a "new" reason, it was one of the reasons all along.

If we claim we invaded because we thought
he had WMDs, and discovered that he did not, then it makes it our error,

Not necessarily.

not his crime.

One of his crimes was developing, stockpiling and deploying WMD's. The other
crime was failing to cooperate fully with the UN in proving to our
satisfaction that he had disposed of those stockpiles.

Absent his full and unfettered cooperation, and in the face of massive
evidence of cover-ups and shell-game movements of suspected WMD's during the
12 years he was supposed to be cooperating, the president concluded that he
was concealing WMD's and that the circumstances constituted violation of the
terms of the cease fire and were one more brick on the load justifying our
invasion.

If we invaded because he was a despot and had to go, then
we were justified.

We did.

So Bush is being very careful to NO LONGER say that he invaded because he
thought SH had WMDs, but that SDs refusal to demonstrate that he had
destroyed his WMDs was in violation of the UN resolutions, and that left him
exposed to severe consequences.

Indeed.

Those are not the same statements, as one
points to SHs culpability, the other to our fallability.

No, in both cases it points to his culpability. What Bush says now is
consistent with what he said before the war. He said that our best
intelligence estimates indicated that Saddam had, and was concealing WMD's.
The fact that he failed to comply with UN inspections was part of the
evidence upon which Bush reached this conclusion. An innocent national
leader would not deliberately obstruct UN inspections that would prove his
innocence. "Guilty knowledge" and acts that conceal the truth are compelling
evidence of harmful intent.

The problem is that
nowhere does it say 'having your country invaded, your government overthrown
and your cities hammered is the punishment for violating a UN resolution'.

Excuse me? Saddam was warned many, many times that EXACTLY that would happen
if he failed to comply with the UN mandates. He was warned too many times,
in fact. He should have gotten one warning: "Comply with the UN inspections
or face destruction." Ten minutes after he obstructed any UN inspector, the
cruise missiles should have been launched.

Especially as, while it was happening, we were acting IN LIEU of the UN,
without its support or its blessing.

Screw the UN. We don't need its support or its blessing, much less its
permission. The incompetence of the UN in enforcing the cease fire agreement
is what caused the necessity for the US to act unilaterally. We waited
twelve years for the UN to do its job, and it refused. So we did it.

--
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 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Canada might reach absolute numerical parity in gun deaths with the US in a
few years, but it'll take a long time because there are so few Canadians,
comparatively speaking.

You really can't read, can you? The _rate_ in Canada is far, far lower
than in the US. It will never be equal, since no other western country
is as violent as the US.

You're wrong. I strongly suspect that the violent crime rate will exceed the
US's quite soon. GB's has in just a few years.

What's of interest is the increase in the per-capita RATE of violent crime,

And that rate is much, much lower outside the US.

But where is it *going?* Besides, you're wrong. The violent crime rate in GB
is now higher than the US.

Pay more attention,
dickhead.

To you? I think not.

--
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:

TnT says:
===================
That there are subcultures that don't know how to properly exercise our
rights, does not mean that the rest of us should be deprived of being
able to exercise those rights ourselves.
==================

Your argument is seductively simple, but it flies in the face of most
laws that are passed to restrict your actions.

Let's take a very simple example: lawn darts (at least that's what I
think those "toys" were called). After some period of use, it became
clear that these darts presented a serious danger to people using them
in recreational activities in backyards and on picnics (that is, people
ended up getting them stuck in their skulls).

The darts were subsequently taken off the shelves at your local ToysRUs
and, as far as I know, are no longer avalable for sale. Using your
logic, we should all be outraged that, because of a few careless
people, we've been denied the right to toss lethal darts in the air at
our mother-in-law's picnic.

Precisely correct. I am outraged that the CPSC would force the withdrawal of
a an adult lawn game merely because since 1988 only THREE children have been
killed, and ONE child injured by improper use of an adult toy.

That militates for criminal and civil sanctions against careless adults who
allow children to use lawn darts or be in the area when lawn darts are being
used, not a hysterical overreaction to an extremely rare event. The
Nanny-State twits at the CPSC put the company that manufactured this
enjoyable adult device out of business, and that was WRONG.

That's the nature of laws in a civilized society -- the "people" decide
that certain activities, products, whatever, do more harm to the
"greater good" than it's worth. IMHO, guns fit into that category.

Problem is, you're wrong. Way wrong. So wrong that it's imperative that we
ensure that you don't get your way, ever, because if you do, billions of
people will suffer and die as a result.

Many of you Americans clearly disagree. As you can. But as you
disagree, it might be useul to examine how much ownership of guns
parallels ownership of lawn darts.

The only parallel is that responsible adults ought to keep children out of
the line of fire when using, and teaching their children to use firearms.

In both cases, innocent people are
injured and die due to accidents. Had the lawn darts/guns not been
lying around, that misery could have been avoided.

Then let's ban cars. Remember, only THREE children were killed by lawn
darts, ever. That's simply not justification for banning the object, period.

The same is true of guns. Accidental deaths of children caused by firearms
are very few in number, and are being reduced every year, in large part
thanks to the NRA and it's firearms safety training programs.

Banning guns because a very small number of unfortunate accidents happens
is, quite literally, throwing out the baby with the bath water. The
consequences of even trying to ban guns so as to attempt to eliminate
accidents involving children (or adults for that matter) are so horrific
that it's not even open to consideration, even if it were possible, which
it's not.
--
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 24-Feb-2005, "Wolfgang" wrote:

One cannot but believe they'd exist wherever the hell they
please.

As long as you are working with the Judeo-Christian God, you
are stuck with the fact that even among the faithful, there
is no story or myth where God exists in the physical world.
Every contact between God and man in the Bible is by proxy.

Boy, are you ignorant. I'm not even Christian and I know that this is simply
wrong.

Some examples: Jesus is (according to Christians) the Son of God, and is, in
fact, God himself in one of his Aspects.

Second, God contacted Moses directly when issuing the Ten Commandments.

Third, God interacted directly with Moses and the Isralites when he parted
the Red Sea.

And then there's Lot, his wife, and Sodom and Gomorrah...

The list goes on and on.

--
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 KMAN wrote:

Uhuh. And you think it's unreasonable to describe such a firearm as a
variation of the AK-47? The whole point to begin with is it is a weapon
for
killing a lot of people quickly.

Nothing wrong with killing a lot of people quickly, if they need killing.

And there you have it, Scott Weiser, future mass murderer.

Er...that might qualify as libel. I'd be a bit more careful if I were you.

You do understand that there are times when it is perfectly legitimate,
legal and moral to kill lots of people quickly, don't you?

Ever hear of the Chosin Reservoir?

How about Stalingrad?

Omaha Beach?
--
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

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message
nk.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 25-Feb-2005, "rick" wrote:

Please provide a link. Otherwise, unless you believe
that
everyone but you
is able to see them, you may have to accept that they
do not
exist.
=================
I have, and I've told you where else to check several
times.
that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your
decision.

It would take you a lot less time to post the link than
to
keep insisting that you already did. What are you afraid
of?
=====================
ROTFLMAO What a hoot. It would have been far quicker
for you and kman to have looked for yourselves.

Since it doesn't exist, it's not quicker.
=================
Keep telling yourself that fool. That you refuse to look
says all anyone needs to know about your willful ignorance.

You are a liar and a coward.
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts...

You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation
that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.
=======================
Yes, I have. That you are too afraid to read them proves your
willful ignorance.

You are a liar and a coward.
================
LOL You are the one afraid to read the sites provided, fool.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message

snip...

Either every other person here is delusional, or it's
just you rick.
=======================
Yes, you are first and foremost delusional. You are
afraid to seek out the info. You are afraid of real
discussion, so instead you puff out your chest in
jingoistic blatherings.

As I've offered, simply post the material and I will
apologize.
==============
Already have fool, and on my server they are still
available, plus where I've told you to look. That you wish
to remain willfully ignorant proves your ideology trumps
knowledge.

You are a liar and a coward.
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts...

You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation
that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

You are a liar and a coward.
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

snip

Neither I nor anyone else can see any post from you
that provides evidence
that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health
care.

Please provide a link. Otherwise, unless you believe
that everyone but you
is able to see them, you may have to accept that they
do not exist.
=================
I have, and I've told you where else to check several
times.
that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your
decision.

No one else has seen this post that you say you made.
None of them.
================
You've asked the whole world have you? What a hoot fool.
Again, why are you afraid to look up the info for
yourself? Why do you want me to, whne I already have and
you didn't like the messenger?

The information does not exist, because you are wrong.
==============
Keep telling yourself that, and maybe someday you might even
believe it. That you wish to remain willfully ignorant
proves your ideology trumps knowledge.

You are a liar and a coward. =================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts...

You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation
that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

You are a liar and a coward.
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
nk.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

snip

You are afraid of real discussion, so instead
you puff out your chest in jingoistic blatherings.

There is nothing jingoistic about asking you to post the
materials to support your claim. But you can't, because
they don't exist.
==================
LOL I posted support for my claims, you have not. All
you've done is thump your chest and make claims that I
disproved.
You didn't like that, so you have ignored the posts and/or
claimed the messenger was bad. Too bad for you that the
facts remain available, and are there for you to see, if
you'd ever open your eyes.

You are a liar and a coward.
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts... I'm not the one that is making claims that
aren't being backed up, that would be you, fool.

You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation
that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

You are a liar and a coward. =================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
nk.net...

snip

Actually, it was.
==============
No, your have displayed your ignorance quite well. You
have proven that you cannot use your computer.

The fact that you just responded to a message sent from my
computer proves that I can use it.
=====================
LOL Nice tap dance queeny. Now prove that you realy can use
your computer and look up the data that I have posted for you.
Or are you still too afraid to do that?

You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation
that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

You are a liar and a coward.
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts...

You have proven that you cannot accept facts that interfere
with your fantasies.

What facts? Please present them.
=================
I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts... I'm not the one that is making claims that
aren't being backed up, that would be you, fool.
Why have YOU been afraid to look. The sites are still there,
my posts are still there, the only thing missing is your
courage to look at them.

You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation
that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

You are a liar and a coward.
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts...

You have proven that you are a buffoon.

I think behaviour befitting a buffoon could include:

1) corresponding with someone via computer and then telling
them they don't know how to use a computer
====================
You've made it apparent that you do not know how to use your
computer effectively. That, or you've proven that you are
afraid of what you will find.

You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation
that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

You are a liar and a coward.
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts...

2) telling them that they cannot accept facts that you have
failed to present
==================
I have presented facts, dolt. It is YOU that has made claims
that you have never backed up. It is you that has been lying.

You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation
that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

You are a liar and a coward.
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts...

3) at this point, the idea that you are going to start making
sense has become a fantasy
======================
Fantasies and delusions are what you live by. Me? I prefer
to deal in reality. And that is what I have posted for you.
You have decided that you prefer your willful ignorance and
delusions. Thanks for proving it yet again.

You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation
that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

You are a liar and a coward.
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts...

http://www.freep.com/news/locway/shoot4_20040604.htm
=====================
NAme the corner store they bought their weapons from,
fool. thanks again for displaying your ignorant ideology.

Does it matter which store they bought them at!??!?!!??!
===========================
LOL You're theone that keeps saying they trot down to the
corner gun-mart, like there's one on every crack dealers
corner. That's just part of your ignorant delusions.

Well, they got them, and shot up the neighbourhood, isn't
THAT the point?
==========================
Tap, tap, tap. Nice dance there queeny.

No dancing. That's the point.
=====================
Nope, wasn't waht you were saying, fool. Do try to keep up...

But I'll see your corner gun-marts and raise you a corner
gun rent-a-center, like they have in Toronto.
http://www.diversitywatch.ryerson.ca...globe_jan7.htm

So? I'm not in favour of drug dealers buying guns and
shooting people in Canada either!
==================
Yet you can rent one for just that purpose. haven't seen
any rent-a-gun shops around here.

There's actually more than just me here in Canada. They can
close every gun shop of ever type for all I care.
====================
And fortunately for everyone else, you aren't the person that
gets to make that call.

Never said I was.
================
Good. Now, try to live in the real world for awhile.

Now where's your link that proves Canadians are dying in
wait lines for
health care?
=================
I have, and I've told you where else to check several
times.
that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your
decision.

No one else has seen this post that you say you made. None
of them.

Either every other person here is delusional, or it's just
you rick.
=======================
Yes, you are first and foremost delusional. You are afraid
to
seek out the info. You are afraid of real discussion, so
instead
you puff out your chest in jingoistic blatherings.

The info does not exist. Prove me wrong. Or are you a coward?
=================
I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts... I'm not the one that is making claims that
aren't being backed up, that would be you, fool.
Why have YOU been afraid to look. The sites are still there,
my posts are still there, the only thing missing is your
courage to look at them.

You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation
that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

You are a liar and a coward.
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts...

snip..

There's no need for assault weapons, other than the selfish
fascination of gun nuts or those who want to kill a lot of
people in a short period of time.
=====================
Again fool, tell us the difference between this assault
weapon and any other available. There are far more powerful
and deadly weapons out there fool.

Good, get rid of those too.
================
You aren't the person that makes that call. Unlike you I live
in a more free society apparently. At least one where I'm not
trapped by my ideology, brainwashing, and delusions.

I'm carrying along with life and doing just fine, thanks. But I
don't have to say I love guns if I don't.
=====================
Nobody said you had to. What you should try to do is live in
reality for awhile.

=======================
Yes, you are first and foremost delusional. You are afraid
to
seek out the info. You are afraid of real discussion, so
instead
you puff out your chest in jingoistic blatherings.

I'm not afraid. Prove me wrong. I say the information does
not exist. Are you a coward?
======================
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts... I'm not the one that is making claims that
aren't being backed up, that would be you, fool.

You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation
that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

You are a liar and a coward.
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts...

Like I said before fool, that you are too afraid to know
the facts is no skin off my nose. I gave you the
opportunity to find them yourself, because if I bring them
up, you claim they are biased sources. Whay a hoot you
are. thabnks again for proving your ignorant ideology...

No one else has seen this post that you say you made. None
of them.

Either every other person here is delusional, or it's just
you rick.
=======================
Yes, you are first and foremost delusional. You are afraid
to
seek out the info. You are afraid of real discussion, so
instead
you puff out your chest in jingoistic blatherings.

I say you are a liar. Prove me wrong. Are you a coward?
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts... I'm not the one that is making claims that
aren't being backed up, that would be you, fool.

You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation
that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

You are a liar and a coward.
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

snip

I never said any such thing, nor implied it. If even
one person
is killed
with an assault weapon - a gun that is designed to kill
many
people quickly
- that's obviously too many.
=====================
Yes, that is exactly what you keep implying when you
talk about
spraying in parks.

It happens.
===================
What corner store did they buy these guns from? Your
ignorance is exposed, again...

AHAHAHA!

So now it matters which store they bought them at?

Heehee. It's fun watching you get so pathetically
desperate!
======================
LOL That's a hoot coming from the tap dance queen...

You've been tap dancing for days on end. You are a liar and a
coward.
=================
Wow, a mimic now too. See, I've told you you have no
independent thoughts of your own.
I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out
the facts... I'm not the one that is making claims that aren't
being backed up, that would be you, fool. Why have YOU been
afraid to look. The sites are still there, my posts are still
there, the only thing missing is your courage to look at them.

You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation
that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

You are a liar and a coward.
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

snippage...

Whatever selfish but harmless reasons there might be
for
desiring to own an
assault weapon, they can't possibly outweight the
benefits of
not having
them available to those who wish to kill a lot of
people
quickly.
========================
Where are all these people that wish to kill 'a
lot'(code for
1000s) of people?

"A lot" is NOT code for 1000s of people. It's not code
for anything.
==============
Yes, it is. Especially when you keep saying it, despite
the fact that it isn't so.

How much is a lot of donuts? 1000?

Only a nut like you thinks "a lot" means 1000s!
=======================
LOL Nope, you're the one that keeps talking about a lot,
and the 1000s of people that are shot in the US.

1) I have talked about "a lot." This does not mean 1000s.
=====================
Youn are the one talking about 1000s...

I'm talking about a lot of things.

But not once have a talked about one person shooting 1000s of
people.
=================
Nice strawman fool. i never said you claimed one person did.
You keep talking about all these mythical crack dealers on every
corner, buying guns at all these mythical corner gun stores, and
then mythically killing all these people in the park. You do
realize how ignorant you are, don't you?

2) I have also talked about the FACT that more than 30000
people die from guns in the US each year.
================
There you go. See, I knew you'd remember sooner or later.
Now, put you fantasies together and make them all crack
dealers shooting up parks...

You are pathetic.
======================
Thanks for proving you have nothing, fool.

Again, fortunatly you are not the arbiter of
what is or is not needed. You really have no clue about
weapons,
do you, fool?

I know that an assault rifle is designed to kill a lot of
people quickly.
=====================
No, you don't. Try learning a little more. Many assault
weapons calibers are very intermediate cartridges,
designed to wound rather than kill.

Oh, great!
=====================
What, more ignorance on your part? You really don't know
anything about guns except what your brainwashing has taught
you, do you?

Hm. Well, if brainwashing = fanaticism, you should hear
yourself. You really sound...well...crazy.
==================
from the head loony? hanks fool...

What are my loony beliefs?
==================
That no one is waiting for treatment in canadas health care
system as a start. then add anything else you have spewed about
here all week...

There are many weapons that have far greater chance of
killing than assualt weapons. Can any weapon kill? Sure,
even a slingshot, but they don't kill just because they
"look" mean. You really are a hoot. A laugh a minute.

I'll amend:

I know that an assault rifle is designed to put a lot of
bullets into a lot of people quickly.
====================
So can many other weapons.

Good, get rid of those too.
===============
Fortunately yiou don't get to make that call.

Never said I do.

That's why you'll find the statistics of 'assault weapon'
use in crime pretty small.
Again, tell the the difference between the operation of an
assault weapon and others.

I know that an assault rifle and many other weapons are
designed to put a lot of bullets into a lot of people
quickly.
==================
Well a new tune!! Before it was only assault weapons that
could do this. Tap, tap, tap...

Never said that either.
==============
yes, it was all you were spewing about. trying to pretend that
you cared by spewing about a rare occurance by 'assault weapons'.
the proof that your caring is just ideological delusion is that
you are spewing not a bit about things that cause far more death
and suffering in the world. Like health care wait lines....

Only selfish idiots or people who want to kill a lot of other
people would be in favour of having such guns.
====================
Only fools would be in favor of curbing everyone elses
rights...

Rights are curbed all the time. Otherwise there would be no
laws at all. It's a question of balance, and the need for some
nut like you to have a weapon designed to kill a lot of people
quickly does not outweight the public good...unless you are a
nut. Which you are.
==================
Says the head loony?