Scott says:
=====================
You mean like the French and Germans? Well, they came to different
conclusions because they were corruptly in bed with Saddam...

Excuse me? The French not only actually obstructed our intelligence
efforts,
but they were actively trying to sell nuclear technology to Iraq, in
direct
violation of the UN sanctions.
==================

So, Scott, how were the Germans corruptly in bed with Saddam?

As to the French, when you say "The French not only actually obstructed
our intelligence efforts", are you suggesting that that's why the USA
had it all wrong with respect to WMD? Damn those Frencies. If they
hadn't messed with your intelligence, you would have known there were
no WMD and the whole war could have been avoided.

You're right! No more French fries for honest American citizens. Ought
to be part of the Patriot Act, I say.

frtzw906

"rick" wrote in message
news

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

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

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Oh well. Perhaps rick caught that post, and it might work for him. It'd
be good viewing for Scott as well (and all those who live in an insular
world).
============================
LOL Again, you've yet to find me praising the US system. Maybe that's
what you wish I said so that your own jingoistic blather wouldn't look
quite so outragious. It is amazing that you rely on 10-15 year old
books for your current events, and dely that your own health care system
isn't working for every Canadian right now!

How your position has changed...first it was that people in Canada were
dying in waiting lines, now it is that the system isn't working for every
Canadian.
======================
LOL You really are a sad little boy, aren't you? Sarcasm goes right
over your head as much as facts do, doesn't it? There is no change fool,
you're still just as willfully ignorant as ever...

There's a huge change, right there for all to see. You are really quite a
king weasel!

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

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/20/05 5:10 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/19/05 10:10 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:


Wilko

P.S. I'm still laughing because of the image of a bunch of fat, out
of
shape middle aged men with shotguns, pistols and hunting rifles
trying
to take on well trained troops with fully automatic weapons, grenade
lauchers, tanks, helicopter gunships and all kinds of sophisticated
weaponry bought with the tax that those old men paid.

Not only would the U.S. version of the secret police probably pick up
most of them before they could fire a shot,

Well, that's impossible because we do not have a "secret police" force
and
we take great pains to ensure that even the local police do not have
access
to what records might exist on who owns what arms. That's the point of
the
2nd Amendment. There are more than 300 million guns in private
ownership in
the US, and the government has pretty much no idea whatsoever where
the
bulk
of those guns are or who has them. That's not a flaw in our system,
it's a
feature specifically intended by the Framers.

LOL. Yeah, that's what the "Framers" had in mind. Hoods and angry
ex-husbands walking around with assault weapons that you can buy on
street
corners.

The concept is clearly and exactly what the Framers had in mind, if they
didn't have specific information on future weapons technology. They did
*understand* scientific advancement and new technology, and they wisely
decided that to link the RKBA to technology was a recipe for disaster
and
tyranny.

The presumptions of the Framers regarding "hoods and angry ex-husbands"
were
just as well thought out. They had "hoods and angry ex-husbands" back
then
too, and they (again) wisely realized that such people (and their ilk)
comprise a very, very small contingent of the population. They knew that
if
they infringed on the rights of the general public in order to try to
limit
access to arms by the minority of crooks in society, they would be
throwing
out the baby with the bath water.

Benjamin Franklin said it perfectly: "Those who would give up essential
Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty
nor
Safety."

Liberty is defended with arms, and the Framers trusted that a well-armed
citizenry was better prepared to deal with the occasional armed thug
than an
unarmed citizenry would be.

Wow. You aren't faking are you? You're a full on nut! Pleased to meet
you.

History is sometimes inconvenient for gun banners. I'm paraphrasing (and
quoting) those who concocted our system of government.


They PRESUMED that the vast majority of citizens would be armed, and
would
in fact be carrying arms most of the time, and would therefore be able
to
use those arms to keep the peace and defend against criminal assault.

Never
did the Framers intend that the citizenry be disarmed and that only the
police and military be armed. They explicitly and specifically
constructed
our system to prevent precisely that.

And the efficacy of their judgment that the citizenry can be trusted
with
arms is borne out by the experience of more than 40 states which now
permit
lawful concealed carry. In *every place* where concealed carry is
lawful,
violent crime rates drop, and there is no concomitant rise in illegal
firearms use. That is proof positive of the Framers judgment.

Holy sweet fancy moses.

Indeed.


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!

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?

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.

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 right.

Um. Indeed it does.

Being concerned that without a musket in every barn the US could not be
defended has little to do with the ability of some angry husband to take out
his wife and her family with an AK-47 he's purchased on the corner after
hearing about his pending divorce.

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!

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?!?!?

Where'd you get that loony idea?

You really are a full on nut!

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.

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.

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. 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 (?)

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.

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

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

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

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/20/05 5:59 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article K53Sd.37676$t46.25480@trndny04, No Spam at
wrote on 2/20/05 11:42 AM:

just after Bush stole his first presidency.

Bush won the election by every recount so far - have you found a
different
result? I would like to see it. I am not some blind follower of Bush
but
I'm
getting tired of this stupid "Bush stole the election" crap. What
happened
in Florida was absurd, but the result has been verify many times.

???

Perhaps you are unaware that the the Republicam members of the Supreme
Court
stopped the recount.

Well, that would be because the recount was being performed in violation
of
state and federal law in a biased manner that threatened the accuracy of
the
election, and therefore the recount was ruled to be unlawful. The
Supreme
Court is neither Republican nor Democrat, it's a neutral body that rules
on
the law, not on politics.

True or false: it was the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court that
voted to stop the recount.

The logical fallacy of the false dilemma. The political affiliation of the
Justices is irrelevant.

Apparently it wasn't since they voted exactly along party lines.
Coincidence? Only a nut like you would believe that.



As to what every recount so far has to say, it depends on who you ask.
For
every http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm there's a
http://rightwingnews.com/john/tantrum.php

However, the ultimate arbiter has spoken. Clinton and Kerry both lost.

Actually, Clinton won.

I think you mean Al Gore.

Indeed. My mistake.


And as mentioned, thanks to the Republican appointees the Supreme Court
who
halted the recount, it will forever be known as the election that George
W
Bush stole.

The recount was halted by the Supreme Court because it was unlawful, not
because of the political affiliations of the Justices.

In your warped view. Others will continue to carry a different view.

Go read the case
sometime. The legal arguments are perfectly sound and have nothing
whatever
to do with politics.

Others will continue to carry a different view.

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

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/20/05 6:12 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Science probably can either prove or disprove
the existence of God, if and when our scientific understanding
advances to
the point that we can identify the concept.

Religions define their gods quite well.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

You're grasping at straws here.
Probably because so much of your "scientific" training comes from
science fiction.

And you're a moron with an IQ of 40 who drools on his keyboard.


Nor does it disprove it.

Thank you for restating what I keep on saying.

You appear to be saying that God does not exist and that belief in God
is
proof of a lack of intelligence. Since you've just admitted that science
cannot disprove the existence of God, that would appear to impeach your
intellectual credibility somewhat.

Science cannot disprove that a giant green spirit frog rules the world.

Well, not just yet, anyhow.

That
is the strength of religious mythology - it is impossible to disprove the
existence of a deity.

Well, not necessarily. It depends on the diety.

Anyone can make one up, and as long as they can
convince or coerce others to believe it to, they can accumulate power and
wealth - all thanks to a fantasy!

And yet the fact remains that there are many features of our universe that
science cannot explain.

Yup. That's why moon gods and sun goods are somewhat less popular these
days. And why there are lots of nuts who still refuse to believe there were
dinosaurs.

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

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/20/05 6:53 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

Assault weapons are commonly equipped with some or all of the following
combat features:

Let's debunk this:

First, the term "assault weapon" was coined by the press to describe
semi-automatic long-guns that were visually similar to military BATTLE
RIFLES or ASSAULT RIFLES.

Modern military battle rifles and assault rifles are select-fire,
shoulder-fired firearms that can fire semi-automatically or
fully-automatically.

You better tell your President, he uses the term assault weapons. And I
think he knows what he means be it - he means weapons meant for killing a
whole bunch of human beings quickly, slightly modified so that the
trigger
has to be pulled repeatedly instead of just holding it down.

As I said, it's a coined phrase that's entered the lexicon for the express
purpose of demonizing particular visual aspects of certain semi-automatic
firearms. That the president may use it is not really relevant.

It's totally relevant. Most people who are not gun nuts understand what is
meant by "assault weapons" and that includes the president, who could hardly
be described as anti-gun.


A large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to
continuously
fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are
usually
equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines.

This is true.


A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun, which sacrifices accuracy for
concealability and for mobility in close combat.

The "concealability" statement is empty rhetoric. No non-class III rifle
legal in the US is less than 26 inches from end to end when in an
operable
configuration. Hardly "concealable." This is why, contrary to
anti-gunner
rhetoric, "assault weapons" are not the "weapons of choice" for drug
dealers. In fact, rifles of any sort are very rarely used by criminals
of
any ilk.

As for mobility in close combat, this is true. It's also true that
folding
or collapsible stocks are useful for storage and when carrying the
firearm.


A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing from the
hip,
allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon.

"Spray-fire" is a rhetorical nullity, and the claim that a pistol grip
"facilitates" firing from the hip ignores fundamental human mechanics.
It's
far easier to fire a Garand or a hunting rifle from the hip than to fire
an
AR-15 from the hip.


A pistol grip also helps the
shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire

Not just rapid fire, but at all times. Nothing wrong with stabilizing
the
firearm, it makes it easier to hit the target and gives the shooter
better
control over the point of impact, which make it safer.

and makes it easier to shoot
assault rifles one-handed.

Blatant hogwash and tripe! Only the Terminator can shoot a major-caliber
rifle with one hand and expect to even come close to hitting anything by
design.


A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the firearm
can
shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating.

Yes, so what? A "barrel shroud" is nothing more than a different sort of
stock, the purpose of which in any long gun is to provide a grip for
accuracy and protection from burns, which, contrary to this hogwash, can
occur after firing just a few rounds.

It also allows
the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without
incurring serious burns, during rapid fire.

Or during any other sort of fire. Stabilizing the weapon is of primary
importance, and anything that facilitates it is good.


A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, which
serves
no useful sporting purpose.

Except, of course, suppressing flash. Hunters and sportsmen do shoot
recreationally during low-light periods.

The flash suppressor allows the shooter to
remain concealed when shooting at night,

Complete bull****. A flash suppressor does absolutely NOTHING to reduce
the
flash signature from IN FRONT of the firearm. It's purpose is to reduce
the
flash visible to the shooter, to prevent blinding during low-light
shooting.

an advantage in combat but
unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes.

Whether it is "necessary" is not up to this twit to decide.

In addition, the flash
suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire, helping
the
shooter maintain control of the firearm.

Wrong. A "muzzle brake" performs that function, not a flash suppressor,
although devices may be designed to provide both functions. Once again,
maintaining control is a good thing.


A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer,

Er, no, actually, they are threaded to accommodate a flash suppressor or
muzzle brake. That one can thread other objects on the same threads is
not
the same thing.

which is useful to
assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen.

Now here is a complete anti-gun biased falsehood. Silencers have plenty
of
utility for sportsmen. The major utility is that it reduces the muzzle
report, which reduces or eliminates the need for hearing protection.
Sound
reduction is also useful in eliminating noise pollution and annoyance to
neighbors. They are also used frequently when shooting varmints and
vermin
to avoid scaring them off with the muzzle report.

Silencers are illegal

Another blatant lie. Silencers are perfectly legal in the US. Anyone who
is
otherwise qualified to possess a firearm can own one. All you have to
do is
file the tax paperwork with the BATFE and pay the $200 tax and you can
have
one.

so
there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a silencer
on a
weapon.

Untrue editorialism. As I said above, there are plenty of legitimate
reasons
why a person would want a silencer and a barrel threaded to accept it.


A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet, which obviously
serves no
sporting purpose.

Well, unless you get too close to a bear, where it might have some
utility.
Still, it's a harmless feature. And I do mean harmless. I defy this twit
to
provide a single example of a civilian crime committed with an "assault
weapon" with a fixed bayonet.
It's a cosmetic item that poses no danger to the public, but might be
useful
if the particular arm had to be used by the militia or the military in
close
combat.

====

I'm sure that's what the Framers had in mind...that a crack dealer can
arm
his posse with assault weapons with a trip to the gun shack on the
corner
and spray the local park with semi-automatic (or perhaps converted to
automatic) gunfire.

Ignoring for the moment that this almost never happens

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I note that you cannot refute any of my arguments.


he can only "arm his
posse" illegally, not from the local "gun shack," which is tightly
regulated
by the BATFE, and only if he can pass the background check, at which
point
the idea is that other law-abiding citizens will be similarly armed and
able
to take out the crack dealer before any harm is done.

Yep, that's an important freedom to protect.

The important freedom to protect is MY right to have an assault weapon
that
I can use at need to kill the deranged crack dealer and his posse if and
when he decides to shoot up the local park. That, and my right to have
an
assault weapon so I can defend the Constitution and my fellow citizens
against tyranny.

Heehee. You wish you were God, don't you?

Nope, I'm just an ordinary citizen who understands his duty to his fellow
citizens and his right to be armed for self-defense and the defense of
others against violent attack.

You are sitting in your living
room right now with a grenade launcher just cursing the fact that the
USSR
collapsed before you had a chance to take to the streets and defend your
fellow citizens.

Nah, I don¹t have a grenade launcher. They're too expensive and the
ammunition's too hard to get. Besides, area weapons rarely qualify as
proper
self-defense arms.

As for defending my fellow citizens, I do it every day by carrying a gun
every day. It's often a pain, but it's my duty and my right and I take
both
seriously.

You are one of the scariest sounding people I have ever encountered on
usenet. I imagine I will read about you one day.


In fact, I
understand that the USA is one of the best places for a terrorist to
pick up
an AK-47 these days.

Wrong. AK-47's are fully-automatic battle rifles that are not available
to
the general public.

So much for this line of crap.

My yes, you've certainly made me feel silly. I neglected to put the word
phrase "a variation of" in front of "AK-47."

It's not even a variation. But you are indeed silly. You don't understand
history, technology or law when it comes to firearms in the US. This is,
of
course, because you are a brainwashed slave of your government, which
makes
your ignorance entirely understandable.

I don't think my government ever speaks on these issues, how are they
managing to turn me into a brainwashed slave?

FYI:

The AK-47 is currently unavailable to the general public in the U.S., very
few were imported into the country and those that did got snatched up by
collectors. 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.

http://www.ak-47.net/ak47/akru/ak47.html

The AK Info Center is a collection of articles on AK related items. We
provide free information on different variants, parts, ammunition and
accessories for the AK. You are free to browse or download the printed
version, however none of the images/trademarks may be used without explicate
permission from their owners.

http://www.ak-47.net/ak47/index.html

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


"rick" wrote in message
news

I think the fact that more than 30,000 Americans will be killed by guns
at
the hands of their fellow citizens this year is massively irrational.
========================
Tell me, how many were with these so-called assault weapons, by the
corner
drug-dealer.

Why are you offended by the term assault weapons?

Because it's a semantic deception. It's a phrase coined by the liberal
media
in an attempt to demonize certain semi-automatic firearms based on their
visual appearance.

Nice try at evasion, however. His actual question was "how many" of the
(specious and incorrect) number of deaths you claim were caused by
"assault
weapons?"

Do you have an answer? Clue: The information is available from the FBI,
and
the numbers are actually very small.


If there are national statistics on gun deaths through drug related
offences
I'd be interested to see them.

Then go look them up.

Sorry, I don't play this game. If someone says statistics show this or that,
they should post them, or a link to them.

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


"Mark Cook" wrote in message
. com...
"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .


Time to prove you point. Just exactly how would this recount allow
Gore
to
win the Presidency??

I have no idea.

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?

I'm explaining that in having the vote stopped, the reaction of many
people
(obviously) is that those who stopped it were concerned about what it
would
reveal. Thus, the election will forever be known as the one that was
"stolen."

What they willfully refuse to recognize is that there are perfectly
legitimate reasons to stop the recount that had nothing to do with
concealing anything, but rather had to do with federal election law and
fundamental fairness in voting.

As for what might have been "revealed," Democratic operatives and their
lackeys in the liberal media have been trying for YEARS to "reveal" some
impropriety that proves Bush "stole" the election...and they haven't been
able to prove anything.

Not to you.

To the contrary, EVERY unofficial "recount" of the
ballots, and it's been done several times, proves again and again that
Bush
won and Gore lost.

There's all sorts of interpretations that say Gore won/Bush won.

None of that matters in terms of the impressions and interpretations that
many people in the US and indeed the world will continue to carry about
that
election, and shutting down the recount is one of the major (but there
are
many others) contributors to that viewpoint.

Well, there it is. Your argument that Bush "stole" the election with the
assistances of the "republicans on the Supreme Court" has been factually
demolished but you're unwilling to admit that you're wrong, so now you put
"stolen" in parentheses and attempt to recast your argument as one of
"impressions and interpretations" about the legitimacy of the election.
This
is dishonest debate.

I'm not sure you understand what I am debating.

I think I am part of what is probably a very large group of people who think
that there was an unacceptable and alarming amount of irregularities in the
electoral process that gave Bush a victory in what was obviously an
extremely close vote, and that there should have been a full examination of
these issues with an official recount. That fact that this did not happen
means that the election is forever remembered as the one that Bush stole.

The simple fact is that the Democrats, and their Socialist supporters

You really think the Democrats are Socialists? Wow.

worldwide are simply bereft that their Socialist stooges lost and are
trying
to whip up anti-Bush sentiment using propaganda because they know that
they
have no real foundation for their arguments. Fortunately, we don't give a
damn what "many others" think about our election. They don't get to vote,
so
they can pound sand.

The funny thing is Bush is going around sucking up to the Europeans like
crazy right now. It's kind of embarassing.

Bush won fair and square, both times. Get over it.

Why don't you just admit that you are wrong and end it?

I have no idea who is right or wrong, because we never got to find out.


--
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

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
Weiser says:
================
Not, of course, that the WMD issue was of primary
importance in the first place.
================

OK, what was the important thing then? What was that "1441" thing?

After the fact, you Bushies keep saying "it wasn't the WMD! it wasn't
the WMD! it wasn't the WMD!" But before the war, all we heard was: "
it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD!"

make up your minds.

frtzw906

You acknowledge "before the war, all we heard was: "
it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD!"

Is it possible that you were listening to certain medias that were just
quoting each other over and over and not really researching beyond the
news wire feed, and ending up with the same story. Not the whole story,
just the part they wanted you to hear, and which was the part you now
acknowledge you heard.

When the decision was made to invade, the media had no reason to overstate
the WMD argument, because they had no idea that Bush was lying and no idea
that no WMD would be found and in fact I can't remember even one media
feature that questioned whether or not Iraq in fact has WMD. But if you care
to read the address to the UN prior to the invasion, it's quite clearly
stated that it's about WMD.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

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


"rick" wrote in message
news

I think the fact that more than 30,000 Americans will be
killed by guns
at
the hands of their fellow citizens this year is massively
irrational.
========================
Tell me, how many were with these so-called assault weapons,
by the corner
drug-dealer.

Why are you offended by the term assault weapons?

Because it's a semantic deception. It's a phrase coined by the
liberal media
in an attempt to demonize certain semi-automatic firearms
based on their
visual appearance.

Nice try at evasion, however. His actual question was "how
many" of the
(specious and incorrect) number of deaths you claim were
caused by "assault
weapons?"

Do you have an answer? Clue: The information is available from
the FBI, and
the numbers are actually very small.


If there are national statistics on gun deaths through drug
related offences
I'd be interested to see them.

Then go look them up.

Sorry, I don't play this game. If someone says statistics show
this or that, they should post them, or a link to them.
==================
ROTFLMAO You're the one that claimed that the drug dealers were
buying assault weapons at the corner gun-mart, and that they
killed 1000s of people every year. Seems you failed to ever
back up that stupidity, eh?