"KMAN" wrote in message
...

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

"KMAN" wrote in message
news

"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!
====================
No fool, there was no change. Especially in your health care
system, and particularly in your ignorance. Must be really
hard trying to keep up, eh? There was no change in the fact
that you cannot back up what you say.

Perhaps it has all happened to fast you missed it.

You started off saying that Canadians were dying in line
waiting for health care.

Your new position is that the system isn't working well for
every single Canadian.
=================
Not is they're dead, eh fool?



Since the latter would be true for any system of health care,
you've watered down your position to something that is totally
without meaning.
================================
No fool, the fact that people die waiting is hardly what I'd call
a system that is working for everyone. Again, sarcasm is above
your level of comprehension, isn't it?

Weiser says:
==================
BTW, a news story today details admissions made by a Syrian
intelligence
officer that Syria is deeply involved in the Iraqi insurgency,
supplying
arms and support, with the express purpose of keeping the US away from
Syria.
================

Interesting. I hadn't heard that.

Of course, if it is, as you cite, "with the express purpose of keeping
the US away from
Syria. ", then that sounds like a strategic move in the interests of
Syria. Or aren't they supposed to take actions which support their
cause?

Historically, has the USA never supported freedom fighters?

frtzw906

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

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

"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?

Since I never made that claim, seems you are wrong as usual.
=============
ROTFLMAO What a hoot! what part of...

"...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..." kamn 2/20/2005 1:41

....doesn't sound familier to you? Or, are you now claiming that
somebody else here is posting fraudulantly using your name?

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.


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, 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.


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.


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.

Um. No it doesn't.


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.

Wrong.


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.

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.

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.


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. 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.

So, the inevitable result is that criminals are armed and nobody else but
the police is, and the police are never around when you really need one (nor
should they be) so more and more people in those countries are being
victimized by violent criminals...because they don't have the means to
defend themselves, and there is no deterrence to the criminal, who need not
fear getting shot and killed by Grandma as he tries to steal her dole check.

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.


You really are a full on nut!

Pot, kettle, black.


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.


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.


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.

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.

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.


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.


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. 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.

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.


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.

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

--
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:

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

The only people who need to be afraid of me are criminals, tyrants and
terrorists. If you are one of the above, then you should be afraid...very
afraid.

And that's the way I like it.



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?

See, you've proven my point. You can't even understand what's being done to
you.


FYI:

Why on earth are you presuming to give me information about firearms? You
are one of the most grossly ignorant hoplophobes I've ever met, and I know
more about firearms than you are even capable of learning in a lilfetime.


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.

Yup. And every one of them held legally is registered with the BATFE as a
"machine gun." More importantly, of the more than 500,000 legally-owned
machine guns in the US, only ONE has ever been used by its legal owner to
commit a crime, in the entire history of the Registry since it was imposed
in 1934. Again, an enviable safety record.

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.

--
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:


"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.

IOW, you know you're beat and are trying to slither out of admitting it. I'm
not going to do your homework for you. Besides, YOU are the one who implied
substantial US deaths from "assault weapons," so it's up to YOU to
substantiate that claim.

Only problem is, you can't.
--
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:


"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?

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


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 anyone. I challenge you to cite a SINGLE reputable report examining the
ballots that has Gore winning.


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.

Interpretations don't count. Ballots do. No review of the actual ballots in
Florida has ever put Gore ahead. Period.


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'm quite certain that you don't.


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.

That's merely liberal whining and logical fallacy. Even if there were not
"full examination" it would not therefore follow that Bush "stole" the
election.

First, "stole" implies some deliberate action on Bush's part to engage in
election fraud. No such evidence exists.

Second, if, as you argue, there was no "full examination" of the evidence,
it is impossible to conclude that Bush "stole" the election. The absence of
evidence is not evidence. One cannot infer from a lack of evidence that
either candidate was responsible for the lack of evidence. I could just as
reasonably say, had Gore won, that he "stole" the election, and I'd be just
as incorrect as you are.

Third, there was an "official recount," and the results showed that Bush won
the election.

There was not an "official recount of the recount" because the United States
Supreme Court ruled that the process used by Florida, and ratified by the
Florida Supreme Court, was unconstitutional.

As to having an "official recount of the recount" including all ballots, the
law does not provide for such a recount. But the law DOES mandate that the
election be certified within a strict time frame. The purpose of this time
frame is to help prevent election fraud and to prevent endless delays of the
certification that has the potential of bringing the federal government to a
halt because some disgruntled voters disagree with the results of the
election.

There is no guarantee of a "perfect" election, there is merely a right to
vote in a "fair" election. If you screw up your vote, and it isn't counted
as a result, that's YOUR problem, not something that impeaches the election.
If you're too stupid to properly mark your ballot, again, that's YOUR
problem. If you care that much, then you need to take great care and ask for
assistance if you're having trouble with the system. The failure in the
Florida punch-card system was in not simply having a regulation requiring
that a "chad" be completely punched out and removed from the ballot in order
for that vote to count. Had they had this simple instruction, there would
have been no debate at all. If you screw up your ballot, it's not the
election commission's problem.


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

You really think the Democrats are Socialists? Wow.

By and large, yes, though many of them aren't far enough left to suit the
Socialists. The Democrats are working hard to get far enough left, however,
even to suit Castro or Marx.


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.

I agree. I'm disappointed in him. But, he's president, so he gets to make
the decisions.


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.

That you have no idea is unsurprising, but not indicative of the surety of
the election.


--
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:
"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.

Thanks KMAN for taking the time from your busy schedule of debating
with rick and Scott, to comment on my post.

The question that I had with Frtzw was regarding what he heard. If he
limited himself to only certain sources of info, he would have heard
what he acknowledge he heard. That does not mean that there were not
other sources of info from which he could have heard additional and
more complete info. I recall hearing many programs speaking of the
human rights violations against Shiite, Kurds, the Iraq Olympic team,
etc. His sadistic sons and the treatment of women, and murder of fellow
countrymen. Fly over violation with his radar targeting coalition
airplanes. Terrorist training. Threats to kill our president, and
generally terrorize the US.

That Powell went to the UN and presented a limited case of UN
violations is not a surprise to me. The UN was not concerned about
human rights violations taking place right under the nose of their
inspectors. So as in any court, the arguement is limited to pertinent
points of law. However that does not mean that their are not other
calls to action that were being made.

If you choose to limit yourself to what you want to hear, then I can
understand when you say that you only heard certain subjects, by
choice. That is different than saying the other subjects were not
presented at all, just that you were ignorant of them.

Now I know that you are generally a bright person, so I would not
characterize you as ignorant, though we all have our blind spots. I
would just encourage you to get more of the story, which may mean
listening to FOX News. I realize that you may not like what they say,
but that is part of being informed. If all you do is listen to the same
tripe all the time, from the network news services, that is part of
being uninformed. TnT

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

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

Absolute bull****. There are _far_ fewer gun deaths in those countries.
In fact, there are far fewer murders of any type in those countries.
The US has the highest murder rate and highest gun death rate of any
western country.

Mike

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Californians need to be on a water diet. They waste enormous amounts of
water. Before you start bashing agriculture, how about taking on swimming
pools and Bluegrass laws?

You're an idiot. Agriculture wastes most of the water and contributes
little to the economy and the guilty are the non-agricultural users.

Yeah, right.

Mike