"KMAN" wrote in message
...



snippage...


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.

Unless there are no deaths from them, it doesn't matter. They
aren't needed
==============
According to whom????? You? You are hardly the arbiter of what
people need. If I were you, the first thing I'd do is look for
an education. Yours was sorely lacking. Maybe you should demand
your money back...





for anything but killing a lot of people quickly.

TnT, I also think it would be interesting to find his opinion of the
large corporate farms (perhaps not in MN, I don't know) that do get
subsidies in any number of ways (water being just one of them). How
does he feel about his hard-earned money going into the pockets of the
corporate types? And, further, ensuring that guys like me, in Canada,
get to eat cheap oranges that don't come anywhere close to reflecting
the "real" cost of production (if the real cost of water where factored
into the equation). If he's upset, he deserves to be.

frtzw906

Weiser, as media critic, recommends the CBC:
========
Turn on CBC. Listen and watch. You will witness first-hand all the
evidence
needed.
=========

Hmmm... got the TV news on right now. Gosh you're right! NOT!

Do you EVER listen? How would you know? Is there an affiliate in CO? If
so, you gotta admit, the best damned hockey broadcaster on the face of
this earth.

frtzw906

in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 8:59 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...



snippage...


For some reason it is not available on usenet. Please post
again. Thanks.
=================
I have. And I've told you where else to check several times.
That you are still willfully ignorant is your decision.

What was the date and time of the most recent posting?

For some reason it is not available on usenet.

Did anyone else see it?

in article et, rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 9:00 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...



snippage..



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?

Please post a link to any evidence that Canadians are dying in
line waiting 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.

What was the date and time that you last posted it?

It does not seem to be available.

Anyone else see it?

in article et, rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 9:12 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...


snippage...


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?

No look at what you said:

"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"
==============
Yes, I repeated the gist of your previous spew... A spew that is
so full of ignorance and idiocy that it only gets the derision it
deserves.

Your "gist" include a specific claim that I did not make. Thus, your "gist"
was an attempt to deceive that was exposed.



I remain confident that the Framers did not have in mind that a
crack dealer could buy an assault weapon at the store on the
corner and spray the park with semi-automatic gunfire.
=======================
No, they didn't have that in mind, and only you belive it or are
trying to say that that occurs. Crack dealers have no rights to
buy arms.

Crack dealers who have not lost their rights to buy arms can buy them. You
do realize that not every crack dealer ends up being convicted, right? Heck,
all they have to do is go down to the corner and buy the right weapon to
shoot any witnesses against them!



What I did not say was that such incidents aco****ed for 1000s
of deaths each year, and thus, you are wrong to attribute that
position.
==================
Yet you keep implying it. How many crack dealers are there, how
many parks? Adds up to 1000s of people killed in your fantasy
world of make-believe.

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.

Oh, and I see that you are in fact capable of re-posting
information.

We are all still waiting for your repost of the evidence that
Canadians are dying in waiting lines.
=================
I have, and I've told you where else to check several times.
that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your decision.

What was the date and time of your most recent posting of this information?

It does not seem to be available on usenet.

Anyone else see it?

in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 9:17 PM:


"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 24-Feb-2005, "KMAN" wrote:

FYI:

Unfair - your trying to confuse him with facts!
====================
It appears that you and kman have confused yourselves. What
makes an AK47 knockoff any different that another less vicious
gun?

Where did I ever say an AK47 knockoff is any different than another less
vicious gun (whatever that means)?

in article , rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 9:32 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...



snippage...


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.

Unless there are no deaths from them, it doesn't matter. They
aren't needed
==============
According to whom????? You? You are hardly the arbiter of what
people need. If I were you, the first thing I'd do is look for
an education. Yours was sorely lacking. Maybe you should demand
your money back...

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.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t,
rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 9:17 PM:


"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 24-Feb-2005, "KMAN" wrote:

FYI:

Unfair - your trying to confuse him with facts!
====================
It appears that you and kman have confused yourselves. What
makes an AK47 knockoff any different that another less vicious
gun?

Where did I ever say an AK47 knockoff is any different than
another less
vicious gun (whatever that means)?
==================
Just displaying the ignorance of you and other anti-gun idiots.
The assualt rifle you keep spewing about works no differently,
and fires a bullet no more powerful than other weapons.

in article et, rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 10:41 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t,
rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 9:17 PM:


"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 24-Feb-2005, "KMAN" wrote:

FYI:

Unfair - your trying to confuse him with facts!
====================
It appears that you and kman have confused yourselves. What
makes an AK47 knockoff any different that another less vicious
gun?

Where did I ever say an AK47 knockoff is any different than
another less
vicious gun (whatever that means)?
==================
Just displaying the ignorance of you and other anti-gun idiots.
The assualt rifle you keep spewing about works no differently,
and fires a bullet no more powerful than other weapons.

If you mean there are other weapons that are equally capable of killing, I
am aware, and never said otherwise.