"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...



snip

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

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

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
t, rick at
wrote on 2/25/05 12:15 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
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.
========================
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.




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?



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. 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.

"KMAN" wrote in message
news

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

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 2/25/05 12:17 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
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.
=====================
Really? I'm surprised. Your facination with a certain
weapon
because of its looks is quite amusing. Again, what makes
the AK
more dangerous than other weapons?

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.




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.



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?

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

KMAN wrote:
in article et,
rick
at
wrote on 2/24/05 10:44 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
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.
=====================
No, it was not. The only thing 'exposed' was you continued
ignorance on any subject you seem to reply to.





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!
=====================
LOL Do you make this up as you go, or has your fantasies been
the main part of your life for years now?






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.
=====================
Yes, that is exactly what you keep implying when you talk about
spraying in parks.

It happens.

http://www.freep.com/news/locway/shoot4_20040604.htm

Detroit shooting spree deaths climb

Multiple victims contribute to alarming homicide rate

June 4, 2004

Destiny Payne, 11, lost an eye after her home on Dequindre was
shot
up in
April. With her is her mom, Yolanda Richardson. Police say the
suspect
admitted to having the wrong house. His real target was a rival
drug
dealer.
Gunmen spraying bullets with high-powered weapons and killing more
than one
person during a single shooting spree are driving up Detroit's
homicide
rate.

Detroit police call it the new gangster mentality. The haphazard
shooters
kill more than one person in an effort to leave no witnesses
behind
or to
send messages of dominance without regard to who is in the
bullets'
paths.

Such manic gunplay is the latest trend in one of America's most
violent
cities, according to Detroit police, national experts and a Free
Press
analysis of homicide statistics over the past 2 1/2 years.

The numbers show:

* About 60 multiple-victim shootings through May 31 of this
year.
In 17
of those cases, more than one person died, compared with seven
such
deaths
at this time last year.

* The practice of shooting up homes, cars and yards is catching
children
in the cross fire, contributing to child homicides.

RELATED CONTENT

* HOMICIDE VICTIMS: Those in drug trade are statistic leaders

* Of the nation's 10 largest cities, Detroit -- ranked 10th --
experienced the greatest increase in homicides in the first five
months of
this year -- in large part, because of multiple-victim shootings.

But Detroit police say one of the biggest culprits in
multiple-victim
homicides is rival drug dealers.

"There is a drug war in this city. It's not an organized war; it's
a
guerrilla war," said a Detroit homicide detective, who asked not
to
be named
because he feared retaliation for speaking without department
permission.
Criminologists say they do not know of any other city that is
experiencing
as many multiple-victim shootings and related homicides as
Detroit.
According to police in the nine other largest cities, such
shootings
are
rare.

Detroit homicide detectives call them common.

During a single week in May, there were three multiple-victim
shootings,
killing two people and injuring seven. There were no triple,
quadruple or
quintuple homicides at this time last year. But this year, there
have
been.

"You may or may not have the right house. You may or may not have
the
right
person. You may or may not have the right person in the right
house,"
Detroit Homicide Lt. William Petersen said of shooters. "It's just
stupid.
There are so many people dying of stupidity out here."

And sometimes, children are the unintended victims.

This year, 11 children 16 and younger have been killed, four
accidentally.In
at least one case, children were injured when a shooter took aim
at
the
wrong house.

Last Friday, a 4-year-old was killed when someone shot up her
father's car
as he was putting his children inside. The child's father also
died.
A
6-month-old child was not injured. There have been no arrests.

Four children were wounded April 7 when the wrong house was
sprayed
with
gunfire.

Yolanda Richardson was making Easter plans with her six children
and
an
8-year-old guest at her home in the 17500 block of Dequindre when
the
walls
exploded with bullets.

The bullets hit Richardson in the buttocks; they struck
16-year-old
Johnnie
and 9-year-old Precious in the foot.

Her daughter Destiny Payne, 11, started running upstairs, pushing
her
friend
up with her, Richardson said. Destiny turned around and was hit
once.

She lost her right eye.

Police arrested the alleged shooter, who they say admitted that he
shot up
the wrong house while looking for a rival drug dealer.

At the home, bullet holes remain in a chair and to the right of
the
door.

Richardson is looking for a new home, but she can't afford one.
The
family
is staying wherever they can find space.

"We were a house full of kids," she said. "Now we are everywhere."

But officers also deal with the other extreme -- when a shooter
deliberately
targets everyone inside.

On March 1, for example, someone got out of a white Ford Taurus
and
opened
fire as he walked up to the home of a reputed drug dealer in the
9700
block
of Woodlawn. Using an AK47, he fatally shot Kevin Cooper, 33,
Robert
Neal,
32, and Dorian Latham, 39, all of Detroit.

Two days later, Toryana Royal, 22, turned himself in to the 12th
(Palmer
Park) Precinct. Another suspect, Alfonzo Thomas, 20, is still on
the
lam.

5 months, 3 increases

Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said she cannot explain why
Detroit has
more multiple-victim shootings than most cities but that she
thinks
better
technology could curtail them.

Worthy said she would like to have better ways to track guns and
casings so
her office could better link criminals to crimes. That linkage
could
increase their prison sentences. She said criminals who kill more
than one
person often have committed other crimes.

In the span of five months, the city homicide rate has seen three
surges,
Detroit Police Chief Ella Bully-Cummings said. The chief declined
to
be
interviewed for this story.

The first uptick was in January, when 18 people were killed in a
six-day
period -- including a triple and three double homicides.The
homicide
rate
surged again in mid-February, resulting in a decision by police
brass
to
require officers to work 12-hour shifts to help curb the trend.

The rate climbed again throughout much of April, when about 40
people
were
killed. In one week in April, there were four multiple-victim
shootings.

James Alan Fox, a Northeastern University criminologist, said
there
has been
a slight increase in gang-related homicides nationally, led by Los
Angeles
and Chicago. But Detroit is not plagued by organized gangs.

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.

Using your logic, we should not be allowed to vote, speak or
assemble
freely, travel freely, be free to pursue happiness, and be happy,
have
a free press, because some misuse those freedoms.

The problem is not in having the right, but in exercising those
rights.
It is the person pulling the trigger that kills someone, the gun
and
the bullet, are just instruments. The instrument could just as
easily
been a ball bat, or as in your neighborhood a hockey stick.

A hockey stick is not quite as effective as an assault rifle,
Tinkerntom.
Don't tell me you are one of these gun nuts too? That's all I need,
agh.


Though in close quarters, I know I would keep my head down if someone
is slinging a hockey stick. Though militarily you are correct, it would
not be as effective.

An assault weapon is obviously able to fire many projectiles in a
short
period of time, and hence kill or wound multiple targets.

Hoorah!

However as a
military weapon, it is primarily designed to provide suppression
fire
control, not necessarily kill power. If you want to kill a
particular
target you would use a sniper rifle, firing a large bullet over a
long
distance, at a very small target. On the other hand an assault
weapon
would not need to hit anyone in order to accomplish its mission,
which
is to cause the enemy combatant to keep his head down, allowing
your
troops to advance on the combatants position, and possibly capture
him
alive. Small caliber bullets and poor sights combined with a rapid
fire
mode are not designed to kill primarily.

Sigh.

That thugs use the weapon, to indiscrimatly kill innocents who do
not
have a chance to get out of the way, does not make the assault
weapon
evil.

The weapon has no other purpose, save for the selfish need of gun
nuts to
add it to their "collection." Is that really so important?

The weapon is a very necessary weapon and has a specific purpose in
military missions. There are those who collect military weapons and
paraphanelia of all sorts, and for them they have a purpose in having
them. The drug dealers have defined another purpose, though not
acceptable from a legal standpoint. Most legitimate gun collectors
probably do not have one in thir collection if for no other reason they
are expensive, and use capital more desirably spent. As far as shooting
them, they are even more expensive, and require deep pockets to support
the overhead of a rapid fire weapon.

Though it is within the scope of the Government to attempt to
restrict access to the weapon because of its illegal use. The AK-47
is
a typical assault weapon, though there are others such as the
MAC-10.
None of which are suitable for hunting game because of their poor
sighting system, small caliber, and single shot capability.

Right. So who needs 'em? Drug dealers who want to shoot up the park,
that's
who!

And the drug dealers don't care about any law that is passed, and will
have the weapons of their choice, no matter the cost.

Another identifing characteristic of military weapons is their poor
fit
and finish. Battlefied conditions do not desire a tight close
tolerance
in weapons subject to mud and debri, that would jamb a weapon. Also
less concern for finish is used for a weapon that may only be used
for
very brief though intense time in a battlefield condition before it
or
the operator is removed from service. Both of these issues make
these
weapons undesirable for hunting purposes.

The only other use for such a weapon is in the case of close action
self defense such as in your home. Though most home owners would
not
have practiced sufficiently to use one efficiently, and generally
not
walking around the home with one at the ready, would likely only
succede in wounding himself, or friend, and generally doing alot of
property damage, before ever wounding the invader. A shotgun would
probably be a better choice for home protection, not requiring
close
aiming, and being simpler to operate, without the penetration of a
high
powered round.

All these things being considered, the Congress of US passed laws
restricting the personal ownership and possession of these types of
weapons. Certain zones such as D.C. are also supposedly gun free.
All
this sounds resonable, until you consider that one of the main
proponents of the above objections, and the Congressional laws,
Senator
John Kerry, apparently owns a number of AK-47 and posseses them in
D.C.
Talk about Hypocrisy! TnT

Sigh. It sounds reasonable even if John Kerry has an atomic bomb in
his
basement.

So is it alright for Kerry to have an assault weapon since he is
breaking the law. Would you want a law breaker having access to the
A-Bomb, as long as he is your man, bought and paid for?

You ask if I am one of these gun nuts too? Please define your label,
which you seem to be willing to stick on everyone and anyone who
doesn't agree with you. Personally I have come to prefer dispensing
aspirin. Tnt

"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.

"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
et, rick
at
wrote on 2/25/05 12:00 AM:
Did anyone else see it?
=================
I have, and I've told you where else to check several
times.
that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your
decision.

Why not simply state the date and time?
====================
The posts were already made. Do your own homework,
fool...

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.

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.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

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

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

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

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

snip

Has anyone seen rick post any reference (credible or
otherwise)
that proves
Canadians are dying waiting in line for health care? If
so,
please provide a
link. Thanks.
=================
I realize that learning things contrary to your ideology
is hard
for you, but you really should try it sometime. Rather
than just
waving your hands and claiming who or who isn't credible,
look it
up. But then, you've already proven that that is too much
for
you, or to scary for you. maintaining your ignorance
appears to
be paramount to your mental well being.

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.

"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


snip


======================
LOL Why can't you simply look it up for yourself? I've
given
you hints on where to look. But then, that would require
some
thought, and you have proven that independent thought
isn't your
thing.

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.
==================================
LOL Still pretending, eh fool? I see you are still afraid
of the facts. Keep up the good work in 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.

I'm not afraid at all. The information does not exist. If you
have information that no one else has, I am asking you to post
it. Thus, I am seeking it out.

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.

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

This demonstrates the depth of your misunderstanding. The whole point of our
2nd Amendment and our very system of government is that the government does
not "permit" anything.

But you keep ignoring the _fact_ that your government and any government
can restrict rights.

Only by force if the citizenry will not obey. And yes, it is true that any
"government" (comprised in this case of a group of people who claim power
and have force available to back up that claim) can "restrict rights," just
as the National Socialist Party did in Germany in the 1930s, provided that
they have the forces available to accomplish that task in the face of
resistance by the citizenry. So what? You state the obvious while ignoring
the equally true fact that no such tyranny can prevail if the people being
oppressed resolve not to be oppressed and have sufficient arms to put down
the attempt at tyranny.

That is a fact. Your government has restricted
the rights of blacks, Indians, women and others in the past and still
can't muster full freedom for all citizens.

Hogwash. Every citizen in the US is as "fully free" as any other. Even Ward
Churchill.


As long as you can't guarantee that your government will never change
rights, you will never be absolutely free.

We can guarantee that. That's what the 2nd Amendment is all about.

A few fat men with guns
notwithstanding.

110 million households with more than 360 million guns is anything but "a
few fat men with guns."

As a testament to the willingness of average, law-abiding armed citizens to
put themselves at risk to defend others, you might want to check out the
example of 52 year old Mark Wilson, an armed citizen who happened to be
present when David Arroyo Sr. murdered his ex-wife. Wilson fired on Arroyo
when Arroyo began shooting at his ex-wife with a semi-automatic rifle
outside a county courthouse. Unfortunately for Wilson, Arroyo was wearing
body armor, and Wilson, along with Maribel Estrada, the ex-wife, were
killed. Deputies later killed Arroyo during a car chase.

Had Arroyo not been wearing body armor, which is the case with most deranged
shooters, it is possible that Wilson could have ended the attack right then
and there.

Disrespecting law-abiding armed citizens by calling them "fat men with guns"
is both petty and mean-spirited. It's my guess that had YOU been standing
next to Estrada when Arroyo began shooting, you would have been ****ing your
pants and praying that someone, ANYONE with a gun would come to your
defense. Whether you believe it or not, I would have done the same thing
Wilson did, even if it meant getting killed in the process...and even if you
were at risk. You see, unlike you, I am not a coward, and I am willing to
put my life on the line to protect others.
--
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 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?

frtzw906