in article et, rick at
wrote on 2/25/05 9:03 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...

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


snippage...



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

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

How much is a lot of donuts? 1000?

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

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

I'm talking about a lot of things.

But not once have a talked about one person shooting 1000s of
people.
=================
Nice strawman fool.

That's not a "strawman."

i never said you claimed one person did.
You keep talking about all these mythical crack dealers on every
corner, buying guns at all these mythical corner gun stores, and
then mythically killing all these people in the park. You do
realize how ignorant you are, don't you?

You do realize I posted an example from Detroit that pointed directly to
this exact situation (unlike you, I am not a liar and a coward who makes
claims and doesn't back them up). And you do realize that Detroit is not the
only place in the US that has drug dealers that shoot people with assault
weapons, right?

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

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

I have everything I've claimed to have.






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

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

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

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

What are my loony beliefs?
==================
That no one is waiting for treatment in canadas health care
system as a start.

Liar. I never said any such thing. Someone is waiting right now. So is
someone in the United States. It is impossible to have a health care system
where no one is ever waiting. I've waited for US health care myself.

You are claiming that people in Canada are dying in wait lines for health
care. You can't prove it because you are wrong. You know you are wrong, but
you are too much of a coward to admit it.

then add anything else you have spewed about
here all week...

I'm still waiting for you to name just one of my "loony beliefs." Hint: in
order to identify one of my beliefs, you will need to use something I've
actually, said, and then make your argument as to why it is loony.

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

I'll amend:

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

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

Never said I do.


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

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

Never said that either.
==============
yes, it was all you were spewing about.

I never said it.

trying to pretend that
you cared by spewing about a rare occurance by 'assault weapons'

I care about all deaths.

the proof that your caring is just ideological delusion is that
you are spewing not a bit about things that cause far more death
and suffering in the world. Like health care wait lines....

I am very concerned about death and suffering in the word, including
problems with health care. For example, in the United States more than
886,000 deaths could have been prevented from 1991 to 2000 if African
Americans had received the same care as whites, according to an analysis in
the December issue of the American Journal of Public Health. That's pretty
sad.

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

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

No, the head loony says that only fools are in favor of curbing rights.
That's you, rick.

in article et, rick at
wrote on 2/25/05 9:07 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...

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

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message

snip..


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

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

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

Because assault weapons are an obvious and logical starting
point in getting rid of weapons that serve no useful purpose
but to kill people.
====================
LOL If the death of people is the only justification for getting
rid of anything, then cars should be first

The care has a purpose other than killing people. It gets people from one
place to another. Perhaps you were not aware of that.

cigarettes

I'm all in favour of getting rid of cigarettes. In fact, where I live, you
can't smoke inside in any public building or place of business.

Canadian health care system...

At least no one dies waiting for care.

Lots of things kill far more people that
assault weapons. thanks for again proving your ideological
brainwashing, fool...

Assault weapons are not needed in our communities. Other than being used to
shoot a lot of bullets at a lot of people quickly, their only other use is
for selfish idiots who want to compensate for a small penis by having an
assault weapon in their "collection" and so they can dream about being a
hero one day by blasting away at some other idiot with an assault weapon.

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

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

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

I'm not ranting at all.
==================
LOL Okay, lying....

What have a I lied about?

Please quote something I have said and explain why it is a lie.

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

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

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

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

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

You are a liar and a coward.
======================
LOL Looks like you should know all about being a coward, since
you are the one afraid to look up the data I have already
presented, and told you where to look.

You haven't provided anything that proves that Canadians are dying in line
waiting for health care. Everyone knows you are a liar. But you are a
coward, too weak to admit that you are a liar.

in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 2/25/05 10:02 PM:


KMAN wrote:
...snip ...


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?

I'm saying it is not all right! Geezus you can be thick. Kerry is not
"my
man" in the least. Where'd you get that crazy idea?

Different music being piped than in Nov, I guess I need to learn some
different dance steps to keep up with you!

Geezus Tinkerntom, when the hell did I say Kerry was "my man" or anything
like that?

If he's got illegal
weapons, string him up by the balls, go for it. And string Bush up
next to
him for invading a country and killing people on false pretenses.

As far as Kerry being strung up, he has paid the price for his
duplicity!

Fine.

President Bush is still operating within the scope of his
autority, no false pretenses that I can indite him on.

And if you tried, the republicans on the supreme court would turn you down
anyway. LOL.

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

A gun nut...someone who thinks everyone should have a gun and then
the world
would be safer. Someone who thinks the term "assault rifle" is some
"liberal" nonsense contrived to give the FBI the opportunity to
invade
everyone's homes and steal their guns so "the government" can take
over.
Y'know, Tinkerntom...gun nuts.

Gun nut, I guess your definition again doesn't fit me.

Good.

I would not want
everyone to have a gun, though I believe that if they are of sound
mind, that they should be able to possess a gun if they desire.

Everyone who owns a gun now thinks they are of sound mind, Tinkerntom. And
yet more than 30000 Americans will die this year. And next year. As they
have for decades.

The
term "assault weapon" as applied by liberals is only looney if they use
it to demonize all firearms

If they wanted to demonize all firearms it would be foolish to create the
special category of assault weapons.

which infact actually demonstates their
underlying ideology, and not any particular awareness of the function,
limit, and value of particular weapons.
Ironically, if the FBI is using the nonsense to invade peoples homes,
confiscating their weapons, the liberal is more than likely a typical
target of the FBI, in that historically they have had more problems
with the FBI than conservatives. That might be a good reason for
liberals to reframe from gun ownership. Leave it to us who know how to
handle them safely. The FBI I mean! Tnt

Tinkerntom, do you own a gun? I really really really hope not.

KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 2/25/05 10:02 PM:


KMAN wrote:
...snip ...


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?

I'm saying it is not all right! Geezus you can be thick. Kerry is
not
"my
man" in the least. Where'd you get that crazy idea?

Different music being piped than in Nov, I guess I need to learn
some
different dance steps to keep up with you!

Geezus Tinkerntom, when the hell did I say Kerry was "my man" or
anything
like that?

Well you sure did not want Bush, who would be your alternative?

If he's got illegal
weapons, string him up by the balls, go for it. And string Bush up
next to
him for invading a country and killing people on false pretenses.

As far as Kerry being strung up, he has paid the price for his
duplicity!

Fine.

President Bush is still operating within the scope of his
autority, no false pretenses that I can indite him on.

And if you tried, the republicans on the supreme court would turn you
down
anyway. LOL.

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

A gun nut...someone who thinks everyone should have a gun and then
the world
would be safer. Someone who thinks the term "assault rifle" is
some
"liberal" nonsense contrived to give the FBI the opportunity to
invade
everyone's homes and steal their guns so "the government" can take
over.
Y'know, Tinkerntom...gun nuts.

Gun nut, I guess your definition again doesn't fit me.

Good.

I would not want
everyone to have a gun, though I believe that if they are of sound
mind, that they should be able to possess a gun if they desire.

Everyone who owns a gun now thinks they are of sound mind,
Tinkerntom. And
yet more than 30000 Americans will die this year. And next year. As
they
have for decades.

And many more will die of auto accidents. Do I hear a call to ban
autos?


The
term "assault weapon" as applied by liberals is only looney if they
use
it to demonize all firearms

If they wanted to demonize all firearms it would be foolish to create
the
special category of assault weapons.

So do you not have problems with private ownership of other types of
firearms, for example a Browning semi-auto Deer rifle, with scope,
30-06? Or Winchester 30-30 lever action? or Winchester Mod 12 shotgun?
or a Weatherby Mark IV .460?


which infact actually demonstates their
underlying ideology, and not any particular awareness of the
function,
limit, and value of particular weapons.
Ironically, if the FBI is using the nonsense to invade peoples
homes,
confiscating their weapons, the liberal is more than likely a
typical
target of the FBI, in that historically they have had more problems
with the FBI than conservatives. That might be a good reason for
liberals to reframe from gun ownership. Leave it to us who know how
to
handle them safely. The FBI I mean! Tnt

Tinkerntom, do you own a gun? I really really really hope not.

Why would you really, really hope that I don't own a firearm? I have
never shot in anger, of even self defense. I was on a shotgun team in
highschool, and did not do to badly in trap. Then in college, a
competetive rifle team, and have never shot anyone even accidentally,
or had a firearm discharge in a hazardous fashion. I think that I have
always handled them in a demonstatably safe fashion, and have taught
other to do so as well. There have been no accidents with any of my
students. So what was your point? That because I get on this forum and
present an opposing view point to what you advocate, that I should not
have a firearm. Who made you the final arbiter of our Constitution?
That is rather presumptious of you is it not? If having an opposing
view point to you is the main criteria for determining our exercise of
our rights, I would say that you are a greater danger to our
Constitution than any gun nut! TnT

in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 2/26/05 2:44 AM:


KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 2/25/05 10:02 PM:


KMAN wrote:
...snip ...


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?

I'm saying it is not all right! Geezus you can be thick. Kerry is
not
"my
man" in the least. Where'd you get that crazy idea?

Different music being piped than in Nov, I guess I need to learn
some
different dance steps to keep up with you!

Geezus Tinkerntom, when the hell did I say Kerry was "my man" or
anything
like that?

Well you sure did not want Bush, who would be your alternative?

A nice head of cauliflower would have been preferable.

If he's got illegal
weapons, string him up by the balls, go for it. And string Bush up
next to
him for invading a country and killing people on false pretenses.

As far as Kerry being strung up, he has paid the price for his
duplicity!

Fine.

President Bush is still operating within the scope of his
autority, no false pretenses that I can indite him on.

And if you tried, the republicans on the supreme court would turn you
down
anyway. LOL.

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

A gun nut...someone who thinks everyone should have a gun and then
the world
would be safer. Someone who thinks the term "assault rifle" is
some
"liberal" nonsense contrived to give the FBI the opportunity to
invade
everyone's homes and steal their guns so "the government" can take
over.
Y'know, Tinkerntom...gun nuts.

Gun nut, I guess your definition again doesn't fit me.

Good.

I would not want
everyone to have a gun, though I believe that if they are of sound
mind, that they should be able to possess a gun if they desire.

Everyone who owns a gun now thinks they are of sound mind,
Tinkerntom. And
yet more than 30000 Americans will die this year. And next year. As
they
have for decades.

And many more will die of auto accidents. Do I hear a call to ban
autos?

On no, Tinkerntom, that's a typical gun nut argument. I'm afraid such an
argument puts you firmly in the nut category, unless you can figure out why
it is a silly argument that can only be promoted by the type of guy who
dreams of the day he is attacked by a faceless mob and he gets to unleash
his arsenal of assault weapons in defense of 'merica.

The
term "assault weapon" as applied by liberals is only looney if they
use
it to demonize all firearms

If they wanted to demonize all firearms it would be foolish to create
the
special category of assault weapons.

So do you not have problems with private ownership of other types of
firearms, for example a Browning semi-auto Deer rifle, with scope,
30-06? Or Winchester 30-30 lever action? or Winchester Mod 12 shotgun?
or a Weatherby Mark IV .460?

How does this question follow from what I just said? Wait, don't answer
that, it's easier and more timely to move on without trying to figure out
why your mind jumps around that way, or why it is you seem incapable of
absorbing a point and instead prefer to leave a subject just when you are on
the verge of being forced to think.

So, to your question.

I don't like any guns, Tinkerntom. Not one of them. Just not a fan. But I
realize the total eradication of guns is not happening. To me it would be
reasonable that no gun could fire more than one bullet at a time, but that's
probably not happening, so I figure it's most logical to start with weapons
that are most obviously of little use save for the spraying of a lot of
ammunition in a short period of time. Most of those weapons fit nicely into
what most people understand as the category of "assault weapons."

which infact actually demonstates their
underlying ideology, and not any particular awareness of the
function,
limit, and value of particular weapons.
Ironically, if the FBI is using the nonsense to invade peoples
homes,
confiscating their weapons, the liberal is more than likely a
typical
target of the FBI, in that historically they have had more problems
with the FBI than conservatives. That might be a good reason for
liberals to reframe from gun ownership. Leave it to us who know how
to
handle them safely. The FBI I mean! Tnt

Tinkerntom, do you own a gun? I really really really hope not.

Why would you really, really hope that I don't own a firearm?

Because you seem extremely unstable and a lot of your thinking is quite
nutty.

I have
never shot in anger, of even self defense. I was on a shotgun team in
highschool, and did not do to badly in trap. Then in college, a
competetive rifle team, and have never shot anyone even accidentally,
or had a firearm discharge in a hazardous fashion. I think that I have
always handled them in a demonstatably safe fashion, and have taught
other to do so as well. There have been no accidents with any of my
students. So what was your point?

That I find you to be a bit of a scary person, and a scary person with a gun
is always worse than a scary person without a gun.

That because I get on this forum and
present an opposing view point to what you advocate that I should not
have a firearm.

No. See above.

Who made you the final arbiter of our Constitution?

You are sounding nutty again.

That is rather presumptious of you is it not? If having an opposing
view point to you is the main criteria for determining our exercise of
our rights, I would say that you are a greater danger to our
Constitution than any gun nut! TnT

Wow, I didn't expect this wild tangent, but nuttiness can be fun, so I'll go
with it.

Being a danger to the constitution can be a good think Tinkerntom. I would
like to think that had I been there back in the day, I would have loudly
advocated that a black person not be constitutionally valued as less than a
white person.

The consitution is just a document slapped together by some dudes a long
time ago, Tinkerntom, and it has been changed in many ways many times,
because the world has changed, and attitudes have changed. Well, for some.

On 25-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Only by force if the citizenry will not obey.

And if the citizenry decides to obey, you are up the creek.
I keep pointing that out and you keep ignoring it.

Every citizen in the US is as "fully free" as any other.

You guys couldn't pass the ERA even though equivalent rights
exist in other countries' constitutions. You are restricting
gay rights in most states and even your president was asking
for an amendment to gaurantee the restriction of such rights.
You are still living in a fantasy world.

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

Unless those guns are used to reduce freedom.

You should get your head out of your ass, there's a real world
out here.

Mike

On 25-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

I think you're engaging in sophistry.

You're full of ****. Learn to read.

It's called "basic scientific research."

You don't know anything about scientific research. You've
already proved that.

Mike

On 25-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

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

Prove it.

Mike

On 25-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

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

Jesus was a man. He was not God in his own form but was the manifestation
of God as a man. He was born to a human woman - Mary. Ask any Christian.

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

He did not reveal himself as God, he spoke to Moses thru a burning bush.
Read the Bible.

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

God didn't part the Red sea. If you check with rabbinical scholars, you'll
find out that Moses did not even cross the Red Sea. That is a mistranslation
of old texts. BTW - even in most Bible translations, Moses parted the
Red Sea. God did not appear in the physical world.

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

What - trying to reveal just how ignorant you really are? Give up
before you dig yourself deeper into a hole of your own stupidity.

Mike

On 25-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Could it be that humans were
intended to evolve while sharks weren't?

There is no evidence of intention.

So, you agree that it could be an episodic change.

I agree with you? You keep making up things and hope you get
something right. You _still_ haven't posted any reference to
a scientific theory of evolution that resembles the nonsense
you are spewing.

Indeed. But what about Homo Sapien's precursor primate species that didn't.

Changing the discussion from morphology to something else?
Trying to avoid the fact that you don't know what you're talking about?

Ah, yes, "observation." You mean like the scientific observation that the
world is flat? How about the scientific observation that "atoms" are the
smallest form of matter? Or the scientific observation that the sun revolves
around the earth?

So, you don't understand the scientific method at all. Those bits of
information have all been superceded. And for the record, the scientific
community never held much for a flat earth - that was the religious
nutcase view. Any natural philosopher would have known about Eratosthenes'
measurements to deduce the circumference of the earth. Ditto Aristarchus
and his observations of the earth going around the sun.

Is ignorance one of your specialties?

Some time ago, your "scientists" believed wholesale that Galileo, Newton and
even Archimedes were deluded fools.

Proof?

Galileo was a widely respected natural philosopher, even among the members
of the Catholic Church. That's why he was treated so well during his
inquisition. Newton was the Lucasian chair of Mathematics and was so
well respected by his peers that he was believed to be correct even when
he was not. Archimedes was also a well respected philosopher - the cartoon
version of him as a crazy man running around in a towel yelling "Eureka"
has nothing to do with historical reality.

You have nothing to do with historical or present reality either.

You implicitly reject the existence of God not because God has been
scientifically disproven

Why do you continue to lie about this? Provide a single quote where
I have said that God does not exist. The fact that you can't deal
with any discussion without lying and misrepresenting the truth
proves that you are an idiot.

Clearly you are threatened by my arguments.

Clearly you are delusional.

Mike