On 25-Feb-2005, "rick" wrote:

Again, I posted
information,

Try again - there was nothing in that link that said
Canadians are dying in waiting lines.

Put up or shut up, dickhead.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/25/05 6:59 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

"Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of their
asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything."

Sounds pretty derisory to me.

That is a critisism of their foolish attempts at "proving" God exists.
It doesn't say anything about people believing in God being fools.
But then, you can't read very well.

Proof of the existence of God requires, first, a definition of what
"God"
is.

How can you prove the existance of something if you don't even know what
it is you are setting out to prove?

The fact that such belief is an act of faith does not mean that either
church does not believe that God does, in fact, exist.

Belief is not proof. Proof is much more difficult.

Since God exists in a spiritual world and we exist in a physical
world, there is a permanent problem of proving anything about a
realm in which we don't exist.

Mike

Unless you are insane. Those who KNOW that "god" exists are quite certain
about it and see no problem with promoting their unique personal fantasy as
factual reality.

Perhaps they are privy to knowledge you aren't....

Invisible knowledge.

Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it's "invisible" or that
it doesn't exist.

Sort of like rick's proof that Canadians are dying in
health care waiting lights. Truly the domain of the nut.

Your ignorance is not the metric of other people's nuttiness.

--
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 Michael Daly wrote:

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.

Perhaps. But, the point is that I get to fight to the death defending my
rights, and I get to have the arms to make a good try at it. The worst the
citizenry, or a tyrant can do to me is kill me.

I keep pointing that out and you keep ignoring it.

And I keep pointing out that the just power of the "willothepeeple" does not
extend to the infringement of basic constitutional rights. Certainly any
large group CAN use force to disarm another group, to wit: Hutus and Tutsis
in Rawanda. But the way to prevent such things from happening is to give the
minority groups the power to resist such attempts by force. The worst sorts
of genocides and mass killings only take place where the oppressed minority
has been disarmed.


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.

The ERA is unnecessary because women are exactly as free as men are in the
US. Federal and state law ensures this, and EVERY state has on its books
laws which make gender-based discrimination illegal. Thus, a change to the
Constitution is redundant and unnecessary. We prefer not to tinker with our
Constitution except when it's absolutely necessary.

You are restricting
gay rights in most states and even your president was asking
for an amendment to gaurantee the restriction of such rights.

Which "gay rights" would you be referring to? Gays have exactly the same
rights as any other individual citizen under the Constitution.

You are still living in a fantasy world.

You still have no idea what you're talking about.


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

Unless those guns are used to reduce freedom.

But they don't, they increase it.


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

And in the real world, people are responsible for their own safety and
defense. Unlike you simpering twits in Canada, who think that the police are
your protectors. When's the last time a cop was around when some girl was
being raped?


--
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 Michael Daly wrote:


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.

My, how erudite. How scholarly.

--
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 Michael Daly wrote:

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.

No problem. Here you go:

"The recorded crime figures for the third quarter of last year showed a fall
of 6 per cent in all crimes to 1.39 million. However, within the overall
fall was a rise in violent crime, including a 7 per cent increase in
violence against the person to 268,000.

Nevertheless, after a series of quarterly increases in double figures in
the number of offences involving more serious violence against the person,
the Government was relieved that between July and September 2004 there was
much smaller increase. More serious violence against the person rose by only
3 per cent to 12,000 offences.

Sexual offences rose by 22 per cent, but some of this increase is a result
of the creation of new offences, such as sexual grooming, administering a
date-rape drug and the inclusion of exposure as a sex offence rather than a
public order crime.

Recorded firearms offences rose by 5 per cent to 10,670 in the year to the
end of September 2004."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...456630,00.html

"Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet,
since 1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up
by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by
50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate
shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.

The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done,
shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the
U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have
widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared
by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S."

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/...anningguns.htm

"Britain, Australia top U.S. in violent crime

Rates Down Under increase despite strict gun-control measures

By Jon Dougherty
©*2001*WorldNetDaily.com

Law enforcement and anti-crime activists regularly claim that the United
States tops the charts in most crime-rate categories, but a new
international study says that America's former master -- Great Britain --
has much higher levels of crime.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in
Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime
among industrialized nations.

Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the
population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list
with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.

The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized
nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

Jack Straw, the British home secretary, admitted that "levels of
victimization are higher than in most comparable countries for most
categories of crime."

Highlights of the study indicated that:

€ The percentage of the population that suffered "contact crime" in
England and Wales was 3.6 percent, compared with 1.9 percent in the United
States and 0.4 percent in Japan.

€ Burglary rates in England and Wales were also among the highest
recorded. Australia (3.9 percent) and Denmark (3.1 per cent) had higher
rates of burglary with entry than England and Wales (2.8 percent). In the
U.S., the rate was 2.6 percent, according to 1995 figures;

€ "After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of
crime was in Holland (25 percent), Sweden (25 percent) and Canada (24
percent). The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the
middle ranking countries with a 21 percent victimization rate," the London
Telegraph said.

€ England and Wales also led in automobile thefts. More than 2.5
percent of the population had been victimized by car theft, followed by 2.1
percent in Australia and 1.9 percent in France. Again, the U.S. was not
listed among the "top 10" nations.

€ The study found that Australia led in burglary rates, with nearly
4 percent of the population having been victimized by a burglary. Denmark
was second with 3.1 percent; the U.S. was listed eighth at about 1.8
percent."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=21902

Now, what was that about recto-crainal inversions?

--
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 Michael Daly wrote:

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.

Was he?

He was not God in his own form but was the manifestation
of God as a man.

Therefore he was God.

He was born to a human woman - Mary. Ask any Christian.

And what precludes God from manifesting himself as a human born of a human
woman? He is God after all, he can do pretty much anything he wants, by
definition.


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.

You don't think that a burning bush that's not consumed is not God revealing
himself? And what about Moses' time on the mountain, where God wrote the
Ten Commandments in stone with a "finger of fire?" You don't think that's
God "revealing" himself? How is that a "proxy" transaction?

Read the Bible.

You first. Then try to understand what is written before revealing your
ignorance, Mr. History Person.


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

God didn't part the Red sea.

How do you know? The Bible says he did. What evidence do you have that he
didn't.

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.

According to whom? What makes their judgment infallible.

BTW - even in most Bible translations, Moses parted the
Red Sea. God did not appear in the physical world.

Um, not quite. Moses asked God to part the Red Sea. And then there's that
whirlwind of fire, which is another direct manifestation of God 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.

You first.
--
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 Michael Daly wrote:


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

Why do you continue to lie about this?

What part of "implicitly" do you fail to understand?

Provide a single quote where
I have said that God does not exist.

Nor have you responded to a specific question about whether you believe God
does exist, and are thus evading the question.

The fact that you can't deal
with any discussion without lying and misrepresenting the truth
proves that you are an idiot.

In my experience, college level scholars don't generally engage in
name-calling and ad hominem attack merely because they dispute the veracity
of their opponent's claims. They instead argue the facts and present
evidence and argumentation tending to support their thesis, while
recognizing that conflict in theories is the essence of intellectual
inquiry.

That being the case, I judge, once again, that you are a tenth-grade
equivalent Netwit of fractional wit and less interest.

Given that you are clearly uninterested in a reasoned philosophical debate
sans invective, I believe I'll stop wasting my time with you.

--
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:
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 ...

.... snip ...

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.

Well thar you go, thats why I thought Kerry would suit you just
fine!!!!

....snip...

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.


Well that is not my dream for 'merica, and I personally, gun or no gun,
prefer to avoid faceless mobs as much as possible. Although I do like
to drive my auto, and do so every day, whereas my gun may only be taken
out once ayear to be cleaned and oiled, and it has not been fired
recently for many years. Usually I have found it much easier to drive
away from a faceless mob than to fight toe to toe, when I see the
whites of their eyes!

I believe that last was a sorta quote from General Andrew Jackson, from
the battle of New Orleans, when he and a ragtag army fought and won a
battle over the invading professional army of Great Britain after the
war of 1812 had actually ended. The British equivalent of an "assault
weapon" were volleys of fire by lines of soldiers, that would then
advance a few steps. Lots of people could be killed at one time if they
had their heads up, and it was a very intimidating tactic used by the
professionals who had practiced it. However, the ragtag militia did not
know they were suppose to be intimidated, so they just kept thir heads
down, and waited until they could see the whites of the eye of the
advancing troops. Then they shot their eyes out with their muzzle
loading single shot squirrel guns. They had been practicing shooting
squirrels for a long time, and they killed alot of those British boys,
with very few losses themselves.

Now I grant that was in 1812, but the right to bear arms certainly
worked under those circumstances, so that the Union survived, and the
British learned no to try that again. Matter of fact it seems that we
have become pretty good friend since then. And have been willing to use
our firearms to defend them as well. So I would say that firearms have
their place, and more often are used for good, than for bad, though
30,000 a year is sad, and I would certainly hope that number could be
reduced, whether they are homicide, suicide, or accidental. But even if
guns are taken away from everyone, accidents will still happen,
homicides and suicides the same, so I don't see the gun as the problem.



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.

I knew you were smart enough to see through my question, to understand
how my question followed your last statement. All the above weapons
were originally used and developed for military purposes, but have come
to find a very comfortable place in the private sector.

The BAR, Browning Automatic Rifle, originally made in Belgium (not an
American original, those Belgiums were real war mongers at one time),
was used first in WW1 as a rapid fire assault weapon, and was a weapon
of choice of American soldiers returning home after the war. Fired a
large caliber bullet that combined with the rapid fire, caused massive
wounds. However when switched to semi-auto, it was found to be a superb
deer and elk hunting rifle that would provide clean kills from a
reasonable distance.

Winchester 30-30, was an American original, designed during the close
of the Civil War, to provide rapid fire of multiple projectiles,
without having to reload. Was one of the deciding factors in the
turning tide against the South that led them to realize the war was
lost. Returning soldiers to the north, brought the weapon home, and war
has not been the same since. Was also used in the Indian wars to
suppress the uprising. Now is still favorite saddle gun for ranchers
and farmers (and native Americans), and many pickups have one in the
rack, for the vermin and varmints that would ruin the harvest. Many
more deer have been shot, and family fed, by this firearm than maybe by
any other.

Model 12 Winchester shotgun, not necessarily developed originally for
military use, since shot guns had been around for a long time, but I
have seen some in pictures of our soldiers in Iraq. Still a favorite
military weapon of our soldiers for close quarter fighting. A blast
from a shotgun can open a locked door, or penetrate openings in body
armour, literally knocking a person down. I had a Model 12 I used for
trap shooting, and with the smooth action, and consistent pattern, made
a great duck or pheasant gun.

Weatherby .460, originally an elephant gun, for safaris, was a great
sniper rifle, that could be shot accurately over very long distance.
The current 50 caliber sniper rifles are based on the caliper.
Weatherby was made in Germany, very high quality, suberb fit and
finish, and prized when captured by allied soldiers. Brought back to
States and used as presentation weapon, and superb choice still for
very large game.

None of these would qualify as assault weapon by your definition, but
have been used very effectively as military weapons. So your objection
is not just assault weapon according to your definition, but all
firearms. You acknowledge that you can not get all firearms away from
the gun nuts (your defintion), but you can get assault weapons. Can we
expect you to expand the definition of assault weapons now to include
the above list? and then maybe you can understand why the gun nuts
resist any definition by you that would limit access to any and all
firearms, as you say it is just a start.

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.

So it is your underlying ideology, and not just assault weapons. And it
is totally logical that our armies be marching around like the old "red
coats" with single shot muzzles loading muskets. Of course when you
think of that, you have to think of the millions killed by the same
muskets on the field of Waterloo, and other military expeditions prior
to modern weapons.

Actually, I think all armies should just be issued "noodles" that they
can bash away on each other till one side gets tired and goes home.
That way noone dies, and there is not all that blood to clean up. Plus
think of the benefit of all those crack dealers getting assault noodles
to protect their turf. It would change the whole drug culture in the
world. They would just be a whole lot nicer as neighbors, and when one
of their clients break into your house to steal stuff to support their
habit, you could defend your house and family with a noodle. Makes
total sense. I'm sure we can sell it to the military, crack dealers,
and home owers of the world.

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

Of course if all we had was noodles, the FBI would be out of a job, and
that might be good as well.


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.

Well you can come out from under your bed now, or closet, where ever
you hide from scary people, I will go out and buy my noodle today, and
the world will be a safer place, and not so scary for people like you.
Of course you are going to have to do your part and get all those scary
Canadians to trade in their guns for a noodle, so I will feel safe as
well.

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.

Now who is getting nutty. Lucky for us you were not there, or we would
probably not have the right to bear arms either, and there would still
be slaves!

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.

By the way were their ever slaves in Canada or Great Britain? Seems to
me there was a time when the colonies extended beyond the 13, to India
and Africa, where there were plenty of white masters. It took us awhile
to get thing right, but I don't recall slapping my slave around
recently. Matter of fact, I recall that they were set free based on the
principles set forth in that sublime document that went far beyond the
prevailing thoughts of the day. That it took awhile for practice to
catch up with the ideology, is a testament to our willingness to
change. A document that was hardly slapped together by some dudes a
long time ago. Your disrespect, of us and the things we cherish, only
demonstrate your shallow, intemperate, churlishness.

You are not a danger to the Constitution, as long as we exercise our
right to bear arms, as I am sure you are aware of, and as intended by
the framers! TnT

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 25-Feb-2005, "rick" wrote:

Again, I posted
information,

Try again - there was nothing in that link that said
Canadians are dying in waiting lines.

Put up or shut up, dickhead.
=================
Yes, there was. I see you don't lie any better than the other
buffoons...

\

Mike

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 2/25/05 8:49 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...

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

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message


snip...


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.

You are a liar and a coward.
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to
find
out the facts...


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 I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts...

You are lying. And you are a coward because you are too weak to
be
accountable.
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts...