"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.

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

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.

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.

"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.



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. 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.

"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!

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!

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.

"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.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

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.

Of course they can, and do. The problem with your dubious logic is that it
is impossible to make firearms, including semi-automatic rifles, unavailable
to criminals. There are simply too many of them in the world They cannot all
be located, much less collected. Just as the Brits...they have a lot of
trouble doing that with the IRA, and they've been trying for about 800
years.

Given that fact of life, the only people you disarm when you ban and
confiscate guns are the law-abiding, innocent citizens who actually NEED,
and are entitled to have such arms in order to defend themselves against
criminals and tyrants.

That you cannot integrate these facts lends credence to the presumption that
you are merely trolling. Because if you aren't, you're too abysmally stupid
to live and are a Darwinian dead-end doomed to genetic obscurity.
--
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