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

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

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.

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE MILITARY TINKERNTOM! GIVE YOUR HEAD A SHAKE!

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.

Why have any laws at all Tinkerntom? The bad guys will just do what they
want anyway, right?

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?

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? 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.

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.

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!


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

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

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.