Gunloon massacres in the USA a daily event

"Greg Procter" wrote in message
...
Scout wrote:

"Greg Procter" wrote in message
...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote in
:

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote in
:

Bill DeFranzo wrote:


The NRA Gunloon Lobby will be happy - they were worried that
they weren't going to meet their quota of massacres in
eductaional institutions this year.

You really don't have a clue?

You redneck gunloons sure don't have much of a sense of humor,
do you. Now run off and clean your tooth and go to bed,
Jethro,
or Maw won't let you diddle your sister any more.

Violent crime is nothing to joke about. Responsible gun owners
accept that violent crime is a current reality and all they are
trying to do is whatever they can, not to become victims
themselves.

What about those who don't want to run the risks of carrying
guns???

Then don't carry one.

If I don't carry a gun in your society then _you_ become the risk.

Nope. I am no risk to you or anyone else as long as you don't
threaten
me or my family. If you do.....


There's the rub - your perception of whether or not I pose a threat to
you or your family is entirely within your head.

and the law.

No, the law deals with the effects of actions.

True, but it also establishes what is a legal threat. So it's clearly not
just within his head.

When you can guarentee to me that you will retain your sanity 100% for
the time you own a gun then I can cross you off the list of risks
faced.

Feel free to guarantee that you will retain your sanity 100% of the time
while driving that car, operating that chainsaw, or any of a multitude of
other items than can be used/misused to maim, injure, or kill.

Nope.

Then if we don't have any guarantees then why should any be offered to you?

If you can't do so, then your asking him this assurance is rather
pointless,
isn't it?

No.

Yes, it is. You want him to assert that he isn't a threat, but you find
yourself unable to do so for yourself.

Scout wrote:

"Greg Procter" wrote in message
...
Scout wrote:

"Greg Procter" wrote in message
...
Seth Hammond wrote:

"Greg Procter" wrote in message
...
Seon Ferguson wrote:

"Greg Procter" wrote in message
...
Seon Ferguson wrote:

"Dave Witmarsh" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 20:44:51 +1100, "Seon Ferguson"

wrote:


"Dave Witmarsh" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:25:42 +1100, "Seon Ferguson"

wrote:


"Larry in AZ" wrote in
message
4...
Waiving the right to remain silent, "Seon Ferguson"

said:

"Dave Witmarsh" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:30:06 +1100, "Seon Ferguson"

wrote:


"Larry in AZ" wrote in
message


You have to have had manhood to have lost it.

Oh, you've heard about Poo La Larry then...has he asked
you
for
money
for his bus ticket back to France yet?

As long as he supports the second amendment I don't care
if
he
wants
to
go
to Canada.

I own several weapons. Ricky Mathers lost his "gun" in an
accident.

Sure he did...At least there are still some people who
support
the
Consitution on usenet.

calm down Shauna dearie, it's only a bunch of dead merkins.

I guess the Consitution is just a God damn peace of paper,
right?

I really have no interest in some irrelevant constitution that
appears
to be worshipped by a mob of peculiar foreigners, to be quite
honest
Shauna dearie.
Calm down girlfriend, it's only a bunch of dead merkins.

So you think the government should have the power to arrest
people
without
warrants, censor anyone who disagrees with them and basically be
as
tyrannical as the British were before the founding father's
kicked
them
out?
Keep licking your governments boots dear boy.


McCarthyism.

Happened in the 50's. We are beyond the days of those witch hunts.


Same country - different witch hunts.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

HTH.


Criminals in general are _not_ detered by greater penalties -

Yet, Greg feels that they will obey gun control laws.......

yet doesn't see the logical contradiction.



Hold on there - it's you suggesting tougher laws/penalties yet don't see
the logical contradiction.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzztttttttttttttttttttttttt............. ...

So sorry, not true, so Phil what do we have for our brain dead contestant?



Ok, so now you're claiming you're _not_ doing anything to improve the
gun-nutter massacre situation - you lied.

Scout wrote:

"Greg Procter" wrote in message
...
Scout wrote:

"Greg Procter" wrote in message
...
Bill DeFranzo wrote:


The NRA Gunloon Lobby will be happy - they were worried that they
weren't going to meet their quota of massacres in eductaional
institutions this year.

You really don't have a clue?

You redneck gunloons sure don't have much of a sense of humor, do
you.
Now run off and clean your tooth and go to bed, Jethro, or Maw won't
let you diddle your sister any more.

Violent crime is nothing to joke about. Responsible gun owners accept
that
violent crime is a current reality and all they are trying to do is
whatever
they can, not to become victims themselves.

What about those who don't want to run the risks of carrying guns???

Then. Don't. Do. So.

Gee, I'm glad I could help you out there.


Thanks.
sheesh

Yea, it's really simple, but then you're even simpler so you couldn't see
that.


Hey Scout, you're the idiot working to restrict gun ownership by not
restricting gun owenership.

Scout wrote:

"Greg Procter" wrote in message
...
Scout wrote:

"Greg Procter" wrote in message
...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote in
:

Bill DeFranzo wrote:


The NRA Gunloon Lobby will be happy - they were worried that
they
weren't going to meet their quota of massacres in eductaional
institutions this year.

You really don't have a clue?

You redneck gunloons sure don't have much of a sense of humor, do
you. Now run off and clean your tooth and go to bed, Jethro, or
Maw
won't let you diddle your sister any more.

Violent crime is nothing to joke about. Responsible gun owners
accept
that violent crime is a current reality and all they are trying to
do
is whatever they can, not to become victims themselves.

What about those who don't want to run the risks of carrying guns???

Then don't carry one.

If I don't carry a gun in your society then _you_ become the risk.

Tough ****. If you don't want to carry, then you assume the risks of not
doing so. If you chose to carry, then likewise you assume the risks of
doing
so. Don't bitch at him because your actions have consequences.

If I carry a gun then _I_ become an additional risk ...

Really? You are a violent criminal?


Come and find out.

Once again we see that a violent criminal lurks in the heart of your typical
gun grabber. No wonder they are opposed to guns. They fear what they would
do with one.


You certainly embody temptation!

Scout wrote:

"Greg Procter" wrote in message
...
Scout wrote:

"Greg Procter" wrote in message
...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote in
:

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote in
:

Bill DeFranzo wrote:


The NRA Gunloon Lobby will be happy - they were worried that
they weren't going to meet their quota of massacres in
eductaional institutions this year.

You really don't have a clue?

You redneck gunloons sure don't have much of a sense of humor,
do you. Now run off and clean your tooth and go to bed,
Jethro,
or Maw won't let you diddle your sister any more.

Violent crime is nothing to joke about. Responsible gun owners
accept that violent crime is a current reality and all they are
trying to do is whatever they can, not to become victims
themselves.

What about those who don't want to run the risks of carrying
guns???

Then don't carry one.

If I don't carry a gun in your society then _you_ become the risk.

Nope. I am no risk to you or anyone else as long as you don't
threaten
me or my family. If you do.....


There's the rub - your perception of whether or not I pose a threat to
you or your family is entirely within your head.

and the law.

No, the law deals with the effects of actions.

True, but it also establishes what is a legal threat. So it's clearly not
just within his head.


Legal threats generally only work against those who care - check out
your "Death Rows" for proof it doesn't work where you want it to work.



When you can guarentee to me that you will retain your sanity 100% for
the time you own a gun then I can cross you off the list of risks
faced.

Feel free to guarantee that you will retain your sanity 100% of the time
while driving that car, operating that chainsaw, or any of a multitude of
other items than can be used/misused to maim, injure, or kill.

Nope.

Then if we don't have any guarantees then why should any be offered to you?


You wouldn't be offering them to me.
All your examples have other primary uses whereas your guns are designed
for killing.


If you can't do so, then your asking him this assurance is rather
pointless,
isn't it?

No.

Yes, it is. You want him to assert that he isn't a threat, but you find
yourself unable to do so for yourself.

Of course it's pointless - do try to keep up.