[Trevor Wilson]

"Scout" wrote in message
news:H1s%h.3940$pW5.151@trnddc07...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .

"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...
Don Pearce wrote:

On 3 May 2007 17:21:18 -0700, Bret Ludwig wrote:


The reason for an armed populace has nothing to do with statistics.
It has to do with principles and any statistics either way should be
ignored.


Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self
defence. It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the
purpose of maintaining an armed militia. Any other use of a gun is
unconstitutional.

d


Amendments cannot be interpreted as a restriction on people - that is
reserved for ordinary law.

**Really? Please explain, in as much detail as you feel necessary, the
18th Amendment.

It authorized government to prevent the manufacture, sale or
transportation of alcohol. It did not stop anyone from having or consuming
whatever they had. I fail to see where people were restricted.

**People who manufactured, transported or sold alcoholic products were
prosecuted. Many legitemate businesses were shut down by the government.




You may also care to explain the 16th

Changed the manner in which taxes were collected. Nothing more. I fail to
see where people were restricted.

**You don't see taxation as a restriction?


and 13th Amendments too.

Authorized the government to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude
except for crime. I fail to see where people were restricted.

**People were restricted from the previously legal practice of keeping
slaves. A practice used by Thomas Jefferson, I might add.


It would seem that those Amendments do (or did) place restrictions on
people.

Then feel free to point out the restrictions you feel were implaced.

**Done.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Laurence Payne]

On Sun, 06 May 2007 21:47:19 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

**Really? Please explain, in as much detail as you feel necessary, the
18th Amendment.

It authorized government to prevent the manufacture, sale or transportation
of alcohol. It did not stop anyone from having or consuming whatever they
had. I fail to see where people were restricted.

You REALLY fail? How odd.

[[email protected]]

On 2007-05-05 said:
But, yes, you'd be wrong. Careful study of the 2nd, as to syntax,
makes plain both now and in the common use of the times, and the
statements of those who signed our independence declaration, and
later our Constitution, in their letters and other communications
recorded at the time, that they recognized the right to self
defense against ALL, including against authority and crime.
Self defense without the means is a hollow right.
The 2nd doesn't say we have the right to belong to a militia. It
simply says because a militia may be needed, that the right enjoyed
by citizens to bear arms is a really nifty thing to be there
waiting for the community to use.
Another quite valid concern of those framers at the time was
that most folks who would be needed for militia duty might
not have adequate arms, hence the keeping of arms was to be
encouraged. I've read more than one account of young men
mustering to join their brothers in arms with an old fowling
piece that was so inadequately maintained that if it worked
at all it was a danger to the user. THerefore, the
manufacture and possssion of firearms was to be encouraged
so that when the need arose the young men mustering to join
up would have the tools they needed.

I will continue to keep my short shotgun to protect my home
and business from the unauthorized intruder who would
otherwise rob me or do me harm thank you very much.

WHen I lived in inner city NEw ORleans I had an alarm
system. THe triggering of this alarm might bring the
authorities iwthin 30-60 minutes if I were among the lucky
ones. My gun would afford me protection until they got
there.
NOw the gangbangers in the neighborhood needed some real gun
control. THey needed to learn to hit their targets. THey
seemed to spray fire indiscriminately, striking parked cars
and nearby buildings but if they happened to hit a human it
seemed to be by accident.




Richard webb,
Electric Spider Productions
Replace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real
email address.



Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on who's for
dinner. Liberty is when the sheep has his own gun.

[SaPeIsMa]

"Magus" wrote in message
.. .
Signal wrote:
Magus wrote:

What you have to manage is the
scale of the resulting tragedy. Knives operate at close range, and it
is reasonable to suppose that such a person could be stopped before
he
had done too much harm.
Odd, serial killers have killed lots with close range weapons.
One at a time...

Do you seriously believe there would be 32 (is that right?)
dead at VT if he had gone there armed with a knife?
Would he have killed only 32 if he drove through crowds with a pickup?
Far fewer. People will generally scatter if they see a vehicle
cruising towards them, and once you've got two or three bodies jammed
under the front that will impede progress. Dumbass.

There's probably a cultural perception bias re vehicles. In the US we
have big cars and pick-up trucks. Even our "mid-sized" vehicles are
larger than what's a common vehicle in Europe. In Europe most people
drive smaller economy cars. Someone is not going to go very far into a
crowd driving a Mini, Ford Festiva, Citroën, or VW Golf--but use a Ford
F150 or Dodge Ram 1500 and the crowd is going to be a lot more squishy.

What's the squishyness index rating for a Range Rover, BMW X5 or
Hummer, cos we have loads of those here. Bloody annoying they are too.
Anyway he said pickup, so that's what I took it as, an I reckon once
you've got a corpse or two wrapped around the front axle... well it's
not going to be Carmageddon..



Hmmm.... I'm not a mathematician to calculate the crunch factor v
squishyness.

A BMW X5 is a "mid sized" SUV with low ground clearance. Most range rovers
are also "mid-sized" but if you've ever been off-roading one that's 4X4
then you should know what kind of terrain they can traverse--a body sized
object once knocked down is no problem. The Hummer on the other hand is a
very large vehicle and should do quite well at the crunch X squish factor.

I also agree that Humvees are bloody annoying.


Not to mention just plain ugly

I've also started seeing a smaller look-alike
Just as ugly but in a smaller package

[SaPeIsMa]

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 May 2007 19:06:37 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

Once again YOU demonstrate your ignorance
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
"In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus,
added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge.
The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer."
http://www.slate.com/?id=2067499

Ummmm, McCarthy was a 4th degree Knight of Columbus.

You lose.

Again.

http://collections.politicallibrary....PTR=3250&REC=1

Oh dear
Are you trying to claim that McCarthy WAS the Knights of Columbus ?
Do you EVEN REALIZE how stupid your response is ?

You ARE a nutcase.

If your organization promotes something, and you are the most
influential person in the legislative branch from that organization as
well as holding the highest order, and you agree with what the
organization is promoting and you help get said something passed into
law, are you claiming that your fingerprints aren't all over it? He
didn't have to sponsor the legislation, especially since it was the
Knights of Columbus supporting HIM throughout those years.

You really *are* naive, aren't you?

But you can't SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM WITH EVIDENCE (as usual)
Are you claiming that
1) McCarthy was the ONLY Knight of Columbus in either house at the time
2) That he WAS the ONLY influential member in BOTH houses
3) That he DROVE the effort to pass the legislation in question

In either case, if your claim was true, you would be able to find supporting
data
Try the Congressional record
Until you can support your claim, in what way are you different from the
idiots who claim that the WTC was blown with explosives
Frankly, I can't tell the difference

PROVE your claim asshat

[SaPeIsMa]

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 May 2007 19:10:40 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

++ The worst of them all was that paragon
++ (as I'm sure some here will see him) Senator Joe McCarthy. Among his
++ other pleasant acts he had the "under God" bit put in the oath.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now if you showed us that ACTUAL MOTION where Allegedly McCarthy "put the
oath" into law

I guess you think that politics on the Hill occurs in a vacuum.

Dope.

You are right to sign yourself as dope

Why don't you pull out the Congressional record to PROVE yoru claim
Untl then you remain no different from the "WTC was blown up" crowd

[SaPeIsMa]

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 May 2007 19:14:13 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

Apparently some were lined up BEFORE they were shot.
It that is true, then you have to wonder about the sheeplike nature of his
victims who waited around doing nothing while the person(s) behind them
got
shot 3 times

I think you are just making stuff up at this point. Is it in your head
or something?

I haven't heard a single account of people being "lined up". He shot
some in the hallway, he shot some through doors and he shot people who
were on the floor under their desks.

of course, if you've got something, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Do you even understand what is written ?
Start with the meaning of the word "apparently"
Unlike you, I'm smart enough to couch what I write in doubt when I'm NOT
sure of my data


And when I do that, it's usually because I doubt my memory
And unlike you, not inventing stuff from scratch.

From the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/us...147a&ei =5070
"Witnesses described scenes of mass chaos and unimaginable horror
as some students were lined up against a wall and shot.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
Others jumped out of windows to escape, or crouched on floors to take
cover. "
From
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...id=181 1&ct=5
"Terrified students lined up against the wall of their classroom and
shot, execution-style. "
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



So when are YOU going to PRODUCE evidence that McCarthy was EVEN REMOTELY
involved in the passing of the "under God" addition to the Pledge of
Allegiance
I back up what I write
You just hurl insutls to cover you inability to do the same

[SaPeIsMa]

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 May 2007 19:26:28 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 5 May 2007 09:46:50 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

What math ?
The "maths"(sic) one where disarming the law-abiding and making them
defenseless against the crazies and the criminal is a strategy that only
creates MORE victims ?

That's not a (sic), that's a Britishism.


Sure it is bub

Sure is. I know that you don't know anything of the world out of your
trailer park, but, thems the breaks.


Riiight
So far, I've backed up everything I've put forth
All you can do is libel and lie



Amazing that you even have to lie about that

Not a lie at all.

"Maths links :: Language Note: Mathematics is commonly called Math in
the US and Maths in the UK and in many other countries"

http://www.mathsisfun.com/

http://thesaurus.maths.org/mmkb/sear...0308801 BB219

http://thesaurus.maths.org/mmkb/entr...ryById&id=1615

So what won't you lie about ?

I won't lie about the fact that you're a provencial git.

However, your "MENTAL ILNESS" *would* be a (sic).

And you are qualified to judge who is mentally ill because... ?

You're not even bright enough to see a misspelling when it's right in
your face. Maybe it's because you made it in the first place.

1) English is my third language.
How many do you speak, read and write ?
2) I have a problem with spelling resutling from an injury causing
symptoms similar to dyslexia.
My brain basically hides minor spelling errors or letter
misplacements.
And sometimes, I'll even confuse an English word with that from the
other 2 languages

Now doesn't that just make you feel oh so superior ?
At least you have the feeling...
Right ?
Better than nothing at all


But I notice that you avoided answering what qualifies you to judge who is
mentally ill by hiding behind a spell flame
That makes the answer that you are TOTALLY UNquallified rather evident
More manure from you
And i doubt that you're even qualified to shovel any real manure either

[SaPeIsMa]

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 May 2007 19:30:30 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

And the number ot states (40) where people can carry concealed has
been steadily increasing each year
while the crime rate has been steadily going down ?

As it has in all of the other states.

But the states with the carry laws have been going down faster, while some
of the other localitles have acttually been going up
And compare that to the UK, which has been consistently going up during
the same period

[SaPeIsMa]

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 May 2007 20:00:26 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

I'ts ONLY idiots like you who want "garantees" in such situations

I've never heard of "garantees". Are they a new style of t-shirts?

Ah
Another spell flame
I was right, you are a ****head as per the text you cut out

here's the original for all to see

"SaPeIsMa" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 May 2007 09:40:44 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

The VT guy bought his guns legitimately in a shop. If he was unable to
do that, VT would not have happened.

*Might* not have happened. Even *probably* wouldn't have happened.

Just like having armed teachers and students on campus wouldn't have
*guaranteed* less bloodshed.

I'ts ONLY idiots like you who want "garantees" in such situations
Don't you hate being such a total ****head ?

[SaPeIsMa]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 May 2007 19:30:30 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

I can acquire a gun illegally in just about ANY country in the world,
including the UK
You just have to know where to go and how to identify a source for a gun
Not hard at all

Stick to the issue. In the UK the average person - having just been
driven over the edge by some personal trauma - would *not* be in a
position to go and pick up a hand gun and go out and shoot people. It
just couldn't happen.


Your strawman
You feed it
But how often dies it happen in the US ?
Often enough to justify disarming the law-abiding and make them helpless
against the criminal MINORITY of the population ?
Don't think so
It's just an ignorant strawman argument



Of course it is possible to acquire firearms illegally in any country
of the world, but that simply isn't the point under discussion.


Sure it was, since the MAJOR issue with gun-control is that it only serves
to make the law-abiding defenseless while doing NOTHING to stop access to
the criminal or the crazy

[SaPeIsMa]

"Signal" wrote in message
...
"SaPeIsMa" wrote:

donny is the IDEAL prey for criminals
..
walking around in condition one imagining that it will happen to
everyone else but him

Sounds like you're real proud of living in a paranoid state.


I realize that you have paranoia on the brain, with a bad case of prejudice
and ignorance to boot
But I acquired my training to awareness from the martial arts LONG
BEFORE I started packing
And you don't need to be "paranoid" to be aware
You just need to pay attention
After awhile it becomes completely unconscious and effortless
You do it without thinking about it
It's even very Zen

So am I proud of having learned something that people who strive for in all
kinds of activities ?
Yes
Is it a sign of paranoia ?
Only for ignorati such as you, grasshopper

[SaPeIsMa]

"Signal" wrote in message
...
"SaPeIsMa" wrote:

2) In England, where gun-control has been made much stricter
Illegal guns in the country have been steadily growing in numbers
while crime has been on a steady increase ?

Gun crime peaked in 1999, now 1/3rd that level.


Ah the inherent dishonesty of the hoplophobe
I was NOT talking ONLY about "gun crime", whatever fiction that is.
I have never seen a gun EVER commt a crime, not even a misdemeanor.
But then, unlike you, I'm smart enough to realize that inanimate objects are
INCAPABLE of taking ANY action ON THEIR OWN
Only idiots (that's you idiot) believe otherwise

[SaPeIsMa]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 May 2007 19:16:44 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

ince donny boy was NOT able to refute ANYTHING in my post, he was reduced
to libel me with his nonsense of
".. am free to go about my daily life without the fear
that some gun-toting crazy may be just a few feet away
(and that is starting to look awfully much like you),"
Just goes to show that he really is CLUELESS about the subject and is
COMPLETELY at the mercy of his fears
Just another stupid sheeple



My fears? I'm the one who goes out without fear, because I live in a
civilized country where I don't need to fear. I'm not the one who
thinks he needs a gun to protect him from attack. Look at yourself if
you want to see fear. You truly are clueless.


1) Caution and fear are NOT the same thing

2) As I pointed out elsewhere, your country is far less "civilised' than
you imagine
Hell, London is eight times more dangerous than New York City

3) To me a gun is nothing but INSURANCE
No different from a fire extinguisher, a flashligh, a spare tire, a
winter emergency kit.
I have it, not because I'm particularly afraid
I have it JUST IN CASE

I realize that this may be a concept too difficult for you to comprehend
But even though I've practised different forms of Martial arts over the
years, I have no desire to stand up toe-to-toe against some 20-year-old
hopped-up idiot who wants to harm me. to prove he's a tough guy.

Also, after a lot of different very physical activities, my body is getting
a bit worn out

So I have just another tool, just like the flashlight, the fire
extinguisher, the spare tire, the winter emergency kit
But this one serves to increase my chances IF EVER, I get caught in the
middle of some **** hitting the fan
And I've been in some REAL dangerous places and situations during my youth.
There is very little chance, that I will anytime soon find myself in
such a situation again
But like a good boy scout, I'm cautious and prepared

So I repeat for the idiot boy
Caution and fear are NOT the same thing

[SaPeIsMa]

"Signal" wrote in message
...
"SaPeIsMa" wrote:

What you have to manage is the
scale of the resulting tragedy. Knives operate at close range, and it
is reasonable to suppose that such a person could be stopped before he
had done too much harm.

Odd, serial killers have killed lots with close range weapons.

One at a time...


YUP
That is EXACTLY how Cho killed his victims
ONE AT A TIME
He walked up to each victim ONE AT A TIME
And pumped 3 bullets into each of them ONE AT A TIME

So where does that leave your argument ?
Go ahead and show us each of your counters ONE AT A TIME

You don't appreciate the difference. Okkkkaaaayyyyyy....


What "difference" ?
Did Cho line them up 3 deep and shoot 3 of them with the same bullet ?
Not that I heard
Appaently you can't even explain that there is a "difference"
Okkkkaaaayyyyyy....





Do you seriously believe there would be 32 (is that right?)
dead at VT if he had gone there armed with a knife?

Would he have killed only 32 if he drove through crowds with a pickup?

Far fewer. People will generally scatter if they see a vehicle
cruising towards them, and once you've got two or three bodies jammed
under the front that will impede progress. Dumbass.


You never heard of wheels have you ?
They're those circular thingies on which pickups roll
They're designed to ROLL over obstacles, EVEN if one or two, possibly3,
maybe even all 4 of them are obstructed.

By the way, how many people did that guy in California run down before
being
caught and stopped by the police, upon which he declared that he was a
terrorist
It was 14
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../30/HITRUN.TMP
He also did it one by one
And just like Cho, kept moving around to find fresh targets
All that scattering didn't do much good to his victims

And I have a personal memory of someone killing something like 11 people
at
a bus stop, over 20 years ago
Didn't take more than a minute for the carnage to take place
It was an older person who didn't put his car into park, and then leaned
over to open the door for the grrocery clerk.
He lost control of the car which plowed into a bunch of people lined up at
a
bust stop.
In a panic, he hit the gas instead of the brake
The victims had nowhere to go except under or over the car. They were
boxed
in by a building right next to the sidewalk. And most of them weren't
young
enough or fast enough to get out of the way
It hapenned on Victoria Avenue in Westmount Quebec.
Not sure that the info is available on the internet, because of it's
age


OK, vehicles can be used as weapons. At least they serve a practical
positive function for society - transportation.


Guns can be used for good and evil
Guns serve a practical positive function for society - self-defense for the
law-abiding
IN the US , the estimate is about 2,500,000 such DGUs (Defensive Gun Uses)
each year
I call that a DEFINITE "practical positive function for society"

Do explain why you continue to avoid facing that little fact ?
Could it be that it interferes with your hoplophobic agenda ?

[Magus]

SaPeIsMa wrote:
"Magus" wrote in message
.. .
Signal wrote:
Magus wrote:

What you have to manage is the
scale of the resulting tragedy. Knives operate at close range, and it
is reasonable to suppose that such a person could be stopped before
he
had done too much harm.
Odd, serial killers have killed lots with close range weapons.
One at a time...

Do you seriously believe there would be 32 (is that right?)
dead at VT if he had gone there armed with a knife?
Would he have killed only 32 if he drove through crowds with a pickup?
Far fewer. People will generally scatter if they see a vehicle
cruising towards them, and once you've got two or three bodies jammed
under the front that will impede progress. Dumbass.

There's probably a cultural perception bias re vehicles. In the US we
have big cars and pick-up trucks. Even our "mid-sized" vehicles are
larger than what's a common vehicle in Europe. In Europe most people
drive smaller economy cars. Someone is not going to go very far into a
crowd driving a Mini, Ford Festiva, Citroën, or VW Golf--but use a Ford
F150 or Dodge Ram 1500 and the crowd is going to be a lot more squishy.
What's the squishyness index rating for a Range Rover, BMW X5 or
Hummer, cos we have loads of those here. Bloody annoying they are too.
Anyway he said pickup, so that's what I took it as, an I reckon once
you've got a corpse or two wrapped around the front axle... well it's
not going to be Carmageddon..


Hmmm.... I'm not a mathematician to calculate the crunch factor v
squishyness.

A BMW X5 is a "mid sized" SUV with low ground clearance. Most range rovers
are also "mid-sized" but if you've ever been off-roading one that's 4X4
then you should know what kind of terrain they can traverse--a body sized
object once knocked down is no problem. The Hummer on the other hand is a
very large vehicle and should do quite well at the crunch X squish factor.

I also agree that Humvees are bloody annoying.


Not to mention just plain ugly

I've also started seeing a smaller look-alike
Just as ugly but in a smaller package



I've seen those too, was never curious enough to check out who makes
them, and agreed, they're butt ugly--but not as ugly as a PT Cruiser.

[SaPeIsMa]

"Signal" wrote in message
...
"SaPeIsMa" wrote:

Anyway, I'm going out for the evening now. I do so in the sure and
safe knowledge that there will be nobody close to me with a gun -

I hope your fantasies and delusions give you comfort, I know the
reality
is
anything but what you assert.

What a sorry person you are, disparaging the person who enjoys the
freedoms of a peaceful society.

Like I said, let's not inject reality into your fantasy.

No fantasy, it's fact- the UK is a peaceful place to live.


You haven't looked at your crime rates recently have you ?
Let's see.
You have DOUBLE the chance of being the victim of burglary than people
in the US

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ies-per-capita
#7 United Kingdom: 13.8321 per 1,000 people
#17 United States :7.09996 per 1,000 people

You have FOUR times the chance of being the victim of fraud

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...s-per-capita#2
United Kingdom:5.28324 per 1,000 people
#2 United Kingdom : 5.28324 per 1,000 people
#18 United States : 1.25721 per 1,000 people

You have an EQUAL chance of being assaulted

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...lts-per-capita
#6 United States :7.56923 per 1,000 people
#8 United Kingdom :7.45959 per 1,000 people

And you have 5% more crime victims than the US

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...-total-victims
#3 United Kingdom: 26.4%
#15 United States: 21.1%

Yup the UK is SO MUCH MORE a peaceful place than the US

I notice you didn't include homicide figures. I never said it's MORE
peaceful than the US, but that the UK is a peaceful place to live. I
don'[t worry about being a victim, like you do.


1) YOU lie again
Your words in this very post
"the UK is a peaceful place to live"
The implication of the context was EVIDENT.
2) If you decide that murder is the ONLY measure for "peaceful"
Then Europe of which the UK is a part is the LEAST peaceful place to
live compared to the US
The US had to come and help Euros and the Brits get back to peace 3
different times in the last 100 years
When was the last time you asshats had to come to the US to help
make the peace.
Hell the last 2 wars the US was involved in in the Americas were
against Spain and Britain
You have NO CLAIM to being "peaceful"
3) What makes you stupid enough that I worry about being a victim
Don't confuse being cautious and Prepared like a good Boy scout with
worrying about being a victim
I'm twice as safe in my home as you asshats are
And I'm 20% less at risk at being a crime victim than you are
Too bad you're too stupid


Now imagine how quickly your crime victime numbers would drop if you had
the
means to DEFEND YOURSELF from criminal attacks
The UK would then be a MUCH BETTER place to live than it is now
Don't you think ?
(Oh wait, what did I just say...)

We have right to use as much force as necessary in self defence, and
since the chance of encountering a firearm is negligible we certainly
don't need firearms to protect ourselves. Excessive force would result
in a prosecution anyway, not that I would dream of waving a gun at a
burglar who is trying to nick my TV.


smirk Sure you do
You don't even have the right to equip yourself to use the force necessary
to protect your lives against an armed criminal
Your "right" so-called right to self-defense is pretty well non-existent
\


If guns were legalized and commonplace it would be far, far less safe.


Prove it
But I'll refer your to your recent history
100 years ago, the English could by a handgun with no restrictions or
rigmarole
At the same time, the crime rate was low and the police did NOT need to be
armed
Then gun control slowly came creeping along
And now the police need to be armed because the criminals are armed and the
citiz.. uh subje...uh slaves are disarmed
You do remember the difference between a slave and freeman under Saxon law.
One was armed, the other not.
By Saxon law, you are a (disarmed) slave

[SaPeIsMa]

"Signal" wrote in message
...
"SaPeIsMa" wrote:

Cho didn't spray
Witnesses stated that he methodically put 3 bullets, one after the other
in
each of his victims, then moved on to the next one
Apparently some were lined up BEFORE they were shot.
It that is true, then you have to wonder about the sheeplike nature of
his
victims who waited around doing nothing while the person(s) behind them
got
shot 3 times



Now you attack the victims of a massacre. You are a dispicable scum.


What ?
Are you really that stupid ?
I stated a fact about the shootings
I even cited in an earlier post quotes from survivors

There was even a victim who, while hiding under a desk overheard another
student repeat over and over something like
"They (the police) will be here soon"
over and over

Reporting what happened to be able to learn from a situation is NOT an
attack
And the fact that it reflects badly on the victims is NOT an attack on
them either
Only a fool (that's you) suffering from a serious case of denial (that's
also you) would try to silence any discussion of the events (that's you
again) because it might reflect badly on the victims who were made
helpless
by the VERY people who were responsible for their safety




".. the sheeplike nature of his victims who waited around doing
nothing.."

Disgusting belittlement of peaceful civilians, gunned down by a
psychopath.


Nonetheless they behaved like sheep going to slaughter.
Only the political correctness of morons, who ignore the truth and get upset
at it

And you're right, such sheeplike meekness in humans is indeed a disgusting
thing
I would be deeply embarrassed if any of those had been my kids
But then, I was raised in the same school of thought as Professor Librescu


Using this as a justification for arming students and
teachers is farcical and repugnant. The real problem is the frequency
of these massacres are in the USA. That is the real problem.


Only the well-trained and cowed sheep would consider "farcical and
repugnant" the idea of arming themselves against those who would oppress or
harm them
You clearly haven't read Animal Farm, And if you have, you've learned
nothing from it

Had any of those students been armed, they wouldnt have been defenseless
victims hiding under tables waiting for someone to rescue them, or being
lined up waiting to be shot
The fact that they did behave in such a helpless and cowardly fashion is
a sad, sad reflection on them, their parents, their teachers and the society
that created them.




If you get your own gun turned on you, that would be karma.


LOL
Another stupid hoplophobic meme
"The criminal will use the victims gun against them.."
But it's no surprise that cowards like you would wish such a thing on others

Your statment is not even farcical
It's just disgusting and repugnant
Spoke like a true coward

[SaPeIsMa]

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 6 May 2007 09:46:22 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

I stated a fact about the shootings

No you didn't.

You might want to check your "facts" again...



Actually yes I did
And today, I even cited an article from the New York Times as a
reference
But here it is again

From the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/us...147a&ei =5070
"Witnesses described scenes of mass chaos and unimaginable horror
as some students were lined up against a wall and shot.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
Others jumped out of windows to escape, or crouched on floors to take
cover. "

Were any of my children to die in such a cowardly fashion, I would weep for
their loss and also hang my head in shame for having raised cowards

[SaPeIsMa]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 6 May 2007 10:02:47 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:


"Magus" wrote in message
...
Signal wrote:
"Scout" wrote:

What you have to manage is the
scale of the resulting tragedy. Knives operate at close range, and it
is reasonable to suppose that such a person could be stopped before
he
had done too much harm.
Odd, serial killers have killed lots with close range weapons.

One at a time...

Do you seriously believe there would be 32 (is that right?)
dead at VT if he had gone there armed with a knife?
Would he have killed only 32 if he drove through crowds with a pickup?

Far fewer. People will generally scatter if they see a vehicle
cruising towards them, and once you've got two or three bodies jammed
under the front that will impede progress. Dumbass.


There's probably a cultural perception bias re vehicles. In the US we
have
big cars and pick-up trucks. Even our "mid-sized" vehicles are larger
than
what's a common vehicle in Europe. In Europe most people drive smaller
economy cars. Someone is not going to go very far into a crowd driving a
Mini, Ford Festiva, Citroën, or VW Golf--but use a Ford F150 or Dodge
Ram
1500 and the crowd is going to be a lot more squishy.


You don't even have to go that big.
A Jeep Cheerokee is the same weight and length as a Dodge Caravan
In 4wd, the Jeep will happily roll over 3-4 bodies jammed together in
front of it and keep doing it over and over util there are no more bodies
or
now moer gas


Happily? You really are quite a charmer aren't you? I can hear you
salivating from here. Seek psychiatric help now.


LOL
Why is it that hoplophobes are so fixated on mental illness
I suspect that it's very prevalent among them.
Over the last 20 years, I've been tested for mental stability as a
requirement of the work I've done
Always passed with flying colors

Don't confuse black humor with mental illness
They are NOT the same thing
AS a matter of fact, in many cases, black humor is a sign of mental health
as it is a very effective way of derailing the stress of being exposed to
pretty horrible situations.

[SaPeIsMa]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 06 May 2007 09:06:48 -0700, "0:-]"
wrote:





It certainly shows that those drafting the clause were only marginally
literate. Why am I not surprised?

Punctuation in colonial times was not fixed. Usage was considered an
art, not a rule.

One punctuated as one gave meaning to words, sentences, phrases, as
they spoke.


Sorry, can you try that again in English (American if you like; I can
read that too)?


Highly doubfull
And your inability to analyse semantically this phrase as well as the 2nd
Amendment proves it


But let's try if rephrased

One ( a person) punctuated
as one (same person) gave meaning
to words, sentences, phrases,
as they (that same person) spoke.





It was far more 'inflection' than 'grammar.'

And to put a finer point to it,
there is disagreement even today,
among literate scholars as to the placement of the common comma.

I see standards haven't improved over there, That makes no sense. The
correct expression is "Not to put too fine a point on it"


Nah!
You can't even see your own ignorance
Think Pencil or icepick with the phrase "To put a finer point to it"



No, not among literate scholars, just the semi-literate as before.


As if you ever met either
You really should work at improving yourself
It's really not that hard, even for a dolt like you



The answer to the meaning of the second resides in an understanding of
times and sentiments of the authors. Read their comment, letters, and
quoted remarks.

It's quite obvious that the 'right' is a preexisting one being given
the proper emphasis it deserves. Recognizing it didn't bring it into
creation. It was there to recognize.


And where did I suggest otherwise? My point was that the reason for
the second amendment was the recognition that a militia was needed,
and this was the reason for the continued availability of weaponry.


There you go again
Confused once more by your ignorance


I suggest you do some historical research.

d

Over to you.



One has to wonder what you consult in
Must be stupidity

[dave weil]

On Sun, 6 May 2007 21:22:57 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 5 May 2007 19:14:13 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

Apparently some were lined up BEFORE they were shot.
It that is true, then you have to wonder about the sheeplike nature of his
victims who waited around doing nothing while the person(s) behind them
got
shot 3 times

I think you are just making stuff up at this point. Is it in your head
or something?

I haven't heard a single account of people being "lined up". He shot
some in the hallway, he shot some through doors and he shot people who
were on the floor under their desks.

of course, if you've got something, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Do you even understand what is written ?
Start with the meaning of the word "apparently"
Unlike you, I'm smart enough to couch what I write in doubt when I'm NOT
sure of my data


And when I do that, it's usually because I doubt my memory
And unlike you, not inventing stuff from scratch.

From the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/us...147a&ei =5070
"Witnesses described scenes of mass chaos and unimaginable horror
as some students were lined up against a wall and shot.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
Others jumped out of windows to escape, or crouched on floors to take
cover. "
From
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...id=181 1&ct=5
"Terrified students lined up against the wall of their classroom and
shot, execution-style. "
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Thank you for providing these cites. I forgive you for passing along
what turned out to be rumors, especially since the Daily Mail was
repeating the rumor days after the incident (one *might* forgive the
NY Times since that was same-day coverage).

If you are interested in what is probably the most complete accounting
of what *really* happened, you can read this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...802824_pf.html

Hope this helps disabuse you of this rumor that was flying around
immediately after the incident.

So when are YOU going to PRODUCE evidence that McCarthy was EVEN REMOTELY
involved in the passing of the "under God" addition to the Pledge of
Allegiance
I back up what I write

I offered you an account of his very tight relationship with KoC,
where he was of the highest order granted by the Knights (and, had he
not been the powerhouse that he were in Congress, he would have
probably had time to end up being on their Supreme Council, although
that would have been superfluous considering his rank in the Senate).
If you doubt that he was the most powerful man on the Hill at the
time, I suppose I can't convince you of what most people already know.
If you don't think that he had anything to do with the passage of that
legislation, even though he was constantly touted by the KoC radio
broadcasts, I suppose I can't convince you of the obvious. If you
doubt that he wasn't pushing their agenda at every turn, well then,
you can stay happy in your ignorance.

PS, what was under discussion wasn't "The Pledge" anyway, it was the
change of the Oath of Office of the President. Just thought I'd point
out your attempt to change the subject.

If it makes you happy that he didn't introduce either bit of
legislation (the Pledge *and* the Oath) personally, well fine.

You just hurl insutls to cover you inability to do the same

Ahhh, sweet irony, thy name is SaP.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 6 May 2007 21:30:02 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

However, your "MENTAL ILNESS" *would* be a (sic).

And you are qualified to judge who is mentally ill because... ?

You're not even bright enough to see a misspelling when it's right in
your face. Maybe it's because you made it in the first place.

1) English is my third language.
How many do you speak, read and write ?

Two (unless you count my barely remembered Latin from high school). Do
you feel superior now? chuckle

2) I have a problem with spelling resutling from an injury causing
symptoms similar to dyslexia.

Well then, you shouldn't try to insult people's writing by inserting
(sics) then, should you?

My brain basically hides minor spelling errors or letter
misplacements.

That's fair enough. So you should be less aggressive yourself.

And sometimes, I'll even confuse an English word with that from the
other 2 languages

I've even done that myself. Sometimes I dream in my second language
and I often think in it.

Now doesn't that just make you feel oh so superior ?

No wonder you're so angry about people that you disagree with.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 6 May 2007 21:31:21 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 5 May 2007 19:30:30 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

And the number ot states (40) where people can carry concealed has
been steadily increasing each year
while the crime rate has been steadily going down ?

As it has in all of the other states.

But the states with the carry laws have been going down faster, while some
of the other localitles have acttually been going up

"Prove it".

And don't chreey pick your data either.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 6 May 2007 21:33:32 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 5 May 2007 20:00:26 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

I'ts ONLY idiots like you who want "garantees" in such situations

I've never heard of "garantees". Are they a new style of t-shirts?

Ah
Another spell flame
I was right, you are a ****head as per the text you cut out

Well, calling me an IDIOT doesn't exactly compel me to treat you with
kid gloves.

shrug

[BB]

On Sun, 06 May 2007 10:18:43 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Sun, 06 May 2007 10:14:45 GMT, Bruce wrote:

(Don Pearce) wrote in
:



Of course it is also possible that the US is really not that bad,

So all your arguments have been made out of total ignorance. Based entirely
on the fantasy presented by the one-eyed monster.

Ridiculous piece of context-removal. Has your position really fallen
so flat?

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

You can waffle around all you want, in one simple phrase that stands
alone you admitted knowing only what the media has fed you.


Regards,

Bruce

[Morton Davis]

"Magus" wrote in message
.. .
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Magus" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Magus" wrote ...
There's probably a cultural perception bias re vehicles. In the US
we have big cars and pick-up trucks. Even our "mid-sized" vehicles
are larger than what's a common vehicle in Europe. In Europe most
people drive smaller economy cars.

In Europe, 100 miles is a long distance.
In America, 100 years is a long time.

Slight correction:

In Europe 100 years is also a long time, in America, 100 years is
"old".

Oldest city in Germany's is Trier at 2000+ years, older than anything
in the UK (about 1400 years)...

I could have sworn that I saw things in the excavations in
Bath that were at least 1000 years older than that. The city
was named after the Roman bath works, etc.


My bad, I failed to state "continuously occupied."


Your point was?

In Europe, 100 miles can take you across the continent and
through 3-5 counties. In America (at least here where I live
on the left coast), 100 miles doesn't even take you to the next
large city in the same state. And those distances also make
passenger rail travel not nearly as popular or practical as in
Europe. Thus, one of the significant differences in vehicle use.

I guess it all depends on how close to a border you live. I can make a
100 mile trip and cross into and out of four states and be back home.
But I get your point, I'm not trying to be facetious. In Europe crossing
countries is like crossing states in the US.

In some cases we have cities bigger than European countries.

[Bama Brian]

George M. Middius wrote:

Signal said:

We have right to use as much force as necessary in self defence

Is that a change in public policy? I recall a story about a homeowner
being charged with attempted murder for clobbering a burglar. Not too
long ago, either.

Google up: Tony Martin England

[dave weil]

On Sun, 6 May 2007 23:46:37 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 6 May 2007 09:46:22 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

I stated a fact about the shootings

No you didn't.

You might want to check your "facts" again...



Actually yes I did
And today, I even cited an article from the New York Times as a
reference
But here it is again

From the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/us...147a&ei =5070
"Witnesses described scenes of mass chaos and unimaginable horror
as some students were lined up against a wall and shot.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
Others jumped out of windows to escape, or crouched on floors to take
cover. "

And now I've shown that they were relying on a rumor that was later
discounted. If you take the time, read the Washington Post's
blow-by-blow account of the day that I posted.

And now I take my leave of you, since I wouldn't want to take further
advantage of a person with so many challenges to communication. It's
unfair.

[[email protected]]

GUNS SUCK!!!

[Les Cargill]

wrote:

GUNS SUCK!!!



Only when you run the film backwards.

--
Les Cargill

[SaPeIsMa]

"Scout" wrote in message
news:BSr%h.3937$pW5.1771@trnddc07...

"SaPeIsMa" wrote in message
...

"Signal" wrote in message
news
"Scout" wrote:

Anyway, I'm going out for the evening now. I do so in the sure and
safe knowledge that there will be nobody close to me with a gun -

I hope your fantasies and delusions give you comfort, I know the
reality
is
anything but what you assert.

What a sorry person you are, disparaging the person who enjoys the
freedoms of a peaceful society.

Like I said, let's not inject reality into your fantasy.

No fantasy, it's fact- the UK is a peaceful place to live.


You haven't looked at your crime rates recently have you ?
Let's see.

I'm trying to make sure he retains his fantasy and continues to "feel"
safe, and you come along and start injected reality into his fantasy.
Shame on you. He was happy, unsafe, but happy. Now he may start to worry
and panic and next thing you know he might be concerned HE will become a
victim. Then where will we be?

That was just wrong.

:-)



I'm so sorry
I forgot myself
I was only hoping to demonstrate to him that there was "Another Way"
:-)
Just goes to show that the road to hell is paved with good intentions
:-))

[SaPeIsMa]

"Signal" wrote in message
...
"Scout" wrote:

I'm trying to make sure he retains his fantasy and continues to "feel"
safe,
and you come along and start injected reality into his fantasy. Shame on
you. He was happy, unsafe, but happy. Now he may start to worry and panic
and next thing you know he might be concerned HE will become a victim.
Then
where will we be?

That was just wrong.

:-)

You guys are having absolutely zero effect on me. Actually, I pity
you, since you are constantly scared.


LOL
WE are "constantly scared"
Now where did you get that nonsense from ?

By the way, have you seen the pictures from the Kansas Tornado ?
Even those people live smack in the middle of Tornado Alley, do you
think they were "constantly scared" ?

And in that context,amy having
insurance on my house and cars..
a fire extinguisher in my kitchen..
spare fuses next to my fuse box...
a first aid kit and spare bandaids in my house...
extra food, water and fuel in my house, just in case a tornado hits
evidence of being constantly scared ?

Just like the above, being prepared for bad situations that I can mitigate
easily and cheaply is NOT ANY evidence that I am constantly scared
On the contrary, it's evidence that I have REDUCED my stress level, since I
have done EVERYTHING conveniently possible to REDUCE a particular risk in my
life
So in actual fact, it's EVIDENCE that I AM LESS SCARED than before I
took such steps

So what makes YOU imagine that we are "constantly scared" when we anticipate
a bad situation, prepare for it and then go on with our lives knowing that
sjit happens ?

[SaPeIsMa]

"Signal" wrote in message
...
George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote:

We have right to use as much force as necessary in self defence

Is that a change in public policy? I recall a story about a homeowner
being charged with attempted murder for clobbering a burglar. Not too
long ago, either.

It's always been acceptable to use "reasonable force". If you are
defending yourself or removing a threat, that's whatever it takes. You
may be thinking of the farmer who was prosecuted, not that long ago,
for shooting a burglar in the back as he was running away.


Who decides "reasonable"
From what we've seen, currently in England, ANY use of force is
UN-reasonable

[SaPeIsMa]

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 6 May 2007 21:22:57 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 5 May 2007 19:14:13 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

Apparently some were lined up BEFORE they were shot.
It that is true, then you have to wonder about the sheeplike nature of
his
victims who waited around doing nothing while the person(s) behind them
got
shot 3 times

I think you are just making stuff up at this point. Is it in your head
or something?

I haven't heard a single account of people being "lined up". He shot
some in the hallway, he shot some through doors and he shot people who
were on the floor under their desks.

of course, if you've got something, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Do you even understand what is written ?
Start with the meaning of the word "apparently"
Unlike you, I'm smart enough to couch what I write in doubt when I'm NOT
sure of my data


And when I do that, it's usually because I doubt my memory
And unlike you, not inventing stuff from scratch.

From the NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/us...147a&ei =5070
"Witnesses described scenes of mass chaos and unimaginable horror
as some students were lined up against a wall and shot.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
Others jumped out of windows to escape, or crouched on floors to take
cover. "
From

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...id=181 1&ct=5
"Terrified students lined up against the wall of their classroom and
shot, execution-style. "

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Thank you for providing these cites. I forgive you for passing along
what turned out to be rumors, especially since the Daily Mail was
repeating the rumor days after the incident (one *might* forgive the
NY Times since that was same-day coverage).

If you are interested in what is probably the most complete accounting
of what *really* happened, you can read this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...802824_pf.html

Hope this helps disabuse you of this rumor that was flying around
immediately after the incident.

So when are YOU going to PRODUCE evidence that McCarthy was EVEN REMOTELY
involved in the passing of the "under God" addition to the Pledge of
Allegiance
I back up what I write

I offered you an account of his very tight relationship with KoC,
where he was of the highest order granted by the Knights (and, had he
not been the powerhouse that he were in Congress, he would have
probably had time to end up being on their Supreme Council, although
that would have been superfluous considering his rank in the Senate).
If you doubt that he was the most powerful man on the Hill at the
time, I suppose I can't convince you of what most people already know.
If you don't think that he had anything to do with the passage of that
legislation, even though he was constantly touted by the KoC radio
broadcasts, I suppose I can't convince you of the obvious. If you
doubt that he wasn't pushing their agenda at every turn, well then,
you can stay happy in your ignorance.

PS, what was under discussion wasn't "The Pledge" anyway, it was the
change of the Oath of Office of the President. Just thought I'd point
out your attempt to change the subject.

If it makes you happy that he didn't introduce either bit of
legislation (the Pledge *and* the Oath) personally, well fine.

You just hurl insutls to cover you inability to do the same

Ahhh, sweet irony, thy name is SaP.


You know you are not only an arrogant ****
You're a stupid liar too

1) Unlike you I substantiated my claim with cites
You have yet to provide ANY cite about McCarthy

2) It was NOT a discussion about the Presidential Oath
It was ALWAYS about the Pledge of Allegiance

So until you can support your claims with documentation
You remain a liar

[SaPeIsMa]

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 6 May 2007 21:30:02 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

However, your "MENTAL ILNESS" *would* be a (sic).

And you are qualified to judge who is mentally ill because... ?

You're not even bright enough to see a misspelling when it's right in
your face. Maybe it's because you made it in the first place.

1) English is my third language.
How many do you speak, read and write ?

Two (unless you count my barely remembered Latin from high school). Do
you feel superior now? chuckle


Well, if you're going to count high school Latin and Greek, then add 2 more
And as demonstrated elsewhere, I am superior to you for 2 reasons
1) I substantiante the things I claim
2) I don't try to weasel after the fact by claiming the discussion was
about something else
And if it was worth my time, which you are becoming less and less, I could
surely come up with a few more reasons



2) I have a problem with spelling resutling from an injury causing
symptoms similar to dyslexia.

Well then, you shouldn't try to insult people's writing by inserting
(sics) then, should you?

It was insulting ?
Good




My brain basically hides minor spelling errors or letter
misplacements.

That's fair enough. So you should be less aggressive yourself.


**** you and the ignorant horse you rode in on
You'll be better positionned to make such statements when you can support
your claims instead of trying to weasel that it was something else being
discussed



And sometimes, I'll even confuse an English word with that from
the
other 2 languages

I've even done that myself. Sometimes I dream in my second language
and I often think in it.

Now doesn't that just make you feel oh so superior ?

No wonder you're so angry about people that you disagree with.

I'm not angry
I just stopped being tolerant of dishonesty and intentional stupidity
Come back when you've lost both

[SaPeIsMa]

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 6 May 2007 21:31:21 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 5 May 2007 19:30:30 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

And the number ot states (40) where people can carry concealed has
been steadily increasing each year
while the crime rate has been steadily going down ?

As it has in all of the other states.

But the states with the carry laws have been going down faster, while some
of the other localitles have acttually been going up

"Prove it".

And don't chreey pick your data either.


I've ALWAYS been able to support EVERYTHING I've claimed so far, whily you
have NOT supported ANY of your claims yet
Instead you triied to weasel that it was something else that was being
discussed

You have ZERO credibility so far
It's time for you to perfom on YOUR claims BEFORE you earn the right to
expect more from me

[SaPeIsMa]

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 6 May 2007 21:33:32 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 5 May 2007 20:00:26 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

I'ts ONLY idiots like you who want "garantees" in such situations

I've never heard of "garantees". Are they a new style of t-shirts?

Ah
Another spell flame
I was right, you are a ****head as per the text you cut out

Well, calling me an IDIOT doesn't exactly compel me to treat you with
kid gloves.

shrug

Well if the shoe fits
Wear it

[dave weil]

On Tue, 8 May 2007 02:49:42 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

**** you and the ignorant horse you rode in on

Add Tourette's to the issues that you face.

I definitely aren't going to take advantage of your cognitive and
behavioral problems.

Hope you get better soon.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 4 May 2007 23:24:25 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...


Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self
defence. It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the
purpose of maintaining an armed militia. Any other use of a gun is
unconstitutional.


English not your first language ?

Before I leave you alone, just thought I'd highlight this rather
strange insult, coming from you, of course.

BTW, just to show that you are a liar, since you are thowing the
epithet out, you said this:

"2) It was NOT a discussion about the Presidential Oath
It was ALWAYS about the Pledge of Allegiance'

ummmm:

The worst of them all was that paragon
(as I'm sure some here will see him) Senator Joe McCarthy. Among his
other pleasant acts he had the "under God" bit put in the oath.
Everybody since the founding of your country has failed to live up to
the aspirations of the founders.


Once again YOU demonstrate your ignorance
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
"In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus,
added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge.
The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer."
http://www.slate.com/?id=2067499

I guess the fact that English is pretty far down the totem pole in
your list of languages as confused you about the difference between
"the oath" and "the Pledge".