Typical Kike on Gun Control [Archive]

April 17th 13, 05:34 PM

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:19:07 -0500, "Mark Zacharias"
> wrote:

>"Stephen Springer" > wrote in message
...
>> In Europe, where out of a population of around 500 million (compared to
>> the USA, of 300 million), there are around only 2,000 gun homicides per
>> year (compared to the USA with around 12,000 gun homicides - per the DOJ).
>> There are very strict gun control laws. In France, for example, there's a
>> max purchase rate of one gun per month, with an upper limit of (if I
>> recall correctly) of 5 guns. BEFORE you even are allowed to own a gun, you
>> are CAREFULLY screened for mental illness AND have to take a 6 month long
>> certification class and test, with an annual re-test and registration. No
>> surprise- only the dedicated gun enthusiasts sign-up, keeping the number
>> of guns in the public low, and gun violence low.
>>
>> That's what I support- this makes certain that mental illness is screened
>> for, and excellent training required. Who's on board?
>>
>> BTW: The same week that Sandyhook happened, in China, a man entered a
>> school with a knife, and injured 22 kids. Guess what? They're all alive.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> So the jew-******* is basically saying it's better to shank school
>> children and not light them up.
>
>
>What part of, "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
>
>BTW I never understood anti-semitism. I've heard the stories, I know the
>history, I just don't really get it.
>
>The poster who referenced "kike" in the subject is a moron.
>
>Mark Z.
We are already beyond 'shall not be infringed'. There are a variety
of fully automatic firearms which can only be purchased with a special
permit. There are other 'arms' which are totally outlawed.

The real question is "Do you want to go on record as suggesting ypur
desire to own the latest tarted up plastic firearm is more importamt
than the lives of 20 children?"

PlainBill

[email protected]

April 18th 13, 12:35 AM

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:34:01 -0700, wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:19:07 -0500, "Mark Zacharias"
> wrote:
>
>>"Stephen Springer" > wrote in message
...
>>> In Europe, where out of a population of around 500 million (compared to
>>> the USA, of 300 million), there are around only 2,000 gun homicides per
>>> year (compared to the USA with around 12,000 gun homicides - per the DOJ).
>>> There are very strict gun control laws. In France, for example, there's a
>>> max purchase rate of one gun per month, with an upper limit of (if I
>>> recall correctly) of 5 guns. BEFORE you even are allowed to own a gun, you
>>> are CAREFULLY screened for mental illness AND have to take a 6 month long
>>> certification class and test, with an annual re-test and registration. No
>>> surprise- only the dedicated gun enthusiasts sign-up, keeping the number
>>> of guns in the public low, and gun violence low.
>>>
>>> That's what I support- this makes certain that mental illness is screened
>>> for, and excellent training required. Who's on board?
>>>
>>> BTW: The same week that Sandyhook happened, in China, a man entered a
>>> school with a knife, and injured 22 kids. Guess what? They're all alive.
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> So the jew-******* is basically saying it's better to shank school
>>> children and not light them up.
>>
>>
>>What part of, "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
>>
>>BTW I never understood anti-semitism. I've heard the stories, I know the
>>history, I just don't really get it.
>>
>>The poster who referenced "kike" in the subject is a moron.
>>
>>Mark Z.
>We are already beyond 'shall not be infringed'. There are a variety
>of fully automatic firearms which can only be purchased with a special
>permit. There are other 'arms' which are totally outlawed.
>
>The real question is "Do you want to go on record as suggesting ypur
>desire to own the latest tarted up plastic firearm is more importamt
>than the lives of 20 children?"

Wow! Just *WOW*. The ignorance is simply amazing.

tuinkabouter

April 18th 13, 09:43 PM

On 16.04.2013 18:19, Stephen Springer wrote:
> In Europe, where out of a population of around 500 million (compared to
> the USA, of 300 million), there are around only 2,000 gun homicides per
> year (compared to the USA with around 12,000 gun homicides - per the
> DOJ). There are very strict gun control laws. In France, for example,
> there's a max purchase rate of one gun per month, with an upper limit of
> (if I recall correctly) of 5 guns. BEFORE you even are allowed to own a
> gun, you are CAREFULLY screened for mental illness AND have to take a 6
> month long certification class and test, with an annual re-test and
> registration. No surprise- only the dedicated gun enthusiasts sign-up,
> keeping the number of guns in the public low, and gun violence low.
>
> That's what I support- this makes certain that mental illness is
> screened for, and excellent training required. Who's on board?
>
> BTW: The same week that Sandyhook happened, in China, a man entered a
> school with a knife, and injured 22 kids. Guess what? They're all alive.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So the jew-******* is basically saying it's better to shank school
> children and not light them up.

I heard the news about the bombs in Boston.

Is the pro arms lobby now say every good man should own a bomb?

Trevor Wilson

April 19th 13, 04:36 AM

On 4/17/2013 10:19 AM, Mark Zacharias wrote:
> "Stephen Springer" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In Europe, where out of a population of around 500 million (compared
>> to the USA, of 300 million), there are around only 2,000 gun homicides
>> per year (compared to the USA with around 12,000 gun homicides - per
>> the DOJ). There are very strict gun control laws. In France, for
>> example, there's a max purchase rate of one gun per month, with an
>> upper limit of (if I recall correctly) of 5 guns. BEFORE you even are
>> allowed to own a gun, you are CAREFULLY screened for mental illness
>> AND have to take a 6 month long certification class and test, with an
>> annual re-test and registration. No surprise- only the dedicated gun
>> enthusiasts sign-up, keeping the number of guns in the public low, and
>> gun violence low.
>>
>> That's what I support- this makes certain that mental illness is
>> screened for, and excellent training required. Who's on board?
>>
>> BTW: The same week that Sandyhook happened, in China, a man entered a
>> school with a knife, and injured 22 kids. Guess what? They're all alive.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> So the jew-******* is basically saying it's better to shank school
>> children and not light them up.
>
>
> What part of, "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

**What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.
* At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
* At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
* At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
* At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.

>
> BTW I never understood anti-semitism. I've heard the stories, I know the
> history, I just don't really get it.
>
> The poster who referenced "kike" in the subject is a moron.

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Don Kelly

April 19th 13, 08:36 AM

On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 4/17/2013 10:19 AM, Mark Zacharias wrote:
>> "Stephen Springer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In Europe, where out of a population of around 500 million (compared
>>> to the USA, of 300 million), there are around only 2,000 gun homicides
>>> per year (compared to the USA with around 12,000 gun homicides - per
>>> the DOJ). There are very strict gun control laws. In France, for
>>> example, there's a max purchase rate of one gun per month, with an
>>> upper limit of (if I recall correctly) of 5 guns. BEFORE you even are
>>> allowed to own a gun, you are CAREFULLY screened for mental illness
>>> AND have to take a 6 month long certification class and test, with an
>>> annual re-test and registration. No surprise- only the dedicated gun
>>> enthusiasts sign-up, keeping the number of guns in the public low, and
>>> gun violence low.
>>>
>>> That's what I support- this makes certain that mental illness is
>>> screened for, and excellent training required. Who's on board?
>>>
>>> BTW: The same week that Sandyhook happened, in China, a man entered a
>>> school with a knife, and injured 22 kids. Guess what? They're all alive.
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> So the jew-******* is basically saying it's better to shank school
>>> children and not light them up.
>>
>>
>> What part of, "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
>
> **What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.
>
> Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:
>
> * At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
> * At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
> bow and arrow.
> * At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
> * At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
> * At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
> * At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.
>
>>
>> BTW I never understood anti-semitism. I've heard the stories, I know the
>> history, I just don't really get it.
>>
>> The poster who referenced "kike" in the subject is a moron.
>
> **Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
> gutless politicians they have in their pocket.
>
>
Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of their
country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
providing fresh meat was also rather important).
What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem earlier)- or
for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone innocent
gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons that
can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't infringe
on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun owners
but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in dismay at
what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and lived
with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
based on ??

Don

Michael A. Terrell

April 19th 13, 05:22 PM

Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> **Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
> gutless politicians they have in their pocket.

Of course, you are a well known loon.

Michael A. Terrell

April 19th 13, 05:29 PM

Don Kelly wrote:
>
> On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >
> > **What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.
> >
> > Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:
> >
> > * At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
> > * At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
> > bow and arrow.
> > * At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
> > * At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
> > * At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
> > * At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.
> >
> > **Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
> > gutless politicians they have in their pocket.
> >
> >
> Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
> excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
> In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
> expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of their
> country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
> frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
> in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
> providing fresh meat was also rather important).
> What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
> dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
> invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
> their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem earlier)- or
> for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
> These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
> lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone innocent
> gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
> A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons that
> can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't infringe
> on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun owners
> but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
> I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in dismay at
> what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and lived
> with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
> supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
> based on ??

Guns aren't the problem, and it only takes a second or two to change a
magazine, so the size doesn't make any difference if no one is shooting
back. The problem is that sleazy lawyers got 'rights' for the mentally
ill to be on the streets. A gun is a tool, and doesn't kill by itself.
It takes an unstable person or criminal who places no value on human
life to use one to maim or kill in cold blood.

People like 'Trevor' are responsible for creating 'Gun free zones'
which are the perfect targets for shooting sprees where no one will
shoot back. He is down under, and has no business spouting off about
gun control in the US.

Trevor Wilson

April 19th 13, 11:05 PM

On 4/20/2013 2:22 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>> **Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
>> gutless politicians they have in their pocket.
>
>
> Of course, you are a well known loon.
>

**If pointing out the abject stupidity of US gun control laws (such as
they are), by using logic, reason and common-sense, makes me a "loon",
then I guess you have some serious problems in dealing with plain English.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson

April 19th 13, 11:23 PM

On 4/19/2013 5:36 PM, Don Kelly wrote:
> On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 4/17/2013 10:19 AM, Mark Zacharias wrote:
>>> "Stephen Springer" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In Europe, where out of a population of around 500 million (compared
>>>> to the USA, of 300 million), there are around only 2,000 gun homicides
>>>> per year (compared to the USA with around 12,000 gun homicides - per
>>>> the DOJ). There are very strict gun control laws. In France, for
>>>> example, there's a max purchase rate of one gun per month, with an
>>>> upper limit of (if I recall correctly) of 5 guns. BEFORE you even are
>>>> allowed to own a gun, you are CAREFULLY screened for mental illness
>>>> AND have to take a 6 month long certification class and test, with an
>>>> annual re-test and registration. No surprise- only the dedicated gun
>>>> enthusiasts sign-up, keeping the number of guns in the public low, and
>>>> gun violence low.
>>>>
>>>> That's what I support- this makes certain that mental illness is
>>>> screened for, and excellent training required. Who's on board?
>>>>
>>>> BTW: The same week that Sandyhook happened, in China, a man entered a
>>>> school with a knife, and injured 22 kids. Guess what? They're all
>>>> alive.
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So the jew-******* is basically saying it's better to shank school
>>>> children and not light them up.
>>>
>>>
>>> What part of, "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
>>
>> **What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.
>>
>> Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:
>>
>> * At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
>> * At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
>> bow and arrow.
>> * At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
>> * At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
>> * At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
>> * At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.
>>
>>>
>>> BTW I never understood anti-semitism. I've heard the stories, I know the
>>> history, I just don't really get it.
>>>
>>> The poster who referenced "kike" in the subject is a moron.
>>
>> **Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
>> gutless politicians they have in their pocket.
>>
>>
> Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
> excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
> In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
> expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of their
> country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
> frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
> in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
> providing fresh meat was also rather important).
> What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
> dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
> invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
> their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem earlier)- or
> for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
> These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
> lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone innocent
> gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
> A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons that
> can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't infringe
> on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun owners
> but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
> I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in dismay at
> what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and lived
> with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
> supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
> based on ??
>
>
> Don
>

**The US's problem is that the NRA has subverted their political system.
A miniscule 4 million members of the NRA, effectively dictate gun
control laws (and other, related laws) in the US. The NRA acts first and
formost in the interests of the firearms industry. They have no interest
in public safety. Their sole interests lie in pushing firearms and
ammunition sales accross the US. Any politician who stands up to the NRA
will cop a vicious, expensive and extended campaign of denigration.
Since the NRA is not, officially, a political organisation (although it
operates within the political sphere), it is exempt from many of the
constraints that political organisations must operate within.

That US citizens seem to accept this evil organisation within their
midst, is difficult to understand. Many Americans appear to have been
comprehensively brainwashed. Perhaps it is their education system? I
don't know. Either way, one day the bulk of the US population will 'wake
up and smell the coffee' and the NRA will be brought to it's knees.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Charles[_7_]

April 19th 13, 11:48 PM

Thought I was on a repair forum.

Sorry.

[email protected]

April 19th 13, 11:50 PM

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 08:05:21 +1000, Trevor Wilson
> wrote:

>On 4/20/2013 2:22 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>> **Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
>>> gutless politicians they have in their pocket.
>>
>>
>> Of course, you are a well known loon.
>>
>
>**If pointing out the abject stupidity of US gun control laws (such as
>they are), by using logic, reason and common-sense, makes me a "loon",
>then I guess you have some serious problems in dealing with plain English.

The question is "what's it to you?" Are you really that lonesome that
you have to troll? You really need a life.

Trevor Wilson

April 19th 13, 11:59 PM

On 4/20/2013 8:50 AM, wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 08:05:21 +1000, Trevor Wilson
> > wrote:
>
>> On 4/20/2013 2:22 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>
>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> **Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
>>>> gutless politicians they have in their pocket.
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course, you are a well known loon.
>>>
>>
>> **If pointing out the abject stupidity of US gun control laws (such as
>> they are), by using logic, reason and common-sense, makes me a "loon",
>> then I guess you have some serious problems in dealing with plain English.
>
> The question is "what's it to you?"

**It's a public forum, idiot. Everyone else in the Western, developed
world looks at the US situation WRT gun control and considers the
situation tragic and sad. It seems that many Americans cannot see this fact.

Are you really that lonesome that
> you have to troll?

**Pointing out the evil that lies within the political framework of the
US, is not trolling. It is pointing out the truth.

You really need a life.
>

**If you have something of value to add, then do so. If you can defend
the NRA, then do so (good luck with that). Otherwise, **** off.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson

April 20th 13, 08:43 AM

On 4/20/2013 3:53 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
> Who the **** posted this **** to all these groups? The OP didn't even
> cite who the "kike" is.
>
> Newsgroups:
> sci.electronics.repair,24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt. sports.football.pro.sd-chargers,alt.engineering.electrical,rec.audio.car
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:
>
> Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written in the United States. If some
> Aussie has a problem with it, just don't come here and you'll be just
> fine.
>
> I really don't understand why people that are outside of the US think
> they are allowed to opine on the 2nd. I don't tell you what kind of
> boomerang you can carry.

**We call it: 'Freedom of speech'. An interesting concept you should
learn about.

Stupid septic.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson

April 20th 13, 08:54 AM

On 4/20/2013 4:23 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> **The US's problem is that the NRA has subverted their political system.
>> A miniscule 4 million members of the NRA, effectively dictate gun
>> control laws (and other, related laws) in the US. The NRA acts first and
>> formost in the interests of the firearms industry. They have no interest
>> in public safety. Their sole interests lie in pushing firearms and
>> ammunition sales accross the US. Any politician who stands up to the NRA
>> will cop a vicious, expensive and extended campaign of denigration.
>> Since the NRA is not, officially, a political organisation (although it
>> operates within the political sphere), it is exempt from many of the
>> constraints that political organisations must operate within.
>>
>> That US citizens seem to accept this evil organisation within their
>> midst, is difficult to understand. Many Americans appear to have been
>> comprehensively brainwashed. Perhaps it is their education system? I
>> don't know. Either way, one day the bulk of the US population will 'wake
>> up and smell the coffee' and the NRA will be brought to it's knees.
>
> If you don't live here, and never been here; you don't know what the ****
> you're talking about.

**Then I DO know exactly what I am talking about. Feel free to pose a
logical argument, rather than engaging in pointless rhetoric.

How dare you sit there from the comfort of your
> chair and insult our educational system.

**_I_ don't need to insult your education system. Here is an example
that does that all on it's own:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education_in_the_ United_States

Kinda says it all, really.

The PC you are using was
> invented by Americans, as well as the means you are using to deliver your
> (ill informed) message.

**I never suggested that ALL Americans were stupid. Just a VERY large
number of them. At least 4 million, anyway.

>
> "Their {NRA's} sole interests lie in pushing firearms and ammunition
> sales accross [sic] the US" <--- What a crock of ****, mate.

**Again, the facts are just that:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerogers/2013/02/01/nra-winning-the-influence-battle-over-gun-control/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/16/how-the-nra-influences-congress-in-6-charts/

>
> You really don't know *what* the NRA does, do you?

**I know what the NRA _CLAIMS_ to do. I also know what the NRA's main
aim is. That aim has nothing to do with shooting safety, gun owner's
education and other crap. It's main aim to ensure that more guns are
sold. It is (now) an industry lobby organisation, first and foremost.

And before you ask,
> no - I'm not a member. If you'd like the truth, ask an American.

**I have. There are a surprisingly large number who are heartily sick of
the political meddling perpetrated by the NRA.

There
> is no telling what garbage you read/watch in the media down there, they
> have been brainwashing you apparently.

**I read local AND US media. I also read scholarly documents (both for
and against) on the issue. I even have a copy of John Lott Jnr's (or is
that Mary Rosh's - I get confused) book on one of my shelves. Do you?
What do you read on the issue?

If you don't know something, it's
> best not to comment and look like the fool you do right now. Geeze...

**Feel free to place a cogent argument.

We'll wait.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson

April 20th 13, 08:58 AM

On 4/20/2013 2:29 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> Don Kelly wrote:
>>
>> On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>> **What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.
>>>
>>> Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:
>>>
>>> * At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
>>> * At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
>>> bow and arrow.
>>> * At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
>>> * At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
>>> * At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
>>> * At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.
>>>
>>> **Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
>>> gutless politicians they have in their pocket.
>>>
>>>
>> Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
>> excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
>> In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
>> expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of their
>> country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
>> frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
>> in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
>> providing fresh meat was also rather important).
>> What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
>> dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
>> invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
>> their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem earlier)- or
>> for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
>> These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
>> lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone innocent
>> gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
>> A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons that
>> can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't infringe
>> on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun owners
>> but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
>> I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in dismay at
>> what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and lived
>> with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
>> supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
>> based on ??
>
>
> Guns aren't the problem, and it only takes a second or two to change a
> magazine, so the size doesn't make any difference if no one is shooting
> back. The problem is that sleazy lawyers got 'rights' for the mentally
> ill to be on the streets. A gun is a tool, and doesn't kill by itself.
> It takes an unstable person or criminal who places no value on human
> life to use one to maim or kill in cold blood.

**Which is why good, strong, sane, homogeneous gun control laws make a
great deal of good sense. Something that does not exist in the US.

>
> People like 'Trevor' are responsible for creating 'Gun free zones'
> which are the perfect targets for shooting sprees where no one will
> shoot back. He is down under, and has no business spouting off about
> gun control in the US.
>

**Sure I have. I get to say whatever I wish (within limits). I have
freedom of speech, despite what you would wish.

"Gun free zones". Gotta love that old NRA gobbledegook. You have been
comprehensively brainwashed.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

soup

April 20th 13, 03:00 PM

Stephen Springer wrote:

> So the jew-******* is basically saying it's better to shank school
> children and not light them up.

I don't really know what you mean by "light them up"
But better stabbed and alive than shot and dead. Of course it would be
better if they were left alone.

Oh and BTW what has religion got to do with it?

soup

April 20th 13, 03:04 PM

G. Morgan wrote:

> Very few Americans get involved with politics outside of the US,

Bwahawahawahawahawa <wheeze> wahawahawahawaha !

[email protected]

April 20th 13, 04:21 PM

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 15:04:51 +0100, soup >
wrote:

> G. Morgan wrote:
>
>> Very few Americans get involved with politics outside of the US,
>
>Bwahawahawahawahawa <wheeze> wahawahawahawaha !

They're coming to take you away...

[email protected]

April 20th 13, 04:25 PM

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:58:23 +1000, Trevor Wilson
> wrote:

>On 4/20/2013 2:29 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>
>> Don Kelly wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> **What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.
>>>>
>>>> Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:
>>>>
>>>> * At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
>>>> * At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
>>>> bow and arrow.
>>>> * At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
>>>> * At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
>>>> * At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
>>>> * At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.
>>>>
>>>> **Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
>>>> gutless politicians they have in their pocket.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
>>> excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
>>> In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
>>> expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of their
>>> country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
>>> frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
>>> in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
>>> providing fresh meat was also rather important).
>>> What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
>>> dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
>>> invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
>>> their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem earlier)- or
>>> for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
>>> These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
>>> lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone innocent
>>> gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
>>> A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons that
>>> can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't infringe
>>> on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun owners
>>> but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
>>> I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in dismay at
>>> what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and lived
>>> with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
>>> supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
>>> based on ??
>>
>>
>> Guns aren't the problem, and it only takes a second or two to change a
>> magazine, so the size doesn't make any difference if no one is shooting
>> back. The problem is that sleazy lawyers got 'rights' for the mentally
>> ill to be on the streets. A gun is a tool, and doesn't kill by itself.
>> It takes an unstable person or criminal who places no value on human
>> life to use one to maim or kill in cold blood.
>
>**Which is why good, strong, sane, homogeneous gun control laws make a
>great deal of good sense. Something that does not exist in the US.

Right. Strong gun law: Every action has an equal and opposite
reaction.

Gun control: Killing what you aim at.

>> People like 'Trevor' are responsible for creating 'Gun free zones'
>> which are the perfect targets for shooting sprees where no one will
>> shoot back. He is down under, and has no business spouting off about
>> gun control in the US.
>>
>
>**Sure I have. I get to say whatever I wish (within limits). I have
>freedom of speech, despite what you would wish.

Yes, even the idiots have "freedom of speech". Unfortunately, they're
all too free with their mouths.

>"Gun free zones". Gotta love that old NRA gobbledegook. You have been
>comprehensively brainwashed.

You're completely clueless but we all knew that. If the facts
disagree with your puny world view, the facts are evil. Typical
leftist moron.

[email protected]

April 20th 13, 04:32 PM

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:54:49 +1000, Trevor Wilson
> wrote:

>On 4/20/2013 4:23 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> **The US's problem is that the NRA has subverted their political system.
>>> A miniscule 4 million members of the NRA, effectively dictate gun
>>> control laws (and other, related laws) in the US. The NRA acts first and
>>> formost in the interests of the firearms industry. They have no interest
>>> in public safety. Their sole interests lie in pushing firearms and
>>> ammunition sales accross the US. Any politician who stands up to the NRA
>>> will cop a vicious, expensive and extended campaign of denigration.
>>> Since the NRA is not, officially, a political organisation (although it
>>> operates within the political sphere), it is exempt from many of the
>>> constraints that political organisations must operate within.
>>>
>>> That US citizens seem to accept this evil organisation within their
>>> midst, is difficult to understand. Many Americans appear to have been
>>> comprehensively brainwashed. Perhaps it is their education system? I
>>> don't know. Either way, one day the bulk of the US population will 'wake
>>> up and smell the coffee' and the NRA will be brought to it's knees.
>>
>> If you don't live here, and never been here; you don't know what the ****
>> you're talking about.
>
>**Then I DO know exactly what I am talking about.

You wouldn't know logic if it hit you in the face. Obviously.

>Feel free to pose a
>logical argument, rather than engaging in pointless rhetoric.

You're certainly free to, sure. However you haven't yet.

BTW, we're also free to laugh at your inane arguments and lack of
logic.

> How dare you sit there from the comfort of your
>> chair and insult our educational system.
>
>**_I_ don't need to insult your education system. Here is an example
>that does that all on it's own:

But you did anyway. Without the first clue.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education_in_the_ United_States
>
>Kinda says it all, really.

More absurd logic. Wiki taken as evidence. ...to be expected.

> The PC you are using was
>> invented by Americans, as well as the means you are using to deliver your
>> (ill informed) message.
>
>**I never suggested that ALL Americans were stupid. Just a VERY large
>number of them. At least 4 million, anyway.

Of >300 million, I'd love it if that were true.

>> "Their {NRA's} sole interests lie in pushing firearms and ammunition
>> sales accross [sic] the US" <--- What a crock of ****, mate.
>
>**Again, the facts are just that:

Bull****.

>http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerogers/2013/02/01/nra-winning-the-influence-battle-over-gun-control/
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/16/how-the-nra-influences-congress-in-6-charts/
>

You really are a dummy.
>
>>
>> You really don't know *what* the NRA does, do you?
>
>**I know what the NRA _CLAIMS_ to do. I also know what the NRA's main
>aim is. That aim has nothing to do with shooting safety, gun owner's
>education and other crap. It's main aim to ensure that more guns are
>sold. It is (now) an industry lobby organisation, first and foremost.

No, you obviously don't.

> And before you ask,
>> no - I'm not a member. If you'd like the truth, ask an American.
>
>**I have. There are a surprisingly large number who are heartily sick of
>the political meddling perpetrated by the NRA.
>
>
> There
>> is no telling what garbage you read/watch in the media down there, they
>> have been brainwashing you apparently.
>
>**I read local AND US media. I also read scholarly documents (both for
>and against) on the issue. I even have a copy of John Lott Jnr's (or is
>that Mary Rosh's - I get confused) book on one of my shelves. Do you?
>What do you read on the issue?

Have you read John Lott's book? No, I didn't think so.
>
> If you don't know something, it's
>> best not to comment and look like the fool you do right now. Geeze...
>
>**Feel free to place a cogent argument.

>We'll wait.

After you...

[email protected]

April 20th 13, 04:35 PM

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 08:59:49 +1000, Trevor Wilson
> wrote:

>On 4/20/2013 8:50 AM, wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 08:05:21 +1000, Trevor Wilson
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/20/2013 2:22 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> **Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
>>>>> gutless politicians they have in their pocket.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course, you are a well known loon.
>>>>
>>>
>>> **If pointing out the abject stupidity of US gun control laws (such as
>>> they are), by using logic, reason and common-sense, makes me a "loon",
>>> then I guess you have some serious problems in dealing with plain English.
>>
>> The question is "what's it to you?"
>
>
>**It's a public forum, idiot. Everyone else in the Western, developed
>world looks at the US situation WRT gun control and considers the
>situation tragic and sad. It seems that many Americans cannot see this fact.

Troll, look at the groups you included. Only trolls and Uncle Joe are
so indiscriminate with shotguns.

> Are you really that lonesome that
>> you have to troll?
>
>
>**Pointing out the evil that lies within the political framework of the
>US, is not trolling. It is pointing out the truth.

You aren't. You're a lefty, liar, and troll; the lowest forms of life
on the planet.

> You really need a life.
>>
>
>**If you have something of value to add, then do so. If you can defend
>the NRA, then do so (good luck with that). Otherwise, **** off.

I'm responding to your bull****. You started the lies, idiot.

[email protected]

April 20th 13, 04:37 PM

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:43:26 +1000, Trevor Wilson
> wrote:

>On 4/20/2013 3:53 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
>> Who the **** posted this **** to all these groups? The OP didn't even
>> cite who the "kike" is.
>>
>> Newsgroups:
>> sci.electronics.repair,24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt. sports.football.pro.sd-chargers,alt.engineering.electrical,rec.audio.car
>>
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:
>>
>> Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written in the United States. If some
>> Aussie has a problem with it, just don't come here and you'll be just
>> fine.
>>
>> I really don't understand why people that are outside of the US think
>> they are allowed to opine on the 2nd. I don't tell you what kind of
>> boomerang you can carry.
>
>**We call it: 'Freedom of speech'. An interesting concept you should
>learn about.

You really are that stupid, aren't you?

>Stupid septic.

Why do you keep changing your nym, troll?

Ramsman

April 20th 13, 08:45 PM

On 20/04/2013 07:06, G. Morgan wrote:
> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
>> People like 'Trevor' are responsible for creating 'Gun free zones'
>> which are the perfect targets for shooting sprees where no one will
>> shoot back. He is down under, and has no business spouting off about
>> gun control in the US.
>
> I just told him the same thing.
>
> I also get tired of Eurotrash bad-mouthing our Constitution. For
> Chrissakes, they still have queens, prince's, princesses, and kings
> ruling over the moral majority (or would that be the majorities'
> morals?).
>

Please provide a list of European countries where royalty rules.

> Very few Americans get involved with politics outside of the US, yet the
> whole world has a ****ing opinion on *our* politics and law. If they
> can't vote here, they need to STFU about it. [g][r][i][n]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Peter

Mark Zacharias

April 20th 13, 09:18 PM

> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:54:49 +1000, Trevor Wilson
> > wrote:
>
>>On 4/20/2013 4:23 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> **The US's problem is that the NRA has subverted their political
>>>> system.
>>>> A miniscule 4 million members of the NRA, effectively dictate gun
>>>> control laws (and other, related laws) in the US. The NRA acts first
>>>> and
>>>> formost in the interests of the firearms industry. They have no
>>>> interest
>>>> in public safety. Their sole interests lie in pushing firearms and
>>>> ammunition sales accross the US. Any politician who stands up to the
>>>> NRA
>>>> will cop a vicious, expensive and extended campaign of denigration.
>>>> Since the NRA is not, officially, a political organisation (although it
>>>> operates within the political sphere), it is exempt from many of the
>>>> constraints that political organisations must operate within.
>>>>
>>>> That US citizens seem to accept this evil organisation within their
>>>> midst, is difficult to understand. Many Americans appear to have been
>>>> comprehensively brainwashed. Perhaps it is their education system? I
>>>> don't know. Either way, one day the bulk of the US population will
>>>> 'wake
>>>> up and smell the coffee' and the NRA will be brought to it's knees.
>>>
>>> If you don't live here, and never been here; you don't know what the
>>> ****
>>> you're talking about.
>>
>>**Then I DO know exactly what I am talking about.
>
> You wouldn't know logic if it hit you in the face. Obviously.
>
>>Feel free to pose a
>>logical argument, rather than engaging in pointless rhetoric.
>
> You're certainly free to, sure. However you haven't yet.
>
> BTW, we're also free to laugh at your inane arguments and lack of
> logic.
>
>> How dare you sit there from the comfort of your
>>> chair and insult our educational system.
>>
>>**_I_ don't need to insult your education system. Here is an example
>>that does that all on it's own:
>
>
> But you did anyway. Without the first clue.
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education_in_the_ United_States
>>
>>Kinda says it all, really.
>
> More absurd logic. Wiki taken as evidence. ...to be expected.
>
>> The PC you are using was
>>> invented by Americans, as well as the means you are using to deliver
>>> your
>>> (ill informed) message.
>>
>>**I never suggested that ALL Americans were stupid. Just a VERY large
>>number of them. At least 4 million, anyway.
>
> Of >300 million, I'd love it if that were true.
>
>>> "Their {NRA's} sole interests lie in pushing firearms and ammunition
>>> sales accross [sic] the US" <--- What a crock of ****, mate.
>>
>>**Again, the facts are just that:
>
> Bull****.
>
>>http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerogers/2013/02/01/nra-winning-the-influence-battle-over-gun-control/
>>
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/16/how-the-nra-influences-congress-in-6-charts/
>>
>
> You really are a dummy.
>>
>>>
>>> You really don't know *what* the NRA does, do you?
>>
>>**I know what the NRA _CLAIMS_ to do. I also know what the NRA's main
>>aim is. That aim has nothing to do with shooting safety, gun owner's
>>education and other crap. It's main aim to ensure that more guns are
>>sold. It is (now) an industry lobby organisation, first and foremost.
>
> No, you obviously don't.
>
>> And before you ask,
>>> no - I'm not a member. If you'd like the truth, ask an American.
>>
>>**I have. There are a surprisingly large number who are heartily sick of
>>the political meddling perpetrated by the NRA.
>>
>>
>> There
>>> is no telling what garbage you read/watch in the media down there, they
>>> have been brainwashing you apparently.
>>
>>**I read local AND US media. I also read scholarly documents (both for
>>and against) on the issue. I even have a copy of John Lott Jnr's (or is
>>that Mary Rosh's - I get confused) book on one of my shelves. Do you?
>>What do you read on the issue?
>
> Have you read John Lott's book? No, I didn't think so.
>>
>> If you don't know something, it's
>>> best not to comment and look like the fool you do right now. Geeze...
>>
>>**Feel free to place a cogent argument.
>
>>We'll wait.
>
> After you...

I don't care to even read all the posts on this subject. The arguments have
been made and re-made for decades.
The U.S. Constitution is purposely designed so that short-term political
frenzy or emotion will be tempered by a slow-moving, methodical process of
amendment.
If the gun-grabbers think they have the political mojo to repeal the second
amendment, I say "knock yourself out". Go for it.
What a lot of people do not realize (or care about) is that ultimately, the
only thing that guarantees our First Amendment is in fact the Second
Amendment.

By the way, I'm not really a gun nut. I don't think someone needs an AR-15
to dispatch Bambi.

But the "slippery slope" is real.

Mark Z.

[email protected]

April 20th 13, 11:15 PM

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 15:18:19 -0500, "Mark Zacharias"
> wrote:

> wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:54:49 +1000, Trevor Wilson
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On 4/20/2013 4:23 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> **The US's problem is that the NRA has subverted their political
>>>>> system.
>>>>> A miniscule 4 million members of the NRA, effectively dictate gun
>>>>> control laws (and other, related laws) in the US. The NRA acts first
>>>>> and
>>>>> formost in the interests of the firearms industry. They have no
>>>>> interest
>>>>> in public safety. Their sole interests lie in pushing firearms and
>>>>> ammunition sales accross the US. Any politician who stands up to the
>>>>> NRA
>>>>> will cop a vicious, expensive and extended campaign of denigration.
>>>>> Since the NRA is not, officially, a political organisation (although it
>>>>> operates within the political sphere), it is exempt from many of the
>>>>> constraints that political organisations must operate within.
>>>>>
>>>>> That US citizens seem to accept this evil organisation within their
>>>>> midst, is difficult to understand. Many Americans appear to have been
>>>>> comprehensively brainwashed. Perhaps it is their education system? I
>>>>> don't know. Either way, one day the bulk of the US population will
>>>>> 'wake
>>>>> up and smell the coffee' and the NRA will be brought to it's knees.
>>>>
>>>> If you don't live here, and never been here; you don't know what the
>>>> ****
>>>> you're talking about.
>>>
>>>**Then I DO know exactly what I am talking about.
>>
>> You wouldn't know logic if it hit you in the face. Obviously.
>>
>>>Feel free to pose a
>>>logical argument, rather than engaging in pointless rhetoric.
>>
>> You're certainly free to, sure. However you haven't yet.
>>
>> BTW, we're also free to laugh at your inane arguments and lack of
>> logic.
>>
>>> How dare you sit there from the comfort of your
>>>> chair and insult our educational system.
>>>
>>>**_I_ don't need to insult your education system. Here is an example
>>>that does that all on it's own:
>>
>>
>> But you did anyway. Without the first clue.
>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education_in_the_ United_States
>>>
>>>Kinda says it all, really.
>>
>> More absurd logic. Wiki taken as evidence. ...to be expected.
>>
>>> The PC you are using was
>>>> invented by Americans, as well as the means you are using to deliver
>>>> your
>>>> (ill informed) message.
>>>
>>>**I never suggested that ALL Americans were stupid. Just a VERY large
>>>number of them. At least 4 million, anyway.
>>
>> Of >300 million, I'd love it if that were true.
>>
>>>> "Their {NRA's} sole interests lie in pushing firearms and ammunition
>>>> sales accross [sic] the US" <--- What a crock of ****, mate.
>>>
>>>**Again, the facts are just that:
>>
>> Bull****.
>>
>>>http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerogers/2013/02/01/nra-winning-the-influence-battle-over-gun-control/
>>>
>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/16/how-the-nra-influences-congress-in-6-charts/
>>>
>>
>> You really are a dummy.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You really don't know *what* the NRA does, do you?
>>>
>>>**I know what the NRA _CLAIMS_ to do. I also know what the NRA's main
>>>aim is. That aim has nothing to do with shooting safety, gun owner's
>>>education and other crap. It's main aim to ensure that more guns are
>>>sold. It is (now) an industry lobby organisation, first and foremost.
>>
>> No, you obviously don't.
>>
>>> And before you ask,
>>>> no - I'm not a member. If you'd like the truth, ask an American.
>>>
>>>**I have. There are a surprisingly large number who are heartily sick of
>>>the political meddling perpetrated by the NRA.
>>>
>>>
>>> There
>>>> is no telling what garbage you read/watch in the media down there, they
>>>> have been brainwashing you apparently.
>>>
>>>**I read local AND US media. I also read scholarly documents (both for
>>>and against) on the issue. I even have a copy of John Lott Jnr's (or is
>>>that Mary Rosh's - I get confused) book on one of my shelves. Do you?
>>>What do you read on the issue?
>>
>> Have you read John Lott's book? No, I didn't think so.
>>>
>>> If you don't know something, it's
>>>> best not to comment and look like the fool you do right now. Geeze...
>>>
>>>**Feel free to place a cogent argument.
>>
>>>We'll wait.
>>
>> After you...
>
>
>I don't care to even read all the posts on this subject. The arguments have
>been made and re-made for decades.

You're free to kilefile the thread, dummy.

>The U.S. Constitution is purposely designed so that short-term political
>frenzy or emotion will be tempered by a slow-moving, methodical process of
>amendment.

Correct. That's hardly the MO of the left, however.

>If the gun-grabbers think they have the political mojo to repeal the second
>amendment, I say "knock yourself out". Go for it.

+1

However, their plan, as always, is to get their way by fiat. "Never
let a crisis go to waste."

>What a lot of people do not realize (or care about) is that ultimately, the
>only thing that guarantees our First Amendment is in fact the Second
>Amendment.

You'll never get a lefty to accept that truism.

>By the way, I'm not really a gun nut. I don't think someone needs an AR-15
>to dispatch Bambi.

What YOU think and "need" are irrelevant, as is any reference to
"Bambi" (real or imagined).

>But the "slippery slope" is real.

It is, indeed.

Trevor Wilson

April 21st 13, 01:13 AM

On 4/21/2013 6:18 AM, Mark Zacharias wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:54:49 +1000, Trevor Wilson
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/20/2013 4:23 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> **The US's problem is that the NRA has subverted their political
>>>>> system.
>>>>> A miniscule 4 million members of the NRA, effectively dictate gun
>>>>> control laws (and other, related laws) in the US. The NRA acts
>>>>> first and
>>>>> formost in the interests of the firearms industry. They have no
>>>>> interest
>>>>> in public safety. Their sole interests lie in pushing firearms and
>>>>> ammunition sales accross the US. Any politician who stands up to
>>>>> the NRA
>>>>> will cop a vicious, expensive and extended campaign of denigration.
>>>>> Since the NRA is not, officially, a political organisation
>>>>> (although it
>>>>> operates within the political sphere), it is exempt from many of the
>>>>> constraints that political organisations must operate within.
>>>>>
>>>>> That US citizens seem to accept this evil organisation within their
>>>>> midst, is difficult to understand. Many Americans appear to have been
>>>>> comprehensively brainwashed. Perhaps it is their education system? I
>>>>> don't know. Either way, one day the bulk of the US population will
>>>>> 'wake
>>>>> up and smell the coffee' and the NRA will be brought to it's knees.
>>>>
>>>> If you don't live here, and never been here; you don't know what the
>>>> ****
>>>> you're talking about.
>>>
>>> **Then I DO know exactly what I am talking about.
>>
>> You wouldn't know logic if it hit you in the face. Obviously.
>>
>>> Feel free to pose a
>>> logical argument, rather than engaging in pointless rhetoric.
>>
>> You're certainly free to, sure. However you haven't yet.
>>
>> BTW, we're also free to laugh at your inane arguments and lack of
>> logic.
>>
>>> How dare you sit there from the comfort of your
>>>> chair and insult our educational system.
>>>
>>> **_I_ don't need to insult your education system. Here is an example
>>> that does that all on it's own:
>>
>>
>> But you did anyway. Without the first clue.
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education_in_the_ United_States
>>>
>>>
>>> Kinda says it all, really.
>>
>> More absurd logic. Wiki taken as evidence. ...to be expected.
>>
>>> The PC you are using was
>>>> invented by Americans, as well as the means you are using to deliver
>>>> your
>>>> (ill informed) message.
>>>
>>> **I never suggested that ALL Americans were stupid. Just a VERY large
>>> number of them. At least 4 million, anyway.
>>
>> Of >300 million, I'd love it if that were true.
>>
>>>> "Their {NRA's} sole interests lie in pushing firearms and ammunition
>>>> sales accross [sic] the US" <--- What a crock of ****, mate.
>>>
>>> **Again, the facts are just that:
>>
>> Bull****.
>>
>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerogers/2013/02/01/nra-winning-the-influence-battle-over-gun-control/
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/16/how-the-nra-influences-congress-in-6-charts/
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You really are a dummy.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You really don't know *what* the NRA does, do you?
>>>
>>> **I know what the NRA _CLAIMS_ to do. I also know what the NRA's main
>>> aim is. That aim has nothing to do with shooting safety, gun owner's
>>> education and other crap. It's main aim to ensure that more guns are
>>> sold. It is (now) an industry lobby organisation, first and foremost.
>>
>> No, you obviously don't.
>>
>>> And before you ask,
>>>> no - I'm not a member. If you'd like the truth, ask an American.
>>>
>>> **I have. There are a surprisingly large number who are heartily sick of
>>> the political meddling perpetrated by the NRA.
>>>
>>>
>>> There
>>>> is no telling what garbage you read/watch in the media down there, they
>>>> have been brainwashing you apparently.
>>>
>>> **I read local AND US media. I also read scholarly documents (both for
>>> and against) on the issue. I even have a copy of John Lott Jnr's (or is
>>> that Mary Rosh's - I get confused) book on one of my shelves. Do you?
>>> What do you read on the issue?
>>
>> Have you read John Lott's book? No, I didn't think so.
>>>
>>> If you don't know something, it's
>>>> best not to comment and look like the fool you do right now. Geeze...
>>>
>>> **Feel free to place a cogent argument.
>>
>>> We'll wait.
>>
>> After you...
>
>
> I don't care to even read all the posts on this subject. The arguments
> have been made and re-made for decades.

**I will ask the question you failed to answer previously:

What part of:

"...well regulated militia..." do you not understand?

> The U.S. Constitution is purposely designed so that short-term political
> frenzy or emotion will be tempered by a slow-moving, methodical process
> of amendment.

**And I will repeat:

The 2nd Amendment was written:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.
* At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
* At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
* At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
* At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.

The 2nd Amendment is now several hundred years out of date. It was
written by slave owners and those fearful of wild animals, dangerous
indigenous people, angry slaves and a vicious colonial power. NONE of
which exists in the US today (in any significance).

You need to ask yourself what the US founding fathers would have made of
the weapons easily available on the streets and sporting goods stores of
the US today. Might they have added some additional conditions to the
2nd Amendment?

> If the gun-grabbers think they have the political mojo to repeal the
> second amendment,

**What are "gun-grabbers"? Please be precise in your definition. I can
find no reference in the usual places.

I say "knock yourself out". Go for it.
> What a lot of people do not realize (or care about) is that ultimately,
> the only thing that guarantees our First Amendment is in fact the Second
> Amendment.

**Bull****. Here in Australia, we have no such thing as the 2nd
Amendment. Ownership of firearms is strictly and rigorously controlled
by the Federal and state governments. Indeed, when the last major
alterations were made of firearms laws, the Federal government that
pushed the states to adopt those laws, was returned to office THREE more
times (same Prime Minister). Such was the popularity of those laws, that
approximately 95% of the population supported those laws.

BTW: We also have freedom of speech. We are also free to travel anywhere
on the planet. Something US citizens are not free to do (legally).

>
> By the way, I'm not really a gun nut. I don't think someone needs an
> AR-15 to dispatch Bambi.
>
> But the "slippery slope" is real.

**Sure. Look at how the NRA has subverted US politics. A mere 4 million
Americans get to dictate how the other 300 million have to live.

Time for a change.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[email protected]

April 21st 13, 01:59 AM

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 10:13:05 +1000, Trevor Wilson
> wrote:

>On 4/21/2013 6:18 AM, Mark Zacharias wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:54:49 +1000, Trevor Wilson
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/20/2013 4:23 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
>>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> **The US's problem is that the NRA has subverted their political
>>>>>> system.
>>>>>> A miniscule 4 million members of the NRA, effectively dictate gun
>>>>>> control laws (and other, related laws) in the US. The NRA acts
>>>>>> first and
>>>>>> formost in the interests of the firearms industry. They have no
>>>>>> interest
>>>>>> in public safety. Their sole interests lie in pushing firearms and
>>>>>> ammunition sales accross the US. Any politician who stands up to
>>>>>> the NRA
>>>>>> will cop a vicious, expensive and extended campaign of denigration.
>>>>>> Since the NRA is not, officially, a political organisation
>>>>>> (although it
>>>>>> operates within the political sphere), it is exempt from many of the
>>>>>> constraints that political organisations must operate within.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That US citizens seem to accept this evil organisation within their
>>>>>> midst, is difficult to understand. Many Americans appear to have been
>>>>>> comprehensively brainwashed. Perhaps it is their education system? I
>>>>>> don't know. Either way, one day the bulk of the US population will
>>>>>> 'wake
>>>>>> up and smell the coffee' and the NRA will be brought to it's knees.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you don't live here, and never been here; you don't know what the
>>>>> ****
>>>>> you're talking about.
>>>>
>>>> **Then I DO know exactly what I am talking about.
>>>
>>> You wouldn't know logic if it hit you in the face. Obviously.
>>>
>>>> Feel free to pose a
>>>> logical argument, rather than engaging in pointless rhetoric.
>>>
>>> You're certainly free to, sure. However you haven't yet.
>>>
>>> BTW, we're also free to laugh at your inane arguments and lack of
>>> logic.
>>>
>>>> How dare you sit there from the comfort of your
>>>>> chair and insult our educational system.
>>>>
>>>> **_I_ don't need to insult your education system. Here is an example
>>>> that does that all on it's own:
>>>
>>>
>>> But you did anyway. Without the first clue.
>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education_in_the_ United_States
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kinda says it all, really.
>>>
>>> More absurd logic. Wiki taken as evidence. ...to be expected.
>>>
>>>> The PC you are using was
>>>>> invented by Americans, as well as the means you are using to deliver
>>>>> your
>>>>> (ill informed) message.
>>>>
>>>> **I never suggested that ALL Americans were stupid. Just a VERY large
>>>> number of them. At least 4 million, anyway.
>>>
>>> Of >300 million, I'd love it if that were true.
>>>
>>>>> "Their {NRA's} sole interests lie in pushing firearms and ammunition
>>>>> sales accross [sic] the US" <--- What a crock of ****, mate.
>>>>
>>>> **Again, the facts are just that:
>>>
>>> Bull****.
>>>
>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerogers/2013/02/01/nra-winning-the-influence-battle-over-gun-control/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/16/how-the-nra-influences-congress-in-6-charts/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You really are a dummy.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You really don't know *what* the NRA does, do you?
>>>>
>>>> **I know what the NRA _CLAIMS_ to do. I also know what the NRA's main
>>>> aim is. That aim has nothing to do with shooting safety, gun owner's
>>>> education and other crap. It's main aim to ensure that more guns are
>>>> sold. It is (now) an industry lobby organisation, first and foremost.
>>>
>>> No, you obviously don't.
>>>
>>>> And before you ask,
>>>>> no - I'm not a member. If you'd like the truth, ask an American.
>>>>
>>>> **I have. There are a surprisingly large number who are heartily sick of
>>>> the political meddling perpetrated by the NRA.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There
>>>>> is no telling what garbage you read/watch in the media down there, they
>>>>> have been brainwashing you apparently.
>>>>
>>>> **I read local AND US media. I also read scholarly documents (both for
>>>> and against) on the issue. I even have a copy of John Lott Jnr's (or is
>>>> that Mary Rosh's - I get confused) book on one of my shelves. Do you?
>>>> What do you read on the issue?
>>>
>>> Have you read John Lott's book? No, I didn't think so.
>>>>
>>>> If you don't know something, it's
>>>>> best not to comment and look like the fool you do right now. Geeze...
>>>>
>>>> **Feel free to place a cogent argument.
>>>
>>>> We'll wait.
>>>
>>> After you...
>>
>>
>> I don't care to even read all the posts on this subject. The arguments
>> have been made and re-made for decades.
>
>**I will ask the question you failed to answer previously:
>
>What part of:
>
>"...well regulated militia..." do you not understand?

Obviously:

1) You don't know.
2) English is not your first language.
3) You've never held a logical thought in your tiny mind.

>> The U.S. Constitution is purposely designed so that short-term political
>> frenzy or emotion will be tempered by a slow-moving, methodical process
>> of amendment.
>
>**And I will repeat:
>
>The 2nd Amendment was written:
>
>* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
>* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
>bow and arrow.
>* At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
>* At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
>* At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
>* At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.

All irrelevant. There are still bad guys. There are still bad
governments. There are still bad guys in charge of bad governments.
There is still the Constitution.

>The 2nd Amendment is now several hundred years out of date. It was
>written by slave owners and those fearful of wild animals, dangerous
>indigenous people, angry slaves and a vicious colonial power. NONE of
>which exists in the US today (in any significance).

Irrelevant and illogical.

>You need to ask yourself what the US founding fathers would have made of
>the weapons easily available on the streets and sporting goods stores of
>the US today. Might they have added some additional conditions to the
>2nd Amendment?

Also irrelevant but like many Americans, they would have owned
several. Obviously.

>> If the gun-grabbers think they have the political mojo to repeal the
>> second amendment,
>
>**What are "gun-grabbers"? Please be precise in your definition. I can
>find no reference in the usual places.

You really don't have to prove how dumb you are. We got it already.
>
> I say "knock yourself out". Go for it.
>> What a lot of people do not realize (or care about) is that ultimately,
>> the only thing that guarantees our First Amendment is in fact the Second
>> Amendment.
>
>**Bull****. Here in Australia, we have no such thing as the 2nd
>Amendment. Ownership of firearms is strictly and rigorously controlled
>by the Federal and state governments. Indeed, when the last major
>alterations were made of firearms laws, the Federal government that
>pushed the states to adopt those laws, was returned to office THREE more
>times (same Prime Minister). Such was the popularity of those laws, that
>approximately 95% of the population supported those laws.

You really don't get it. We don't give a **** what you do in
Australia, Ron Reaugh.

>BTW: We also have freedom of speech. We are also free to travel anywhere
>on the planet. Something US citizens are not free to do (legally).

You're not free to defend yourselves. Without that freedom you none.

>> By the way, I'm not really a gun nut. I don't think someone needs an
>> AR-15 to dispatch Bambi.
>>
>> But the "slippery slope" is real.
>
>**Sure. Look at how the NRA has subverted US politics. A mere 4 million
>Americans get to dictate how the other 300 million have to live.

Laughable logic, as usual, Ron Reaugh.

>Time for a change.

So change *YOUR* **** hole, Ron Reaugh.

Michael Moroney

April 21st 13, 02:41 AM

Trevor Wilson > writes:

>**And I will repeat:

>The 2nd Amendment was written:

>* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
>* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
>bow and arrow.

So, I take it that you believe the Freedom of Speech clause in the First
Amendment only applies to speaking from atop a soapbox at the local park
(no voice amplification), handwritten letters and documents/newspapers/
books printed using a screw press. It does not apply to radio, television,
modern high speed printing presses, the Internet or anything involving
amplification, electronics or any other technology developed since the
late 1700s?

Roger Blake

April 21st 13, 03:35 AM

On 2013-04-21, Trevor Wilson > wrote:
> "...well regulated militia..." do you not understand?

"Well regulated" at the time the Constitution was written meant "well
practiced" or "well trained." Perhaps in Australia it is different,
but here in the U.S. one of the most fundamental axioms of law is that
the intent of the lawmaker is the force and effect of the law. You do
not get to change that effect simply because the popular use of a word
or phrase changes over time.

> Time for a change.

Hard to argue with that. Experts and world leaders throughout history
agree with you. Idi Amin, Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler,
Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung, Kim Jung-Il, Musmammar Qaddafi, and others have
found central regulation and strict control over firearm ownership to
be quite effective in implementing their respective societies.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roger Blake

April 21st 13, 03:59 AM

On 2013-04-21, Trevor Wilson > wrote:
> "...well regulated militia..." do you not understand?

Additionally, in the U.S. the "militia" did (and still does) include
every able-bodied man.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trevor Wilson

April 21st 13, 04:00 AM

On 4/21/2013 11:41 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Trevor Wilson > writes:
>
>> **And I will repeat:
>
>> The 2nd Amendment was written:
>
>> * At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
>> * At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
>> bow and arrow.
>
> So, I take it that you believe the Freedom of Speech clause in the First
> Amendment only applies to speaking from atop a soapbox at the local park
> (no voice amplification), handwritten letters and documents/newspapers/
> books printed using a screw press. It does not apply to radio, television,
> modern high speed printing presses, the Internet or anything involving
> amplification, electronics or any other technology developed since the
> late 1700s?
>

**And there's the rub: Freedom of speech also applies to instructions on
bomb-building, preparation of toxins and other substances, paedophile
materials, along with fear-mongering and hate-inciting materials.

If you want to see the limits of free speech, watch a free to air US TV
broadcast sometime.

The facts are simple enough: Freedom of speech is not as free as you
might think. Censorship applies in almost every nation. Including the US.

Same deal with the 2nd Amendment. It does not apply to all US citizens
and to all firearms. There are limits. Every other Western, developed
nation employs limits that do not go as far as they do in most US
jurisdictions.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson

April 21st 13, 04:06 AM

On 4/21/2013 12:35 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2013-04-21, Trevor Wilson > wrote:
>> "...well regulated militia..." do you not understand?
>
> "Well regulated" at the time the Constitution was written meant "well
> practiced" or "well trained."

**No. That is what YOU think it means. Either way, at the time the 2nd
Amendment was written, their was no official US armed forces. There is
now. And, it is the most formidable armed force on the planet. A
citizen's militia is now unnecessary.

Perhaps in Australia it is different,
> but here in the U.S. one of the most fundamental axioms of law is that
> the intent of the lawmaker is the force and effect of the law. You do
> not get to change that effect simply because the popular use of a word
> or phrase changes over time.

**Indeed. Which is why the 2nd Amendment is more tha 100 years overdue
for change.

>
>> Time for a change.
>
> Hard to argue with that. Experts and world leaders throughout history
> agree with you. Idi Amin, Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler,
> Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung, Kim Jung-Il, Musmammar Qaddafi, and others have
> found central regulation and strict control over firearm ownership to
> be quite effective in implementing their respective societies.

**That old chestnut. I'll bite.

List the SPECIFIC changes made to firearms laws by your cited people.
I'll start by explaining that it was the Weimar Republic that brought in
strict gun control laws. Hitler eased those laws considerably. To the
point where 10 year old children were armed to the teeth, with no adult
supervision. Just ask any US service people who entered Germany close to
the end of WWII. Many US army people were shot at by young children.

Anyway, let's see the rest of the list.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Roger Blake

April 21st 13, 04:53 AM

On 2013-04-21, Trevor Wilson > wrote:
> **No. That is what YOU think it means. Either way, at the time the 2nd

Wrong. For example, see:

http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

> Amendment was written, their was no official US armed forces. There is
> now. And, it is the most formidable armed force on the planet. A
> citizen's militia is now unnecessary.

Irrelevant.

> **Indeed. Which is why the 2nd Amendment is more tha 100 years overdue
> for change.

I disagree.

> **That old chestnut. I'll bite.

History shows us clearly that governmens are not to be trusted.

> List the SPECIFIC changes made to firearms laws by your cited people.

Look them up yourself.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roger Blake

April 21st 13, 05:01 AM

Also see:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

You will be hard pressed to find anything from the U.S. founders that
supports your position.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

soup

April 21st 13, 10:24 AM

Mark Zacharias wrote:

> I don't care to even read all the posts on this subject.

Or snip, apparently.

[email protected]

April 21st 13, 03:51 PM

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 02:35:09 +0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
> wrote:

>On 2013-04-21, Trevor Wilson > wrote:
>> "...well regulated militia..." do you not understand?
>
>"Well regulated" at the time the Constitution was written meant "well
>practiced" or "well trained." Perhaps in Australia it is different,
>but here in the U.S. one of the most fundamental axioms of law is that
>the intent of the lawmaker is the force and effect of the law. You do
>not get to change that effect simply because the popular use of a word
>or phrase changes over time.

Correct, but the larger point here is that only one who is completely
ignorant of both logic and the English language can believe that a
subordinate clause in any way modifies the independent clause.

>> Time for a change.
>
>Hard to argue with that. Experts and world leaders throughout history
>agree with you. Idi Amin, Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler,
>Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung, Kim Jung-Il, Musmammar Qaddafi, and others have
>found central regulation and strict control over firearm ownership to
>be quite effective in implementing their respective societies.

If the moron Aussie believes that it's time to change the US
Constitution, the instructions are self-contained. (Hint: he has no
clue and clearly impotent in the matter)

[email protected]

April 21st 13, 03:55 PM

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 02:59:40 +0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
> wrote:

>On 2013-04-21, Trevor Wilson > wrote:
>> "...well regulated militia..." do you not understand?
>
>Additionally, in the U.S. the "militia" did (and still does) include
>every able-bodied man.

There are exceptions (e.g. those holding federal elected positions,
though it could be argued that they're under the "able-bodied"
exemption above ;).

Michael Moroney

April 21st 13, 04:31 PM

Trevor Wilson > writes:

>On 4/21/2013 11:41 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Trevor Wilson > writes:
>>
>>> **And I will repeat:
>>
>>> The 2nd Amendment was written:
>>
>>> * At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
>>> * At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
>>> bow and arrow.
>>
>> So, I take it that you believe the Freedom of Speech clause in the First
>> Amendment only applies to speaking from atop a soapbox at the local park
>> (no voice amplification), handwritten letters and documents/newspapers/
>> books printed using a screw press. It does not apply to radio, television,
>> modern high speed printing presses, the Internet or anything involving
>> amplification, electronics or any other technology developed since the
>> late 1700s?
>>

>**And there's the rub: Freedom of speech also applies to instructions on
>bomb-building, preparation of toxins and other substances, paedophile
>materials, along with fear-mongering and hate-inciting materials.

That's not the point. If the 2nd only applies to the technology of the
time of its passage (inaccurate muskets) then, to be consistent, the 1st
can only apply to the technology of the time of its passage. Meaning only
handwritten text, newspapers printed with a screw press and yelling from
atop a box at a street corner.

Ramsman

April 21st 13, 04:44 PM

On 20/04/2013 20:45, Ramsman wrote:
> On 20/04/2013 07:06, G. Morgan wrote:
>> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>
>>> People like 'Trevor' are responsible for creating 'Gun free zones'
>>> which are the perfect targets for shooting sprees where no one will
>>> shoot back. He is down under, and has no business spouting off about
>>> gun control in the US.
>>
>> I just told him the same thing.
>>
>> I also get tired of Eurotrash bad-mouthing our Constitution. For
>> Chrissakes, they still have queens, prince's, princesses, and kings
>> ruling over the moral majority (or would that be the majorities'
>> morals?).
>>
>
> Please provide a list of European countries where royalty rules.
>
If you're going to make statements like that with no evidence to back
them up, it doesn't do much for what little credibility you do have.

Ranting is no substitute for reasoned argument.

Once again, please tell use where these countries are that are ruled by
a royal family.

>> Very few Americans get involved with politics outside of the US, yet the
>> whole world has a ****ing opinion on *our* politics and law. If they
>> can't vote here, they need to STFU about it. [g][r][i][n]
>>
>>

Very few Americans know anything about anything outside the US.

--
Peter

Michael A. Terrell

April 21st 13, 08:59 PM

Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> On 4/20/2013 2:22 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >
> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >>
> >> **Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
> >> gutless politicians they have in their pocket.
> >
> >
> > Of course, you are a well known loon.
> >
>
> **If pointing out the abject stupidity of US gun control laws (such as
> they are), by using logic, reason and common-sense, makes me a "loon",
> then I guess you have some serious problems in dealing with plain English.

Why is that it everyone who post from down under is insane? Of
course, 'rageaudio' tells everyone that you are just an opinionated ass.

Michael A. Terrell

April 21st 13, 09:01 PM

"G. Morgan" wrote:
>
> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> [i]
> > People like 'Trevor' are responsible for creating 'Gun free zones'
> >which are the perfect targets for shooting sprees where no one will
> >shoot back. He is down under, and has no business spouting off about
> >gun control in the US.
>
> I just told him the same thing.
>
> I also get tired of Eurotrash bad-mouthing our Constitution. For
> Chrissakes, they still have queens, prince's, princesses, and kings
> ruling over the moral majority (or would that be the majorities'
> morals?).
>
> Very few Americans get involved with politics outside of the US, yet the
> whole world has a ****ing opinion on *our* politics and law. If they
> can't vote here, they need to STFU about it. [g][r][n]

That's because they have very few rights, and would get locked up or
executed if they mouthed off about their queers, err, Queens.

Michael A. Terrell

April 21st 13, 09:04 PM

wrote:
>
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 15:04:51 +0100, soup >
> wrote:
>
> > G. Morgan wrote:
> >
> >> Very few Americans get involved with politics outside of the US,
> >
> >Bwahawahawahawahawa <wheeze> wahawahawahawaha !
>
> They're coming to take you away...

They did, but he chewed a hole in their butterfly net.

Michael A. Terrell

April 21st 13, 09:06 PM

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >
> > Guns aren't the problem, and it only takes a second or two to change a
> > magazine, so the size doesn't make any difference if no one is shooting
> > back. The problem is that sleazy lawyers got 'rights' for the mentally
> > ill to be on the streets. A gun is a tool, and doesn't kill by itself.
> > It takes an unstable person or criminal who places no value on human
> > life to use one to maim or kill in cold blood.
>
> **Which is why good, strong, sane, homogeneous gun control laws make a
> great deal of good sense. Something that does not exist in the US.

You're just afraid that if they locked up everyone who was violent &
insane in the United States, it would spread to your worthless hellhole.

Michael A. Terrell

April 21st 13, 09:08 PM

wrote:
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> >"Gun free zones". Gotta love that old NRA gobbledegook. You have been
> >comprehensively brainwashed.
>
> You're completely clueless but we all knew that. If the facts
> disagree with your puny world view, the facts are evil. Typical
> leftist moron.

he thinks the US government should confiscate all the guns and murder
anyone who resists, like their government did to the man that inspired
the 'Crocodile Dundee' character.

Michael A. Terrell

April 21st 13, 09:11 PM

Mark Zacharias wrote:
>
> By the way, I'm not really a gun nut. I don't think someone needs an AR-15
> to dispatch Bambi.

Even if Bambi is an evil $ insane liberal who builds bombs? ;-)

Michael A. Terrell

April 21st 13, 09:14 PM

Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> **And there's the rub: Freedom of speech also applies to instructions on
> bomb-building, preparation of toxins and other substances, paedophile
> materials, along with fear-mongering and hate-inciting materials.

So, you're a drug making, bomb building pedophile? That's no
surprise.

Michael A. Terrell

April 21st 13, 09:30 PM

wrote:
>
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 02:35:09 +0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
> > wrote:
>
> >On 2013-04-21, Trevor Wilson > wrote:
> >> "...well regulated militia..." do you not understand?
> >
> >"Well regulated" at the time the Constitution was written meant "well
> >practiced" or "well trained." Perhaps in Australia it is different,
> >but here in the U.S. one of the most fundamental axioms of law is that
> >the intent of the lawmaker is the force and effect of the law. You do
> >not get to change that effect simply because the popular use of a word
> >or phrase changes over time.
>
> Correct, but the larger point here is that only one who is completely
> ignorant of both logic and the English language can believe that a
> subordinate clause in any way modifies the independent clause.
>
> >> Time for a change.
> >
> >Hard to argue with that. Experts and world leaders throughout history
> >agree with you. Idi Amin, Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler,
> >Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung, Kim Jung-Il, Musmammar Qaddafi, and others have
> >found central regulation and strict control over firearm ownership to
> >be quite effective in implementing their respective societies.
>
> If the moron Aussie believes that it's time to change the US
> Constitution, the instructions are self-contained. (Hint: he has no
> clue and clearly impotent in the matter)

Let him come to the US and start knocking on doors to demand that
people give him their guns & ammo. Make sure he doesn't understand
"Stand your ground" or "Castle Law".

Michael A. Terrell

April 21st 13, 09:34 PM

Charles wrote:
>
> Thought I was on a repair forum.
>
> Sorry.

We know you're sorry. You are also ignorant or maybe stupid, in that
you can't read headers, or filter out cross posted threads.

Trevor Wilson

April 22nd 13, 01:24 AM

On 4/22/2013 6:01 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> "G. Morgan" wrote:
>>
>> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>[i]
>>> People like 'Trevor' are responsible for creating 'Gun free zones'
>>> which are the perfect targets for shooting sprees where no one will
>>> shoot back. He is down under, and has no business spouting off about
>>> gun control in the US.
>>
>> I just told him the same thing.
>>
>> I also get tired of Eurotrash bad-mouthing our Constitution. For
>> Chrissakes, they still have queens, prince's, princesses, and kings
>> ruling over the moral majority (or would that be the majorities'
>> morals?).
>>
>> Very few Americans get involved with politics outside of the US, yet the
>> whole world has a ****ing opinion on *our* politics and law. If they
>> can't vote here, they need to STFU about it. [g][r][n]
>
>
> That's because they have very few rights, and would get locked up or
> executed if they mouthed off about their queers, err, Queens.
>

**Really? Got any recent evidence to prove that (WRT to the British
Monarch)?

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson

April 22nd 13, 01:26 AM

On 4/22/2013 6:08 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> wrote:
>>
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> "Gun free zones". Gotta love that old NRA gobbledegook. You have been
>>> comprehensively brainwashed.
>>
>> You're completely clueless but we all knew that. If the facts
>> disagree with your puny world view, the facts are evil. Typical
>> leftist moron.
>
>
> he thinks the US government should confiscate all the guns and murder
> anyone who resists,

**Like any rabid NRA supporter, who is incapable of forming an
individual thought, YOU have no idea what I think.

like their government did to the man that inspired
> the 'Crocodile Dundee' character.
>

**What did the "government" do to the man?

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson

April 22nd 13, 01:27 AM

On 4/22/2013 1:44 AM, Ramsman wrote:
> On 20/04/2013 20:45, Ramsman wrote:
>> On 20/04/2013 07:06, G. Morgan wrote:
>>> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>
>>>> People like 'Trevor' are responsible for creating 'Gun free zones'
>>>> which are the perfect targets for shooting sprees where no one will
>>>> shoot back. He is down under, and has no business spouting off about
>>>> gun control in the US.
>>>
>>> I just told him the same thing.
>>>
>>> I also get tired of Eurotrash bad-mouthing our Constitution. For
>>> Chrissakes, they still have queens, prince's, princesses, and kings
>>> ruling over the moral majority (or would that be the majorities'
>>> morals?).
>>>
>>
>> Please provide a list of European countries where royalty rules.
>>
> If you're going to make statements like that with no evidence to back
> them up, it doesn't do much for what little credibility you do have.
>
> Ranting is no substitute for reasoned argument.
>
> Once again, please tell use where these countries are that are ruled by
> a royal family.
>
>>> Very few Americans get involved with politics outside of the US, yet the
>>> whole world has a ****ing opinion on *our* politics and law. If they
>>> can't vote here, they need to STFU about it. [g][r][i][n]
>>>
>>>
>
> Very few Americans know anything about anything outside the US.
>
>

**Sad, but true. So much power in the hands of so many ignorant people.
George W Bush is a prime example. A hugely ignorant man, who did much
damage to the planet.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson

April 22nd 13, 01:30 AM

On 4/22/2013 5:59 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>> On 4/20/2013 2:22 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>
>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> **Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
>>>> gutless politicians they have in their pocket.
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course, you are a well known loon.
>>>
>>
>> **If pointing out the abject stupidity of US gun control laws (such as
>> they are), by using logic, reason and common-sense, makes me a "loon",
>> then I guess you have some serious problems in dealing with plain English.
>
>
> Why is that it everyone who post from down under is insane?

**What makes you think that everyone from Australia is insane? What
makes you think that a person who posts common-sense, logic and reason,
is insane?

Of
> course, 'rageaudio' tells everyone that you are just an opinionated ass.
>

**Again: Post some facts to back your abject stupidity and we'll listen
to what you have to say.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson

April 22nd 13, 01:44 AM

On 4/21/2013 1:53 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2013-04-21, Trevor Wilson > wrote:
>> **No. That is what YOU think it means. Either way, at the time the 2nd
>
> Wrong. For example, see:
>
> http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

**Liek I said: What YOU think is irrelevant.

>
>> Amendment was written, their was no official US armed forces. There is
>> now. And, it is the most formidable armed force on the planet. A
>> citizen's militia is now unnecessary.
>
> Irrelevant.

**Highly relevant.

>
>> **Indeed. Which is why the 2nd Amendment is more tha 100 years overdue
>> for change.
>
> I disagree.

**Why?

>
>> **That old chestnut. I'll bite.
>
> History shows us clearly that governmens are not to be trusted.
>
>> List the SPECIFIC changes made to firearms laws by your cited people.
>
> Look them up yourself.

**I accept your inability to prove your point.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson

April 22nd 13, 01:48 AM

On 4/22/2013 5:59 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>> On 4/20/2013 2:22 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>
>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> **Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
>>>> gutless politicians they have in their pocket.
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course, you are a well known loon.
>>>
>>
>> **If pointing out the abject stupidity of US gun control laws (such as
>> they are), by using logic, reason and common-sense, makes me a "loon",
>> then I guess you have some serious problems in dealing with plain English.
>
>
> Why is that it everyone who post from down under is insane? Of
> course, 'rageaudio' tells everyone that you are just an opinionated ass.
>

**I should add that, despite your peculiar insanity, I do not regard ALL
Americans as ignorant, gun loving morons. I reserve those sorts of
comments solely for NRA supporters and George W Bush voters. The other
150 million Americans may well be decent, intelligent people.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson

April 22nd 13, 04:10 AM

On 4/22/2013 1:31 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Trevor Wilson > writes:
>
>> On 4/21/2013 11:41 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> Trevor Wilson > writes:
>>>
>>>> **And I will repeat:
>>>
>>>> The 2nd Amendment was written:
>>>
>>>> * At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
>>>> * At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
>>>> bow and arrow.
>>>
>>> So, I take it that you believe the Freedom of Speech clause in the First
>>> Amendment only applies to speaking from atop a soapbox at the local park
>>> (no voice amplification), handwritten letters and documents/newspapers/
>>> books printed using a screw press. It does not apply to radio, television,
>>> modern high speed printing presses, the Internet or anything involving
>>> amplification, electronics or any other technology developed since the
>>> late 1700s?
>>>
>
>> **And there's the rub: Freedom of speech also applies to instructions on
>> bomb-building, preparation of toxins and other substances, paedophile
>> materials, along with fear-mongering and hate-inciting materials.
>
> That's not the point. If the 2nd only applies to the technology of the
> time of its passage (inaccurate muskets) then, to be consistent, the 1st
> can only apply to the technology of the time of its passage. Meaning only
> handwritten text, newspapers printed with a screw press and yelling from
> atop a box at a street corner.
>

**Precisely. You may care to note that, despite the 1st Amendment, truly
free speech does not exist in the US.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson

April 22nd 13, 04:10 AM

On 4/22/2013 6:14 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>> **And there's the rub: Freedom of speech also applies to instructions on
>> bomb-building, preparation of toxins and other substances, paedophile
>> materials, along with fear-mongering and hate-inciting materials.
>
>
> So, you're a drug making, bomb building pedophile? That's no
> surprise.
>

**You are one ignorant ****.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Michael A. Terrell

April 22nd 13, 02:40 PM

Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> **Like any rabid NRA supporter, who is incapable of forming an
> individual thought, YOU have no idea what I think.

The problem is that you don't think, and you never will. I don't
belong to the NRA, and I never have. I am a US Army Veteran who
believes in all of our amendments, including the Second Amendment. You
harp about free speech, yet try to deny that right to others.

Michael A. Terrell

April 22nd 13, 02:41 PM

Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> On 4/22/2013 1:31 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Trevor Wilson > writes:
> >
> >> On 4/21/2013 11:41 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>> Trevor Wilson > writes:
> >>>
> >>>> **And I will repeat:
> >>>
> >>>> The 2nd Amendment was written:
> >>>
> >>>> * At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
> >>>> * At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
> >>>> bow and arrow.
> >>>
> >>> So, I take it that you believe the Freedom of Speech clause in the First
> >>> Amendment only applies to speaking from atop a soapbox at the local park
> >>> (no voice amplification), handwritten letters and documents/newspapers/
> >>> books printed using a screw press. It does not apply to radio, television,
> >>> modern high speed printing presses, the Internet or anything involving
> >>> amplification, electronics or any other technology developed since the
> >>> late 1700s?
> >>>
> >
> >> **And there's the rub: Freedom of speech also applies to instructions on
> >> bomb-building, preparation of toxins and other substances, paedophile
> >> materials, along with fear-mongering and hate-inciting materials.
> >
> > That's not the point. If the 2nd only applies to the technology of the
> > time of its passage (inaccurate muskets) then, to be consistent, the 1st
> > can only apply to the technology of the time of its passage. Meaning only
> > handwritten text, newspapers printed with a screw press and yelling from
> > atop a box at a street corner.
> >
>
> **Precisely. You may care to note that, despite the 1st Amendment, truly
> free speech does not exist in the US.

yawn.............................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ....

Michael A. Terrell

April 22nd 13, 02:42 PM

Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> On 4/22/2013 6:14 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >
> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >>
> >> **And there's the rub: Freedom of speech also applies to instructions on
> >> bomb-building, preparation of toxins and other substances, paedophile
> >> materials, along with fear-mongering and hate-inciting materials.
> >
> >
> > So, you're a drug making, bomb building pedophile? That's no
> > surprise.
> >
>
> **You are one ignorant ****.

You can't stand the truth, so you proudly display your stupidity.

Michael A. Terrell

April 22nd 13, 02:43 PM

Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> On 4/21/2013 1:53 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
> > On 2013-04-21, Trevor Wilson > wrote:
> >> **No. That is what YOU think it means. Either way, at the time the 2nd
> >
> > Wrong. For example, see:
> >
> > http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
>
> **Liek I said: What YOU think is irrelevant.

So much for your claim of Freedom of Speech.

Michael A. Terrell

April 22nd 13, 02:45 PM

Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> **What makes you think that everyone from Australia is insane? What
> makes you think that a person who posts common-sense, logic and reason,
> is insane?

You're just like Phil Allison, and Bill Sloman. The three of you
give Australia a black eye on Usenet. I rarely see anyone else posting
from Oz.

Michael A. Terrell

April 22nd 13, 02:46 PM

Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> On 4/22/2013 5:59 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >
> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >>
> >> On 4/20/2013 2:22 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> **Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
> >>>> gutless politicians they have in their pocket.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Of course, you are a well known loon.
> >>>
> >>
> >> **If pointing out the abject stupidity of US gun control laws (such as
> >> they are), by using logic, reason and common-sense, makes me a "loon",
> >> then I guess you have some serious problems in dealing with plain English.
> >
> >
> > Why is that it everyone who post from down under is insane? Of
> > course, 'rageaudio' tells everyone that you are just an opinionated ass.
> >
>
> **I should add that, despite your peculiar insanity, I do not regard ALL
> Americans as ignorant, gun loving morons. I reserve those sorts of
> comments solely for NRA supporters and George W Bush voters. The other
> 150 million Americans may well be decent, intelligent people.

You have no clue who I support, so you just act like a monkey and
fling your ****.

[email protected]

April 22nd 13, 05:07 PM

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:27:33 +1000, Trevor Wilson
> wrote:

>On 4/22/2013 1:44 AM, Ramsman wrote:
>> On 20/04/2013 20:45, Ramsman wrote:
>>> On 20/04/2013 07:06, G. Morgan wrote:
>>>> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> People like 'Trevor' are responsible for creating 'Gun free zones'
>>>>> which are the perfect targets for shooting sprees where no one will
>>>>> shoot back. He is down under, and has no business spouting off about
>>>>> gun control in the US.
>>>>
>>>> I just told him the same thing.
>>>>
>>>> I also get tired of Eurotrash bad-mouthing our Constitution. For
>>>> Chrissakes, they still have queens, prince's, princesses, and kings
>>>> ruling over the moral majority (or would that be the majorities'
>>>> morals?).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Please provide a list of European countries where royalty rules.
>>>
>> If you're going to make statements like that with no evidence to back
>> them up, it doesn't do much for what little credibility you do have.
>>
>> Ranting is no substitute for reasoned argument.
>>
>> Once again, please tell use where these countries are that are ruled by
>> a royal family.
>>
>>>> Very few Americans get involved with politics outside of the US, yet the
>>>> whole world has a ****ing opinion on *our* politics and law. If they
>>>> can't vote here, they need to STFU about it. [g][r][i][n]
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Very few Americans know anything about anything outside the US.
>>
>>
>
>**Sad, but true. So much power in the hands of so many ignorant people.
>George W Bush is a prime example. A hugely ignorant man, who did much
>damage to the planet.

Idiot. What does "outside the US" have to do with the US
Constitution?

[email protected]

April 22nd 13, 05:09 PM

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:10:27 +1000, Trevor Wilson
> wrote:

>On 4/22/2013 1:31 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Trevor Wilson > writes:
>>
>>> On 4/21/2013 11:41 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> Trevor Wilson > writes:
>>>>
>>>>> **And I will repeat:
>>>>
>>>>> The 2nd Amendment was written:
>>>>
>>>>> * At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
>>>>> * At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
>>>>> bow and arrow.
>>>>
>>>> So, I take it that you believe the Freedom of Speech clause in the First
>>>> Amendment only applies to speaking from atop a soapbox at the local park
>>>> (no voice amplification), handwritten letters and documents/newspapers/
>>>> books printed using a screw press. It does not apply to radio, television,
>>>> modern high speed printing presses, the Internet or anything involving
>>>> amplification, electronics or any other technology developed since the
>>>> late 1700s?
>>>>
>>
>>> **And there's the rub: Freedom of speech also applies to instructions on
>>> bomb-building, preparation of toxins and other substances, paedophile
>>> materials, along with fear-mongering and hate-inciting materials.
>>
>> That's not the point. If the 2nd only applies to the technology of the
>> time of its passage (inaccurate muskets) then, to be consistent, the 1st
>> can only apply to the technology of the time of its passage. Meaning only
>> handwritten text, newspapers printed with a screw press and yelling from
>> atop a box at a street corner.
>>
>
>**Precisely. You may care to note that, despite the 1st Amendment, truly
>free speech does not exist in the US.

You're a liar, but we all already knew that.

[email protected]

April 22nd 13, 05:09 PM

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:10:58 +1000, Trevor Wilson
> wrote:

>On 4/22/2013 6:14 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>> **And there's the rub: Freedom of speech also applies to instructions on
>>> bomb-building, preparation of toxins and other substances, paedophile
>>> materials, along with fear-mongering and hate-inciting materials.
>>
>>
>> So, you're a drug making, bomb building pedophile? That's no
>> surprise.
>>
>
>**You are one ignorant ****.

A perfect example of your best reasoned argument.

Trevor Wilson

April 22nd 13, 10:32 PM

On 4/22/2013 11:40 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>> **Like any rabid NRA supporter, who is incapable of forming an
>> individual thought, YOU have no idea what I think.
>
>
>
> The problem is that you don't think, and you never will.

**First you claim to know what I think, then you claim that I don't
think. You don't know what I think.

I don't
> belong to the NRA, and I never have.

**Doesn't matter. You parrot their words.

I am a US Army Veteran who
> believes in all of our amendments, including the Second Amendment.

**Really?

You "believe in" the 18th Amendment?
You "belive in" the 21st Amendment?

Which is it?

You
> harp about free speech, yet try to deny that right to others.
>

**Do I? When did I do that?

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson

April 22nd 13, 11:22 PM

On 4/22/2013 11:46 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>> On 4/22/2013 5:59 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>
>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/20/2013 2:22 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
>>>>>> gutless politicians they have in their pocket.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, you are a well known loon.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **If pointing out the abject stupidity of US gun control laws (such as
>>>> they are), by using logic, reason and common-sense, makes me a "loon",
>>>> then I guess you have some serious problems in dealing with plain English.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why is that it everyone who post from down under is insane? Of
>>> course, 'rageaudio' tells everyone that you are just an opinionated ass.
>>>
>>
>> **I should add that, despite your peculiar insanity, I do not regard ALL
>> Americans as ignorant, gun loving morons. I reserve those sorts of
>> comments solely for NRA supporters and George W Bush voters. The other
>> 150 million Americans may well be decent, intelligent people.
>
>
> You have no clue who I support,

**You are an NRA supporter. Regardless of your membership status. Your
words betray you. NRA supporters are idiots. Evil idiots.

so you just act like a monkey and
> fling your ****.
>

**No. I deal in facts.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[email protected]

April 22nd 13, 11:40 PM

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 07:32:06 +1000, Trevor Wilson
> wrote:

>On 4/22/2013 11:40 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>> **Like any rabid NRA supporter, who is incapable of forming an
>>> individual thought, YOU have no idea what I think.
>>
>>
>>
>> The problem is that you don't think, and you never will.
>
>
>**First you claim to know what I think, then you claim that I don't
>think. You don't know what I think.

You just proved you can't read or think.
>
> I don't
>> belong to the NRA, and I never have.
>
>
>**Doesn't matter. You parrot their words.

Because the NRA spoke the truth doesn't change the fact that it is the
truth.

> I am a US Army Veteran who
>> believes in all of our amendments, including the Second Amendment.
>
>
>**Really?
>
>You "believe in" the 18th Amendment?
>You "belive in" the 21st Amendment?
>
>Which is it?

Idiot. Learn something about the Constitution.

> You
>> harp about free speech, yet try to deny that right to others.
>>
>
>**Do I? When did I do that?

Many times, moron.

[email protected]

April 22nd 13, 11:41 PM

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:22:46 +1000, Trevor Wilson
> wrote:

>On 4/22/2013 11:46 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/22/2013 5:59 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/20/2013 2:22 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
>>>>>>> gutless politicians they have in their pocket.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, you are a well known loon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> **If pointing out the abject stupidity of US gun control laws (such as
>>>>> they are), by using logic, reason and common-sense, makes me a "loon",
>>>>> then I guess you have some serious problems in dealing with plain English.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why is that it everyone who post from down under is insane? Of
>>>> course, 'rageaudio' tells everyone that you are just an opinionated ass.
>>>>
>>>
>>> **I should add that, despite your peculiar insanity, I do not regard ALL
>>> Americans as ignorant, gun loving morons. I reserve those sorts of
>>> comments solely for NRA supporters and George W Bush voters. The other
>>> 150 million Americans may well be decent, intelligent people.
>>
>>
>> You have no clue who I support,
>
>**You are an NRA supporter. Regardless of your membership status. Your
>words betray you. NRA supporters are idiots. Evil idiots.
>
>
> so you just act like a monkey and
>> fling your ****.
>>
>
>**No. I deal in facts.

Wow! Now *THAT'S* FUNNY!

April 23rd 13, 12:14 AM

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:22:46 +1000, Trevor Wilson
> > wrote:
>
>>On 4/22/2013 11:46 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>
>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/22/2013 5:59 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/20/2013 2:22 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> gutless politicians they have in their pocket.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, you are a well known loon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **If pointing out the abject stupidity of US gun control laws (such
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> they are), by using logic, reason and common-sense, makes me a
>>>>>> "loon",
>>>>>> then I guess you have some serious problems in dealing with plain
>>>>>> English.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is that it everyone who post from down under is insane? Of
>>>>> course, 'rageaudio' tells everyone that you are just an opinionated
>>>>> ass.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **I should add that, despite your peculiar insanity, I do not regard
>>>> ALL
>>>> Americans as ignorant, gun loving morons. I reserve those sorts of
>>>> comments solely for NRA supporters and George W Bush voters. The other
>>>> 150 million Americans may well be decent, intelligent people.
>>>
>>>
>>> You have no clue who I support,
>>
>>**You are an NRA supporter. Regardless of your membership status. Your
>>words betray you. NRA supporters are idiots. Evil idiots.
>>
>>
>> so you just act like a monkey and
>>> fling your ****.
>>>
>>
>>**No. I deal in facts.
>
> Wow! Now *THAT'S* FUNNY!

Jeez, is it something in the water?

I am the NRA!

William Sommerwerck

April 23rd 13, 03:20 PM

"Roger Blake" wrote in message
...

> Trevor clearly does not believe in the natural right to self-defense
> that so many of the U.S. founders spoke of and enshrined in the
> 2nd Amendment, and instead wants to trust government, an
> institution historically bathed in the blood of innocents.

As a statist who believes that the fundamental purpose of government is to
PROTECT individual rights -- a point made in the Constitution -- I have no
problem with "reasonable" controls on the ownership and use of weapons. My
definition of "reasonable" pretty much begins and ends with keeping weapons
out of the hands of criminals and the irresponsible. I do not see requiring
background checks on everyone who purchases a weapon as un-reasonable --
unless it can be shown that such checks are ineffective.

People clearly do not "need" assault rifles. But there are lots of things
people don't "need". I'm bothered about outlawing any "unneeded" thing unless
we have a good idea of the consequences. (I have yet to hear a discussion of
the effects of the previous ban on assault weapons.) Too many laws are passed
because they reflect a view of how the world ought to be, rather than how it
actually is.

As for "slippery slopes"... Power tends to draw more power to itself. ANY
regulatory law creates its own slippery slope.

As for the blood of innocents -- let's start with the innocent people killed
in environmental and engineering disasters, due to the greed of business.
Money is power -- or didn't you know that? This country is in the process of
returning power to Big Business, where it resided in the 19th century.

PS: I've been watching "The Rifleman" on MeTV. It's a fascinating program,
with outstanding episodes alternating with appalling garbage (including a
story in which the central dramatic conflict is resolved by an attack by a man
in a bad bear costume). In one episode, Lucas wins a 12ga shotgun in a
contest, which he puts aside for Mark "until he's ready for it". (In this
context, "ready" means knowing how to use it responsibly.) Though this makes
sense, it is out of context, as "rural" children were -- and still are --
taught to use firearms. The teaching is part of the process of learning
responsible use.

[email protected]

April 23rd 13, 04:49 PM

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:41:07 -0500, G. Morgan
> wrote:

>Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>>On 4/20/2013 3:53 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
>>> Who the **** posted this **** to all these groups? The OP didn't even
>>> cite who the "kike" is.
>>>
>>> Newsgroups:
>>> sci.electronics.repair,24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt. sports.football.pro.sd-chargers,alt.engineering.electrical,rec.audio.car
>>>
>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:
>>>
>>> Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written in the United States. If some
>>> Aussie has a problem with it, just don't come here and you'll be just
>>> fine.
>>>
>>> I really don't understand why people that are outside of the US think
>>> they are allowed to opine on the 2nd. I don't tell you what kind of
>>> boomerang you can carry.
>>
>>**We call it: 'Freedom of speech'. An interesting concept you should
>>learn about.
>
>Freedom of speech? Your diversion noted.
>
>That's not the crux of the issue, it's about why anyone outside of the US
>thinks they can opine on our laws and make statements like "time to
>change". No... You don't live here and that means you don't get to vote
>on it. It's not a human rights issue, so the international community has
>no say.
>
>>Stupid septic.
>
>Nice sig.

What would you expect from Ron Reaugh? It *is* him.

Don Kelly

April 24th 13, 05:58 AM

On 19/04/2013 9:29 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> Don Kelly wrote:
>>
>> On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>> **What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.
>>>
>>> Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:
>>>
>>> * At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
>>> * At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
>>> bow and arrow.
>>> * At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
>>> * At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
>>> * At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
>>> * At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.
>>>
>>> **Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
>>> gutless politicians they have in their pocket.
>>>
>>>
>> Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
>> excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
>> In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
>> expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of their
>> country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
>> frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
>> in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
>> providing fresh meat was also rather important).
>> What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
>> dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
>> invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
>> their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem earlier)- or
>> for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
>> These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
>> lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone innocent
>> gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
>> A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons that
>> can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't infringe
>> on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun owners
>> but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
>> I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in dismay at
>> what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and lived
>> with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
>> supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
>> based on ??
>
>
> Guns aren't the problem, and it only takes a second or two to change a
> magazine, so the size doesn't make any difference if no one is shooting
> back. The problem is that sleazy lawyers got 'rights' for the mentally
> ill to be on the streets. A gun is a tool, and doesn't kill by itself.
> It takes an unstable person or criminal who places no value on human
> life to use one to maim or kill in cold blood.
>

I disagree in part-any legal limitations don't mean a damn to
criminals-but what you have is a situation where any kook can walk into
a store and buy a gun, or where this isn't allowed, go to a gun show and
do it -without any background checks. The "rights" should be limited- do
you have a "right" to drive a car- I don't think so- you have the
privilege- provided that you present information as to your ability to
do it within conditions of capability. Shouldn't the same be done with
respect to weapons?
As to reloading magazines- true-just think, instead of firing 50
rounds into a movie theater, one has to stop after 10 to reload. Even
that is too much.
As for shooting back- the odds are that in such a firefight, the
collateral damage is high-my experience with an automatic (or semi-)
weapon is that it tends to walk around a lot from where it is aimed. Oh
****- spraying bullets around hit some innocent people- while the
intended target is unharmed- witness gang shootouts.
I do think a "long gun" registry doesn't work- but restrictions on
particular weapons do help. Illegal weapons do get into criminal hands-
but facts may indicate that making these weapons licit increases the
chance of innocents being harmed. The old west idea of gunfights as a
form of duel - may well be fiction- it is easier to shoot an opponent in
the back that to walk down the street and duel to appropriate music.
Anyhow, I can disagree with you -but it will not be beyond the extent
of arguing over which of us is to buy the next round if we ever meet.

--
Don Kelly
remove the cross to reply

[email protected]

April 24th 13, 01:39 PM

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:58:41 -0700, Don Kelly > wrote:

>On 19/04/2013 9:29 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>
>> Don Kelly wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> **What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.
>>>>
>>>> Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:
>>>>
>>>> * At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
>>>> * At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
>>>> bow and arrow.
>>>> * At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
>>>> * At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
>>>> * At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
>>>> * At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.
>>>>
>>>> **Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
>>>> gutless politicians they have in their pocket.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
>>> excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
>>> In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
>>> expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of their
>>> country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
>>> frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
>>> in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
>>> providing fresh meat was also rather important).
>>> What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
>>> dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
>>> invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
>>> their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem earlier)- or
>>> for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
>>> These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
>>> lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone innocent
>>> gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
>>> A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons that
>>> can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't infringe
>>> on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun owners
>>> but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
>>> I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in dismay at
>>> what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and lived
>>> with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
>>> supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
>>> based on ??
>>
>>
>> Guns aren't the problem, and it only takes a second or two to change a
>> magazine, so the size doesn't make any difference if no one is shooting
>> back. The problem is that sleazy lawyers got 'rights' for the mentally
>> ill to be on the streets. A gun is a tool, and doesn't kill by itself.
>> It takes an unstable person or criminal who places no value on human
>> life to use one to maim or kill in cold blood.
>>
>
>I disagree in part-any legal limitations don't mean a damn to
>criminals-but what you have is a situation where any kook can walk into
>a store and buy a gun, or where this isn't allowed, go to a gun show and
>do it -without any background checks.

The above is a deliberate lie. Dealers at gun shows have to perform
the same background check as any other dealer. Always have.

>The "rights" should be limited- do
>you have a "right" to drive a car- I don't think so- you have the
>privilege- provided that you present information as to your ability to
>do it within conditions of capability. Shouldn't the same be done with
>respect to weapons?

Where does the Constitution mention cars? How do cars *PROTECT* life?

> As to reloading magazines- true-just think, instead of firing 50
>rounds into a movie theater, one has to stop after 10 to reload. Even
>that is too much.

Wrong again. Even that is ridiculous. You *obviously* know nothing of
what you speak.

>As for shooting back- the odds are that in such a firefight, the
>collateral damage is high-my experience with an automatic (or semi-)
>weapon is that it tends to walk around a lot from where it is aimed. Oh
>****- spraying bullets around hit some innocent people- while the
>intended target is unharmed- witness gang shootouts.

The facts prove you wrong, but that's to be expected from *ANY* gun
grabber.

>I do think a "long gun" registry doesn't work- but restrictions on
>particular weapons do help.

Bull****. Proof required.

>Illegal weapons do get into criminal hands-
>but facts may indicate that making these weapons licit increases the
>chance of innocents being harmed.

What "facts"? You've stated none.

>The old west idea of gunfights as a
>form of duel - may well be fiction- it is easier to shoot an opponent in
>the back that to walk down the street and duel to appropriate music.
> Anyhow, I can disagree with you -but it will not be beyond the extent
>of arguing over which of us is to buy the next round if we ever meet.

"Buy the next round"? A rather unfortunate choice of words, eh?

(PeteCresswell)

April 24th 13, 01:48 PM

Per Don Kelly:
>or where this isn't allowed, go to a gun show and
>do it -without any background checks.

That's the one that bugs me, but nobody in the news media seems to pick
up on it.

Personally, I'm not so sure that background checks accomplish all that
much. I'm not rabidly against them. I could go either way... OTOH
Bloomberg seems to be for them big time And whether one approves of him
or not, one must concede that Bloomberg is no dummy.

But requiring background checks (with all the attendant administrative
overhead) in one venue and not requiring them in another
readily-available venue I find extremely offensive.

Time and money down the drain.

Either do it right or do away with it.
--
Pete Cresswell

[email protected]

April 24th 13, 02:35 PM

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 08:48:09 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" >
wrote:

>Per Don Kelly:
>>or where this isn't allowed, go to a gun show and
>>do it -without any background checks.
>
>That's the one that bugs me, but nobody in the news media seems to pick
>up on it.
>
>Personally, I'm not so sure that background checks accomplish all that
>much. I'm not rabidly against them. I could go either way... OTOH
>Bloomberg seems to be for them big time And whether one approves of him
>or not, one must concede that Bloomberg is no dummy.

Doomberg, no dummy? The biggest big-government nanny of them all?
Good grief! You really don't like your personal freedoms much.

>But requiring background checks (with all the attendant administrative
>overhead) in one venue and not requiring them in another
>readily-available venue I find extremely offensive.

Hint: You've fallen for another lefty lie. The exact same background
checks are required at a gun show as they are in a brick-and-mortar
store (and "Internet sales" must go through a local licensed dealer,
in any case).

>Time and money down the drain.
>
>Either do it right or do away with it.

Learn something about what you're talking about or don't talk.

April 24th 13, 03:39 PM

"(PeteCresswell)" > wrote in message
...
> Per Don Kelly:
>>or where this isn't allowed, go to a gun show and
>>do it -without any background checks.
>
> That's the one that bugs me, but nobody in the news media seems to pick
> up on it.
>
> Personally, I'm not so sure that background checks accomplish all that
> much. I'm not rabidly against them. I could go either way... OTOH
> Bloomberg seems to be for them big time And whether one approves of him
> or not, one must concede that Bloomberg is no dummy.
>
> But requiring background checks (with all the attendant administrative
> overhead) in one venue and not requiring them in another
> readily-available venue I find extremely offensive.
>
> Time and money down the drain.
>
> Either do it right or do away with it.
> --
> Pete Cresswell

Have you ever been to a gun show? It sure sounds like you have not.

There are very few private sales at gun shows. Mostly just dealer tables and
they ALL require background checks.

Take in a show sometime and at least you will be more knowledgeable on the
subject.

Trevor Wilson

April 25th 13, 12:06 AM

On 4/24/2013 10:39 PM, wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:58:41 -0700, Don Kelly > wrote:
>
>> On 19/04/2013 9:29 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>
>>> Don Kelly wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> **What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:
>>>>>
>>>>> * At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
>>>>> * At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
>>>>> bow and arrow.
>>>>> * At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
>>>>> * At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
>>>>> * At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
>>>>> * At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
>>>>> gutless politicians they have in their pocket.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
>>>> excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
>>>> In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
>>>> expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of their
>>>> country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
>>>> frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
>>>> in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
>>>> providing fresh meat was also rather important).
>>>> What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
>>>> dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
>>>> invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
>>>> their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem earlier)- or
>>>> for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
>>>> These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
>>>> lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone innocent
>>>> gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
>>>> A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons that
>>>> can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't infringe
>>>> on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun owners
>>>> but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
>>>> I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in dismay at
>>>> what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and lived
>>>> with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
>>>> supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
>>>> based on ??
>>>
>>>
>>> Guns aren't the problem, and it only takes a second or two to change a
>>> magazine, so the size doesn't make any difference if no one is shooting
>>> back. The problem is that sleazy lawyers got 'rights' for the mentally
>>> ill to be on the streets. A gun is a tool, and doesn't kill by itself.
>>> It takes an unstable person or criminal who places no value on human
>>> life to use one to maim or kill in cold blood.
>>>
>>
>> I disagree in part-any legal limitations don't mean a damn to
>> criminals-but what you have is a situation where any kook can walk into
>> a store and buy a gun, or where this isn't allowed, go to a gun show and
>> do it -without any background checks.
>
> The above is a deliberate lie. Dealers at gun shows have to perform
> the same background check as any other dealer. Always have.

**There is little to stop a person who has a clean record form walking
into a gun show, buying whatever guns they are asked to buy, by someone
waiting outside the show. This is PRECISELY the method used by the
Columbine killers to obtain at least one of their guns. It is a stupid
loop-hole and one which can easily be closed.

>
>> The "rights" should be limited- do
>> you have a "right" to drive a car- I don't think so- you have the
>> privilege- provided that you present information as to your ability to
>> do it within conditions of capability. Shouldn't the same be done with
>> respect to weapons?
>
> Where does the Constitution mention cars? How do cars *PROTECT* life?
>
>> As to reloading magazines- true-just think, instead of firing 50
>> rounds into a movie theater, one has to stop after 10 to reload. Even
>> that is too much.
>
> Wrong again. Even that is ridiculous. You *obviously* know nothing of
> what you speak.
>
>> As for shooting back- the odds are that in such a firefight, the
>> collateral damage is high-my experience with an automatic (or semi-)
>> weapon is that it tends to walk around a lot from where it is aimed. Oh
>> ****- spraying bullets around hit some innocent people- while the
>> intended target is unharmed- witness gang shootouts.
>
> The facts prove you wrong, but that's to be expected from *ANY* gun
> grabber.

**Cite these alleged "facts" you speak of.

>
>> I do think a "long gun" registry doesn't work- but restrictions on
>> particular weapons do help.
>
> Bull****. Proof required.

**Australia introduced bans on certain firearms in 1996, to deal with
the crime of mass murder, via gunshot. In the 18 years prior to 1996,
there were 13 incidences of mass murder, via gunshot. Since 1996, there
have been none.

>
>> Illegal weapons do get into criminal hands-
>> but facts may indicate that making these weapons licit increases the
>> chance of innocents being harmed.
>
> What "facts"? You've stated none.

**10,000 Americans are shot to death each year.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Jamie[_2_]

April 25th 13, 01:05 AM

Trevor Wilson wrote:

> On 4/24/2013 10:39 PM, wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:58:41 -0700, Don Kelly > wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/04/2013 9:29 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don Kelly wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not
>>>>>> milliseconds.
>>>>>> * At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
>>>>>> bow and arrow.
>>>>>> * At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
>>>>>> * At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
>>>>>> * At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
>>>>>> * At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
>>>>>> gutless politicians they have in their pocket.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
>>>>> excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
>>>>> In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
>>>>> expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of
>>>>> their
>>>>> country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
>>>>> frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
>>>>> in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
>>>>> providing fresh meat was also rather important).
>>>>> What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
>>>>> dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
>>>>> invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
>>>>> their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem
>>>>> earlier)- or
>>>>> for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
>>>>> These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
>>>>> lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone
>>>>> innocent
>>>>> gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
>>>>> A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons
>>>>> that
>>>>> can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't
>>>>> infringe
>>>>> on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun
>>>>> owners
>>>>> but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
>>>>> I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in
>>>>> dismay at
>>>>> what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and
>>>>> lived
>>>>> with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
>>>>> supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
>>>>> based on ??
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Guns aren't the problem, and it only takes a second or two to
>>>> change a
>>>> magazine, so the size doesn't make any difference if no one is shooting
>>>> back. The problem is that sleazy lawyers got 'rights' for the mentally
>>>> ill to be on the streets. A gun is a tool, and doesn't kill by itself.
>>>> It takes an unstable person or criminal who places no value on human
>>>> life to use one to maim or kill in cold blood.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I disagree in part-any legal limitations don't mean a damn to
>>> criminals-but what you have is a situation where any kook can walk into
>>> a store and buy a gun, or where this isn't allowed, go to a gun show and
>>> do it -without any background checks.
>>
>>
>> The above is a deliberate lie. Dealers at gun shows have to perform
>> the same background check as any other dealer. Always have.
>
>
> **There is little to stop a person who has a clean record form walking
> into a gun show, buying whatever guns they are asked to buy, by someone
> waiting outside the show. This is PRECISELY the method used by the
> Columbine killers to obtain at least one of their guns. It is a stupid
> loop-hole and one which can easily be closed.
>
>>
>>> The "rights" should be limited- do
>>> you have a "right" to drive a car- I don't think so- you have the
>>> privilege- provided that you present information as to your ability to
>>> do it within conditions of capability. Shouldn't the same be done with
>>> respect to weapons?
>>
>>
>> Where does the Constitution mention cars? How do cars *PROTECT* life?
>>
>>> As to reloading magazines- true-just think, instead of firing 50
>>> rounds into a movie theater, one has to stop after 10 to reload. Even
>>> that is too much.
>>
>>
>> Wrong again. Even that is ridiculous. You *obviously* know nothing of
>> what you speak.
>>
>>> As for shooting back- the odds are that in such a firefight, the
>>> collateral damage is high-my experience with an automatic (or semi-)
>>> weapon is that it tends to walk around a lot from where it is aimed. Oh
>>> ****- spraying bullets around hit some innocent people- while the
>>> intended target is unharmed- witness gang shootouts.
>>
>>
>> The facts prove you wrong, but that's to be expected from *ANY* gun
>> grabber.
>
>
> **Cite these alleged "facts" you speak of.
>
>>
>>> I do think a "long gun" registry doesn't work- but restrictions on
>>> particular weapons do help.
>>
>>
>> Bull****. Proof required.
>
>
> **Australia introduced bans on certain firearms in 1996, to deal with
> the crime of mass murder, via gunshot. In the 18 years prior to 1996,
> there were 13 incidences of mass murder, via gunshot. Since 1996, there
> have been none.
Well that is simple, the mass murders were more than likely the
criminals getting shot by the victims and if they were just gangs
fighting among themselves, then just let them. Hell, they should sell
ring side tickets at schedule events! Let the cesspool cleanse itself.

As usual, the victims remain the victim because the criminals always
win. They still have the guns and now home invasion is up rampant
and the criminals do not need to worry about getting shot at much, any more.

Sure, shooting is down, but at the cost of people losing their
livelihood to criminals still having guns and pointing them at the
innocent while they are getting cleaned out. Hell, they don't even
need guns as much now, because they know there is a good chance you
don't have any. Old people are the easiest to get whacked now..

You can argue all you want about it, it is fact. We read your news
from AU, and so does the rest of the world. DOn't worry, it'll show up
on your door step one day and we won't have to listen to you any more.
Because they'll have your belongings including the computer you use and
maybe even your better half, taking a round with her in bed, while you
watch! Don't think that won't happen? Even if your some old dried up
prune? Scum don't care how old they are! They'll be just has happy to
pass on their disease to your family.

You live a sheltered life, get out from under that rock your GOV
has you tucked under, feeding you the line of crap you accept as
gospel. They are only doing that to protect themselves, it has nothing
to do with you. They could care less about people getting shoot, they
only worry when the crooks start to migrate into the GOV sector, thereby
threatening them.

THe prefect solution is to shoot the heinous crooks and allow the
honest people to keep their protection, which will also help keep the
criminals in control. But you'll find that does not fit your GOV's
plains. They use incidents that take place as a course to
plead their case in taking the peoples guns away, however, only the
honest people loose their guns and you fall for it.

Wake up, idiot.

Jamie

[email protected]

April 25th 13, 01:18 AM

On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:06:09 +1000, Trevor Wilson
> wrote:

>On 4/24/2013 10:39 PM, wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:58:41 -0700, Don Kelly > wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/04/2013 9:29 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Don Kelly wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
>>>>>> * At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
>>>>>> bow and arrow.
>>>>>> * At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
>>>>>> * At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
>>>>>> * At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
>>>>>> * At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
>>>>>> gutless politicians they have in their pocket.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
>>>>> excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
>>>>> In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
>>>>> expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of their
>>>>> country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
>>>>> frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
>>>>> in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
>>>>> providing fresh meat was also rather important).
>>>>> What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
>>>>> dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
>>>>> invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
>>>>> their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem earlier)- or
>>>>> for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
>>>>> These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
>>>>> lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone innocent
>>>>> gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
>>>>> A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons that
>>>>> can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't infringe
>>>>> on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun owners
>>>>> but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
>>>>> I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in dismay at
>>>>> what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and lived
>>>>> with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
>>>>> supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
>>>>> based on ??
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Guns aren't the problem, and it only takes a second or two to change a
>>>> magazine, so the size doesn't make any difference if no one is shooting
>>>> back. The problem is that sleazy lawyers got 'rights' for the mentally
>>>> ill to be on the streets. A gun is a tool, and doesn't kill by itself.
>>>> It takes an unstable person or criminal who places no value on human
>>>> life to use one to maim or kill in cold blood.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I disagree in part-any legal limitations don't mean a damn to
>>> criminals-but what you have is a situation where any kook can walk into
>>> a store and buy a gun, or where this isn't allowed, go to a gun show and
>>> do it -without any background checks.
>>
>> The above is a deliberate lie. Dealers at gun shows have to perform
>> the same background check as any other dealer. Always have.
>
>**There is little to stop a person who has a clean record form walking
>into a gun show, buying whatever guns they are asked to buy, by someone
>waiting outside the show. This is PRECISELY the method used by the
>Columbine killers to obtain at least one of their guns. It is a stupid
>loop-hole and one which can easily be closed.

Idiot. Straw purchases are already against the law and this is *NO
DIFFERENT* than going into a gun store. The PROCESS IS EXACTLY THE
SAME NOW. Got it, moron?

IOW, you're a liar (but we already knew that).

>>> The "rights" should be limited- do
>>> you have a "right" to drive a car- I don't think so- you have the
>>> privilege- provided that you present information as to your ability to
>>> do it within conditions of capability. Shouldn't the same be done with
>>> respect to weapons?
>>
>> Where does the Constitution mention cars? How do cars *PROTECT* life?
>>
>>> As to reloading magazines- true-just think, instead of firing 50
>>> rounds into a movie theater, one has to stop after 10 to reload. Even
>>> that is too much.
>>
>> Wrong again. Even that is ridiculous. You *obviously* know nothing of
>> what you speak.
>>
>>> As for shooting back- the odds are that in such a firefight, the
>>> collateral damage is high-my experience with an automatic (or semi-)
>>> weapon is that it tends to walk around a lot from where it is aimed. Oh
>>> ****- spraying bullets around hit some innocent people- while the
>>> intended target is unharmed- witness gang shootouts.
>>
>> The facts prove you wrong, but that's to be expected from *ANY* gun
>> grabber.
>
>**Cite these alleged "facts" you speak of.

The "collateral damage" from self defense uses of guns is
*exceedingly* low. In fact, CCW holders accidentally shoot fewer
bystanders than do the police (yet shoot twice as many perps).

If you really wanted to learn anything about the subject you'd read:
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1366848979&sr=8-2&keywords=lott

but you don't. You're too happy lying.

>>> I do think a "long gun" registry doesn't work- but restrictions on
>>> particular weapons do help.
>>
>> Bull****. Proof required.
>
>**Australia introduced bans on certain firearms in 1996, to deal with
>the crime of mass murder, via gunshot. In the 18 years prior to 1996,
>there were 13 incidences of mass murder, via gunshot. Since 1996, there
>have been none.

The more legal guns, the LOWER the serious crime rate.

>>> Illegal weapons do get into criminal hands-
>>> but facts may indicate that making these weapons licit increases the
>>> chance of innocents being harmed.
>>
>> What "facts"? You've stated none.
>
>**10,000 Americans are shot to death each year.

You really are an idiot. But that's no surprise to anyone here, Ron
Reaugh.

Michael A. Terrell

April 25th 13, 05:03 AM

Don Kelly wrote:
>
> On 19/04/2013 9:29 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >
> > Don Kelly wrote:
> >>
> >> On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >>>
> >>> **What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.
> >>>
> >>> Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:
> >>>
> >>> * At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
> >>> * At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
> >>> bow and arrow.
> >>> * At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
> >>> * At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
> >>> * At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
> >>> * At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.
> >>>
> >>> **Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
> >>> gutless politicians they have in their pocket.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
> >> excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
> >> In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
> >> expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of their
> >> country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
> >> frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
> >> in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
> >> providing fresh meat was also rather important).
> >> What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
> >> dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
> >> invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
> >> their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem earlier)- or
> >> for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
> >> These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
> >> lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone innocent
> >> gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
> >> A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons that
> >> can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't infringe
> >> on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun owners
> >> but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
> >> I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in dismay at
> >> what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and lived
> >> with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
> >> supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
> >> based on ??
> >
> >
> > Guns aren't the problem, and it only takes a second or two to change a
> > magazine, so the size doesn't make any difference if no one is shooting
> > back. The problem is that sleazy lawyers got 'rights' for the mentally
> > ill to be on the streets. A gun is a tool, and doesn't kill by itself.
> > It takes an unstable person or criminal who places no value on human
> > life to use one to maim or kill in cold blood.
> >
>
> I disagree in part-any legal limitations don't mean a damn to
> criminals-but what you have is a situation where any kook can walk into
> a store and buy a gun, or where this isn't allowed, go to a gun show and
> do it -without any background checks. The "rights" should be limited- do
> you have a "right" to drive a car- I don't think so- you have the
> privilege- provided that you present information as to your ability to
> do it within conditions of capability. Shouldn't the same be done with
> respect to weapons?
> As to reloading magazines- true-just think, instead of firing 50
> rounds into a movie theater, one has to stop after 10 to reload. Even
> that is too much.
> As for shooting back- the odds are that in such a firefight, the
> collateral damage is high-my experience with an automatic (or semi-)
> weapon is that it tends to walk around a lot from where it is aimed. Oh
> ****- spraying bullets around hit some innocent people- while the
> intended target is unharmed- witness gang shootouts.
> I do think a "long gun" registry doesn't work- but restrictions on
> particular weapons do help. Illegal weapons do get into criminal hands-
> but facts may indicate that making these weapons licit increases the
> chance of innocents being harmed. The old west idea of gunfights as a
> form of duel - may well be fiction- it is easier to shoot an opponent in
> the back that to walk down the street and duel to appropriate music.
> Anyhow, I can disagree with you -but it will not be beyond the extent
> of arguing over which of us is to buy the next round if we ever meet.

I was taught to fire a three round burst with the M16. Using full
auto, and wasting the entire magazine is for bad movies.